I just came to a realization about work.If a worker creates a 250 dollar item, then he is paid 100 dollars in wage labor, and the other 150 goes to the owner without him doing anything, then why is he profiting from the labor value created by the worker?Has anyone else realized this?
This is revolutionary, anonYou should write a book about wealth creation and societal reallocation of resources as per the form of currency
>>532797054So why does the worker keep giving the owner his money if he doesn't need him?
Because the owner has other expenses like rent, taxes, insurance, marketing, distribution ect he takes more of the risk setting everything up into a business and then he sells the business to some Jew who comes in cuts corners, lowers employee wages and benefits and ultimately ships the job over to Asia
>>532797054Yes, and if your employer goes into debt, you as the worker should also be held liable.
>>532797054>>532797194Hmmm, something like this reminds me about aliens....an alien nation?
Communists are actually fucking retarded
>>532797054Oh hi Mark
>what are overhead costs?Damn you gotta be 18 to post here.
>>532797054How much does the governament in taxes btw?
>>532797215Why did he agree to work for a certain wage to begin with? Is he stupid?
>>532797314lol
>>532797366exactly
>>532797314I chuckled
>>532797194https://sites.dartmouth.edu/mkohn/origins/Chapter 14, Business Organization in Pre-Industrial Europe is the most salient to this thread.
>>532797529If onoy there were some sort of gulag or workers concentration camp he could be sent to, like a collective farm or something.
>>532797733an...animal farm?
>>532797733No no... more like an archipelago...a gulag archipelago...
>>532797790>>532797813If only it were legal to join a commune in the US, all of us fellow Communists would surely flock to them, since that's how we want to live. It's not like we want to force others to conform to our ideals which we don't personally live up to, or anything, tee-hee
>>532797215landlords are legalized cosa nostra, unironically>>532797618take yer commie mumbo jumbo elsewhere, anonsky
>>532798206>Landlords are le spicsomg I love landlords, now!
You are a genius! I am going to start making the stuff I make at work at home and selling it on Amazon. I will be rich in no time.
>>532797054>I just came to a realization about work.If a worker creates a 250 dollar item, then he is paid 100 dollars in wage labor, and the other 150 goes to the owner without him doing anything, then why is he profiting from the labor value created by the worker? Has anyone else realized this?
>>532797054Wow comrade, yu are very smaht. I wish I can be so smaht lik yuo.You shud be president of earth.
>>532800050Why shouldn't an Amazon delivery person just steal the package from filthy capitalists like you and sell it for themselves? They are the ones doing all the hard work.
>>532797194Thanks fren>>532797232>>532797215So you're saying the owner takes risks and/or invents, thus he deserves permanent profit. But doesn't that just explain why capitalism as an economic system rewards the risk taker, rather than prove some inherent truth that he deserves an indefinite claim over what over what other people go onto produce?Most of those costs you mentioned could be paid for out of the value created by labor itself, it doesn't have to come out of the pockets of the capital owner in a way that then justifies him being paid exorbitant amounts for simply owning.If things go wrong it is on whoever had the decision making power to be held accountable. The inventor of an idea and/or the person doing the actual labor of organizing and managing is compensated for the action of inventing and/or laboring, but from there there is not some societal obligation to continue funneling profits to him jut because he took the initial risk or came up with the idea first.PS. I'm just trying to train my brain by debating many different ideologies, currently I'm focusing on all of the labor / value stuff, it's meant to be more of an exercise rather than ideological shittery.
>>532800632Another point. Capitalism tells us a story about how innovation comes from isolated individuals, almost as if they exist in a vacuum, while ignoring or downplaying their dependence on the accumulated labor of society. Workers / society built the roads he used, the education he received, the machines and tools he used etc.Even in the most self made case imaginable, there is still a societal contribution built into all the things inherent to civilization. It has been so since the caveman.
>>532797054the value is in the intellectual property of the item, which the inventor owns. the factory line worker who assembles the item didnt create anything, they just assembled something. the worker is paid for labour, they do not get a slice of the intellectual property value, thats not how capitalism works, and that wouldnt be fair. so innovation is incentivised, inventors get money, that keeps the system moving.
