Your country

How many people acquire their private property through use of force?

Historically everyone

I think I would have a slightly different view of thieves if they stole only up to a certain amount from everyone and then put the money into infrastructure projects, education, national defence and healthcare.

it's not how it's acquired, it's how it's used.
private property extracts surplus value from workers, whomever owns it is effectively stealing.

Private property is literally everything you know. I bought my toothbrush which is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY and I didn’t have to use force

that's not private property, that's personal property.
private property is in reference to property you use to exploit workers.
your stuff like your toothbrush is not private property.

this 2bh

I didn't threaten to lock anyone up or kill them when I bought all of my property.

And workers extract surplus value from the owners, that's how the system works. Voluntary transactions that benefit both parties.

No I am not Quebecois

Attached: Stolen labour.png (1200x800, 846K)

>And workers extract surplus value from the owners
how?

How are workers exploited? Objectively speaking, the people who give them work are exploited more. They pay more taxes, and have much more responsibility.

the source of all value is labour.
if you have people working for you under wage labour, they're producing much more value than you're paying them, you're effectively stealing their money, that's exploitation.
>They pay more taxes
the workers don't rule the country, states are controlled by bussinessmen, if you want to complain about taxes do not blame workers for it because they have nothing to do with it.
>and have much more responsibility
what responsibility are we talking about exactly?

Because the work a worker provides is worthless in a vacuum. When he sells his free time, he gets to borrow infrastructure from the owner.

Let's take a truck driver working for a logistical company. If someone hadn't established the infrastructure, there would be no truck for him to drive. He extracts surplus value from the person who owns the company.

all I'm seeing here are more reasons to hate Quebec, not socialism

I had a job, they fired me with no actual reason. Have a problems to find another one, because most of potential jobs are too far away from home.

>Because the work a worker provides is worthless in a vacuum.
yes, but thankfully we don't live in vacuum, we live on a planet with natural resources that were here long before humans and belong to no man.
capital (private property) is not needed to produce value, if you were to delete absolutely all capital from this planet, essentially restarting humanity's socio economical development from scratch, you can get to the exact same place you are right now in development just with the natural resources and labour.
if you take labour away, capital is absolutely useless.
>When he sells his free time, he gets to borrow infrastructure from the owner.
except he's not borrowing, if he was he'd only have to pay for the wear an tear of the capital he's borrowing, but he has to pay much more on top of the wear an tear of the capital.
he's getting stolen from.
>If someone hadn't established the infrastructure, there would be no truck for him to drive.
right, that infrastructure was built with labour.
>He extracts surplus value from the person who owns the company.
no he doesn't, the person who owns the money loses no value whatsoever by having him work his capital, he, in fact, makes money off it.

>wear an tear
wear anD tear
my D is hard

I have no problem to just visit a place which is far away from home, on a different side of city, but working from 9 to 6 is a different story.

>the source of all value is labour.
Fine, let's go with that. Business owners work far more and have far more responsibility than the workers, so they should also be paid more.
>if you have people working for you under wage labour, they're producing much more value than you're paying them, you're effectively stealing their money, that's exploitation.
Two misconceptions here. One, the worker isn't paid too little, he's being paid exactly as much his work is worth. Second, it's not exploitation, because if you're unhappy with your salary, you can negotiate a better contract or quit. A voluntary transaction cannot be exploitation.
>what responsibility are we talking about exactly?
Complying with the regulations, ensuring that salaries get paid in time, insurance, making sure that clients get what they asked for in time etc. A worker has to worry about none of these things. The worker is exploiting the owner.

>the person who owns the money loses no value whatsoever
money? I meant company.
whatever.

>Business owners work far more and have far more responsibility than the workers
maybe they do, but they still don't get a cut accordingly to their labour, they get much more than that, that's why workers are poor and the owners of the means of production are rich.
not to mention that owning a company doesn't require labour whatsoever, this is easily demonstrable by taking a look at big companies where the owners don't do shit and hire people to even manage their entire company like CEOs or whatever, why are those owners getting money then?
if you think that the owner works hard and want to make it fair then let's do that, what everyone should earn would have to be measured in labour time, not arbitrary sums decided by whomever for no particular reason.
>Two misconceptions here. One, the worker isn't paid too little, he's being paid exactly as much his work is worth.
according to who? or what?
>Second, it's not exploitation, because if you're unhappy with your salary, you can negotiate a better contract or quit. A voluntary transaction cannot be exploitation.
how voluntarily is this transaction when if you quit your job as a working class person you run the risk of losing coverage of your most basic human needs like housing since you might not be able to pay rent, or food, or heating during winter, etc?
it's not voluntary, the worker is obligated to sell his labour, and the more time he spends deciding who to get exploited by, the higher the risk of not being able to cover his basic needs, he has to sell his labour quickly.
>Complying with the regulations
and this requires effort?
>ensuring that salaries get paid in time
oh no, he has the responsibility of paying the people he's exploiting, how difficult it must be.
>making sure that clients get what they asked for in time
he personally delivers products?
>A worker has to worry about none of these things.
non issues really.
>The worker is exploiting the owner.
you have yet to explain this.

