4L3moNemo

I may assume that you live in plain english speaking country and have a naive imagining of how non native speakers may use your language. :) Even thinking directly in non native language, one is almost always not sure about every and each conotation of words and phrases he used. So here we go, here comes the overexplanation, repeating yourself, pinpointing the exact meaning you want to comunicate, or even failing in example tools by which you try to express your question, your point of view, or try to get into broader or narrower scope, or try to dig into the problem to understand it. Add to this a somewhat limited (compared to native speaker) vocabulary, add no proofing tools and the speed of live speach (cause who cares about comment on internet to write it less fast than you type, you do not edit it for a half hour). Here, you see, here's your wall of text about a subject.

What does deminishing or trying to atack a disputant personaly, give to a subject? Anything else except of that a joker can't or isn't able to talk about a subject so he choses an easy way :) Way too easy way, but I aknowledge yours comment was funny enought to try to tease you more :))))

We workers (not beeing owners, not caring about long term, jumping jobs each 2-5 years) vote to get 99% of next two years sales profits: a) owners vote to hire new workers; or b) bussiness fails (no reinvestments, no acumulation of capital, owners vote themselves out minimising losses). ;)

We workers are coowners of bussines (we invest into shares) – we vote, make decisions rooting them in those good and nice principles you have mentioned, fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. But now we think about bussiness, including growth of our shares (our common capital) too.

How I see it, the dream socialists (leftists) are dreaming of (or declare to dream to get popular votes) is already here and now. The only difference in between talking about that dream and living in it, is the decision. Decision to take responsibilities, take part in risks by coowning not only profits and values, but risks and development too – that is literally meaning becoming a coowner. Buying into the bussiness, making your own, working into it.

The problem (if any) is not in the capitalism of democratic world, but in the people who do not want to participate and coown their enviroment. Be it a bussines where they don't want to coown risks and futures, but want to divide value. Be it a businesses owners whom do not coown a public good and future and just look into their subspace by depleating everything whats outside their assumed ownership. Or be it a public park, or just simple plain wild, semi-wild nature where some people litter without care, without understanding that all society coowns it, and that means they are already included, that means they themselves individualy also coown it.

Want to divide value in to some other understanding of fairness than current owners, management, board, public, city, town, community? Coown it, but coown it whole and all, not just parts you like.

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?

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 your 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?