>>532801915So you're just describing how capitalism legally assigns ownership, not proving it's fair. Saying the inventor owns the intellectual property therefor he gets the value just begs the question, because the whole issue is whether one person should have an indefinite claim over what only comes real through the labor of many other people.The worker doesn't just "not create anything," he is part of the actual social process that turns an idea on paper into an actual commodity. If the idea never gets produced, assembled, transported, maintained, and distributed, then the intellectual property is worth nothing. I'm not sure that saying "That's just how capitalism works" proves anything, it just restates the system being argued against.
>>532801786if you invent something with technical effect, you have created value. if inventors werent compensated proportionately, there would be no drive to innovate. its a merit based system. thats why communism doesnt work. trying to make everyone equal drags down the talented few, capitalism rewards talent and innovation.
>>532800479Why doesn’t the banker just steal all the money from the amazon driver when they try to deposit it? They are the ones doing all the hard work.
>>532802268you simply dont undrstand what intellectual property is. if you invent something, the vale is in the invention itself, the schematics, and the technical effect it imparts. so an invention meets a known demand, solves a real problem, which is infinitely more valuable than the labour of a factory worker.
>record profits and CEO bonuses = the workers were not paid their fair wagesimple as
>>532802800but intellectual property is often transferred from public to private sector. For example research and development done at universities. This process, often referred to as knowledge and technology transfer (K&TT), is achieved through mechanisms such as licensing, assignment, and collaborative research agreements.
>>532802763Why doesn't the bank security guard just rob the bank? He's the one risking his life guarding the vault.
>>532802998Why doesn’t the security guards mother just take all the money he steals? She created the life he is risking.
>>532802946what public intellectual property? what are you talking about?
>>532802861if yor job role can be filled by a bangladeshi child slave, then your role isnt valuable
>>532803276Why didn't the midwife just steal her baby? The midwife did all the work.
>>532802800You're still asserting that the invention is more valuable. The whole dispute is how that value is being assigned and why that should justify ongoing ownership rights.It's true, the invention, schematics and technical effect can be extremely important. Nobody denied that. Now I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I'll restate the main point:An invention sitting on paper does not become something that can produce socially real commodities. It has to go through being developed, produced, assembled, maintained, transported and distributed through the labor of others. Pointing at a blueprint can't just make the rest of the process irrelevant.And saying it is "infinitely more valuable" than the labor of the worker is rhetoric unless you explain why that gives one person or a group the rights to continue profiting off others till they're 6ft under.>>532802800You must prove that capitalism's particular way of rewarding that contribution is the correct one, don't just assume it.You say inventors need to be compensated proportionately or else there would be no innovation, but that only shows incentives matter, not that private ownership and massive inequality are the only incentives possible. Talent can be rewarded without turning that into a whole system where a talented few gain lasting economic / exploitative power over everyone else involved in making the thing real.And "communism makes everyone equal" is too simplistic. Disagreement comes not from whether ability should be recognized, but whether differences in ability justify and economy where some people end up with permanent control over production while others remain subordinate to it. Everything comes down to the poor being exploited by the rich. It manifests its self in many ways, in cheap food being purposely unhealthy, in poor neighborhoods being used for cheap land that gentrifies and raises rents, etc.
>>532804885>You must prove that capitalism's particular way of rewarding that contribution is the correct one, don't just assume it.If only we could look at the history of capitalist vs socialist countries or better yet track how capitalist or socialist countries are over time and how that affects society, since that filters externalities. Sadly real communism has never been tried and countries that claim to be socialist are all lying (for instance Nazi Germany).
Wow who would have thought profits motivate trade…
imagine inventing a 3d printer but only being paid for each 3d printer you assemble and sell.
>>532806329Imagine drawing furry porn and only being paid for hand delivered commissions because the people who work for deviant art think they own your work now.
>>532806567>the people who work for deviant artLike the site jannies
