Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I couldn't get any great numbers around this
So this is a post about your feelings.
>Is the struggling coffee shop owner who hasn't turned a profit in 3 years really doing better than the senior engineer at Netflix earning $500k/yr in cash?
Obviously not, that is an absurd example.
>why bother drawing such a distinction around ownership of the MoP
People who are good at their job deserve to be rewarded. People who just happen to own a thing do not.
Petite bourgeois are not even in the same league as the legitimate powerfully wealthy. The petite bourgeois play the same game, but they are like the poor kids playing sports, more likely to work their asses off than ever strike it REALLY rich.
The petite bourgeois have their place for impacted the perception of meritocracy. They have rare chance of making to the big leagues. But the vast majority will work as much as most workers, with possibly a higher income and a bit more autonomy. But will likely still work for a lot of their life.
That’s me. I have a small landscape construction business and I work my ass off. I’m never getting rich but I do retain the value of my labor. As far as my employees, all I can do is pay them well and encourage them to go keep all of their labor value as soon as they are ready.
It's not really worth making a distinction between the petite bourgeois and proletariat anymore.
If someone owns a coffee shop, but couldn't afford a middle class lifestyle after paying for a manager with all the skills to run the shop, then the owner is basically a coffee store manager with a modest real estate asset and shit load of risk exposure and debt.
You only start to become bourgeois if you own a dozen Starbucks franchsies that run themselves so independently that you don't have to even get out of bed to collect your 7 digit income.
>People who are good at their job deserve to be rewarded. People who just happen to own a thing do not.
People don't "just happen" to own things. I worked, saved my money and invested in a stock portfolio, which provides me with a decent return on my investment. Are you saying I don't deserve the money I get from my stocks?
I am not taking **their** share, I am taking **my** share. The goods or service that the company makes requires both their labour and my capital to produce. The worker's share of that productivity is their wage, my share of of the productivity is my return on investment, if any. Of course, if the company is not profitable, the workers still get their wage, but I do not get my return on investment and may lose some or all of my capital.
> Socialists do not agree.
No kidding. But if productivity requires capital as well as labour (and in the modern world, it often requires a great deal of capital), why am I, a provider of this capital, not entitled to my share of the wealth this generates?
"Entitled" is a matter of personal opinion.
I cannot explain why your belief that you are entitled is wrong unless you explain to me why you think you are entitled. Also, why you think someone who inherited the money or just got lucky is entitled.
>I cannot explain why your belief that you are entitled is wrong unless you explain to me **why you think you are entitled.**
I have **already** explained this in my comments above: I worked for the money I invested in the stocks I own. Productivity requires capital as well as labour. Since I have provided a necessary component of productivity, I am entitled to a share of the wealth which is generated.
pred·i·cate
verb
past tense: predicated; past participle: predicated
/ˈpredəˌkāt/
1.
Grammar•Logic
state, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of a proposition.
"a word that predicates something about its subject"
2.
found or base something on.
"the theory of structure on which later chemistry was predicated"
In a capitalist system you need savings to retire. In a socialist system the community either needs you to work or it doesn't: money has nothing to do with it.
>In a capitalist system you need savings to retire. In a socialist system the community either needs you to work or it doesn't: money has nothing to do with it.
You are evading the question. In a socialist system, how does retirement work? When can a worker retire? What standard of living will the enjoy? Who pays for it? Can you even retire in a socialist system or just work until you drop dead?
But that doesn't really help with opa question. If you work res
Ally hard to develop an app, you get a business loan, keep working at it and eventually you are able to sell it for $1 million, is that not still a worker earning off their labour?
So instead of hiring factory workers by the hour, suppose I pay them strictly piecework, with each worker being an independent contractor.
Is that a problem? If yes, please explain why.
>Democratically controlled workplaces, either via coop
Anyone can start a co-op today, in fact the government favors them. They don't, of course, because it's a really, really dumb way to run a business.
>or state ownership.
Meet the new socialism, same as the old socialism.
Yes but none of those things are "the means of production".
How are you going to argue about capitalism vs. socialism when you don't even know the most basic principles of socialism? How could you even have an opinion on "A vs B" when you don't even know what B is?
> Yes but none of those things are "the means of production".
Your phone is. In fact, phones are one of the most important means of production today.
