Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Markymark11]

Socialism is when a democrat failed at economics.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Just looked up the actual definition.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
   communism, Marxism, labor movement
   "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
     communism, Marxism, labor movement
     "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So -any- tax funded program is socialist? Not unless it actually takes control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and puts them in the hands of the "community as a whole" (government). Or if it's based on the theory that all means of production should be under such control.

Seems that YOU can't seem to accurately define socialism, either.

This all reminds me of the bible. Something about a speck in my neighbor's eye and a plank in mine.

This isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s put it all into context. This is from your own post:

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Lol are you stupid enough to think “community as a whole” is the government itself? No obviously it’s referring to citizens. “The means of production” means programs funded by tax payer revenue coming from the citizens.

If something isn't privately owned, it's collectively owned. If something is collectively owned, the government arbitrates it, making it government owned.

This isn't complicated. If the government is arbitrating it and there is no private owner, it means the government owns it.

The government itself is not funding and utilizing it therefore it belongs to the citizens.

The government not utilizing it is an assumption, since the government would also be stealing money from them, and can tell them what to do, since they're the arbitrators, and the business has no private owner.

 

[bripat9643]

let's muster the militia for a Pax Social

since we know, a Pax Capital, will never happen.

We are trying to make pricing way too difficult. The idea of pricing a painting, the Mona Lisa, for instance, has little to do with pricing a manufactured desk. So, think for a minute.
A painting ia a one off thing, and the price you will start off with will likely be what you would think the value (price) would be for like paintings. And, you are not going to offer the item at a fixed price, because it is difficult to find the upper range the painting would sell for. So, you sell it via auction, and let buyers set the selling price. Labor costs has nothing to do with it, except to suggest there is probably a minimum price under which you would not sell the painting. So, maybe you start the bidding at $1M and let buyers bid the price up until time runs out. Then, the highest bid IS the price.

But if you are building some item and making ongoing copies, you need a fixed price. So, you establish the price based on what similar items sell for. You set the price, offer the items for sale, and see what happens. You may well need to adjust prices up or down depending on how many are sold. Basic considerations include costs of manufacture in materials and labor costs. You obviously have to meet some minimum price, or you have no market price that you can live with. So, over time, you adjust materials, labor, and profit expectation to reach a market price at which you sell your product. And, over time, you can determine if the market price to continue, or if you need to take the product off market.

But this is the same whether you are a socialistic economy, or a capitalistic market, or some combination. It is done all the time, is not a difficult issue at all. And, as said, whether the economy is socialistic or capitalistic, the decision making on pricing and productions are pretty much the same. Price is determined by buyers and sellers. Period.

That's utter bullshit.

Socialists economies don't have true prices. The Soviet Union set its prices by looking at what the item went for in the capitalist economies. Otherwise the bureaucrats wouldn't have a clue what price to set for an item. If a government owned coal mine supplies coal to a government owned power plant, how much does it charge? The amount is purely arbitray without a market in which the product is exchanged. That's why socialism fails: it has no genuine prices.

 

[bripat9643]

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Just looked up the actual definition.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
   communism, Marxism, labor movement
   "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
     communism, Marxism, labor movement
     "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So -any- tax funded program is socialist? Not unless it actually takes control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and puts them in the hands of the "community as a whole" (government). Or if it's based on the theory that all means of production should be under such control.

Seems that YOU can't seem to accurately define socialism, either.

This all reminds me of the bible. Something about a speck in my neighbor's eye and a plank in mine.

This isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s put it all into context. This is from your own post:

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Lol are you stupid enough to think “community as a whole” is the government itself? No obviously it’s referring to citizens. “The means of production” means programs funded by tax payer revenue coming from the citizens.

If something isn't privately owned, it's collectively owned. If something is collectively owned, the government arbitrates it, making it government owned.

This isn't complicated. If the government is arbitrating it and there is no private owner, it means the government owns it.

The government itself is not funding and utilizing it therefore it belongs to the citizens.

What does "belongs to the citizens" mean? Property is either government owned or privately owned. There are no other alterative owners.

 

[Tehon]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

 

[bripat9643]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

 

[dblack]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

Don't be such a spoil-sport!

I'll play, Tehon.

How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?