>>yes, but thankfully we don't live in vacuum, we live on a planet with natural resources that were here long before humans and belong to no man.
>capital (private property) is not needed to produce value, if you were to delete absolutely all capital from this planet, essentially restarting humanity's socio economical development from scratch, you can get to the exact same place you are right now in development just with the natural resources and labour.
>if you take labour away, capital is absolutely useless.
If you delete all capital from the world, you get enterpreneurs establishing business, hiring labour and the world will reform itself. Unless you introduce guns into the equation of course.
>except he's not borrowing, if he was he'd only have to pay for the wear an tear of the capital he's borrowing, but he has to pay much more on top of the wear an tear of the capital.
he's getting stolen from.
The wear and tear of the tools and infrastructure he uses is calculated in the salary. If the logistic company's owner never had to replace trucks, he could afford to pay his drivers more. The drivers all entered a voluntary contract with the business owner, and they're free to quit any time they want. Nothing is being stolen from them.
>right, that infrastructure was built with labour.
That the workers provided to the truck manufacturer out of their free will.
>no he doesn't, the person who owns the money loses no value whatsoever by having him work his capital, he, in fact, makes money off it.
That's nonsense. He loses value all the time in the form of salary.

I'm currently a tourist, spending the wealth I made in the West in much poorer South America in exchange for experiences.

>Business owners work far more and have far more responsibility than the workers, so they should also be paid more.
the problem is that this thinking, while logical in the context of capitalism, breaks down when actually applied. think about someone like the lowest-ranking Amazon worker, who makes $30k a year, and then consider Jeff Bezos, who makes $30k every few seconds. Jeff Bezos doesn't work thousands to millions of times harder than the average Amazon worker, but he's still comfortable reaping the benefits of their labor.

>One, the worker isn't paid too little, he's being paid exactly as much his work is worth.
logically untrue. if a worker was paid exactly how much his work was worth, the company wouldn't make a profit. the ideal situation for a business owner is being able to pay a worker as little as possible.

>Second, it's not exploitation, because if you're unhappy with your salary, you can negotiate a better contract or quit.
most people can't just quit their job because they don't like it. they literally NEED that money to survive. if they try to renegotiate a contract (good luck doing that alone) they could get laughed out of the room at best, and fired at worst. this is why unions exist.

>maybe they do, but they still don't get a cut accordingly to their labour, they get much more than that, that's why workers are poor and the owners of the means of production are rich.
Of course they get paid according to their labour, that's the entire point. Everyone does.
>not to mention that owning a company doesn't require labour whatsoever, this is easily demonstrable by taking a look at big companies where the owners don't do shit and hire people to even manage their entire company like CEOs or whatever, why are those owners getting money then?
You're delusional if you think that owning a business doesn't take any work. Maybe learn a bit about the world before engaging in a debate about the exploitation of workers?
>if you think that the owner works hard and want to make it fair then let's do that, what everyone should earn would have to be measured in labour time, not arbitrary sums decided by whomever for no particular reason.
It's not arbitrary, it's the approximate worth of the labour. If any given business owner is paying the worker too little, he's free to negotiate a better contract, or he can offer his labour to some other business owner, or he can establish his own business. Or he can get together with other workers and offer to buy the business from the previous owner.
>according to who? or what?
According to who or what are they paid too little? Your feefees?
>how voluntarily is this transaction when if you quit your job as a working class person you run the risk of losing coverage of your most basic human needs like housing since you might not be able to pay rent, or food, or heating during winter, etc?
Oh you mean the same things the business owner risks losing when he takes the leap of faith and establishes the business?

>Jeff Bezos doesn't work thousands to millions of times harder than the average Amazon worker, but he's still comfortable reaping the benefits of their labor.
Dropping in and leaving. BUT STOP THIS MEME YOU FUCKING FAGGOT. Bezos didn't make a cent on amazon for nearly 20 years, it was only after decades of work (and several bailouts) that amazon made it. To imply he didn't deserve his wealth is intellectual dishonesty. No I am not implying at all CEOS somehow earned their money either, but cut the shit on the people that funded a failed org for years before it succeeded.

>If you delete all capital from the world, you get enterpreneurs establishing business, hiring labour and the world will reform itself
you think that's how humanity came to be?
let's ignore the fact that you assume Capitalism would sprung up instead of socialism.
Capitalism has been a thing for 300 years at best.
what happened before that?
Capital does not generate value, labour does.
>The wear and tear of the tools and infrastructure he uses is calculated in the salary.
is it? how do you know? how is this measured? the salary is calculated long before the worker even begins working, it's impossible to account for the wear and tear of the capital before it's consumed completely.
please tell me how this is done.
>The drivers all entered a voluntary contract with the business owner, and they're free to quit any time they want. Nothing is being stolen from them.
already explained this voluntary bullshit here >That the workers provided to the truck manufacturer out of their free will.
no, they provided out of necessity to survive since they absolutely have to sell their labour to, nah fuck it, I'm getting tired of explaining this, you should've gotten it by now.
>That's nonsense. He loses value all the time in the form of salary.
if paying salary would make him lose money then he wouldn't do it, and he wouldn't have people working for him.
this is the most retarded sentence I've seen you write yet.

