• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle

  • Isn’t that imaginary “full value” somewhere far far above or below – lets call it, “momentum optimum value”?

    As I see it: too much concurency in place (lets say geographycaly) and workers will fight between themselves for work, vages will go down. Too few specialists and the value of them goes up for the team (company, organization, comunity, town, etc…) Such specialist, for several hours and his half day trip, can be overpayed so much, that 10 full time workers (spending their time creating value, puting effort) working 8 hours/day for a whole week would not get in total. Are socialist gonna to pay them all equal or maybe even more for the second ones, reasoning that technicaly they been putting more effort and time? Or are we just playing with words and an abstraction “full value” means nothing else than “how much that is worth as part of a product”. But if so, then your before mentioned, hipotetycaly ‘nothing doing’ CEO or Owner (living from investment of capital), alsow did their value part. First one, lets say, by making a 5 minutes call (or just playing a tenis with right client) which granted a begining of 6 milion contract arangements. Second one (I’ll take an extreme), by deciding to give his money to broker or banker for them to invest in some sucsessfull busines, or by spending it on to be able to do nothing, instead of keeping it under his pilow. Oh and by spending it he also somewhat does create a value – he buys cofee for 20$ instead of 2$, creating value oportunity for the restaurant and it’s labourers and further down the chain.

    How do we measure that “full value” in your understanting of (post capitalism) socialism? Is it by labour hours, labour effort, or labour effect?

    What about cases, then wisely doing nothing will create value too? :) E.g. not shipping right away, but delaying/waiting for more orders to combine, will optimise logistics and so it will create value.




  • // Well, forgive, if my (on a go) english is a bit less comprehensive for a native speaker than for the euringlish speaking one :) Lemmy android client does not have a proofreader, but it’s not a problem for me to rephrase then you point at problemic to comprehend sections.

    Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more?

    This doesn’t make sense, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.

    I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less? But if I corectly understood you, that is not a problem in your socialism understanding (or interpretation), right?


  • :) beeing not a young person, beeing born in one of the soviet block countries (forced in to that block by force), having to learn commies litterature almost from zero grade and during the whole education system, later having finished bussines and economy studies in capitalism, now having a small IT bussiness, even your nickname (as it sounds) for me is behind the borderline of my tolerance. ;) Yet, I’m not trying to call you someone or even atack your beliefs by presumptions. The questions were just the questions, simply out of interest of how would someone who presents himself (socialist or comunist) would answer them. P.S. your comment (before this one) where you replyed my question by question, was quite good as for a discusion, even if you fall time to time into some magic asumptions about person behind questions. Anyway, I thank you for you effort when you answered the questions and presented your point of view on the subject. :)))


  • So you sugest that somebody living of money/ownership is a leach by definition. But what about someone who (lets simplify things, lets say he just) saved – money (by spending less), or time and resources (for example by efective barter exchange) and now has got plenty of it. By spending less now he got a bigger surpluss, you may even call it a profit comming from diferent (better or worse) priorities management of his. How’s that bad? Why these coul’d not be invested? Work as a capital? Why if he can buy labour or aditional value on market for less he shouldn’t do it? Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more? Aren’t we trying to pray on more successful ones, and if it is so, then how is that diferent of them trying to pray on less risk taking ones, less rich ones?

    P.S. I’m not suposing to abolish taxes or not keeping up available some social minimum (basic) services which are enabling people, giving them more oportunities to start. At the same time, I do not think we have to punish someone who is more efective or can make money out of the money, resources out of resources, or time out of his more efectively managed time. Someone who could exchange it into others resources or time, and even someone who automated this (or these proceses) by using his (or bought) mind on how to make it all work seamingly “without a further work” of his. I mean – invested.


  • Imaginary value of own labour and effort versus exchange value in the eyes of other market players. Your afore mentioned “labour theory of value” apprises the first but ignores the second (both as a component of some global-whole value essence, or as a standalone thing). :)

    Are you sugesting (by refering to that theory) that “fair value for a labourer to get is” only the first? What about other questions I’ve rised?

    Could you just comment instead of refering “read the book” and leave guesing of what do you exactly think or imply as answers? I have my opinions, I have my questions – now I’m fishing for others – looking for discusion, opinions, questions (why would I comment otherwise). You are able to keep a discussion, if you know the topic, arn’t you? I mean without using an avoidance tool in style of “go read a bible or you have to have a belief and then you’ll understand”. Just talk, explain in your own words as you inderstand it, if you understand it, and if you have an opinion on questions asked at all.



  • What is that “the full value” that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?

    I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.

    What’s fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?

    How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?


  • Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary? He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn’t have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.

    So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc … Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing “worker/labourer” now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)

    P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.


  • So, folowing your theory, if … I have a coat - it’s “PERSONAL” property; I wash my coat myself - it’s still “PERSONAL”; I rent my coat - it now becomes “PRIVATE” property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it’s “PRIVATE” property (remember I’m still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is “PRIVATE” property;

    Questions:

    1. Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?

    2. I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?

    3. Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?






  • I regred for still having to suport several old centos servers during the last decade. Still regret of having to do lots of co-hosted old projects migrations from one of these – for lost time, money.

    Have never regreted for any debian based one during the last 20 years. Have switched desktops ~10 years ago too. Before, been hardcore rpm distros fan – desktop: fedora, later suse; servers: centos, sometimes fedora. Lucky to have used deb distros for servers too, that made at least part of the bussiness stay stabile.


  • That’s your chance to turn away from rpm/RHEL distros and run without looking back. As last 20 years history shows, that branch of linux OS is either dying off on hands, leaving you without suport, either makes migration path complicated by a need to change distro. Like it was with centos +5…10 years, oh no … -> maybe fedora -> oh no … -> whatever whocares rpm pop/rocky/alma name it … Thats it, beat it, no more this shit.

    deb or any other kind linux is a way to go.


  • Ask me do I care, lol.

    a) Linux, Firefox + uBlockOrigin + Enhancer for YouTube;

    b) Android, Firefox + uBlock Origin + Video Background Play Fix;

    c) I never ever use any account or login into the youtube. Playlists? Got favorites/bookmarks in browser :) Voting, comments? I don’t care. Native youtube android apk? Never. So, no tracking and stats for you and no dumb auto recomendations for me. Thanks.

    P.S. oh, and all cookies are auto deleted on last tab close. Bye.

    So, war with or strike me how? Close whole site or put everything under paywall and die? Hahaha


  • Shit do I care, lol. Ok, whatever tube …

    a) Linux, Firefox + uBlockOrigin + Enhancer for YouTube;

    b) Android, Firefox + uBlock Origin + Video Background Play Fix;

    c) I never ever use any account or login into the youtube. Playlists? I got favorites/bookmarks in browser :) Voting, comments? I don’t care. Native youtube android apk? Never. So no tracking and stats for you, and no dumb auto recomendations for me. Thanks.

    P.S. oh, and all cookies are auto deleted on last tab close. Bye.

    So, strike me how? Close whole site or put everything under paywall and die? Hahah.