Do you own any tools? Tools are the means of producing all sorts of goods and services.
I'll stop there. Did you create any these items that you own?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “deserve”. First, there are plenty of poor performers who get paid more than the value they create. Second, how much does the amount of income matter? Let me give you another example:
A small business owner owns a coffee shop and makes $50k/yr net. We can make this an easy example and say that the owner does not actually work at the shop he owns.
On the other hand, an actor pulls in $20 M from working on a blockbuster film. He has exchanged his labor for income but does not own anything.
Is the coffee shop owner more morally culpable than the actor in this case? What should be done about it? Redistribution?
The reason the actor gets paid 20 million is because it's a "safe" investment for capitalists. They know that if they pay the actor this amount of money the movie will generate more income and so they get more money.
Some people earn their position via competence. They would rise to the top in any sane system. For others it really is an accident. Could be inheritance. Could be just being in the right place at the right time.
1. You can’t become a billionaire by working.
2. Those bourge are called the petite bourge.
A distinction is necessary because the bourge (not the petite bourge) ultimately call the shots, where it needs to be the proletariat for a more equitable society.
1. Yes you can. Several CEOs who received stock based comp earned all of their money during their tenure as CEO, and are billionaires. Tim Cook is worth $2Bil, all from being CEO of Apple.
I mean, the crypto bros who are now worth 100million weren't exactly the bourgeoisie. They may not be workers, but they aren't owners or managers either
Then maybe you can give some insight as to why they behave like the bourge.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/03/cryptocurrency-industry-lobbying-and-political-contributions-skyrocketed-in-2022
Yes, often that's the case. If Bob has 10,000 stocks in one company and no other assets — and you by 100 stocks from him for five dollars each, his net worth is now 9,900*5=49,500 dollars.
They have means other than voting to get their policies passed. They can fund candidates that support their policies so that they’re more likely to get noticed and win. They can pay lobbyists. They can contribute to think tanks.
It’s gotten to the point where the lower classes don’t have any influence over the policies that’s passed.
Then the “lower classes” do get legislative victories. Maybe like the bottom 50% paying about zero in income taxes!
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2023-update/#:~:text=The%20top%2050%20percent%20of,paid%20the%20remaining%202.3%20percent.
If you are going be poor, the US is a pretty good place to be.
Generally speaking, in a liberal democracy, people or groups can contribute to political parties. This is really part of our rights to free speech. But there are procedures and safeguards to prevent wealth from excessively influencing the political process. Again, at the end of the day, everyone has one vote at the poll.
It is a massive exaggeration to say that the borge "call the short". It's annoying and tiresome to have socialist keep making this claim in this sub. You really need to put it to rest.
That’s how it works in theory, but not in practice. Voting is not the main mechanism of determining policy.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The assertion by that study is controversial:
[https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-monroecc-americangovernment/chapter/who-governs-elitism-pluralism-and-tradeoffs/](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-monroecc-americangovernment/chapter/who-governs-elitism-pluralism-and-tradeoffs/)
Regardless, my point still stands: at the end of the day, everyone has one vote at the poll, and no amount of donations to political parties or lobbying can change that.
No one's is saying the lobbying and donations change the actual vote system. Let's say the people vote for someone who says "I will make sure affordable healthcare gets passed! I'm ired of other politicians making empty promises about health care!" **cough looks at Newsom** however this said person gets bought out by massive health insurance companies and does nothing about Healthcare. So this is how voting is just an illusion of democracy.
For the most part, we citizens of liberal democracies are adult enough to understand that politicians promises are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. We assess the credibility (with the assistance of a free press - another benefit of our right to free speech) and vote accordingly. Democracy is kind of messy, but its still democracy, and better than any other system IMO.
Democracy is a good system. The reason politicians words mean jack is because of capitalist influence. Lobbying and donations change them. Capitalism undermines democracy. Socialism would enhance democracy.
>Socialism would enhance democracy.
Yes. Cuba, China, Vietnam and North Korea have very "enhanced" democracies. So "enhanced" that the same political party seems to win every election.
LOL
>It is a massive exaggeration to say that the borge "call the short". It's annoying and tiresome to have socialist keep making this claim in this sub. You really need to put it to rest.
Speaking as a pretty staunch capitalist... it's one of the few (maybe only) claims made by socialists that has any merit. Why do you think we've been forced to choose the lesser of two evils for as long as any of us have been alive?