>it's not voluntary, the worker is obligated to sell his labour, and the more time he spends deciding who to get exploited by, the higher the risk of not being able to cover his basic needs, he has to sell his labour quickly.
Well of course he is, you said it yourself: all value is labour. If any person isn't providing labour, he's worthless. Also he can still choose to found a company and start hiring people if the business is good.
>and this requires effort?
Of fucking course it does.
>he personally delivers products?
No, but he holds the responsibility if something goes wrong. He's responsible to his clients for the labour he and his workers provide.
>non issues really.
Non argument really.
>you have yet to explain this.
The owner has more responsibility, does more work, has much greater risks, and the worker gets to take advantage of all of that and get paid for it. The worker is exploiting the owner.

what are you going to do about it bitch

>the problem is that this thinking, while logical in the context of capitalism, breaks down when actually applied. think about someone like the lowest-ranking Amazon worker, who makes $30k a year, and then consider Jeff Bezos, who makes $30k every few seconds. Jeff Bezos doesn't work thousands to millions of times harder than the average Amazon worker, but he's still comfortable reaping the benefits of their labor.
I don't think I have to address this one, the aussie above put it nicely and succinctly.
>logically untrue. if a worker was paid exactly how much his work was worth, the company wouldn't make a profit. the ideal situation for a business owner is being able to pay a worker as little as possible.
No, there is no logical untruth here. The worth of the labour the worker provides is less than the actual value of the labour.
>most people can't just quit their job because they don't like it. they literally NEED that money to survive. if they try to renegotiate a contract (good luck doing that alone) they could get laughed out of the room at best, and fired at worst. this is why unions exist.
Nothing is preventing the worker from approaching other business owners while he's working. If he gets a better offer, he can take that to his current employer and try to negotiate. If the quality of the work the individual worker provides is higher, he should also be in a position of asking for a raise based on that. Or maybe he can get a position with more responsibliity, and thus a higher salary.

Everyone NEEDS to provide labour in order to survive, the business owner included. Barring extreme cases perhaps, but in those cases they have taken massive risks in the past or provided massive amounts of labour, and then get to reap the benefits later.

>Of course they get paid according to their labour, that's the entire point. Everyone does.
no they don't.
please tell me how you know they are being paid what their labour is worth, and how you measured it.
>You're delusional if you think that owning a business doesn't take any work.
that's not what I said, I said that it doesn't necessarily require work, I gave you an example of such a case.
>Maybe learn a bit about the world before engaging in a debate about the exploitation of workers?
do you have an argument or are you going to tell me to learn without explaining anything?
>it's the approximate worth of the labour.
no it isn't, we've established that labour is the source of all value and you agreed upon it, tell me, how you did measure this "approximate worth of the labour"? the word approximate makes me think already that it's not the actual worth of this labour, your words not mine.
>If any given business owner is paying the worker too little, he's free to negotiate a better contract, or he can offer his labour to some other business owner
already explained this, he doesn't have much of an option, if he quits he loses all source of sustainabilty, he really can't go around looking for the highest payer, he has to take what he gets to survive.
>According to who or what are they paid too little? Your feefees?
no, the labour theory of value.
I explained this, labour is the source of all value, it should be measured with a standard, that is labour time, that's how you know they're being paid too little.
but you did a great job at deflecting and avoiding my question, I'll try again, this time try being less of a sleazy snake:
according to who or what is the worker being paid what his labour is worth in capitalism?
>you mean the same things the business owner risks losing when he takes the leap of faith and establishes the business?
oh no, if he fails he becomes a worker, how unfair, what a risk he's taking! according to you being a worker isn't bad.

>you think that's how humanity came to be?
You think the humans in the past had as a clear understanding of morals as they do now?
>let's ignore the fact that you assume Capitalism would sprung up instead of socialism.
What you refer to as "capitalism" is actually freedom. A helpful thought exercise: when you evaluate a relationship, look at where the gun is.
>Capitalism has been a thing for 300 years at best.
You're wrong, but let's go with that.
>what happened before that?
Exploitation. Good thing we invented the thing called freedom so the exploitation has greatly lessened.
>is it? how do you know? how is this measured? the salary is calculated long before the worker even begins working, it's impossible to account for the wear and tear of the capital before it's consumed completely.
>please tell me how this is done.
Oh, that's easy. If you want to know how much the worth of your labour is, offer it to the free market. The free market will always set itself up in the most efficient way.
>already explained this voluntary bullshit here
Can you quit at any time you want or can you not quit? You give labour to the business owner AT YOUR OWN FREE WILL.
>no, they provided out of necessity to survive since they absolutely have to sell their labour to, nah fuck it, I'm getting tired of explaining this, you should've gotten it by now.
"The only value in the world is labour" "Wah why do I have to provide labour?!!?!!! It's so unfaaaair"
>if paying salary would make him lose money then he wouldn't do it, and he wouldn't have people working for him.
Now you're getting it. Exactly as you say, if he paid the workers so much that he was losing money, there would be no business, and the labour the workers had was absolutely worthless.

