Not Capital*ist*

You can't just keep using the "muh commodity form and red fascism" to distance your ideology from things you find hard to defend, like gulags and famines, you literally only hold these dumb beliefs just so you can bullshit your way out of anti socialist arguments

Bruh, you are just ignoring it now

>ignoring it

no, im insulting you

I literally never distanced from it. I still defend alot of Soviet aspects.

*But they weren't Socialists in the initial nature, which is what I am after*

Yes, because you can't argue

Of course the anarchist tard can only reduce to insults

Then debate finbol

Oh, you cant because you are literally to much of a coward to go on his server in VC and do so

```Since under capitalism wages are the price of labour-power```
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm

They did their payments based upon the exchange values (see piece-rate system). Unironically the only difference is it's a fixed wage

```Oh, you cant because you are literally to much of a coward to go on his server in VC and do so```
So I can have 15 people yell at me for disagreeing?

What's the matter

can't argue for yourself?

>implying everyone is a debater

no, but you are obviously not going to debate someone who can debate you, because you'd be afraid of losing

yes Leah, because you don't have to be a debater to understand concepts.

Such as wage labor, or commodity-production

Finbol can hit me up anytime and if he presents something solid, he can have it. I don't care to be right. I care if I am not disproven and you're still claiming shit.

I debate people who CAN debate me every single day

Finbol is not some god

If you want, tell him I disagree. I'm not gonna go and vc and debate, sure. Purely because it's much easier to trip up, miss something.

I like my conversations to be *conclusive* and have everything needed to be said, said.

Then literally go in ULP and do so

Imaging wanting to preserve wage labor

@im in the middle of nowhere bruh Quick question vrovro

What’s goodie

If you are paying workers using a fixed rate based on the items exchange values, has wage labor changed to not be a wage anymore? Is the only thing that has changed simply the method of wage?

Also, I like how reading the comments of that video Finbol did, they think the people who do deny this idea are just doing it to disown the Soviets, PRC, etc

The reality is, if I think they were unironically using wage labor, and it contradicts principle, I am gonna say it

never once thought about trying to cope with the fact they collapsed

lmao

I would say yeah since payment should be a mixture of value of work/hours worked/ value of product but it would be far preferable than work based on hours

I've been there before. If I care to join, I will look it up again @Monolith But if you're so incessant on him debating me, he can talk to me.

```If you are paying workers using a fixed rate based on the items exchange values, has wage labor changed to not be a wage anymore?```
@im in the middle of nowhere bruh I am asking how this is not a wage

It still would be since by definition a wage is a fixed payment

Thanks

Glad I'm not trippin

Why did Leah say otherwise?

@im in the middle of nowhere bruh I don't truly know.

As far as I am aware, wage labor is a tenet socialism erases. Yet here they are with wages.

There is another argument I found saying *Socialism has a different wage type*

But it's still based on capital and exchange. it's just planned

so I am not seeing the difference here

Yeah I’ve always been under the assumption that socialists hated wages