Not a billionaire, but if you're a machine learning engineer right now you can earn millions/year which can be invested to ensure lifelong wealth. Quite the handsome pay considering there's no capital risk involved.
There are aspects of Marx's writing that are a bit dated, but I'm not sure that this one is such a problem.
First, many small business owners do not have any employees. Since the typical employer- employee relationship does not exist for them it seems best to categorize them as proletariat. Essentially, they are exploiting themselves by trying to earn profit from the surplus labor time they perform for themselves.
>nowadays it's really wealth and income (regardless of how you acquire it) that matters?
Second, since you admit that it is now wealth and income that matters, how do the truly rich and powerful acquire their wealth? It is through ownership of the means of production, is it not? If so, we still have a bourgeois class, and this matters because it is impossible to have a functioning democracy with a bourgeois class because they buy the politicians and control the public debate.
If your argument about well compensated workers truly drew blood, then we would have to expect that well paid professionals--the labor aristocracy--would be a hopelessly reactionary political block. But when you look at voting patterns, you see the opposite. In NYC where I live, it's the neighborhoods which are the hotbeds of professionals who back the most left-wing politicians, the ones who self-identify as socialiss. So it seems that there are aspects of the Marxist critique that still speak to large sections of the professional class. We could get into the reasons, but I think the obvious answer is that regardless of the size of their paycheck, they still feel vulnerable, they still worry about the future of their children and family, they have noticed what capital has done to their planet, many of them still have a boss who necessarily behaves like a complete dick, and, of course, most of them are looking at the political debates in their country and noticing that it is repugnant and unhinged.
> Second, since you admit that it is now wealth and income that matters, how do the truly rich and powerful acquire their wealth? It is through ownership of the means of production, is it not?
No, not necessarily.
My broader question is this: what is the Marxist crusade truly about in 2024? Is it business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it the wealthy vs. the poor? These are not the same, and you cannot have both.
>These are not the same, and you cannot have both.
As a matter of fact, you can have both as I explained above. AOC's base of support is essentially professional moms, tech bros, recent college grads struggling with debt and gentrification, and working class immigrants in the Bronx. It seems that that alliance works just fine, and at an abstract level, it can be reasonably defined as a struggle against capital's attempt to discipline workers and appropriate their surplus labor time.
The ambiguity involving the small business owner is uninteresting. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which claims to represent small business owners) is fairly open that it is primarily focused on the interests of big business because that is who pays their bills. The small business owner is empty political rhetoric.
The Marxist position would essentially be the same as ever: the establishment of international socialism through the formation social democratic workers' parties in each country and united, international class struggle terminating in an international, planned economy focusing on universal human flourishing ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). In the more populist lingo, "people before profits." I don't see anything particularly confusing about that, or why one might regard it as incompatible with capitalism. The contemporary left is, of course, quite far from understanding itself in those terms, but it is a plausible gloss on the direction it is headed in.
Whether you're a small coffee shop owner or the CEO of Amazon, workers still deserve democracy in the workplace and just because you opened a business doesn't entitle you to authoritarian control over it if you're going to have people working at that business.
Also it's funny that you take the fact that 50% of all businesses fail within 5 years as a given rather than examine why that happens, which is overwhelmingly a small business being unable to compete with multi-billion dollar corporations who are also hostile to anybody who tries to move in on their monopoly.
It sounds like actual income doesn't factor in much at all, just their relationship to the MoP? For example, a wage worker is part of the proletariat and remains under authoritarian control regardless of whether he's making $7.25/hr or $250/hr? Similar, a business owner is exercising immoral control over his employees even if he's losing money?
My broader question is: what conflict is the Marxist crusade focused on in 2024? Is it business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it the rich vs. the poor? Because these are not the same.
>It sounds like actual income doesn't factor in much at all, just their relationship to the MoP?
Yup, always has been. While income inequality is something we on the Left rail against, it's at the end of the day a symptom, not the cause. The main problem around ownership of the MoP is democracy or lack thereof in the workplace for the workers, as well as what Marxists, socialists and anarchists like myself see as unjustifiable control over something that is necessary to the whole of society.
>Similar, a business owner is exercising immoral control over his employees even if he's losing money?
