Imagine this

I build a business with my own labor and money. People voluntarily sign up for a job where they accept a certain amount of money in exchange for their work (let's say, $50 an hour). The employee's work is priced at $100 to cover expenses such as taxes, maintenance, purchases of raw materials and improving work environment and all of this is stated in the contract they sign. A bunch of fat smug feminist dykes start protesting for higher wages and starts saying that capitalism is oppressive despite me giving them a wage that sustains them and that they agreed to. How can you call us greedy money hoarders when you're literally putting yourself and your salary preferences over all other aforementioned things? How much of a fucking selfish hypocrite do you have to be?

Attached: 1498173963970.jpg (250x210, 6.49K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pVCqOpM4UUw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

8==D~~~XD

this thread never existed, comrade

That's to be expected from an idiot who doesn't know anything about economics.

this thread has been made like a gorrilion times already, you arent original but you are a brainlet

Attached: tf2_laughing_heavy.jpg (292x329, 37.71K)

Right, but you're not willing to debate me.

Can any of you brainlets tell me how what i said was exploitation?

no i am not willing to smell shit

50 bucks an hour and they produce 100 an hour.
50 to pay 50 to expenses.
Where do you make profit? This doesn't seem like a very good business.

youtube.com/watch?v=pVCqOpM4UUw

watch this, it pretty much sums it up

You're too logical and your reasoning is second to none. You are the Masturdebater.

$100 for every crate of product they produce. I use half of that money to spend on maintenance, taxes and work environment, while the other half goes in my pocket.

But you pay the workers 50 bucks an hour?

Never go into business fam, you'll be bankrupt within a month.

You built an entire business on your own? You literally didn't hire a single person to get the ball rolling? When has this ever happened? Where'd the money you started with come from?

Everybody needs a job so how is it voluntary?

I'm with these comrades. Learn some mathamametics

Attached: Surplus.png (480x918 110.22 KB, 60.71K)

...

Attached: Johnny Hodges - Pyramid (American Palace Edit).mp4 (640x360, 6.29M)

Again m8.
Where do you make profit?
If 50 goes to wages and 50 to expenses where is the profit?

You're spooked af kid.

It's not nitpicking to ask you if you hired someone to help you start the business. You used that person to help you get your position. You exploited them. You had access to capital they did not. They depended on you for a wage so they can have a roof over their head and belly full of bread. Where's the choice? They can only chose to be exploited by someone else.

Also, seriously… where's your profit bro?

Since the start of his venture, bob has gained capital. If he didn't get repaid the full amount of his labour plus, he wouldn't have the capital required to hire kate or even buy more materials in order to create another bike and turn a bigger profit.

For reals go to >>>/marx/ they might actually put an effort into answering your brainlet tier question.

He also doesn't realize that in order for someone like Bill Gates to accomplish what he did, he had to use a computer, who was invented by someone else. Why doesn't the person who invented computers get Microsoft?

I'm not OP, and I'm not interested in defending, his flawed pretend mathematics.


>I build this infrastructure, using materials that I either earned (inb4: "bud dey dind't earn id"), or inherited.

Attached: Gon.webm (800x804, 1.9M)

How about you imagine bofa

fuck it create a coop
it always works

You completely misunderstand what exploitation is. Hint: it's non-moral in nature. It's not a matter of who deserves what, but rather the extraction of surplus value through structurally unequal exchange between employer and employed. Capitalism literally couldn't function without it.

To elaborate slightly: by unequal I mean that one side has greater bargaining power than the other.

Sage for double post.

Attached: kapitalism 101 contradictions_exploitations.mp4 (284x160, 6.03M)

If commodities or services sell on a market, and the competition on the market makes it so that every price is pushed down to cost, how does anyone make any profit under capitalism?

ex·ploi·ta·tion
ˌekˌsploiˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun: exploitation; plural noun: exploitations
1. the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
2. the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.

You are using a technically correct, but uncommon usage or "exploitation". In most cases the term is meant to have an undertone of unfairness, and you know it. Moving past that, you aren't really disagreeing with anything that I've said. Yes, one side of the employee/ employer transaction has more bargaining power. My point is that, nothing but circumstance and willpower is keeping anyone from being on the better side of that table, and that acting on those two things, entitles that party their position.

Attached: umm sorry sweety but women ARE funny.mp4 (720x720, 3.15M)

Attached: FULL STIRNER TO THE MAX.jpg (378x348, 102.52K)

If starting and operating a business is so damned easy, I wonder what that says about you.

It says that we live under capitalism, and I don't want to be a capitalist, dum dum

...

...

Yeah, Marx lived 200 years ago, we ain't whining about NRx fags writing poetry how could you possibly be annoyed by us using words that are straight up in the dictionary.
How is that a justification of anything? Nothing but circumsance and willpower was keeping Little Finger from the Throne, doesn't mean Lannisters have the right to rule.

I'm using the marxist definition, which is what is being discussed here, since, you know, we're posting on a marxist board.

Again, you're making a moral point, which I don't really care to argue about, since I fundamentally disagree with liberal morality for the simple reason that it's disadvantageous to me. Put simply I want to abolish capitalism because it's in my interest to do so: I really don't give a damn about whether it's wrong or right. Amusingly enough I'm every bit as self centered as the people that employ (exploit) me. But just for fun, if we were to take your (moral) logic to it's ultimate conclusion, we could argue that if workers were to overthrow their employers and capitalism at large, they would be within their right to do so since you're basically arguing for a kind of might makes right morality. After all, it's only their "circumstance and willpower" that keeping the proletariat from burying the bourgeoisie in a mass grave. ;)

lel

Attached: marxistBusinessConsulting2.png (1000x1500 593.9 KB, 598.39K)

...

