Your labor value is not being stolen. You willingly forfeit it along with the risk when you sign your work contract. You agree to get paid based on time, not on results. You don't share in the losses when the company does terribly and, conversely, you don't share in the profits when it does great. If you are willing to take on more risk, you are allowed to buy stocks, start your company or join a cooperative. But let other people sign whatever work contracts they want.

Marxism is just post-rationalized envy.

>>17839519 (OP)
Joining a cooperative is fucking communism you fucking communist. Die in a fucking fire.

>>17839519 (OP)
>You agree to get paid based on time, not on results.
in the US employers are legally allowed to dock pay from hourly workers based on performance even if they are under contract

>>17839519 (OP)
Workers have to compete in the job market, and all these companies hiring illegal immigrants are cheating the domestic labor force, but the government won't do anything to the real source of the problem by prosecuting the people that hire illegal immigrants, instead they just round up immigrants for a while until the immigrant issue is memoryholed by the next big issue, then they sweep it all under and let immigrants back in to take jobs at lower wages

Capitalism is corrupt

>>17839519 (OP)
>willingly
an unfair bargain born of desperation; one side has to sell their labor to survive and the other side de facto controls the state
> You don't share in the losses when the company does terribly
A job loss has a far greater effect on the average worker than an investment going bad does on the average businessman
>conversely, you don't share in the profits when it does great
this is true
> If you are willing to take on more risk, you are allowed to buy stocks, start your company
with what money? Your average worker isn't paid enough to join the exploiting class, it's literally not possible to have that situation or the system would collapse
>or join a cooperative
bourgeois law systemically favors corporations over co-ops

>>17839519 (OP)
>bootlicking this hard
>defending wageslavery

>>17839519 (OP)
>muh contracts
>muh law
Legalists are bad as religiofags.

>>17839656

What do you think of Shintoism?

>>17839519 (OP)
>think of companirino!
No.
Go eat shit and suck a cock, shill.

>>17839519 (OP)
You are such good goy op.

>>17839519 (OP)
Whether your labor value in some concretely technical sense is being stolen or not is irrelevant to the legitimacy of top-down hierarchical companies; when a group of criminals commit a murder, all get charged with murder if they're caught, the rest can't shirk their responsibility to the murder by going "well, so and so was the leader, therefore he took on all the risk, therefore we don't get charged only he does."

Further, your point on cooperatives. All labor is cooperative. Large businesses like Amazon, or large industrial furnaces or steelworks, don't exist because of one guy; they exist because of the collective inputs of milllions, if not billions of people, along with a network of various laws & regulations that are made specifically to help them along. The capitalist conception of the ultra-rich billionaire only makes sense theoretically, in the real world, the economy is the result of collective effort and as such that effort should be renumerated collectively.

I'm not a Marxist by the way; just a market socialist.

>>17839519 (OP)
>You agree to get paid based on time, not on results.
Workplaces still manage to fail complying with that lmao

Marxism robs your of your spirit and individuality. Read Jung

>>17839519 (OP)
>You don't share in the losses when the company does terribly
Lay offs, cutting pay, cutting the budget.

>>17839780
>marxism robs you of individuality so read this guy that thinks the universal collective unconscious dictates everything about you and the world instead
/his/tards at it again

>>17839787
Regardless its a stupid argument as >>17839671 puts it. Legally, in every other way, humans who collectively do things with each other all bear the responsibility of their enterprises actions. It should be the same in business too. It makes no sense for a business to only be owned by as small handful of people.

>>17839789
subhuman IQ

>>17839795
Yes, that does describe you.

>>17839822
blud really pulled out a no u response in the big 25

>>17839827
>the big 25
zoomer detected

>>17839832
not an argument, chuddy

>>17839519 (OP)
>Your labor value is not being stolen. You willingly forfeit it along with the risk when you sign your work contract
Marx isn't arguing this is wrong per se, just that this being the natural arrangement of society is not sustainable, because it will lead to the business and property owners owning everything while everyone else gets poorer.
Look at rent and housing prices today, the large number of immigrants brought into first world countries to suppress the value of labor, the plummeting birth rates caused by the need to put career over family, and it seems Marx's criticisms of the capitalist society has merits.