 

[Tehon]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

Don't be such a spoil-sport!

I'll play, Tehon.

How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?

By exchanging the table with another commodity in proportion to the common denominator, labor time.

We've taken nature and invested 5 hours of labor time to create a use value, a table.

What can we exchange it for?

Someone has used their labor to pick and roast coffee beans. They produced 10 lbs in an hour.

We can exchange our table for 50 lbs of coffee.

The value of the table is represented by the 50 lbs of coffee.

 

[danielpalos]

let's muster the militia for a Pax Social

since we know, a Pax Capital, will never happen.

We are trying to make pricing way too difficult. The idea of pricing a painting, the Mona Lisa, for instance, has little to do with pricing a manufactured desk. So, think for a minute.
A painting ia a one off thing, and the price you will start off with will likely be what you would think the value (price) would be for like paintings. And, you are not going to offer the item at a fixed price, because it is difficult to find the upper range the painting would sell for. So, you sell it via auction, and let buyers set the selling price. Labor costs has nothing to do with it, except to suggest there is probably a minimum price under which you would not sell the painting. So, maybe you start the bidding at $1M and let buyers bid the price up until time runs out. Then, the highest bid IS the price.

But if you are building some item and making ongoing copies, you need a fixed price. So, you establish the price based on what similar items sell for. You set the price, offer the items for sale, and see what happens. You may well need to adjust prices up or down depending on how many are sold. Basic considerations include costs of manufacture in materials and labor costs. You obviously have to meet some minimum price, or you have no market price that you can live with. So, over time, you adjust materials, labor, and profit expectation to reach a market price at which you sell your product. And, over time, you can determine if the market price to continue, or if you need to take the product off market.

But this is the same whether you are a socialistic economy, or a capitalistic market, or some combination. It is done all the time, is not a difficult issue at all. And, as said, whether the economy is socialistic or capitalistic, the decision making on pricing and productions are pretty much the same. Price is determined by buyers and sellers. Period.

what does capitalism bring to the table regarding the security of a free State?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Just looked up the actual definition.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
   radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
   communism, Marxism, labor movement
   "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
     synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
     radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
     communism, Marxism, labor movement
     "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
   • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So -any- tax funded program is socialist? Not unless it actually takes control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange and puts them in the hands of the "community as a whole" (government). Or if it's based on the theory that all means of production should be under such control.

Seems that YOU can't seem to accurately define socialism, either.

This all reminds me of the bible. Something about a speck in my neighbor's eye and a plank in mine.

This isn’t hard to figure out. Let’s put it all into context. This is from your own post:

“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Lol are you stupid enough to think “community as a whole” is the government itself? No obviously it’s referring to citizens. “The means of production” means programs funded by tax payer revenue coming from the citizens.

Am I dumb, or are you just not bothering to think about what you're saying?

Anything publicly owned is technically owned by the citizenry. That means that you're an owner of your local public park. Yet, if you wish to set aside a portion of that public park on a certain day for a certain activity or event, you don't get to just do it. You have to ask someone for a permit. And who is it that you ask for permission to use something that is "publicly owned"? That's right, the government. Making the government, effectively, the true owner, as in the entity that actually gets to decide who uses public property and for what that property is used.

And "means of production" absolutely does NOT mean programs funded by tax payer revenue. That might be the most ignorant thing posed in this entire thread. "The means of production", from the perspective of socialist political philosophy, refers to facilities and resources used to create goods. (That's from a google search, which will literally give you a dictionary style definition if you punch it into the search bar. Holy shit, don't go around calling people dumb and insulting their intellect when you're going to make claims that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds worth of google searching. For your own sake. It's a -bad- fuckin look.) That means tools, machines, infrastructure and raw materials.

Good lord man. How are you gonna make an entire thread about how some group of people are ignorant to a topic that you, yourself, obviously have not researched at ALL?

 

[bripat9643]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

Don't be such a spoil-sport!

I'll play, Tehon.

How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?

By exchanging the table with another commodity in proportion to the common denominator, labor time.

We've taken nature and invested 5 hours of labor time to create a use value, a table.

What can we exchange it for?

Someone has used their labor to pick and roast coffee beans. They produced 10 lbs in an hour.

