What are the best copy pastas to use in online arguments...

Hmmmmmmmmm

...

Yeah I'm sure the employer will be a-okay if you want to go mine on his property without giving him his cut.

Yeah, which he deserves for allowing these proles to have a job in the first place (hint: and sustain the level of productive forces so you won't be reduced to an an-prim hunter-gatherer).

He didn't do shit though. He paid one guy to be a manager in the region, who paid another guy to manage the specific mine, who paid other guys to be supervisors on each shift, etc. Literally the mine owner does nothing to contribute to the guy using his pick, he just sits at the top of the tower of delegation. The mine could run just as well without any of the upper managers (ie. who don't work on site).

Spoken like someone who has never actually seen upper management. The employer coordinates all the managers directly below themselves, seeking to understand their needs and results in context to their environment, on top of leading the activities of their company with respect to these qualities towards short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals. The employer negotiates and manages deals with other businesses, which rests upon their intense knowledge of finance, and with this also serves as the single public face of the company – you're not going to have some random worker who doesn't know what's happening in the grand scheme of things, since they're busy doing other things, show up for a meeting or press conference. Proles are proles and remain so by merit of, well, their merit. They surely struggle at their job but that doesn't mean they applied the mental abilities necessary to get (read: deserve) better and loftier positions for themselves. Frankly they should be thankful they're not living in slave times or feudalism, where they would have no choice to climb up the corporate ladder.

This had better be bait

On equality:
"Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal." (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme)

Attached: 43.jpg (600x400, 42.55K)

More complicated than browsing Zig Forums during work hours and then coming home to talk about how exploited your job makes you :^)

Capitalists acquire money by paying the vast majority of employees a fraction of the value they create, so fuck off with your nonsense about whiny commies, not that you know his hours. All workers have a right, in fact an obligation, to take back their time at work by spending it as they please.

You have no idea what marxists mean by exploitation.

Marxists call it exploitation, the sane world calls it fair pay.
The CEO of Yahoo works 130-hour work weeks, meticulously planning and seeking to develop the enterprise while her employees are binge-watching Netflix series. They all get what they deserve in physical wages – if someone wants to escape exploitation they will come and get it.

hahahahaha you should do stand up but we both know your knees will be ruined working in the penal collective

Tell me how I know you've never worked ever in your life

Attached: b27a148353f9ae5dd7362b93f712f73c9599b8fabcfecb3cc2a559f8bc63fb63.jpg (540x720, 80.02K)

Don't argue, people eventually figure things out for themselves.

source?
If someone works 130 hours they deserve 130 hours of labour time in pay, if someone works 40, they deserve all 40 they've worked for. So the ceo of yahoo could work 200 hours for all I care, and she'd (still a woman ceo?) still be dragging in way more than her fare share. That ==SURPLUS VALUE== comes directly from the hours worked by the employees who never see it. Be gone with you.

Not all labor is the same, and even then not everybody works at the same rate. Say we have a shortage of doctors but tons of high-school dropouts – you really think we should pay doctors the same as burger-flippers? This "labor-hours" idea is beyond idealistic, or utopian, or whatever – you will not get paid as much as someone who applies themselves and their natural abilities just because you want to. That CEO (yes, a woman) makes a contribution that few can replace – whereas if some lowly customer support worker falls sick they can very easily be swapped out, because the skill set required for that position is very common, hence valued less.

ok but this is all ideology bud. i know this is satire but cmon. people dont get paid on merit and its deceptive to claim that applying yourself will get you more money
you get paid a set wage for hours worked regardless of your production

Read Marx
Are we talking about owners or managers who run a company now? Owner can't be replaced because they own the private property rights of the company.
So this is bait, good to know

You can't just work hard you gotta work smart. Using one's talents doesn't guarantee favorable outcomes but it certainly tends to, and if you apply them continuously you are almost sure to get good results. The merit that people earn also tends to carry them to the more desirable, more valuable jobs that earn them more. An entrepreneur physically decides how much they get paid, since their success is determinate on their ability. And here's the thing: if your firm requires talent, and you have been (as you should have) building up a case for yourself, you can go on ahead and apply for the position and thus elevate yourself up the corporate ladder. It's in the financial interest of your firm to hire those most apt for the position, it's as simple as that, though not all that common since obviously most people are rather menial workers who don't apply themselves in this manner – and of course don't reap the benefits they never sowed. The hourly work of a person who bothers to advance like this is worth much more than that of a person who merely toils all day with hardly a second thought which isn't discontent or jealousy as it relates to their workplace – though funny thing, they won't apply these emotions towards productive means, like developing their skills and their relations in the firm. The labor theory of value was discarded long ago for good reason by most economists.

You're pretty funny.

How did y'all not realise my man was doing a bit pretending to be the sort of bootlicking retard you'll find in youtube comments, i.e the sort of opponent OP was asking for copypasta responses to?

I think we all realized it but it's still tempting to argue for arguing's sake.

