822
If you're feeling left out it's probably because you defend billionaires who would mince you into fertilizer
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
822 points (82.7% liked)
Memes
45662 readers
1769 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, you support a system that inherently creates an upper class of obscenely rich people, yet are opposed to those people?
A system set up to enrich the owner of a business, while its workers lose out, creates exactly the people you claim not to defend.
No, I'm not opposed to them... I just don't support them. They can support themselves, and I can support myself just fine. I make more money from them than I would without them, and they make money from me they wouldn't have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
I've never been forced to take any job... I just manage my skillset in such a way that makes it both rare and valuable. I've worn many hats over the years, and I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules Worked out great for me and my family so far. I'll even have some to leave my kids so they don't have as hard of a time reaching even higher than I have. That's the whole point, for me: make my kids' life better than mine, and I've done that so far.
It doesn't work like that. They are in power, and by not opposing them, you consent to their continued power.
That isn't even close to true. Capitalist extraction of surplus value is exactly how they make their profits. If they paid you the value you made them, they wouldn't have a profit. If they weren't there to extract that value, you and your fellow workers would make more - it's basic mathematics.
This part is true, yes.
So, you're saying you're able to retire right now and never work again?
That's a slave mindset.
That's cool you can think that small and that selfishly. Others, however, realise you could be living even better, and everyone else, including those with nothing, could have that standard of living, too, if we stop being complacent with mere crumbs.
That's what you have. Mere crumbs of luxury. It's great that you're not on the street, but that is an incredibly low standard to have.
Surplus value is not even close to being an accepted economic theory.
Just because you don't agree doesn't make it any less true. How do you refute it? It's a basic mathematical truth. It's literally impossible for a capitalist to pay you the value you brought them, without them going broke.
It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.
Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?
So, surplus value doesn't exist, simply because some capitalists can... fail to extract it?
Listen buddy, a few people being bad at their job doesn't mean the job doesn't exist.
I don't think you know what surplus value is. It's the portion of the value that you make for the business that doesn't go to you, but to the owner.
Do you also notice that I said "without going broke" and your example includes going broke?
Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?
Ordinary people who labour save their money. Are they not allowed to invest that money after they earn it? What are we supposed to do with the money that we save up that’s not used for consumption?
It's risky to capture a slave. Are risks always entitled to rewards?
The profit generated by the workers belongs to the workers. They made it. The owner didn't. They needed the workers to make it. The owners aren't "providing" the resources - they're gatekeeping them, so that usage only happens under the condition that it benefits the owner.
Also, to be quite honest, it's even unfair to the owner. They shouldn't have to risk it alone. It should be a joint venture from the start. These risks should be undertaken together, with all as co-owners.
People are entitled their basic needs on the basis of being human. And all should have social ownership of the economy in general, with no individual or group having sole ownership and thus being the only ones to profit from it.
It’s a double coincidence of wants. The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business. They would also rather have a steady predictable paycheque rather than jointly own a risky venture. Meanwhile the investor has capital they are willing to risk and are able to provide a steady source of income. The workers can’t make profit on their own without the capital.
Aw, golly gee, I sure do wonder why they aren't able to do this.
Because our system is set up that way!! Capitalism!
Our system is set up to enrich owners at the expense of workers. Simple as that.
Capitalism enables people to become rich yes, but many workers do quite well, amassing large retirement accounts and saving their hard-earned money until they too can invest it in a business. The most wealthy and productive societies with the highest wages all of major aspects of their economies controlled by free markets. It’s not a coincidence.
I feel like you're missing the point on purpose.
The workers do the work, yet the owner is the one who gets the money.
Why?
Of course the wealthiest countries have free markets. Why would that be a coincidence? It's exactly the mechanism I described, but on a global stage. Wealthy people exploit the poorer to become wealthier. Wealthy countries exploit poorer countries to become even wealthier.
This is a cycle that will only end with one person becoming the owner of everything, or revolution to end it.
The labour share of income is 70% which is the majority of the money a business makes.
That's less than the 100% they deserve for doing 100% of the work.
Please just acknowledge the fact that it's mathematically impossible for a wage worker to actually receive what they made. The owner has to pay themselves, after all...
Read: "I only subscribe to the economics of the oppressor class. If they refuse to accept a basic mathematical truth that implies bad things about them, so do I!"
Markets are nothing more than voluntary association. Most, if not every "obscenely rich" person got this rich because of govt interference (lobbying, govt sanctioned monopoly, corporate welfare, subsidies, etc.)
"Organic" market economy would be beneficial to everyone
Sorry, but a market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?
... by protecting your own shit.
But I ain't got no shit cos a bigger guy took it all.
That is less efficient and you'll eventually just end up with a state that way.
That's nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I'm not sure what efficiency has to do with this.
Can you show an example?
An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?
Edit: Upon reflection, it seems that the existence of any black market proves the point.
If you think the black market doesn't have a central authority, you're looking through rose tinted glasses. Whoever has the most money and the most guns at their disposal is the authority. The black market is actually a perfect example of where capitalist market economics lead without regulation.
Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things? Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations. Though, we certainly don't need the state for a black market to run its business. However, I guess it wouldn't really be a black market if there wasn't a state to declare things illegal 🤔.
I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism.
Why?
What do you mean, "of course"?
If there weren't a state, it would just be a "market", not a black market. And as I said, black markets are controlled by the most wealthy and powerful in that market. They are the de facto state of the black market.
Exactly, yes.
If you consider regulation authoritarian, sure. Or if you're referring to the outlawing of drugs, I somewhat agree. Weapons trading is grey at best, though.
Why are we talking about the state running things? Because your comment I originally responded to was "sorry, but the market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?" I believe my responses have been very much on this topic.
I disagree that every market requires a state to function. Humans are social beings and will always continue to trade and barter regardless of the form of government, or lack of government. I absolutely disagree that any third-party is needed for protection of property. Now, if we consider all forms of centralized authority as defacto states, sure, I guess I can't compete with those semantics and will have to concede that you are right. In that case, I believe any group of people can be a "state".
Now, I've been conversing in good faith, stating my point of view, and even answering one-liner questions. You are clearly against capitalism, and you seem to believe that state protection is necessary for a market to function (please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth). Are you against the idea of markets in general? If so, what replaces the market and how would its authority be any better?
Requiring a state to protect private property isn't "the state running things". Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state to uphold private property laws. "The state running shit" would be like... a planned economy.
Don't equivocate the two, yeah?
Look friend, it should be clear that "things", in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of "state" to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I've been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I'm open to hearing alternative views.
It's fucking bonkers that you think the definition of "things" is what's at issue here.
I'm not disputing that lmao. But upholding private property law is not running the market. That would be, like i said, a planned economy.
What's bonkers is that you still haven't offered up your position so it's difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn't a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.
I never mentioned personal property. I'm talking about private property.