I think one of the main effect a state should have in this model is offset the negotiations in favor of the ruling class, since the point of the state is to allow the ruling class to guaranty their control over the means of productions.

For example, if workers try to occupy their employer's factory as a bargaining chip, the owner would call the bourgeoie police to chase them, taking the bargaining chip away from the workers and back to the capitalist who hereby maintain his control over the worker's jobs and consumption.

So the rulling class should be assumed to have an advantage in negotiations.

If you can find a way to quantify both classes' negotiation advantage/disadvantage through their amount of control over the means of production, and maybe find a way to have it change over time as class struggle changes the amount of control they have, maybe you could even model the effect of protests and revolutions.

This is very interesting.

I think you should try to see what happen if you take into account the influence of the state, not just the bourgeois state but try to see what happen when either classes have state power.

You should also try to account for the tendency for the rate of profit to fall as automation squeeze labor out of production.

Turkey is cooking.

Why is it R = p X_A - k p X_B? Shouldn't it be R = (p X_A) / (k p X_B)?

I don't think I understand how the model works.

What is R exactly and how do you get it from X_A and X_B. And what are X_A and X_B in the first place?

If I understand correctly the graph, there are 3 distinct regions.

The very small region at the to where R>1, that seems to imply a situation where A and B would sort of switch roles, A would own most of the capital and B would own little to no capital and would live off of their labor power.

The large middle "north-east" region where 1>R>0, where B's capital increases faster than A's. Itself made up of 3 regions, one where A does most of the labor and own little to no capital, one where A does little work despite owning little to no capital, and one where A work little and own most capital similar to the first big region.

And the bottom right corner region where R<0, where either A or B is losing capital, but I'm not sure which.

What did you use to get this graph?

What are alpha and beta?

These are the facts and I could give you charts with the soviet export.

Why say I could and not do it? If you have sources, give them. You haven't linked any source whatsoever in this entire thread to back up your wild claims.

Ha yes, you can just do that. It's totally not out of reach for all the peoples who have to work 2~3 jobs at once and still can't save any money because even the basic necessities for survival are sold at extortion prices not to mention possible medical, college debt or mortgages.

You're confusing private property with personal property. While this is a very common mistake, you can't claim to have an informed opinion about communism while still making it, it's 101 level stuff.

Further, you are also making the other very common error of assuming the state is oppressive because it is like some kind of monolith somehow cut off from the rest of society as though the peoples staffing it weren't as much part of society as everyone else, this is not the case, whether a state apparatus is oppressive and against whom it is oppressive is dictated by the class character of the state, a factor that is systematically neglected by the peoples using variations of "power always corrupt" truisms to "analyze" a state.

tl;dr: you're knowledge of communism and communist theory and praxis is very surface level at best, go read some reading list from prolewiki's library, To criticize something you need to know at least the basics of it first.

Yes but not only, small business owners, small landlords and "casual traders" who own some stocks but not enough to be considered rich or have influence in the company the stocks are from are also part of the petty bourgeoisie.

Generally, the petty bourgeoisie are peoples who technically own means of productions and may even have a few employee working for them, but don't make quite enough from that to not have to work anymore. They are constantly under the threat of being out-competed by larger businesses, especially corporations owned by the high bourgeoisie, and becoming a proletarian.

Basically, they are the subclass at the boundary between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. They are better off than the proletariat and own means of production and private property but are under constant threat to lose these privileges and become part of the proletariat, especially in time of crisis.

They are the source of the overwhelming majority of fascists as I've said, because they still benefit from capitalism and generally aspire to become part of the high bourgeoisie even tough they are very much the underdogs. The bourgeois state will intentionally let fascism grow unopposed so that if the bourgeoisie feels their privileges are threatened by working class movements, they can give power to the fascists who will crackdown on the proletariat and protect the capitalist system from being overthrown.