And in a moment you’ll learn, that at your scale, for the practical purposes, the universe rounds pi to n numbers. E.g. ~3.1416. Check & mate.

But do Arab and Muslim leaders have beef with a ham ass, already? Or are they demanding to give up only kosher, just as usual.

P.S. I’ve read a bit about specifics of Egyptian homelesness problem. I see that the problem for the big part here is, a bit, of a diferent kind of nature… than in long term (almost permanent) refugies camps, or former Gaza strip (as an example), where almost everything is/was suplied.

Seams, that Egyptian government doesn’t even know (have exact criteria) whom to count as a homeless ones there and lot’s of people seam to be living in undeveloped self-build slums without improving the enviroment themselves further or for better. It’s hard to understand – is it because it is good enougth for them as is, or that they have diferent priorities or no good leadership. Anyway even if full support is not provided, or only partial is – living in whatever shelter in africa south is much, much easyer than in (as for example) in north europe, where it would be a certain death at the first winter, or even as early as autumn. Maybe north people (and societies) been forced by nature elements to become more self incentivised (othervise death) to take care of enviroment and homes development up to the level, or maybe in north simply nobody survived it in enough amounts to procreate endles generations of homeless up to astonishing 12 milion numbers. Such number of people can build a country and we are talking about what if 10% of them took a part (atleast two hours per day) in helping to build and develop their enviroment themselves. My first question stands – how many homeless is needed to build a house for themselves? I’ll just corect it with adding – and to improve, develop enviroment around it.

Do you imply all theirs mothers were?

You think you can read, I thought you could. ;) Because I specifically mentioned quot: taken than the leadership is provided …

and that implies all kinds of leadership. Helping to organize, management, help of qualified engineers, consultations and their services, overseers in the field, and/or training specialists. It’s not that it is a rocket science, and we are not talking about skyscrapers. Any body can be a builder after some explaining, if we are talking about single store simple hause with running watter, sewer. And anybody can dig and lay pipes. Hell, they already had ramp, lever, clay brics, stone blocs, ropes, paper, maths, and even a wheel there, more than a 5 thousand years ago. More than 2 thousands years ago they already had there a water wheel, pipes and other water technologies. It is not that a rocket science is needed to develop the enviroment. It can be needed if we want to do it fast, labour and economicaly efective, but that is not a case here. We are talking about supported people – it’s not that they use their time efectively now or will lose something by taking two hours per day to improve their enviroment themselves.

Do they chose to do not work for the good of themselves and not to inprove their enviroment, because of their dignity? Do “feeders” and supporters think they improve dignity of the feeded ones, by keeping needfull ones dependant with constant support?

And whats wrong in building infrastructure by themselves? Diging up watter, clay, making whatever things civilization done thousands years? Other (e.g. north countries) people do it even then they have to grow their own food, fight the cold and bad seasons in parallel. Here we have all food, minimum shelter from elements and even medicine already provided. And yet, where is the progress? Whats wrong in that whole support process then?

I have a question. How many homeless people do we need to build a house, taken that stones, clay and sticks are available (or provided)? People once build pyramids there. World is anyway supporting them with food and a means to live – can’t the leadership be provided too (if they can’t organize themselves)? Can’t able to work build the houses for themselves and others? What do they do all day?

P.S. and I understand than not everybody can work, some have health issues - but hey, we are talking about 12milion, sure there are atleast 120k able to work persons in that crowd, who could work for 2 hours per day each.

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.

// You imagine the tone, the signs you think you see are just a consequence of translation.

Why even start a comment in your case, if you position right from the begining is “I don’t want to, or I can’t explain” e.g. eli5 own point of view?

Well we are getting away from the topic of “profit from capital”, but I have to mention it – Yugoslavia was a shithole too although somewhat a bit less than sssr. But lets not expand here both.

// 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.

P.S. answering to your: “This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.” Let’s not fall so low as to the personal attacks ;) or conclusions about a person. You don’t know what I have red and what not, to judge. A question is a question – it can be anounced even by a parrot. If you are to philosophize and a question is of current topic, and you are not a parrot yourself, then it should not be a problem to discuss it with logic and arguments by both sides. You see ;) I can do it also, well of course unless you are a parrot :)))

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?

That’s (above) a good example of argumentation, iliustrating and beeing born out of that other cultural understanding of ethics I’ve talked about.

My answer is: show me that you can learn and think, show me good work ethics and the job is yours. Company will even sent you to (and pay for your) courses. You’ll get my own time to explain things, to give you directions to resourses and themes, your coleagues will teach you on a go whilst collaborating and it all will hapen on company’s time.