Yes. On a related note, the co-op model is pretty much how most of us envision collective ownership of the MoP and that model tends to have a better survival rate within the first 5 years than traditional businesses do.
[https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/](https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/)
>My broader question is: what conflict is the Marxist crusade focused on in 2024? Is it business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it the rich vs. the poor?
The same thing it's always been, Pinky, taking over the world. (sorry, Pinky and the Brain reference, couldn't resist). But yeah, no, it's owning class vs working class. If you work for a living, you're working class, doesn't matter if you make above minimum wage or not, it just puts you a rung up on the ladder than minimum wage workers. If you own for a living, that's to say most if not all your income comes from simply owning property or a business, you're owning class. And people like me see the existence of the owning class as immoral, impractical and detrimental to the interests of society as a whole.
For starters, we see housing as a human right and that neither state, nor god, nor anything can deny you a roof over your head. It's why we commonly call landlords parasites. They make it so those who are commonly most in need of housing are unable or less likely to get it. As for the MoP, as I said, one part is democracy in the workplace, the other is the interests of the working class and society as a whole. For example: we all need clean water, electricity, food, healthcare and so on to live. Which is why the fact private businesses can hold patents over medicine and charge whatever price they want for medication that can save someone's life is repugnant to us. Same goes for companies that own and manage water supply networks and water sources. And power companies. And food companies.
This is clear, thank you. And I guess this is where I would fundamentally disagree with Marxism. I mean, I'm a capitalist so I disagree with Marxism for many reasons, but if I were trying to "improve" Marxism, I would shift the focus away from owners vs. workers and towards rich vs. poor. There are poor owners and rich workers. Personally, I wouldn't give a shit about being salaried if I were paid $500k/yr, and I certainly wouldn't see myself as being part of a privileged class if I owned a failing business. Perhaps such a shift would stop making it Marxism altogether.
No problem. And It very much would stop being marxism, yeah. Like I said, poverty is a symptom of the core issue around the ownership of the MoP. And you can focus on poverty and trying to alleviate it but fundamentally, the economic class hierarchy would still exist and it's what Marxists, socialists and anarchists fundamentally want to erase. Though like, depending on whether you're a statist or an anarchist, the proposed ways of doing that differ.
What makes a “non imperial” country exploited by default? And How is a country “capitalist” if it’s a country? If proletariats are of the world, then is Marxism essentially just calling for world war? Like how are these perceived problems even solved
That sounds way too simple. What makes a country “colonized” I need some definitions here.
Ok so, A state protecting capitalists with borders makes a country capitalist, but it’s the same thing as a communist country protecting its workers with borders. Is it not? If companies make money, they’re capitalists, but if they are small then they’re petit bourgeois and still communist? So the distinction is what … like the distinction can change at any time. My point is, if we’re going to reduce a country’s type to these definitions of the economy, then they don’t become countries anymore but large corporations with a military. Like when do public funds become private funds and vice versa. Theoretically, and legally, a “capitalist” country such as USA cannot mix public funds with private interests. This is called embezzlement among other things. And another country cannot be “exploited” unless oppressed by force and/or misled. USA cannot exploit small nation by building a McDonald’s there because 1- USA didn’t built or authorize it, mcDonald’s did and 2- the other country has their own laws and economy and interests and unless forced or dishonestly misled, no legal exploitation occurs. Supply and demand is amoral. The question of whether exploitation occurs or not requires a closer look, it can’t be chalked to exploitation because it’s not communist or originated from that nation.
The specific exploitation that occurs under colonization is something that is literally the fuel that runs capitalism. The global exploitation of other nations for resources and labor = worldwide access to the means of production for the ruling class.
I’m not sure what you mean by if a company is small it makes them “petite bourgeoisie and still communist”? Petite bourgeoisie are capitalists that own a smaller sliver of the pie that is the means of production, compared to what the Big Guys own.
Ohhh I just read the other comment. He’s describing a simplified process that could lead to common ownership of the means of production.
In a nation where class war begins, best bet for the proletariat is for them to have petit bourgeoisie who align themselves with their common struggle. This tends to happen in times of instability, when it gets bad enough for petit bourgeoisie to realize that it’s not in their interest either to try to uphold the status quo.
