Cowbee

No ads, and generally more left-leaning.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

In what way?

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.

No, when I speak of value, I don't mean some abstract level of personal enjoyment or utility that is unique from person to person. I mean value as represented by raw materials and an average hour of labor in an industry. Trying to abstract away usury as "entertainment" is such a silly justification for a parasitic system that purely exists for individuals to leach off the labor of others.

The overall wealth in society. Usury produces absolutely nothing of value, and purely exists as a legal means to serve as a drain on resources. Landlords are such an egregious example of usury that they have been near universally hated for as long as they've existed, even by liberals.

Sure, renting vs owning is fully accomodated by public and personal ownership. Private usury is a drain on social wealth.

Capitalist countries often have less freedom overall. When your needs are taken care of, and you have more control over how the economy is run, the average person has more freedom. There's nothing about capitalism that improves freedom for the average person, it's all used to justify maintaining imperialism and capitalist exploitation.