B0ycey wrote:Well labor isn't a currency. It is a form of wealth. Or more specifically a form that creates wealth. And over production and supply and demand in regard to price is an issue of capitalism. The item, whether it makes a profit or not is still worth something (value) in any case.
What the fuck? Currency DETERMINES wealth.
And no. it's not. If I build a spaceship made out of popsicle sticks, it has no intrinsic value unless someone determines it as such by giving an amount of money for its possession.
I hadn't made the distinction of innovation, which is a form of labor in any case. We were discussing tax contribution, which most of it can be understood and explained by labor and surplus labor or inheritance. That is to say that because the tax doesn't come out of the proletariat wage package, doesn't mean it didn't come from his labor. Wealth distribution is the only thing that keeps the proletariat from understanding their class distinction FYI and rebelling against a system that basically steals from their labor. Without welfare they would have revolted by now. Remember that the next time you laud your idol Kardashian for being born into money and being put onto reality TV so they can profit on make-up that someone else makes and sells on their behalf.
The bourgeoisie do not "steal" labor. They provide an agreed-upon amount of compensation for that labor. The answer isn't to revolt. It's to renegotiate. This is why socialism fails as well - it's always trying to bargain from a position of weakness. And instead of strengthening that position, they just turn violent.
If you don't believe your labor is worth as much as someone else does, find another to exchange that labor for, or improve your own labor to encourage more compensation for it.
Socialism: Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
And PLEASE don't do the Kardashian thing. She's rich because there's profit in her....I dunno, whatever.
As long as stupid people exist, there are some who can use capitalism to its advantage.