EVERY BILLIONAIRE IS A POLICY MISTAKE
Other urls found in this thread:
challengergray.com
challengergray.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
thecommunists.org
twitter.com
so true
Death to the bourgeoisie
What if my networth was about to reach a billion dollars and then I spread the wealth through my family members?
Would you go after millionaires next?
Ok boomer, whatever you say boomer
of course. you have so much money at that point you don't know what to do with it. Might as well make it work for your family and secure positions of power because you've already reached max level in life.
Everyone who makes their money through the extraction of the surplus value of the working class doesn't deserve it.
Why wouldn't you go Natsoc then? So what if you are a nigger or a mutt? Your gonna kill your babies anyway. NatSoc was fine with non whites, they just couldn't have anchor babies. Which is right up your wheelhouse.
we need to have annual net worth tax on the billionaires
we'll all be billionaires soon enough
>BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
What a vaguery.
Not really a vaguery, it's just that most people in the West aren't familiar with class analysis.
why don't workers just do their regular job, but independently so they get to keep all that surplus value?
and every policy is a billionaire's mistake
>I have seed potatoes.
>I plant and care for potatoes
>I weed and care for potatoes
>I grow potatoes to eat and survive
>Harvest time of potatoes
>Not your potatoes comrade. States potatoes.
mfw
every Jew is a policy mistake.
Like worker cooperatives? Yeah, I'm in favor of those but even then: capitalism perpetuates the capitalist class, even then it would still be in the interest of the profit motive to reintroduce the employee-employer relationship over time as it's still a market economy, and reintroduce the trend of capital accumulation into fewer and fewer hands. Also, the means of production are owned by the capitalist class and it's not like they're willing to just turn their businesses into worker cooperatives and give away their power.
This reflects the times of the early USSR, wherein the kulak class (a semi-peasant semi-bourgeois class that employed lower peasants) would hoard grain and kill their livestock to resist collectivization efforts, as well as burning down and sabotaging communal farms. You're entitled to your labor, but if you're not a subsistence farmer, which there aren't many of those around anymore except in impoverished countries (besides, kulaks were definitely not subsistence farmers), you're always going to generate a surplus beyond what you need, and this can be sold to stores and distributed to the masses.
They will just find a way around it so what's the point? Does it make you feel good to think about that dream world? How about tax stock markets instead?
You never answered me. You trannies always think you are right. Right up until you are confronted with facts. Then you leave and try again.
What about my potatoes?!
In case you have not seen this movie I suggest you spend the next 2:12 hours and watch it.
youtube.com
>Like worker cooperatives?
nope i mean literally tomorrow the worker does the exact same job he does today, just for himself so he gets to keep all his surplus value. why doesn't that happen?
>trannies
thecommunists.org
>muh potatoes
Our potatoes, dude.
That would require the worker to own means of production, which are currently in the hands of the capitalist class. The worker must sell their labor-power to a member of the capitalist class in order to make a living under capitalism.
Also, production is socialized and we don't produce primary for subsistence for ourselves anymore. It wouldn't work. The solution is for the working class to overthrow the capitalist class and have worker ownership of political power along with the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Every billionaire is actually millions of smaller mistakes by consumers and wage workers
>surplus
You hit the nail on the head. Who decides what is surplus and what is subsistence? The state!
>Here is your 100kg of potatoes you grew, the rest is ours.
How can you not see this as theft?
That "surplus" is to be traded for fabric, needles, dairy. Nope! that is for the state. The state needs to give those potatoes to people that didn't grow potatoes. Theft no matter how you disguise it.
If you aren't going to share then why would people tolerate you living in their territory any more than they would tolerate a bear or a lion?
>thecommunists.org
Well there you go. I chose team Hitler.
You wanna fight?
>owning the means of production
but i thought only labour created value? so if i do my present job independently i get to keep the excess value i create instead of it going to an employer.
So people should just let you lay claim to all of the arable potato land and have no choice but to work for you and accept whatever pitiful wage you arbitrarily decide to give them while you live like a king and do nothing but a little paperwork here and there?