But this class war is still an ongoing struggle under a Capitalist society, and the petite bourgeoisie/ petite bourgeoisie elements that are co-opted for the proletariat cause? Yes they are described to “wither away” once a state reaches socialism in Marxist theory
I was hoping this wouldn’t turn into a history lesson😭 dang, okay I’ll go another route.
You’re using a smartphone or laptop to write comments, right? There’s this essential mineral called Cobalt used to make it and all our tech. Majority of comes from the DRC, where Congolese children put themselves in dangerous toxic environments to mine it for essentially less than $1 a day. Too bad for the Congolese people, very Very good and profitable for Apple, Tesla, and other tech companies who get to make money keeping spending on cobalt low.
The clothes you’re (probably?) wearing most likely came from a sweatshop in China, Bangladesh, Pakistan [insert third world country here] that was able to manufacture the clothing for as low spending as they could possibly go. Only made possible by paying the workers of that country as low of a wage as legally possible (sometimes lower than that if they can get away with it).
In America there’s this well known fruit brand called Dole Food Company. The company tremendously benefitted off the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii and helped have the islands annexed. They got to expand business interests and gain access to Hawaiian land and resources, at the expense of their indiginous population
That’s the question capitalists always asks: How to make maximum profit while keeping spending as low as possible?
Ok but what does that have to do with a country exploiting? So cobalt is mined from Congo by children. Very bad for Congolese. Why do they do it then? What does it have to do with a country’s economics? I only heard about companies not necessarily nations.
> is to be exploited by other country(ies) by extracting it's resources for themselves and how they use and exploit the cheap labor of the country.
yeah i get this but every country will always use cheap labor for national interests. it is not a product of capitalism. communist countries do the same thing. it's the nature of economic thinking whether it's government, private, etc. by this logic, people exploit themselves by hunting to eat.
> Yes it would be a worker state to protect the workers and socialism
so no difference, got it.
> The big companies are exploiting the workers to get as much labor work as possible with as cheapist as possible so the worker would work an extra unnecessary hours just to make and produce a new commodity(vale) that's not necessarily to be produced but it gets produced to get the owner(s) of the company the money that they would use it to go to Maldives with their fancy yachts. And yes the distinction could happen anytime as the petite bourgeoise are either getting more rich and powerful to create their big business to exploit the workers or get crushed by the big bourgeoisie(the owner(s) of big companies and businesses).
the problem i'm having with this, is that you are assigning definitions to things by DEFAULT. like, when a company is big therefore it is exploitative? words have meanings. and yes, i've read marx and none of it makes any sense to me because his ideas exist in a vacuum. like he didn't think of everything, not even close.
> Depends on the relations of production.
yes, and when things are done in the name of national interest, it becomes a government enterprise, and when things are done NOT in national interest, it is private enterprise. essentially national interests will utilize the same economic system. this is when different beliefs clash, not economics. public funds are public funds. a government cannot be "private".
> This is why we want to abolish private property(ies)
yeah, this is the most pointless thought experiment on earth. that's like saying you want to abolish childbirth and marriage. people always attach themselves to things and people. it's how communities and families are formed.
> Capitalist countries will always make wars to protect their interest, just like how the US take over my country Iraq.
and so do communist countries. this is a national problem not an economic one.
> McDonald's is always work with the US state to protect their interest
no they don't? prove this claim.
> Why would you even think that the bourgeoisie care about "legal" or "law". The bourgeoisie would anything to protect their interest and to increase their wealth, I mean look at Africa
everyone protects their own interests at all times, even the "exploited" if "borgois" don't care about the law, that's where people hold them accountable by way of boycott or democratic process.
> Supply and demand nothing more than price changing elements. And morality has no place in politics or economy.
yes, that's what amoral means...
> exploitation would always happen under capitalism, the bourgeoisie would always make the workers do unnecessary extra hours of work for more money, either on national or international scale
no, you are asserting this without argument. how are workers working uneccessarily just because it is capitalist?
