Come on, man, at least understand the concept of the reification of labour-power-at-work if you’re going to debate the very concept of what it means to have capital.
The value of arbeitskraft is only extracted when the means of production are privately owned. Assets and liabilities have to cost less than the output for value to be generated, I’m saying that value should have an (extremely generous) upper bound as a compensation for the initial outlay of creating a private capital asset, after which additional value is returned either to the creators of the labour in the labour-power or the labour-power-at-work is deemed valuable to society and the value is returned in general there.
I don’t know all the details of Marxism, basically because I think it’s a flawed view and don’t see the value in dedicating a lot of time to understanding the whole thing.
The problem is that, again, you are suggesting that company owners be forced to give up their ownership, in this case it seems like you are saying they should be forced to give it away to employees? That’s where all the value we are talking about is, it’s the value of stock, or ownership, that’s worth billions.
Why should owners of anything be forced to give up that ownership? If they sell or give any ownership that should be their choice, not forced. This goes for anything from your car to your house to your company, ownership is ownership.
pro-capitalism, pro-socialism, pro-communism, pro-anarchism are all post-Marxist.
Just like things like “subconscious” or “trauma” or “unconscious thought” are post-Freudian.
You can be the most ardent unrestricted market Libertarian, you’re still using Marxist terminology. We’re not debating whether money exists, we’re debating about how to use it.
For e.g., it’s talking about whether you like strawberry or chocolate ice cream, not that milk doesn’t exist.
So your argument is “Fuck them because they have more than me”. Is that about right? We can steal from them because they have more to steal?
They stole it from “me” first.
How did they do that exactly?
Come on, man, at least understand the concept of the reification of labour-power-at-work if you’re going to debate the very concept of what it means to have capital.
The value of arbeitskraft is only extracted when the means of production are privately owned. Assets and liabilities have to cost less than the output for value to be generated, I’m saying that value should have an (extremely generous) upper bound as a compensation for the initial outlay of creating a private capital asset, after which additional value is returned either to the creators of the labour in the labour-power or the labour-power-at-work is deemed valuable to society and the value is returned in general there.
I don’t know all the details of Marxism, basically because I think it’s a flawed view and don’t see the value in dedicating a lot of time to understanding the whole thing.
The problem is that, again, you are suggesting that company owners be forced to give up their ownership, in this case it seems like you are saying they should be forced to give it away to employees? That’s where all the value we are talking about is, it’s the value of stock, or ownership, that’s worth billions.
Why should owners of anything be forced to give up that ownership? If they sell or give any ownership that should be their choice, not forced. This goes for anything from your car to your house to your company, ownership is ownership.
pro-capitalism, pro-socialism, pro-communism, pro-anarchism are all post-Marxist.
Just like things like “subconscious” or “trauma” or “unconscious thought” are post-Freudian.
You can be the most ardent unrestricted market Libertarian, you’re still using Marxist terminology. We’re not debating whether money exists, we’re debating about how to use it.
For e.g., it’s talking about whether you like strawberry or chocolate ice cream, not that milk doesn’t exist.
deleted by creator