>Well of course he is, you said it yourself: all value is labour. If any person isn't providing labour, he's worthless.
so as soon as he's not working he should be deprived of basic human needs?
how would he be allowed to find a job at all then? let alone one that benefits him more than another, which is what you think happens under capitalism since it's all """voluntary""".
>Also he can still choose to found a company and start hiring people if the business is good
ah yes, the man with no money and resources at all can always start a company and exploit people himself.
superb logic mate
>No, but he holds the responsibility if something goes wrong. He's responsible to his clients for the labour he and his workers provide.
he's responsible in the eye of the client, and the worker is responsible in the eye of the employer (him), they're both equaly responsible and risk losing the same, the employer his client, and the worker his livelyhood (job)
>Non argument really.
no need for argument when you have none yourself.
>The owner has more responsibility
not really.
>does more work
not really, and if he dies he should be paid accordingly, this is why it should be measured in labour time like I explained.
>has much greater risks
not really, if things go to shit he becomes a worker, which the worker already is, how's that much more of a risk exactly?
>and the worker gets to take advantage of all of that and get paid for it.
responsibilty and risk don't generate value, only labour does, the worker is not taking advantage of anything, and the owner of the means of production is absolutely not required for value to be generated, only workers are, that's why we can do without them in socialism.

Autism posts but the commie argentinian is one of the most based people on Jow Forums.

None of what you just said argues against my point.
The fact is Bezos is the richest person in the world and makes thousands to millions of times more than the average Amazon warehouse employee. This completely breaks the idea that capitalism can lead to an equitable distribution of wealth based on how much work one does.
Does Jeff Bezos deserve some wealth for making Amazon? Certainly. Does he need or deserve 150 billion+ dollars while his workers are on welfare and food stamps to survive? Fuck no.

i respect anyone who tries to make the cuck incels on this site mildly class conscious

No I pay taxes and support whatever party will reduce taxes

Nothing like a good blue collar american worker to cuck for his boss while wearing a hardhat.

>please tell me how you know they are being paid what their labour is worth, and how you measured it.
If nobody is willing to pay me more for my labour, then it's clear that I'm being paid as much as I deserve.
>do you have an argument or are you going to tell me to learn without explaining anything?
I explained to you that business owners take a huge risk when establishing the business, and they have way more responsibility. The value of their work is much greater than the value of the workers.
>no it isn't, we've established that labour is the source of all value and you agreed upon it, tell me, how you did measure this "approximate worth of the labour"? the word approximate makes me think already that it's not the actual worth of this labour, your words not mine.
I don't understand what you're not understanding. Of course YOU don't get all the value from your labour if you choose to enter a contract with someone else.
>already explained this, he doesn't have much of an option, if he quits he loses all source of sustainabilty, he really can't go around looking for the highest payer, he has to take what he gets to survive.
Yeah, a tragedy isn't it? The same thing applies to the business owner by the way, and in a much greater degree.
>I explained this, labour is the source of all value, it should be measured with a standard, that is labour time, that's how you know they're being paid too little.
Why should it be measured with a standard? Not all work is worth as much. Not all workers provide the same amount or quality of work in the same field either.
>according to who or what is the worker being paid what his labour is worth in capitalism?
Try to answer the same question without being a disgusting communist: who or what decides that the worker is being paid too little?
>oh no, if he fails he becomes a worker, how unfair, what a risk he's taking! according to you being a worker isn't bad.
No, he loses far more than that. FAR MORE.

>You think the humans in the past had as a clear understanding of morals as they do now?
who the fuck talked about morals? how the fuck does that even remotely relates to our conversation?
>What you refer to as "capitalism" is actually freedom.
HOLY FUCK LMAO HAHAH
all you need is an amerimutt flag now, come on.
>A helpful thought exercise: when you evaluate a relationship, look at where the gun is.
the state has the gun, and it's defending capitalist interests, it forces workers to sell their labour to capitalists who should not exists, they're not necesary.
btw how is capitalism "freedom" in relation to anything else exactly? compare it with socialism for example.
>Exploitation. Good thing we invented the thing called freedom so the exploitation has greatly lessened.
I'm assuming you're describing feudalism, which is not the natural state of man, that's not how we started.
>Oh, that's easy. If you want to know how much the worth of your labour is, offer it to the free market. The free market will always set itself up in the most efficient way.
you said nothing, how does the free market value labour exactly? what's the math behind it?
btw I'll explain this: the free market is good find out the value of commodities, labour is not a commodity, it's the source of commodities value, whatever this value maybe, you can't really sell labour, you're selling the things labour produced, putting a price on labour is retarded.
>Can you quit at any time you want or can you not quit?
like I explained, no, you can't, otherwise you lose coverage of your basic needs.
>You give labour to the business owner AT YOUR OWN FREE WILL.
no you don't, I explained it several times already, like right in the previous point.

He should lose his head.

He literally worked for two decades for nil profit, by your bullshit the workers were exploiting him. His vision was successful and now he is rich. To say he doesn’t deserve his money is just teenager faggot bullshit.

post too long, I'll carry on here:
>"The only value in the world is labour" "Wah why do I have to provide labour?!!?!!! It's so unfaaaair"
no, we do not complain that we have to work, don't deflect nor misrepresent my argument.
we believe everyone should be equally liable to work, which is not the case in capitalism as you can see since you can own property and live off it's rent or even own means of production like I explained earlier and have workers even manage it for you.
people who defend capitalism are the lazy fucks, who if they're not already leeching off workers while doing nothing, is what they aim to do.
the entire drive of workers with false consciousness is to own sufficient private property as to not have to work anymore and do whatever the fuck he wants.
my point is that under Capitalism you are obligated to SELL your labour instead of getting the full value of it, this is not a choice, you're absolutely required to do it otherwise you lose your means of subsistence.
>if he paid the workers so much that he was losing money, there would be no business
he doesn't have to lose money, he has to not lose nor make money.
the owner is not required at all, this could be done just by workers.
>and the labour the workers had was absolutely worthless.
literally what

socialista o no sos un gallego de mierda igual jajjkajakaj lmao
no mentira te quiero

>Does he need or deserve 150 billion+ dollars while his workers are on welfare and food stamps to survive?
Yeah. It was his idea. He built the idea and made it real.

