It does

In a free system

But you said competition lowers that price

right

Meaning personal value doesnt effect that

And there is competition because there is value put on those products

It does

Because the competition lowered the price that is supposedly already pre determined by personal value

No one's competing for a product no one wants

Im not denying that

Then what is even your point?

You said that personal value decides the price, but if the market opens up which ''lowers'' the price then personal value was not the main factor in the price of that product

It does play a factor, which is what I was arguing

Of course the amount of people working on a product also determines the value

However if enough people value it it would bring in competition

which lowers prices

So then subjective value does not decide market prices but there are a miriad of factors?

It does decide market value in a free market

Not instantly but it does in time

I'm curious as to how old this illiterate anarchist cunt is. Because for someone to live this long without a brain is amazing

So then personal value is the sole decider in market prices?

No

How common a product is too, tulips were very expensive at a certain time

Because certain types are rare

So then subjective value does not decide market prices but there are a miriad of factors?

Stop this. You are monopolising the higher ground.

However a product like bread (which was the original product we were talking about) it is the value other people place on it

You seem to think that if personal value doesn't change the price in less than 10 seconds that it doesn't determine the price

No

Fact is tulips are cheap now because competition arose because it was valued

I am trying to get you to admit whether personal value is the decider in the price or not and you contradict yourself left right and center

It is

Said that many many many times

Not sure what you're fishing for

So then how would more competition create cheaper prices when prices are derived from personal value?

The personal value drove the competition

And the competition supposedly drives the prices down, meaning there are multiple factors deciding the price and personal value is not the sole decider?

No, personal value>more competition>lower prices

The value must come first

the competition itself is a result of the value given to a product

So then youve just proven that personal value creates other factors which then may drive the prices down?

Yes

I.E Greater production capibilities

That doesn't contradict my first statement

I think me and twist are different kinds of anarchists. Unions, co-opts and syndicates make me nervous.

they should

Are you an individualist anarchist or ancap?

I guess individualist.

this is my position on black rights

https://youtu.be/B5J0Ld_n_NQ

Then a socialist economic organisation is better. At least there you get to keep the fruits of your labor and have an equal say in production management.

is the toothbrush sharing joke actually a joke

How do you keep the fruits of your labor in socialism?

I do not believe in any kind of property.

black people should be property

but because i'm a commie they should be collectively owned

Because when you produce something you either keep it or are paid vouchers equivolent to the value produced

so money?

No

They do not circulate and are non accumulative

Keep it?

What do you do with it?

What vouchers for what?

you get to have as many sneakers as you want

I do not think you produce, things are just produced.

Well if you make a chair



Its your chair now

I disagree.

Seems like something that ends after you have about 5 chairs

And thats why you then turn them in to the federation or the collective and take your vouchers so you can buy other things

How many chair vouchers for a car?

Idk man, if you produce the value equivolent to a car but in chairs

So you'd have to make your own chair?

if you make chairs i guess

A chair is made. Now there is a chair. That is the end of it. But a chair is also firewood. It can be lots of things. Ownership is a tyranny over utility of objects.

I think if I produce a chair I should be able to keep it since it is a result of my labor

What I want to know from socialists is how they plan on having innovation, who gets to be the inventors?

Oh boy.

🤔

Im not sure what that question means

If you're provided with chairs, which you presumably would

How do new products get made

What is the point of making your own chair

If someone has a good idea then theyll put it forward

Who invents the iphone?

Who decides what is a good idea?

It implies that without private ownership, co-operation is impossible. Which is false.

The same people that decide whether something is a good idea in a market..

People

Yes but if everything is shared there are only some who gets to make a product right?

Theres no intellectual property so anyone can make whatever they want

What if someone's a terrible inventor, does he starve?

Youre still maintaning a capitalist lens through the way you are viewing socialism

just asking questions

If a collective workplace needs some innovation, they will do everything they can to make it happen

Its pretty unlikely that people would have 1 role in their workplace

I don't know, many people can only fulfill one role

Everyone has an equal say in their workplace, and nobody lives as an inventor or investor or things like that because we abolish capital accumulation and (probably) traditional markets

when the world revolution succeds, will the world be divided by the forms of socialism?

Smash the workplace!

But what if I have an idea for a new product but the people in the workplace always shoot it down?