We can exchange our table for 50 lbs of coffee.

The value of the table is represented by the 50 lbs of coffee.

We've already established that the labor invested in a product has no necessary relation to its market price. You arent fooling us by casting the market price in terms of another product rather than money. The exchange is stil performed on the market, and seldom are the terms equivalent to the ratio between the labor invested in each product.

Let"s say the carpenter isn't willing to accept 50 lbs of coffee for his table. Let's say he demands 150 lbs of coffee. What happens to your labor theory of value then?

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

Don't be such a spoil-sport!

I'll play, Tehon.

How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?

By exchanging the table with another commodity in proportion to the common denominator, labor time.

We've taken nature and invested 5 hours of labor time to create a use value, a table.

What can we exchange it for?

Someone has used their labor to pick and roast coffee beans. They produced 10 lbs in an hour.

We can exchange our table for 50 lbs of coffee.

The value of the table is represented by the 50 lbs of coffee.

Holy shit, why would you use that as your template for value? Do we factor in the skill required to perform the two different tasks? Do we factor in the raw physical difficulty involved? Do we factor in the difficulty of acquiring the raw materials to produce the products in question? Do we factor in the time and effort expended by someone who has earned access to the actual land from which those raw materials are acquired?

There are so many more difficult AND more impactful steps in producing coffee beans than just planting and picking.

But, ever has my problem with various iterations of Marxism been the absolutely stupid levels of over simplification. It always seemed to me to be less of a philosophy and more of a collection of rosy promises used to swindle sympathetic simpletons and envious, self-loathing middle class kids into burning down their own nations.

 

[dblack]

On the one hand tehon claims that the "intrinsic value" is simply the labor cost of a product, but on the other hand he claims labor is being ripped off if itsn't paid all the revenue sale of the product generates. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

Don't be such a spoil-sport!

I'll play, Tehon.

How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?

By exchanging the table with another commodity in proportion to the common denominator, labor time.

We've taken nature and invested 5 hours of labor time to create a use value, a table.

What can we exchange it for?

Someone has used their labor to pick and roast coffee beans. They produced 10 lbs in an hour.

We can exchange our table for 50 lbs of coffee.

The value of the table is represented by the 50 lbs of coffee.

Right, you want to replace freely resolved market pricing with something different. I get that. But that's not what we're taking about.

You asked me a question that made no sense to me. I asked you to clarify. Can you? How can we look at the wage paid to an employee and say that it's less or more than the hours they worked?

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It's an equivocation used to make the claim that capitalists "extract excess value" from labor.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's government tyranny.

We have been pretty damn clear about this.

It's a completely failed ideal.

also, very clear about it.

only morons would want it.

can't get more clear than that.

Socialism is a word that applies to any known form of government around the world including the US.

we are a capitalist society, that's the opposite of socialism.

the crap you think is socialism is monetary slavery.

It's government tyranny.

We have been pretty damn clear about this.

It's a completely failed ideal.

also, very clear about it.

only morons would want it.

can't get more clear than that.

Socialism is a word that applies to any known form of government around the world including the US.

we are a capitalist society, that's the opposite of socialism.

the crap you think is socialism is monetary slavery.

Me and everyone else outside your ridiculous GOP propaganda bubble, Dupe. Go to France or Australia or any other socialist country. They have higher pay than we do stronger middle classes we're going to hell you idiot. Long vacations free health care pay parental leave and cheap daycare and College, higher median income better upward Mobility and less inequality. Your ignorance of every important thing is a disgrace. But you know everything about imaginary Corruption of Hillary and the foundation and Obama. With no evidence total b*******.

Ussr
China
Greece
Detroit
Spain
Italy
Ven.
North Korea
most of S and C America
most of Africa

yea, leftist utopias


And you need to look up the word 'free', you have no grasp of what it means

Only two of those I would call Modern socialist countries , Spain and Italy. Or successful. Like I said Scandinavia EU original.. Canada Australia New Zealand Japan. We are the richest country in the world for crying out loud.

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism is a word that applies to any known form of government around the world including the US.

we are a capitalist society, that's the opposite of socialism.

the crap you think is socialism is monetary slavery.