I'm a cop, do you see me as parasite?

I think he's just an elaborate troll, on the other thread he said capitalism = fascism

nah you're just a fascist

>so as soon as he's not working he should be deprived of basic human needs?
Well of course, if we go by your definition then he literally is worthless.
>find a job?
What kind of a question is that? How do people usually find work?
>ah yes, the man with no money and resources at all can always start a company
He can take the risk that business owners take and TAKE A LOAN. If the plan backfires, you will lose EVERYTHING, and your workers will just lose a job. Congratulations, now you're in the same position as the owner.
>he's responsible in the eye of the client, and the worker is responsible in the eye of the employer (him),
If the employer loses the clients, the workers lose their jobs, because the employer will have no more money to pay the employees. Thus, he has FAR MORE RESPONSIBILITY.
>no need for argument when you have none yourself.
You can't label something a non-issue when you don't have to deal with it yourself. If you really think that running a business is easy, go make one yourself. It's free money, and you get all the worth of your labour for yourself, what a great deal!
>not really.
Yes really.
>not really, and if he dies he should be paid accordingly, this is why it should be measured in labour time like I explained.
Not all work is equally valuable, and people in positions of responsibility should get paid more.
>not really, if things go to shit he becomes a worker, which the worker already is, how's that much more of a risk exactly?
Because if he's invested millions into his business, he's millions in the red if the business goes under. He's way more fucked than the worker who just lost his job. You're just an evil leech, exploiting the business owner.
>responsibilty and risk don't generate value, only labour does,
And the labour that was generated through taking risks while having more responsibility is worth more than the labour that was generated without risk or responsibility.

Fucking retard.
>Spend a quarter of your life working towards a vision
>Lose all funding have your parents support you
>Your vision is successful and you make a large amount of money
>Few years later some faggot on Jow Forums says you don't deserve any of it because you're paying the average wage

>Capital does not generate value, labour does.

Not since fiat currency became a thing. Labour only translated to wealth on the gold standard.

Capitalism works under fascism and it doesn't matter if he's a troll or not because he has arguments to defend his "troll position".
Go back to the sopa pot.

>If nobody is willing to pay me more for my labour, then it's clear that I'm being paid as much as I deserve.
how is this clear? the source of all value is labour, why should anyone decide what you are getting paid while you're producing something, instead of giving you the entire value of the product you're producing?
labour power has a price because it's treated as a commodity, while its not, it's the source of all commodities, it should be paid according to the commodities it produces, and the way to measure this is with labour time, how much a commodity takes you to produce is how much labour you put into it and therefore the worth of your labour, nobody should be able to decide what that labour time is worth, that's retarded.
>I explained to you that business owners take a huge risk when establishing the business
I've explained to you that taking a risk doesn't create value, you can do that without the owner, that's socialism.
and in any case taking a risk would only turn him into a worker if he fails, which again, according to you it's not that bad, so what risk did he take really? not more than the worker since he didn't sink further than them.
>and they have way more responsibility
no they don't, I explained this already here >Of course YOU don't get all the value from your labour if you choose to enter a contract with someone else.
so you agree, the worker is being exploited since he doesn't get paid all the value of his labour, and I explained there's no option for the worker, he has to enter a contract with an owner in order to survive, the only choice he has is WHO he enters this contract with, not IF.
what's the argument here?
>Yeah, a tragedy isn't it? The same thing applies to the business owner by the way, and in a much greater degree.
explain this

Norway

Fuck no. My taxes should only be used for necessities, but I bet a portion of it goes to the king's orgy parties.

>Why should it be measured with a standard? Not all work is worth as much. Not all workers provide the same amount or quality of work in the same field either.
that's what the standard is for, you absolute brainlet.
if your work is over the standard then you did a better job and are rewarded for this.
if your work is under the standard then you did a worse job and are punished for this.
this is literally what would happen in a socialist economy.
>Try to answer the same question without being a disgusting communist: who or what decides that the worker is being paid too little?
I literally answered you in that same post, you can ignore the answer all you want.
and you can ignore the question all you want too, you sleazy fuck.
>No, he loses far more than that. FAR MORE.
what else does he lose exactly? more than a worker? what?