Trade, barter. Recompense for my time and labour. If I was not compensated for my product, why would I continue to produce it?
Nope, surplus value is a solid concept based on the labor theory of value. For part of the work day, you work for yourself and your family, enough to keep you working; for the rest of the day, the value that you generate gets stolen by the capitalist class.
And why would a potato farmer want to produce more than they would need to eat if they're not going to sell the potatoes that they're not going to eat? Again, subsistence farmers practically don't exist anymore except in the most backward countries.
Specialization and trade is important in modern economy, we're not hunter-gatherers anymore. Not everyone can make everything, so we have different specialized professions and we have trading systems. Your claim falls apart as soon as it's applied to physical reality and not just from an idealistic "muh morality" standpoint.
this
Yes, only labor creates value. Also, describe what you mean by doing your present job "independently".
the labour i used to perform for an employer i now perform for myself allowing me to net that surplus value
Nigger
I bought and payed for my land after decades of work. I own the land those potatoes are grown on. If I am to lose the land I worked for over 30 years then I would expect to be paid for it. If it was taken from me I would be the victim of a crime. Anything else is theft and murder.
Nobody on earth has a billion dollars. Some people are “worth” a billion, but nobody just has a billion sitting in bank accounts doing nothing. It’s all invested elsewhere hopefully gaining returns, but you never know what could happen. Global pandemic could drive your billion dollar fortune to a measly $600m in a few weeks.
You didn't answer any of my questions. You just quoted your dogma like a mantra.
Except most lines of work you can't work in this independent fashion under capitalism, as it's the capitalist class that has a monopoly over the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Most workers have to sell their labor-power to the capitalist class to make a living.
If you made a new invention tomorrow, lets call it the Glockenspiel-McGuffin 3000, it changes everyone's lives and you get so filthy rich that you have more worth than most countries GDP.
How eager would you be for the Gov't to rip that away to hand out to drug addicts, welfare sponges and single mothers of 7 children with different fathers?
Helping those in need is great, giving money to the unwashed masses is foul. Better to spend the money putting a bullet in their head than letting them leech off your blood like ticks on your body.
Not having the option to choose whether or not to use your money to help others denotes free will and effectively enslaves billionares to the worthless many.
>How can you not see this as theft?
Because I'm not an idealist, I'm a materialist. I put material reality and wellbeing over ideals, and if a farmer is hoarding their excess then intervention is needed. Though most farmers won't do this because they need to sell of their excess in order to make a living.
They are a policy success if you think about it. Most billionaires exist due to governments picking winners in markets.
So you are a thief and a murderer and a lair.
As long as the masses aren't starving due to crop hoarding, cattle killing, and sabotage (i.e. what the kulaks did) I don't care what I'm called or if in some idealist philosophy I'm considered a "thief".
so saying only labour produces value isn't really correct then is it? since without capital at risk there's no where enact labour to create value
Taking what you don't own is called theft.
>farmer hoarding excess
>work hard all day and all night farming while other farmers work moderately
>take no days off, 7 days a week straight, bust my balls to grow and create as much material wealth as I can to be better off.
>other farmers weren't as educated as I was on agriculture, I picked a more fertile area and also researched what makes each crop grow better and implement these methods. This wisdom is passed down by my family and I onto my sons
>make more than any other farmer because I put more work into it as well as environmental factors that I planned on
>have greater harvest than other farmers
>Gov't comes and takes all of my produce to disperse to the people as I am told they need it more than I do.
>starve and die
>country starves and dies because I starved and died
Where have I heard this story before?
Labor is the only producer of value. Enacting labor to create value without the capitalist class is possible under socialism, wherein the working class owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange. It's less possible under capitalism because most of the means of production, distribution, and exchange are monopolized by the capitalist class.
So no, it's not necessary. Here's an in-depth proof of concept on the labor theory of value (4 min):
Do fuck off. If you want to steal from a productive person, just do it the old fashioned way. (And NEVER forget that you are a fucking thieving POS.)
