>>136199904 value is the price when the supply exactly

>>136200364
Labor theory still BTFO though.

>>136200364
>Values don't change over time

The stock market wouldn't exist if prices didn't adjust.

File: Antifa ball trade protectionism.jpg (61KB, 515x477px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 515x477px

Also, responding to this post after the thread got 404'd:

>>136199849
Trade unions often vote in favor of nationalism anyway. The Rust Belt unions certainly do. Nationalist trade protection policies and immigration restriction increase the value of their own labor.

Only SJW retards vote for globalism. Usually Starbucks kiddies with liberal arts degrees who never touched a wrench in their life.

>>136201723
Literally no
>>136201848
If that's what you genuinely believe then Syndicalism shouldn't be a problem.

>>136201996
Syndicalism tempered by white nationalism though, AKA NatSoc.

I still have a feeling it would go full favela without a strong state and ethnocentric mandate.

>>136202170
That's not Syndicalism.
If you wanted to at least pretend you can be a Strasserist, but banning certain labor unions for being "too globalist" basically defeats the power of labor unions, since it's such a broad and generic term that can be used to oppose anything.

>>136202335
It would be understood that your leftlib labor unions wouldn't be a part of the nationalist state.

Also, I doubt a patchwork of labor union anarchist communes would be able to adequately police of govern themselves, or obtain resources from geographically-specific regions effectively.

>>136202540
1) so then labor unions essentially have no power since literally anything criticizing the bourgeoisie goes against "the stats"
2) why so much doubt?

>>136202777
>literally anything criticizing the bourgeoisie goes against "the stats"

Wrong, usury and corrupt market practices would still be persecuted, and resources largely allocated in an egalitarian manner. Corporations or individuals who use their wealth to detriment the state or its unions would naturally be seen as criminals, and get persecuted too.

Also, I think the idea of selling too many useful resources to hostile outsiders just to get a few extra shekels is bourgeois in and of itself.

Why am I doubtful? Because spitting the nation into a patchwork of anarchist unions decreases the overall capital bargaining power and material strength of the nation, making it easier to subvert by outside forces. Also, if a criminal gang were to form in one region and get too powerful, the local populace couldn't rely on a national-level police force to subdue them.

There's also the problem of geographically-specific resources. For instance, there's a coal mine in one commune that is many miles away from the others. The coal miners there could just decide to mine enough for their immediate use, then go home a fap - and the other regions would be without coal.

File: 1492668456231.jpg (82KB, 565x607px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 565x607px

>>136202777

>why so much doubt

You are going to need an association of willing participants to intervene in any capitalistic interactions between other members of the commune (e.g say for instance I have 3 goats but I want 1 cow, someone else has 3 cows but doesn't need all of them, but does need 3 goats, so we trade 1 cow for 3 goats, but 1 cow is worth more capital than 3 goats in the wider society, so now I've upset the balance of wealth). To police these sorts of interactions which will naturally arise as a consequence of the free association of people you will require some kind of hierarchy whether it be implicit or explicit. Implicitly being you try to avoid creating a government by introducing some sort of "peasants committee" or whatever, which will become a de-facto government simply due to the power it has through their authority to intervene in natural exchange by the use of force. For them to effectively intervene in these interactions the amount of force available to these regulatory bodies will need to exceed that of the people wanting to accrue capital, thus you've created a despotism.

>>136203461
Adding to this, like it or not, the reason we have such an abundance of resources and goods today is because of porkies (or state officials) cracking their whips and making people work harder.

Why else would Chinese peasants mine rare earth metals so Oregonian hipsters could get their iPhones made?

>>136203668
>capitalism is trading shit
no
>>136203461
>>136204100
you are implying that the capitalists are subservient to the state, which they're just not.
the state will have no motivation to function in the working man's interest. they thrive (like any county) by exploiting the working man as much as possible.
>>136202777 (You)
>literally anything criticizing the bourgeoisie goes against "the state"

>There's also the problem of geographically-specific resources. For instance, there's a coal mine in one commune that is many miles away from the others. The coal miners there could just decide to mine enough for their immediate use, then go home a fap - and the other regions would be without coal.
why would they? if they don't mine any coal and give it to the surrounding area, then the other unions in turn will not give them anything of theirs (food, water, other pleasurable things). A worker cannot survive just by coal.

>Adding to this, like it or not, the reason we have such an abundance of resources and goods today is because of porkies (or state officials) cracking their whips and making people work harder.
This is true. But as infrastructure develops there is always a tendency of the rate of profit to fall for a workplace as the produce becomes more and more abundant. One of the main issues with capitalism is that investors are drying up and don't want to expand since, in the end, the profit principle itself would suffer a breakdown. I'm not making this shit up, TRPF was even mentioned by people as beloved as Adam Smith.

>>136204930

>>capitalism is trading shit

I didn't say that you retarded fucking commie. I said capitalism was trading shit and ACCRUING CAPITAL by doing so. That's why it's called CAPITALISM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

>>136204930
A commune area could lay claim to multiple resources, making themselves largely independent of the others. The coal mine could be in a partnership with a nearby farm, etc. and thus have no need for other areas or their products. Distant regions could still go without coal. The whole patchwork would still be vulnerable to outside attack also.

I think this ultimately falls down to right-wing realism versus left-wing optimism. Nobody can truly know the outcome.

>>136205725
then that commune should expect violence. the situation is no different under capitalism or feudalism.

>>136205046
so trading 3 goats for a fucking cow can exist under communism, that's not fucking capital

>>136206300

>missing the point that hard

I literally linked you an example of someone starting with a FUCKING PAPERCLIP and making a series of exchanges that led to him constantly gaining capital until he eventually traded a role in a movie for a house. EVERYTHING is worth some "capital" and by taking advantage of people's wants and needs you can exchange something for something else and gain capital in doing so, starting with exchanging a paperclip for a pen in the example I provided. Are all commies this fucking retarded or is it just you?

>>136200364
>Products have exact value
This is by definition absurd. If products had an exact value, there would be no reason for an exchange to occur. If a gallon of milk had a value of exactly $2, why would you buy milk? The milk you wanted and the two dollars you would spend would have exactly the same value to you, and there would be no net gain to your own person.

Values are relative. The equilibrium price occurs when the exact balance between a price higher than the supplier values the product and a price less than the consumer values the product is reached. In this situation, the consumer has a net increase in value to their person because the milk they purchased is worth more to them than the money they spent. The producer has a net increase in value to their person because the money they received is worth more to them than the milk they sold.

This is literally one of the simplest principles of economics, how are you this incompetent?