12-31-2016, 08:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2017, 12:08 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Capitalists expropriate surplus value from workers because said capitalists own the means of production (capital), and workers are forced to sell their labor power to said capitalist class in order to survive even though it is workers who produce all objective social value in society (including the capital they then use to create new value) - this is an antagonistic relationship that could NEVER, under any fathomable circumstances, exist without being upheld violently by some sort of state apparatus. So yes, this amounts to capitalists being moochers, free-loaders, and welfare queens or whatever other term you wish to use that correctly implies that they do NOT produce social value. This is all FACT, not an opinion. What is so goddamn fucking difficult to understand about this? Fucking christ almighty......it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see and understand this shit.
What is even more puzzling is that you basically already admitted this to be true:
But then you turn around and pull the red herring fallacy that capitalist exploitaton is somehow justified because they take "risks" - which I already demonstrated that they really don't, and even if they did, that it STILL isn't a justification for the power and privilege they hold over everyone else. So...
You can't have it both ways - your position is entirely incongruent. Either you accept Marx's position to be correct, and therefore justification for the extraction of surplus value and the resulting exploitation is untenable by default; or, you reject his position (which you acknowledged as being correct and thus renders your argument as invalid; unless you change your original position to that he WASN'T correct which makes your argument consistent but then makes you a flip-flopper and it becomes hard to take you seriously), and this leads to justifying capitalist exploitation (which has the further problem, again, of having serious sociopathic implications). So which is it? Either way, it isn't a good look for you.
What is even more puzzling is that you basically already admitted this to be true:
Quote:Marx correctly pointed out a problem with "surplus value" and exploitation
But then you turn around and pull the red herring fallacy that capitalist exploitaton is somehow justified because they take "risks" - which I already demonstrated that they really don't, and even if they did, that it STILL isn't a justification for the power and privilege they hold over everyone else. So...
You can't have it both ways - your position is entirely incongruent. Either you accept Marx's position to be correct, and therefore justification for the extraction of surplus value and the resulting exploitation is untenable by default; or, you reject his position (which you acknowledged as being correct and thus renders your argument as invalid; unless you change your original position to that he WASN'T correct which makes your argument consistent but then makes you a flip-flopper and it becomes hard to take you seriously), and this leads to justifying capitalist exploitation (which has the further problem, again, of having serious sociopathic implications). So which is it? Either way, it isn't a good look for you.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)