Cowbee

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Since when is communism against administration and social planning? Since when have Marxists said governments are corporations? This is deeply silly.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (6 children)

I gave an answer over here if you want.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

An instance is like an island. Few instances have connections to every island out there, yours in particular has removed your ability to see anything posted on the communist instances. What you see on "Local" is what's posted on Lemmy.world, what you see on "All" is every island your island is connected to.

The benefit of local searching is that some instances have themes, like Hexbear.net with communism/anarchism, Lemmygrad.ml with Marxism-Leninism, slrpnk.net with the solarpunk movement, or mander.xyz with science. You can scroll locally and see what you're interested in, or you can go to all and see what other instances are saying, and participate in their communities.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

The overwhelming majority of supply chains are productive, there is no value without labor and/or natural resources. Overproduction is an inherent fact of capitalism, and reducing laborers both reduces surplus value extraction and reduces the potential for profit by reducing the number of customers. Capitalism brutally killing off the reserve army of labor is a way to keep workers desparate and willing to work for as little as possible, it isn't a way to curb overproduction.

You really don't know what you're talking about or trying to critique.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 days ago

No ads, and generally more left-leaning.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Communism is the logical progression of society. It isn't a certainty, but the alternative in the long-run is disaster and barbarism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

In what manner? You've done absolutely nothing to justify the existence of landlords, or private property in general, except hinting at the idea that you yourself may be a business owner or landlord and thus benefit from the system. Why should the majority of society slave away for a system that inherently exploits them, when there are better and more equitable alternatives like socialism?

You haven't read the article nor have you made an attempt to understand what I'm saying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Removal of risk facilitates the creation of value, but isn't value itself. If, for example, it takes 100 dollars of constant capital and 20 dollars of variable to produce 100 widgets, with 10 dollars worth of raw materials being expected waste, reducing that to 0 results in 90 constant and 20 variable, which isn't creation of value itself but an improvement in the productivity of capital.

Profit through capitalist production, ie exploitation of labor, is stolen value. You can work to improve your material conditions in systems that aren't driven by profit, selling your labor-power is how the vast majority of people pay for their subsistence, but this isn't "profit," but wages.

Again, read the article.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

Nothing needs to have the same use-value across all of society. What's important is that use-values are produced, and sold for their exchange-value on average. There's no reason to retain the profit motive or capitalism in general as a system. You should read the article I linked. Risk creates no value.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Risk has no bearing on value. Technological progression lowers the necessary working time to replace the means of subsistence for workers, which wages are regulated towards, meaning a greater ratio of the working day can be used on surplus value extraction. Ie, if machine A can create 100 widgets per hour per worker, and a worker needs 300 widgets per day worth of value to survive, then the working day of 8 hours has 5 hours surplus labor. If machine B ups that to 300 widgets per hour, then that becomes 1 hour of necessary labor and 7 surplus, increasing profit. Risk has no bearing, nor utility.

All of this can be handled publicly, without a need for profit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (10 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (12 children)

You're again confusing use-value with value proper. Loans have utility, but no value. Usury is a drain on resources. "Risk" has absolutely nothing to do with value except for the fact that values are normalized around their social averages. Entertainment is entirely different from loans, and further is just like any other commodity, the value of which is regulated around the socially necessary labor time and raw materials that goes into its creation and not some abstract utility.

Here's a good basic summary of what I'm talking about.

view more: ‹ prev next ›