>who the fuck talked about morals? how the fuck does that even remotely relates to our conversation?
Well, you. In a discussion about value of labour, you said:
>so as soon as he's not working he should be deprived of basic human needs?
If that's not a question about morality, then I don't know what is.
But to answer the original question, you can't simply go back to the stone age and expect people to behave the same as they do now. That's fallacious.
>HOLY FUCK LMAO HAHAH
Like I said, look at where the gun is. Is the business owner threatening to shoot his workers if they don't come to work? You on the other hand seem to be advocating a different system. Why don't you tell me about what you'd do if the "owner" paid "too little"?
>the state has the gun, and it's defending capitalist interests, it forces workers to sell their labour to capitalists who should not exists, they're not necesary.
Yeah, that's why the state is a problem. We agree on that.
>btw how is capitalism "freedom" in relation to anything else exactly? compare it with socialism for example.
In socialism, you take wealth from people on gunpoint and give the wealth to someone else. It's inherently immoral.
>I'm assuming you're describing feudalism, which is not the natural state of man, that's not how we started.
Alright, you set the stage then.
>you said nothing, how does the free market value labour exactly? what's the math behind it?
It takes into account a number of things, availability of labour, how much training you need to provide said labour, the amount of resources available, trends, booms, et cetera. If you're a petroleum engineer and there's no oil near you, your labour isn't worth much. If you go somewhere where there's massive amounts of oil, and few to no other petroleum engineers, you will be in a position to negotiate a better contract. Why do I have to explain this to you?

Based Quebec forcing the rural and suburban retards to pay for Québécois teenagers to have abortions

>Well of course, if we go by your definition then he literally is worthless.
no he isn't, I literally never said this.
again great job at deflecting, unless that's a serious answer, but I doubt it since it destroys your own argument.
>What kind of a question is that? How do people usually find work?
by surviving first, which he would have trouble doing if he can't afford to, forcing him to sell his labour as soon as he can in order to survive and not getting the "best deal" for his labour power.
>He can take the risk that business owners take and TAKE A LOAN
how sheltered are you? they don't give workers with no guarantees any significant loans as to start a business.
or are you 12 and you don't know this?
>If the employer loses the clients, the workers lose their jobs, because the employer will have no more money to pay the employees. Thus, he has FAR MORE RESPONSIBILITY.
not more so than the employees who make and deliver the products, because if they fail it would have the exact same outcome.
>Not all work is equally valuable, and people in positions of responsibility should get paid more.
I explained this already here if you don't understand how socialism works then don't argue about it, learn about it first.
>Because if he's invested millions into his business, he's millions in the red if the business goes under. He's way more fucked than the worker who just lost his job
not really since he'd still have to work to survive, they can't take the money he doesn't have.
if you think he'd have to give away his paychecks after getting into a horrible debt then you truly must be 12.
>And the labour that was generated through taking risks while having more responsibility is worth more than the labour that was generated without risk or responsibility.
what the fuck are you even on about here?

>like I explained, no, you can't, otherwise you lose coverage of your basic needs.
No, you CAN. Whether you should is a different question.
>we believe everyone should be equally liable to work, which is not the case in capitalism as you can see since you can own property and live off it's rent or even own means of production like I explained earlier and have workers even manage it for you.
But not everyone is "equally liable to work", that's absolute nonsense. If some of the workers manage the business, then they take more responsibility and should be paid more or you're exploiting them.
>people who defend capitalism are the lazy fucks, who if they're not already leeching off workers while doing nothing, is what they aim to do.
People who defend socialism are jealous and lazy fucks who want to exploit the risks taken by entrepreneurs.
>the entire drive of workers with false consciousness is to own sufficient private property as to not have to work anymore and do whatever the fuck he wants.
Are you describing basic human nature here?
>my point is that under Capitalism you are obligated to SELL your labour instead of getting the full value of it, this is not a choice, you're absolutely required to do it otherwise you lose your means of subsistence.
Haven't you read anything I wrote? You're entirely able to sell your labour directly to the client if you so desire. You can establish a business and real all the benefits. You don't even have to hire anyone unless you want to. There's literally nothing preventing you from being a one-man company. You CAN DO THAT. Whether you want to is a different question, because then you'd have to buy all the infrastructure and tooling yourself, and try to establish client relationships. It's FAR MORE BENEFICIAL FOR MOST POEPLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS OF A BUSINESS INSTEAD.

Caps for emphasis, since none of this is getting through to your thick skull.

what's your logic here?

>he doesn't have to lose money, he has to not lose nor make money.
>the owner is not required at all, this could be done just by workers.
Why would anyone take the risk of establishing a business just to break even? Are you insane?
>literally what
If you're a waiter, go walk around with trays in the middle of the woods and see how valuable your labour is. You need someone who establishes the restaurant, you need cooks to make the food, possibly even security to deal with unruly customers etc. Luckily for you, the system exists so you can exploit other people's labour. What a wonderful thing!

Jeff Bezos makes roughly $9,000,000 an hour. The minimum wage for an Amazon worker is $15 an hour. Jeff Bezos doesn't and has never worked 600000x harder than the average employee.

It doesn't matter how long Amazon went without making a profit, because Amazon was CREATED as a high-growth, zero-profit company with the eventual goal of controlling essentially everything. While Amazon was making zero profit, it also owned dozens of warehouses and was valued in the billions of dollars with full confidence from shareholders. Profit =/= value. This is literally 21st century capitalism 101.

>ABLOOBLOO DON'T ATTACK THE PARASITES DIRECTLY, ATTACK AN EXISTENCIAL CONDITION

This is why communists are controlled opposition.