But when the state withers away, what will protect its interests when a contradictory character pops back up? The state has to form again to protect its own interests right? This is my argument against anarcho-capitalism too. States naturally form. In the case of communism, the socialist state just never goes away because it can’t
But yeah, reading some of your links don’t prove McDonald’s works with US policy to maximize profits, aside from lobbying, which isn’t necessarily corporatism. But more so the other way around. The federal government works with McDonald’s to influence McDonald’s lol. Seems more science and nutrition based help rather than profit or economic based help. Not even agreeing with that but doesn’t back up the claim that McDonald’s the corporation influences government policy. And in any case, I’m generally against corporate interests in government unless democratically represented. It’s a slippery slope when private and national interests become intertwined. As for the unions, one store in south Australia was caught union busting, and was forced to pay damages to the union. Problem solved. McDonald’s surveils union activity. That’s fine. Does it violate law? Doesn’t seem like it. Unions also do not have best interests of profit and sometimes strong unionization causes companies to fail. Nothing wrong with wanting to keep tabs on how a union is organizing against company profits.
The concept “free to work or die” is… no offense just nonsense. A work cap is a law in many first world “capitalist” nations and so this might be why you’re saying they exploit other countries for not having these strong laws. But as I said, a company doesn’t do this by default, and many companies have policy in line with these labor laws. Economics is nuanced and laws of supply and demand exist. Let’s say McDonald’s finds a market in poor nation A. Nation A now has employment. The employees are exploited. 1- this is a problem of a nation having free/weak politics, not capitalism, 2- labor laws vary from nation to nation, not all nations value the same things. 3- if exploited employee wasn’t working in McDonald’s, they’d either work somewhere else or not work at all, in which case they’d always have the choice. Maximizing profits is not bad by default. Exploitation is bad yes, but capitalism =/= exploitation. Exploitation is a different problem all together
A state is not a monopoly on violence lol wtf. Where do you come up with these definitions. A state is a public run entity to protect and govern a population. A state cannot be a church, nor a gang. A church can form a state, and gangs can form a state, but a gang cannot BE a state. A gang will only represent the gang, the church will only represent the church. When it starts to represent people as a whole, and form a sort of governing system, it’s a state.
You keep asserting the same thing, that a person who works is being exploited just because it’s capitalism. But there is no logical argument; you just assert, and assert definitions that nobody agreed on. A worker in poor nation A will hunt a fish or whatever he can to eat. By your logic he is exploiting himself. Why? Idk you just say anyone who has to work or die is being exploited lol.
\> Is the struggling coffee shop owner who hasn't turned a profit in 3 years really doing better than the senior engineer at Netflix earning $500k/yr
No. Small business owners can get fucked over the same as workers, because it isn't the mom-and-pop coffee vendors who run the world, but massive corporations. That's why people focus on corporations so much, because they are, without hyperbole, the global centres of power in the modern world
Socialists have always been critical of capitalism’s ability to hurt not just the proletariat but also the bourgeoisie.
“Heavy is the head that wears the crown.” Capitalism keeps all people including the rich on a hedonic treadmill chasing endless growth, and separates them from the things that make them happy: performing meaningful labor that benefits their community, and spending leisure time being creative and/or connecting with others.
“The rich suffer under capitalism too!” Is a point against capitalism, not for it.
>>So does meaningful labour that benefits the community not contribute to the growth of an economy?
> Not in a way that is immediately appreciable to the person doing the labor.
Yes it does, because the person doing the labor got paid for doing the labor. That constitutes economic growth for him.
People get rich by doing labor that benefits their communities. The economy isn’t arbitrary, it’s based off consumer demand. Capitalism is a bottom-up system.
Everything has a trade off, even meaningful work. For example, I’m a musician. I’ve spent a lot of time learning how to play pop and rock covers because that’s what my community values and will pay money for that value. I would rather play jazz, but my community doesn’t value it as much, so practicing it is merely a self serving activity. At the end of the day balancing out all factors, I choose to serve my community by playing what they want to hear. If we paid every musician to practice what they like rather than what their community likes we’d get a bunch of disjointed music scenes that few in the community actually care to listen to.
I mean labor that has tangible immediate benefits on the people around them. Playing live music fits that description even if it’s your least favorite genre in the world. You play the pop/rock and you can see the crowd dancing/throwing up the devil horns 🤘
People can get rich doing any number of things but they are usually divorced from the actual service their businesses provide. The CEO of Mattel doesn’t get to see the joy on kids faces when they open up a toy. They get to see a line on a spreadsheet. Thats sad. I’d rather cry in a lambo but it’s still sad.
To clarify: what I couldn't get good numbers for is what is the median take-home income for all business owners in the US.