Socialism is a word that applies to any known form of government around the world including the US.

we are a capitalist society, that's the opposite of socialism.

the crap you think is socialism is monetary slavery.

Me and everyone else outside your ridiculous GOP propaganda bubble, Dupe. Go to France or Australia or any other socialist country. They have higher pay than we do stronger middle classes we're going to hell you idiot. Long vacations free health care pay parental leave and cheap daycare and College, higher median income better upward Mobility and less inequality. Your ignorance of every important thing is a disgrace. But you know everything about imaginary Corruption of Hillary and the foundation and Obama. With no evidence total b*******.

Ussr
China
Greece
Detroit
Spain
Italy
Ven.
North Korea
most of S and C America
most of Africa

yea, leftist utopias


And you need to look up the word 'free', you have no grasp of what it means

Only two of those I would call Modern socialist countries , Spain and Italy. Or successful. Like I said Scandinavia EU original.. Canada Australia New Zealand Japan. We are the richest country in the world for crying out loud.

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Communism has nothing to do with liberals or socialist or anybody in the United States for crying out loud. It failed it barely exist anymore Jesus.

 

[Two Thumbs]

we are a capitalist society, that's the opposite of socialism.

the crap you think is socialism is monetary slavery.

we are a capitalist society, that's the opposite of socialism.

the crap you think is socialism is monetary slavery.

Me and everyone else outside your ridiculous GOP propaganda bubble, Dupe. Go to France or Australia or any other socialist country. They have higher pay than we do stronger middle classes we're going to hell you idiot. Long vacations free health care pay parental leave and cheap daycare and College, higher median income better upward Mobility and less inequality. Your ignorance of every important thing is a disgrace. But you know everything about imaginary Corruption of Hillary and the foundation and Obama. With no evidence total b*******.

Ussr
China
Greece
Detroit
Spain
Italy
Ven.
North Korea
most of S and C America
most of Africa

yea, leftist utopias


And you need to look up the word 'free', you have no grasp of what it means

Only two of those I would call Modern socialist countries , Spain and Italy. Or successful. Like I said Scandinavia EU original.. Canada Australia New Zealand Japan. We are the richest country in the world for crying out loud.

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

 

[Two Thumbs]

Communism has nothing to do with liberals or socialist or anybody in the United States for crying out loud. It failed it barely exist anymore Jesus.

china
North korea
russia
viet nam

and many more government tyrannies.

 

[francoHFW]

Me and everyone else outside your ridiculous GOP propaganda bubble, Dupe. Go to France or Australia or any other socialist country. They have higher pay than we do stronger middle classes we're going to hell you idiot. Long vacations free health care pay parental leave and cheap daycare and College, higher median income better upward Mobility and less inequality. Your ignorance of every important thing is a disgrace. But you know everything about imaginary Corruption of Hillary and the foundation and Obama. With no evidence total b*******.

Ussr
China
Greece
Detroit
Spain
Italy
Ven.
North Korea
most of S and C America
most of Africa

yea, leftist utopias


And you need to look up the word 'free', you have no grasp of what it means

Only two of those I would call Modern socialist countries , Spain and Italy. Or successful. Like I said Scandinavia EU original.. Canada Australia New Zealand Japan. We are the richest country in the world for crying out loud.

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

 

[Tehon]

Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"

How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?

It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.

"Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?

Don't be such a spoil-sport!

I'll play, Tehon.

How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?

By exchanging the table with another commodity in proportion to the common denominator, labor time.

We've taken nature and invested 5 hours of labor time to create a use value, a table.

What can we exchange it for?

Someone has used their labor to pick and roast coffee beans. They produced 10 lbs in an hour.

We can exchange our table for 50 lbs of coffee.

The value of the table is represented by the 50 lbs of coffee.

Right, you want to replace freely resolved market pricing with something different. I get that. But that's not what we're taking about.

You asked me a question that made no sense to me. I asked you to clarify. Can you? How can we look at the wage paid to an employee and say that it's less or more than the hours they worked?

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It's an equivocation used to make the claim that capitalists "extract excess value" from labor.

But that's not what we're taking about.

It's what I am talking about.

If we have two items that were once found in nature and have been improved upon by human labor, the only objective measure in which the two stand in relation is labor time.

Is my question starting to make sense to you now?