Attached: 1518651009583.jpg (1024x1024, 147K)

>Jeff Bezos doesn't and has never worked 600000x harder than the average employee.
Wrong. He created Amazon out of nothing. No one else created Amazon.

>But to answer the original question, you can't simply go back to the stone age and expect people to behave the same as they do now. That's fallacious.
exactly my point, there'd be no capitalism, and labour would be the only source of value, that's how societies came to be.
>Like I said, look at where the gun is. Is the business owner threatening to shoot his workers if they don't come to work?
no, but the state is, they defend the owner's interest and obligate the workers to sell their labour power to them.
>You on the other hand seem to be advocating a different system
yes, socialism.
>Why don't you tell me about what you'd do if the "owner" paid "too little"?
what owner? lmao
>In socialism, you take wealth from people on gunpoint and give the wealth to someone else. It's inherently immoral.
what the fuck are you even talking about?
the seizing of the means of production?
that wealth was generated through exploitation of workers, we've established that.
collectivization is right.
>Alright, you set the stage then.
I don't have to, this is called primitive communism, read a bit.
>It takes into account a number of things, availability of labour, how much training you need to provide said labour, the amount of resources available, trends, booms, et cetera.
again, how do you measure it? you said nothing again.
everytime you ask me I explain to you, it should be measured in labour time.
you say nothing.
>If you're a petroleum engineer and there's no oil near you, your labour isn't worth much.
your labour is worth exactly the same, you're just not doing any.
>If you go somewhere where there's massive amounts of oil, and few to no other petroleum engineers, you will be in a position to negotiate a better contract.
this doesn't mean that your labour is worth more, it just has a highe price.
price and value are not the same thing.
>Why do I have to explain this to you?
you didn't explain shit.

>how is this clear? the source of all value is labour, why should anyone decide what you are getting paid while you're producing something, instead of giving you the entire value of the product you're producing?
Because you're offering your labour to a company instead of going straight to the client. If you go straight to the client, everything the client pays goes directly to your pocket and you can decide your own salary, essentially.
>labour power has a price because it's treated as a commodity, while its not, it's the source of all commodities, it should be paid according to the commodities it produces, and the way to measure this is with labour time, how much a commodity takes you to produce is how much labour you put into it and therefore the worth of your labour, nobody should be able to decide what that labour time is worth, that's retarded.
Absolutely not. That's blatantly wrong. Not all labour is worth as much, and time definitely isn't the only way to measure how much a person should be paid. If you're unable to understand that not all work is equal, then there's nothing to discuss.
>I've explained to you that taking a risk doesn't create value, you can do that without the owner, that's socialism.
You haven't explained to me how taking a risk doesn't create more valuable work actually. Why don't you?
>and in any case taking a risk would only turn him into a worker if he fails, which again, according to you it's not that bad, so what risk did he take really? not more than the worker since he didn't sink further than them.
Wrong. He has invested more in the business, he loses more when it goes under. Or do you think the people who lended him money will just leave him be?
>no they don't, I explained this already here
You didn't explain anything, you made a false statement.

>Jeff Bezos makes roughly $9,000,000 an hour
Retard - Bezos has a salary of $100k a year. He owns percentage of a company he made. That percentage happens to be 110billion tomorrow it might be 90billion.

No matter how you read this data Bezos is not earning 100,000x his employees, he simply owns a valuable amount of a company he made which can theoretically be sold for billions. Here's a scoop for you: no billionaire literally has billions in his account.

>so you agree, the worker is being exploited since he doesn't get paid all the value of his labour, and I explained there's no option for the worker, he has to enter a contract with an owner in order to survive, the only choice he has is WHO he enters this contract with, not IF.
No, I do not agree. He isn't being exploited if he willingly entered a contract. Like I explained before, the worker can establish his own business instead.
>explain this
The business owner that buys tools, facilities, infrastructure, and hires workers have invested much more time, effort, and money into his business than the workers who simply come exploit his fruits of labour. If the business goes under, he loses far more of his time, effort, and money than the workers, who simply lose a job. He's much deeper in the negative than the workers. There, explained.

>that's what the standard is for, you absolute brainlet.
Who decides the standard then?
>if your work is over the standard then you did a better job and are rewarded for this.
Oh so you do think that business owners should be paid more?
>if your work is under the standard then you did a worse job and are punished for this.
Punished by who? In what way?
>this is literally what would happen in a socialist economy.
Yes, we've seen what happens in a socialist economy. Millions of people dead.
>I literally answered you in that same post, you can ignore the answer all you want.
No, you didn't answer. Who is the entity that decides if the worker is being paid too little? WHO?
>what else does he lose exactly? more than a worker? what?
I've answered this point multiple times by now.

Amazon would be useless without the labor of thousands of people. THOSE people create Amazon.

You think I'm not aware of this? It's still wealth which he holds, which is why it counts as his net worth, idiot. If you're trying to imply Jeff Bezos actually doesn't have that much money, then tell that to his multiple mansions, supercars, private jet, and also the Washington Post, which he owns.

Are you a snake?

