No, Communism is a political ideology that focuses on giving the means of production to the people doing the labor.
What you just said is the right-wing capitalist propaganda definition of communism.
In the context of this conversation it is about removing the Capitalist from business. Making it so everyone earns their fair share of the profits instead of one person at the top (like a King/feudalism) gets all the profits, while also making all the decisions. Instead the laborors gets a stake in the business - giving more incentive to help the business do well while giving the worker more power and take home money.
So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn’t be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?
So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren’t fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let’s say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn’t starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?
No. If he’s still working beside them (like you said in your example), then his labor is making the value. He is entitled to that value.
It’s impossible to “make” value from someone else’s labor. The person doing the labor created the value.
Your example also isn’t them voluntarily working for him. You said in your example that it was either work for him or starve/die. That’s not voluntarily - that’s work under threat of death.
If he’s not doing labor and he’s sitting doing nothing - creating no value - then he gets nothing.
Every single living thing on earth labors under threat of starvation. That’s not a shortcoming of any particular economic system, that’s a shortcoming of nature, if you can even call it a shortcoming.
He profits from the labor of others. Does he deserve what he gets for it? It’s mutually beneficial mind you.
No, Communism is a political ideology that focuses on giving the means of production to the people doing the labor.
What you just said is the right-wing capitalist propaganda definition of communism.
In the context of this conversation it is about removing the Capitalist from business. Making it so everyone earns their fair share of the profits instead of one person at the top (like a King/feudalism) gets all the profits, while also making all the decisions. Instead the laborors gets a stake in the business - giving more incentive to help the business do well while giving the worker more power and take home money.
So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn’t be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?
Yes.
So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren’t fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let’s say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn’t starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?
Yes. A person should make the value from their labor.
But he’s making value from someone else’s labor, that they traded freely to him in voluntarily in a market for labor.
No. If he’s still working beside them (like you said in your example), then his labor is making the value. He is entitled to that value.
It’s impossible to “make” value from someone else’s labor. The person doing the labor created the value.
Your example also isn’t them voluntarily working for him. You said in your example that it was either work for him or starve/die. That’s not voluntarily - that’s work under threat of death.
If he’s not doing labor and he’s sitting doing nothing - creating no value - then he gets nothing.
Every single living thing on earth labors under threat of starvation. That’s not a shortcoming of any particular economic system, that’s a shortcoming of nature, if you can even call it a shortcoming.
He profits from the labor of others. Does he deserve what he gets for it? It’s mutually beneficial mind you.
There are 100% people that live under capitalism and don’t work, but don’t ever have to worry about starving.
There are people who get unfairly given more profit than they work for.
There are people who unfairly get less of the profits than they deserve.
I’m saying it should be fairly distributed by the workers. You’re pretending it isn’t an issue.
I’m explicitly saying he should not profit from the others labor. I’m explicitly saying they should be fairly compensated for their labor.