>>17839952
>Marx isn't arguing this is wrong per se
This is one of Marx's great weaknesses; he gives you zero reason to be communist whatsoever, relying instead on the idea that he's discovered some scientific process of capitalism that will lead to its doom, only all his predictions turned out wrong.

At least Proudhon developed a sociological theory of justice that gives you a reason to support his ideas even if his scientific productions (quite similar to Marx's in reality) turned out wrong.

work will get you crumbs, but simply owning things lets you become mega rich. if you have 3 million US dollars (which isn't that much if your family is rich), you can get annualized 300k USD income, far higher than most jobs. you get taxed on capital gains, but income is taxed too.
likewise, if you own real estate, you never have to work. simply renting out your properties to workers who need a place to live near their office gives you enough money, you just need to pay the property taxes and maybe a rental agency.
the only way to make this fair is to not tax income while aggressively taxing property and capital gains, but that will harm the economy more.
so marx proposes a system that will finally get rid of this kind of unfair inequality, which has pervaded mankind since the invention of civilization. however, attempts at establishing socialism failed to create the truly equal and fair societies envisioned. furthermore, there is a real difference between people's efforts, and hard work and talent do in fact net you some gains in a capitalist society. in a truly socialist society, that hard work would be pointless, which results in everyone losing interest and ambition.
overall, it could be true and even proven, that there is no socioeconomic system that can be simultaneously fair and productive.

>>17839952
>the large number of immigrants brought into first world countries to suppress the value of labor
The "suppression" was already on going long ago during the imperial era within Europe (Britain basically forcing it's population to cluster in dense and polluted cities) and abroad in the colonies and holdings too. It's not a recent thing, it's a reshuffling of very old trends and actions.

>>17839965
>relying instead on the idea that he's discovered some scientific process of capitalism that will lead to its doom, only all his predictions turned out wrong.
it could still be true, if low birth rates and immigration to first world countries destroys modern civilization, as both are almost directly caused by the capitalist system and the globalized rat race it has induced.

>>17839965
>only all his predictions turned out wrong.
More like many occurred in ways he did not account for due to him living in the 1800s or somehow spiraled out of control in worse ways that no one anywhere or 50 years after his death could ever really envision.

>>17839979
obviously marx predicted a worker uprising due to wealth inequality to collapse the capitalist system. he was wrong since this did not happen. instead we might be seeing collapse due to capitalism making dating and having children really expensive, defending your country's way of life "problematic", while accessing all sorts of comforts and pleasures cheap and quick.

>>17839988
>obviously marx predicted a worker uprising due to wealth inequality
There were colonial uprisings that occurred alongside the many fights and crackdowns that occurred in western states where workers were organizing.

>>17839995
but these did not collapse the capitalist system. the only place where such worker riots succeeded in toppling the system and establishing socialism was... semi-feudal russia.
communism in china came from a mass peasant movement typical of a chinese dynastic change, rather than urban worker revolts (which all got easily crushed by the KMT). the communist movements in korea and vietnam were just national liberation fighters who adopted the ideology.
in all industrial capitalist countries communism simply did not take root. in china and vietnam, who were never industrialized before communism, would simply transition from feudalism to capitalism after trying and failing to establish socialism. finally the soviet union collapsed leaving behind today's russia which is a mix of capitalism and just thieves stealing everything that isn't bolted down.

>>17839984
His predictions haven't occurred, though. There was no mass immiseration; instead we got welfare states. The rate of profit isn't falling, at least not as fast as he said it would.

>>17839532
And in a free market you are free to start or join a cooperative, you'll just go bankrupt because the idea is garbage.

>>17840733
>The rate of profit isn't falling, at least not as fast as he said it would.
He didn't imagine that real growth could be replaced by everybody ritually stuffing money up a drug addicted negro's bum.

>>17839541
But not below the minimum wage