Attached: libertarian3.jpg (960x668, 59K)

alright I'm not wasting any more time on you Fingolian
none of your """arguments""" make sense and you're going on in circles
not to mention you ignore every single one of my questions that you find difficult to answer.
also I'd recommend you to learn about socialism before criticizing it, it makes you look retarded otherwise.
have fun

>THOSE people create Amazon.
No. Those people would be slaving away for someone else if he didn't start Amazon.
He created Amazon. And the work he put into building that idea is definitely worth $150bln at least.

You know how he bought those things you fucking brainlet? He sold a percentage of HIS company for liquid currency. he gave up a portion of his life's work for those things. He didn't just take a million dollar paycheque.

>THOSE people create Amazon.
Oh so you're just a troll. Carry on then

Aren't the red provinces just oil niggers ?

ah, before leaving, and since I don't know if you actually are going to learn about socialism before critizing it like I suggested (I doubt you will, you seem particularly retarded), heres an explanation:

>Who decides the standard then?
we do, the standard is labour time, the average that is.
if there are 3 people making clocks, and 1 of them makes 100 clocks an hour, another one makes 50 clocks an hour, and another one makes 150 clocks an hour, the average labour time required to make 100 clocks is an ahour.
so the one making 100 an hour is paid one hour of labour.
the one making 50 an hour is paid half an hour per hour of his labour
and the one making 150 an hour is paid 1 and a half hours per hour of his labour.
not that difficult.
that's the standard, it's not arbitrary, it's fair and it accounts for labour being the source of all value.
if you have more questions like the quality of products or how do you measure services like this just google them, the answer are complicated for me to type now but easy to udnerstand, even for you.
bye m8

>no he isn't, I literally never said this.
Yes you did. Right in the second post here: >the source of all value is labour.
If the source of all value is labour, then it follows anyone not providing labour is worthless.
>again great job at deflecting, unless that's a serious answer, but I doubt it since it destroys your own argument.
But... it's your argument.
>by surviving first, which he would have trouble doing if he can't afford to, forcing him to sell his labour as soon as he can in order to survive and not getting the "best deal" for his labour power.
If he's really in such a bad position, then maybe he should indeed take the "bad deal", and work his way towards the "good deal" beyond the horizon.
>how sheltered are you? they don't give workers with no guarantees any significant loans as to start a business.
If you have a good business plan, they do. Also, you can ask friends and family for capital, which is actually what many of the people who started the big enterprises of today have done in the past. Bill Gates literally started in his garage, why can't every worker do the same?
>not more so than the employees who make and deliver the products, because if they fail it would have the exact same outcome.
Exaclty, he's also responsible for the mistakes of his employees. Glad you finally understand.
>if you don't understand how socialism works then don't argue about it, learn about it first.
I know how it works. It's "Give me your stuff, or I shoot you".
>not really since he'd still have to work to survive, they can't take the money he doesn't have.
And all the worth from his labour goes directly to this loaners instead of him, for potentially the rest of his life. How is the situation equivalent?
>if you think he'd have to give away his paychecks after getting into a horrible debt then you truly must be 12.
If you think that establishing a business doesn't have any risks involved, then you must be 12 if you don't do it yourself.

>exactly my point, there'd be no capitalism, and labour would be the only source of value, that's how societies came to be.
And capitalism rises when people understand that people are entitled to the fruits of their labour.
>no, but the state is, they defend the owner's interest and obligate the workers to sell their labour power to them.
Didn't we already establish that the state is indeed evil?
>that wealth was generated through exploitation of workers, we've established that.
No, we've established that the workers exploit the business owners.
>collectivization is right.
You have no right to my stuff.
>I don't have to, this is called primitive communism, read a bit.
Okay, we have "privitive communism" then. You still have no right to my stuff.
>again, how do you measure it? you said nothing again.
YOU DON'T MEASURE IT. Jesus christ. You get paid what the market dictates you should be paid, and that's dependent on a multitude of factors.
>everytime you ask me I explain to you, it should be measured in labour time.
NO. WRONG. Time is not the only measure, fucking hell. NOT ALL LABOUR IS WORTH AS MUCH. The doctor who's studied a decade doesn't deserve the same amount of money than a janitor. I will not be replying any more until you concede that point.

Alright, it is entirely obvious that you know next to nothing about what you're talking about.
I'm almost amazed, it takes a real fucking idiot to think that one person can conceivably deserve hundreds of thousands of times more wealth than the people who actually lend their labor to create that wealth, and even more of an idiot to think that any corporation or entity which generates a large amount of money can be attributed to a single person's "vision."
All I have to say is that I hope your retardation doesn't affect your well being or the lives of those around you too much. Good bye.

no

Attached: file.png (500x514, 62K)

It takes one jaded idiot to think that he doesn't deserve the money he got after taking a massive risk and improving the life of his clients by an order of magnitude. You don't get rich by exploiting anyone, you get rich by engaging in a vast number of voluntary transactions.

top tier oil niggers might i add

No.

Next french revolution world wide edition cool would be fun sacking and disempowering the remnants of islam, christianity and Judaism, sacking all of those organization.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-11-26-21-38-42.png (720x1280, 865K)

based faggot

Attached: 1541354544827.jpg (663x715, 140K)

Yes, I'm in the military

Based and redpilled

Attached: ancapistan.png (960x720, 612K)

boy I would slap the shit out the guy giving the presentation and leave.