Profit, by definition, is the money stolen from the value of our labor
Profit, by definition, is the money stolen from the value of our labor
Sad to see capitalist propaganda leaking in here. But remember the fundamentals my fellow workers.
You're viewing a single thread.
What about keeping some revenue to reinvest in the business? For example, say I'm a business owner and I save some of my profits to open a second location someday. Does that count as stealing?
Yes, because for you to get those profits, you had to not pay your workers the full value of their labor power.
False. The full value of their labor plus the costs not tied directly to that labor is called Cost of Goods sold. The amount over that which the customer is charged is called Profit.
You're using the liberal definition of labor value, which is the price the worker charges the capitalist for selling them their labor-power.
Marxist_Bear is using the marxist definition of labor value which is the value of a commodity measured in labor-time required to produce it.
Yeah, the the fantasy definition is not of any relevance. Only the real world actual observable outcome definition is of any importance. Much like they ignore the resources and building to perform said work in their "theft" argument, they ignore the actual definitions of most of the terms they flip on about.
That "fantasy" definition is a core building block behind the theory that drove the soviet union, the people's republic of china and other socialist countries and revolutions that happened. I mean people were and are willing to go to war over it, I wouldn't dismiss it as irrelevant.
Here is a quick read on marxism so you can judge for yourself whether marxist theory is a model of reality or not: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:How_Marxism_works
The failed and gone USSR which became a Dictatorship within less than a generation isn't the flex you think it is.
Ok? When do things start to get relevance in your opinion if multiple wars aren't enough?
Yes. Because you get to have a second location and your worker who created the value with which you opened it doesn't.
Lol that's ridiculous. You wouldn't have enough jobs if nobody could expand their businesses.
Well the communist idea is that the capital the workers generate is collectively owned. So it can be used to expand business, but since its not privately owned but instead by the people who generated the capital they get to reap the long term benefits of said capital as well.
How would/"should" this theoretically work in practice? Direct (presumably equal) payouts to every worker? I could get behind some version of that, at least.
Completely forgot my literature recommendation as an example of such a study: "Blackshirts and Reds" by Michael Parenti. It's a Marxist-Leninist view on the USSR, it's shortcomings, it's strengths, it's fall and the effects of capitalist "reconstruction" on the lives of the workers.
That's the crucial point isn't it? The general idea is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but how that should be determined, how the capital the workers accumulate should be administrated, how the capital that has thus far been expropriated be taken back, how it should be redistributed and how any such attempt should be defended is the cause for a lot of leftist infighting. The answer ultimately depends on the material conditions and while theories might provide broad strokes any practicable theory will need to be adapted, which is why in my opinion the discussion of which theory is better or not is secondary to the study of history and actually attempted revolutions, whether they succeeded or failed. And, in my opinion, some of the more important are the Haitian revolution, the Paris commune, the October revolution, the November revolution, the Spanish civil war and the Chinese peoples revolution.
This is where it gets fun! As a precursor, I'm a leftist that reads Marxist and Anarchist theory without dedicating to any specific tendency, as I feel that's an issue for when we are further down the line.
Alright, step 1. We've decided to reject individual ownership of Capital. How do we go about replacing this, with a functional system?
The Marxist-Leninists would say that we would need to build up a network of Worker councils that ladder upward, that way everyone can have direct influence on their local situations, and anyone who moves up the chain must do so from the bottom upward, creating a form of meritocracy. The state owns everything, and the state is of and for the Workers, creating democratically controlled production.
The Anarchists take issue with this as it lacks direct influence on the top from the bottom, and prefer more decentralization. In more Anarchistic models, typically complex webs of Communes practice Mutual Aid, and operate off of gift economies. FOSS is an excellent example of this in practice, in the real world! People contribute what they can and want to, and recieve what others are willing to give. It's a deceptively complex system to build, and isn't as simple as just blowing up the state, despite what TV will have you believe.
The Syndicalists have yet another view. They see revolutionary pressure from Unionization, and wish to see mass union strikes gain control of various industries. Then, following successful revolution, each industry will form a syndicate in a federated system.
The Market Socialists have again another view. They wish to have a market economy, but owned and operated via Worker Co-operatives and other such structures. Usually this is combined with Democratic Socialism, and structured similar to a liberal democracy (imagine America but with worker co-ops entirely).
The Council Communists are generally an anti-Stalin, pro-Marx, pro-Lenin Tendency that wish to see less centralization than in a Soviet Republic, and have Worker councils themselves own and run everything, without the same structure of laddering.
You can see that there are many, many, many different arguments for how to structure a leftist society, but all boil down to democratization of industry in different forms.
And the guy with the armed thugs takes over and becomes dictator. Cool, cool...
How? Which version are you talking about? Legitimately.
So, like Taxation?
Please show on the map where that has worked out for the betterment of the workers.
If you look at the feudal society before the October revolution and then during the soviet era the change would seem miraculous.
Same for the chinese people casting off the brutal feudal society.
Really any communist revolution, can you show me one were the workers were worse off after the revolution?
Just look at the stats for the USSR for example: http://www.socialisteconomist.com/2017/10/how-ussr-radically-reduced-income.html
The actual paper I meant to link: https://wid.world/news-article/new-paper-inequality-series-russia/
Absolutely false. The workers were in no way the beneficiaries of either event. All you've done is prove my point that it won't work. Reality is that outside of small Clan level groups, where Familial ties can in some cases prevent the most violent abuser from taking control, it is simply against Human Nature to cooperate equitably.
I mean if it's not income disparity then how would you measure equitable distribution of capital in a society?
I didn't measure it. In fact it had nothing to do with any of the topics you brought up. It is a side effect of a failure to regulate as a result of corruption, not an inherent feature of anything. Supposed "Communist" USSR was in fact resplendent with income disparity and never, not even for a second, had equitable distribution of anything whatsoever.
No but how wouldyou measure it. I linked you a paper on the wealth distribution in Russia over the past 120 years which showed that the fairest distribution was durin the soviet era. You dismissed that without comment, suggesting that when you asked me to "show on the map where that has worked out for the betterment of the workers" you meant something else. So my question is, how would you like the "betterment of the workers" shown?
That's not what people are advocating for. Yes, you're correct, if you assume Capitalism is the only mode of production.
Since ownership does not create Value, and is merely used to exert power over non-owner workers, if Workers collectively share capital then they can own the value they create.
Imagine a factory. One version is owned and run by the Workers, the other version is owned by a Capitalist. The first one is what people advocate for, it gives the Workers the ability to vote and elect a manager, and democratizes production. The second option is what we currently have, and there's no actual choice.