The majority of Communist leaders haven't been businessmen, dum dum.

Attached: 28e871282b2000ce85143c1a9b195cef083b29965ca2fdd082015b409aa4d2bf.png (420x420, 11.32K)

Oh boi. Here we go. This better be left up, because this stupid argument rears it's head all over the place. When it's so very easy to debunk.

This is where you're wrong already. Enterprise does not take place in isolation. Yes, I know you believe you single-handedly baked that pie or whatever you were doing. But you haven't. Every day, - every second - we build upon the labor of others. Not just employees and co-workers, but other workers, and even processes that aren't fully under our control.
And then there's loans of family capital paid for by other peoples labor. The "independent" entrepreneur that carves out his business with nothing but his own blood, sweat and tears is a myth.
Another phantasm from the crevice of ideology. "Voluntary" employment. There's nothing "voluntary" when it's literally a life and death situation. Go tell that working class dropout or newly graduated student with towering debt that - without fat trust funds - they can "just decide" not to work. Because they can't. There are bills to pay, debts to pay off, a roof over their head that's not free. And that's ignoring medical conditions and cohabitants which make this predicament even more perilous.
Hell, it's bad enough in the west, but it's even worse in the developing world where the absence of social safety nets means starvation in case you lose your job or the harvest goes south. Tell the people in Yemen, Bangladesh or South Sudan that they have a "choice".
"Taxes" aren't an expense you dunce. It's a share of the profits which takes place after deducting expenses. Is this was "Basic Economics 101" reads like?
Ah yes. The obscene other that tries to take away your stuff! Those foreign infiltrators, parasites that want to upset the established order. Instead of - you know - being the backs upon which this system is build.
It can't be that their material destitution would drive them towards reform. No. It can only ever be the expression of the highest forces of evil (Liberals, socialists, jews, sexual deviants, blacks, foreigners, etc.) conspiring to defile the sanctity of the status quo!
They're not protesting because they're "oppressed", they're rising up because they're destitute and exploited. They're resisting because they're at breaking point of their misery and can take no more. And even then it takes years of neglect, years of ignoring the plight of the poor and working class before they finally rise up as they did in 1917. (Which was after several failed revolutions, brutal crackdowns and a World War that the provisional government neglected to exit even in the face of overwhelming popular dissent.)
Spoken like a clueless parrot regurgitating the sludge of ideology. It was never you "giving them a wage". It was them working and you taking their surplus labor in order to run a profitable enterprise.
Without exploitation profit couldn't exist. Their wage is - under profitable conditions - only ever a portion of the surplus value they provide to the firm. If it wasn't, you'd be better off firing them.
And thus it is only ever the employee, the laborer, that sustain their own livelihood while the capitalist parasite lives off their efforts.
Even if they were fully aware of their exploitation and willingly agreed to it. Even if they demanded it. It would change N O T H I N G about the nature of their exploitation.
Because you are. It's the nature of your class. After all, are you business owner or not?
Self-interest is the only thing that matters. All that spooked talk about "higher values" ultimately amounts to nothing but a distraction from real material interests.
Just as selfish as you are for exploiting others.

Attached: 0acf610c3d2fe624dcc58b00781004b2ae686fbabd2b0c89b7177fd1d1371f5d.jpg (450x450, 69.01K)

Didn't you get BTFO last time you made a thread like this and said "I'm not leaving this thread", only leave the thread.

This better be left up, because this stupid argument rears it's head all over the place.
This tbqh, it's really aggravating when the mods remove a thread where a retarded lolbert or Zig Forumstard gets stomped only for another poster (or even the same fucking poster) to make the same fucking thread again, resulting in the same endless argument playing out all over again. It would be better to merge these kind of threads together so we don't have to waste our time dealing with this shit.

fml

user…

Attached: delete.png (1171x222, 19.39K)

Why are libertarians obsessed with absurd hypothetical scenarios that are completely detached from the real world? Could it be that they never go outside?

Attached: 1528494527534.jpg (1570x1536, 396.38K)

False, selling your labour power is not a voluntary act. Under Capitalism, you have the freedom to choose who you're going to sell your labour power to, but you don't have the freedom to choose not to sell your labour power this is because under Capitalism workers don't own the means to produce their own subsistence(i.e. means of production) and thus the only way for workers to get their means of subsistence is to buy it from the market, but in order to enter the market and buy something you have to sell something else and since the only thing workers can sell is their labour power they're forced to do so in order to obtain their means of subsistence.

In other words, people can choose who their employer but they cannot choose to not be employed.

I'm lazy. Sue me.

You build the whole factory on your own? Shit son that must have taken you several decades.
Can you imagine a world where people are not forced to take a job at below the value they create by threat of starvation and homelessness? Must be a nice fantasyland where I can live without a job.

Attached: 78ecac03d89240834e27a4eceab0ddd796e35567178e5d57ba5edf44a2c57fbd.jpg (365x323, 13.79K)

Except you are conflating managers and owners, and while they often overlap in the case of small businesses, they are not the same thing. If a bourg starts a small business, puts in effort in running it, etc, then they deserve a reward and power relative to their contribution. However they do not deserve to reap benefits or have absolute control without contributing (capital does not count as a genuine contribution, as all capital originates from labour, and labour is the only force that can create capital) which is exactly what most porkies do.

Except that if they are striking then they clearly didnt actually agree to that wage. They accepted it temporarily because they had no other choice, and now that they have organized they have decided they are in a position to negotiate a better wage. Did your Basic Economics textbook not tell you what a strike is?