These bolsheviks are "literally" retarded. There is only one solution.
This is tactical autism. Nobody here is criticizing smallholding farmers, we're talking about extremely wealthy archons who own significant percentages of the entire country and have made their fortunes by monopolizing social institutions. You don't have some moral right to tape your name over more land than you could ever possibly use yourself, society as a whole merely allows you to because pretending that you own all of that is a useful fiction and makes production of widgets more efficient. But if you're doing more harm than good, that fiction isn't so useful anymore. Shekel-grubbing kikes who make real fortunes moving imaginary money around and gambling on the success or failure of actually productive people can't be defended, and you know this, which is why you're whining about smallholding farmers instead of the actual problem being discussed in this thread.
is your idea to sell me on millionaire, bernie sanders (lol), by using his rhetoric to point at one of his co-tribals?
id rather just get rid of all jews since that actually makes sense and will make the entire earth better.
>capitalists take the risk
>the state takes the risk
you still cannot produce value through labour without someone taking the risk (individuals or the state) to create an idea and to risk a loss to set up the means to produce value from that idea. i don't see how it's any different except for one being exponentially more efficient (individuals).
The only reasons for starvation in the USSR were famines that started in the Tsarist period, and kulak sabotage of communal farms by literally burning them down, as well as them hoarding crops and livestock (and killing their livestock).
Also, the kulaks weren't "better farmers" they were a different class entirely, semi-peasant semi-capitalist, they used other peasants to do their work for them and they siphoned up the surplus. It was this non-productive element that hoarded the grain, and collectivization was largely enforced by the peasantry, not the state.
You know what did better farming methods though? Collectivization and industrialization in the USSR. They improved upon farming methods, had more heavy farming machinery, and so forth.
So no, average farmers didn't resist collectivization but instead they actually welcomed it. It was only this kulak class that resisted it, and other farmers (including the ones the kulaks exploited the labor of) enforced collectivization on them.
This risk is only inherent under the capitalist mode of production, as socialism does away with competitive market economy and transitions to planned economy. In the short term though while the transition is being done, worker cooperatives can be formed and the workers themselves can manage the business and absorb the risk.There's no need for the workplace to be a dictatorship, let the workers have the ultimate say in the direction that a business goes in.
I bought and payed for the land over 30 years of working. Your fucking right I have the right to
>tape your name over more land than you could ever possibly use.
It's my fucking land. Bought and payed for. You have a problem with that you take it up with Justin and the Queen.
I own 160 acres, Outright. No mortgage. You want to take that from me you best be ready.
The USSR's agricultural model is nothing to be proud of lad. It created a lot of perverse incentives that led to farms vastly under-performing even in some of the best farmland in the world, and excessive top-down control led to extremely wasteful nonsense like Khrushchev trying to get farmers to plant corn where the soil or climate weren't suitable, or destroying the Aral sea trying to grow cotton in semi-arid central Asia, or trying to make Lysenkoism work.
The Russian Empire was an exporter of grain, while the USSR depended on imports from Canada. Fucking Canada, with less than 1/10th the farmland and an even harsher climate, was the USSR's lifeline for grain. You could maybe excuse this in the period immediately after the Revolution, or WW2, but by the 1980's this is absolutely inexcusable.
You're doing the motte and bailey trick again. Defend the finance kikes this time, not the small farmers. I'm sure you'll manage to spit something out eventually.
Bolshevik! You own me compensation!
>only labour creates value but just in one very specific utopian scenario which always ends up in a planned economy that kills everyone because retarded party members decide to produce 500 million pairs of boots instead of food
kek
no they didnt welcome it
It wasn't perfect but it was better than literal famine every few years, which is what it was under the Tsar, and by 1980 it was better than the US diet.
No, labor creates value in all scenarios.
How does shilling for lower taxes for your kike paymasters work out for you, friend?
>labor creates value in all scenarios.
lmao imagine actually believing this
not surprising you're a commie lad