This is actually a nonsensical argument if you're in the know about how economists disagree on even the most fundamental aspects of economics, which is why when someone says "go read economics 101" in any economics discussion, you can be certain that they're fucking brainlets. No wonder then that I hear this the most from an-caps and lolberts

There is no secret Jewish-masonic cabal of evil lizardmen that seek to subdue the world with their cultural Marxist gayhomo liberal-globalist conspiracy. The truth us is more banal than that. The truth is always more banal .We are living in a system where powerful capitalist oligarchies are only following their own internal logic in acting in their own economical self-interest. Nothing more and nothing less. There are no satanic cults or evil cartoon villains. Liberal feminism? Just a way to expand the work force for employers. Mass immigration? Just a corporate instrument to depress wages and weaken the cohesion of the local work force. Gay symbols in advertisement and identity politics? Dude, it's just marketing. Companies only care about selling products to you, and not stupid political issues like those when Hitler was in power they put Swastikas on shit to sell it. Politics within the framework of republican democracy is just a puppet theater to keep proles like you occupied and caught up with irrelevant non-issues and identity politics instead of realizing your own economical and class interests. Conservatives and liberals are just the right and left hand of the same capitalist oligarchy that is ruling over you. You have to recognize that as someone who has to sell his labor power your class interests are diametrically opposed to those of the financial aristocracy that are ruling over you as long as this system still exists. Hysterical conspiracy theories are comforting lies and excuses for people who are either unable or unwilling to recognize this basic reality of the political and economical system you and I were born in, more often than not disseminated and groomed by the very own financial elite that is ruling over us with the purpose to disperse and instrumentalize your rage and your revolutionary potential that would otherwise and threaten to overthrow them.

so how did we do?

I feel like small shit like this shows that there is some conversion potential in reactionaries

Attached: D89wYiQXUAEjzPD.jpg (1080x1562, 152.5K)

Say what? I thought at least Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics was a pretty indisputable piece – can you elaborate?

I really hope your being ironic here

youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

TL;DR his mumbling?

He's a professor and the most prominent Marxist economist in our current day, and also the founder of CyberCommunist theory. You're gonna have to come up with something better than a complaint about him not speaking loudly enough to argue against his defence of the LTV.
You dumb shit, the audacity to argue over LTV but to refuse to watch a simple video. Fucking brainlet.

Attached: (You).jpg (800x450, 40.52K)

We really really should be taking advantage of "wagie". There's some real anger to be had there.

this tbh

also, we need more spurdo content

Attached: 0522d975065162661fa46af63bd86c0337ce93c8d067bed742197cd083f82e01.jpg (1242x1119 31.06 KB, 621.71K)

forgot about this very powerful image

Attached: 81815713021f3670e4dc6aab09e3283f0732beffc68e91e3699b3e63cd6c7af7.jpg (1085x775, 509.55K)

instagram.com/rkoi/?hl=en

Very sad

Attached: 1490306820467.jpg (745x559, 81.6K)

Very sad.

Attached: 73bc3f1995d3bbb2ad7d7690a35767100d8dde38f8b72de63d1dbfa57e2a3622.jpg (625x790, 132.86K)

was the decadence in there supposed to make me want to kill myself

Bootstrap yourself

Just spoonfeed me already you idiot.

Attached: 1509704113678.jpg (700x523, 58.12K)

TL;DR when you graph and map out the inputs and outputs of multiple different industries in capitalism, the output money value correlates heavily with labour input. This is a falsifiable method which verifies the LTV as being true. There is a lot more to it, so please watch the whole video and his answers to questions regarding it which is in another video. If you just want the data, start at 7:48.

Almost every day, capitalism outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's indubitably breathtaking to watch it. I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are capitalism's careless squibs which irritate an incredible number of people. One does not have to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror in order to refute capitalism's arguments line by line and claim by claim. It is a libidinous person who believes otherwise. I myself am truly not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that one of capitalism's toadies keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that capitalism has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that if we take capitalism's refrains to their logical conclusion, we see that in the coming days, capitalism will promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. I believe in "live and let live". capitalism, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of its credos but endorsement of them. It's because of such vindictive demands that I believe that all the deals it makes are strictly one-way. capitalism gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.

Sure, even unstable, flagitious braggadocios may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. I firmly believe that if the word "antiprestidigitation" occurs to the reader, he or she may recall that capitalism once tried to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. I doubt we could beat this into capitalism's head, but I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind capitalism that many people think of its ornery plans for the future as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which rancorous nutters will foment deluded forms of political tyranny sooner or later. A second all-too-serious item is that capitalism's propositions are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that expansionism is the only alternative to incendiarism. And they promote the mistaken idea that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. By the same token, every time capitalism gets caught trying to stigmatize any and all attempts to carve solutions that are neither unenlightened nor hypocritical, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its legatees always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they aver, it is entitled to elevate its schemes to prominence as epistemological principles. "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that capitalism's popularity is overrated?" Why, yes, it is.