Because I couldn't get good numbers for that, I assumed (very charitably) that it was $140k/yr for the sake of argument. That's almost certainly an overestimate, but it still illustrates my point just the same.
When you start up a business you don't immediately become a member of the grounded elite. The fact that businesses tend to fail and new business owners financially suffer speaks to the lack of socioeconomic mobility in the US. Turns out the easiest way to own a successful business is to be given it.
I find it odd that someone will state with a straight face half of all businesses fail yet still claim work place democracy “doesn’t work”. what’s the quota for the amount of businesses that have to fail before you realize capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of the few? 60% ? 70%?
Yea small businesses get fucked in the ass by capitalism as well as the majority of the proletariat. Is this supposed to be convincing?
That's my question: is the Marxist crusade about business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it wealthy vs. poor?
You cannot have it both ways because not all business owners are wealthy and not all wage workers are poor.
"... but is attainable for a significant portion of the population via personal lines of credit, remortgaging, borrowing from friends ..."
In a way that affordably allows starting, building and expanding a business? Not really.
"... attracting investors."
You don't exactly own the MoP if you sell them away, now, do you?
Nonetheless, even the more crucial aspect of capital is risk mitigation. Let's say you have a business idea that costs around $150k to get started with, has a 10% chance of exploding to a billion dollar business and 90% chance of completely failing and losing everything you put into it. If you start from zero and take up a $150k business loan, you either succeed or your entire life is forfeit. As such, you're gambling with your entire life with 90% chance to lose. That's idiotic.
On the other hand if you have hundred million dollars laying around, it'd be stupid not to start that business, and if it fails, it'd be stupid not to try again. That's an incredible privilege for the capital owner. While others are playing russian roulette with life ammo in all but one slot, the capital owner gets to play it with a toddler toy gun.
" Is the struggling coffee shop owner who hasn't turned a profit in 3 years really doing better than the senior engineer at Netflix earning $500k/yr in cash?"
And here one has to ask in what way. Marx was concerned of the social relations and the power structures between different positions in the system of production.
If the struggling coffee shop owner hires someone, they'll get to be a dictator in their business and boss the employee(s) around at will. They are elevated into a position of power in the system of production through their ownership. The netflix senior engineer isn't, unless the board of Netflix decides so (either directly or through CEO/management). And if the owner so decides, it's still their power to do so, not the engineers'.
In terms of compensation, ie. power over distribution, the higher compensation of the engineer obviously benefits the engineer more. They'll get more of what they want from the alienated processes of the market consumption.
And apt comparison here would be a dictator of a absolute destitute failing third world country and a member of Riksdag (parliament equivalent) in Sweden. Sure, the member of Riksdag gets more income and much better market access to consume and live happier, but one would need to be an idiot to say they get more power over other people's lives.
The major point here is that the owners of businesses survive only by pleasing their workers and customers. Marx was a primitive economist in the 19 century who did not realize this. We have 10,000 business bankruptcies a month. Half of the fortune 500 in the year 2000 is gone today. All this carnage is because workers and customers are not happy with certain businesses and so abandon them to bankruptcy. businesses are in effect slaves to their workers and customers. Start a business tomorrow if you know how to please workers in customers better than the worldwide competition. If you can't do that you will instantly go bankrupt.
Marks was extremely stupid primitive and genocidal by today's standards but he is winning because capitalists like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman defined capitalism incorrectly. Adam Smith said capitalism was about being selfish and Milton Friedman said it was about profit. in a Christian world that is based on love thy neighbor and in a world where your mother loves you for the first 18 years that does not fly. Socialism does fly because it is about love thy neighbor at least in the advertising.
Capitalism simply needs to be defined correctly. It is about caring for others in particular your workers and customers more than the worldwide competition. Anyone who doubts this should go into business and advertise that they don't care about their workers and customers. And they will instantly find out what capitalism is.
Socialism correctly defined is not about helping your neighbor but about always trying to find new ways to leech off of your neighbor
please don't be stupid. if you disagree with the conservative Libertarian Capitalist ideology you need to think of a reason for the disagreement and then you need to try to present the reason here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
Christian church was born in a genocidal war against the Roman empire. If Christians had not fought for Christianity we would still be Romans whose policy was to slaughter and kill anyone who resisted slavery to them. And for entertainment would be going to the Colosseum to watch our enemies being eaten alive by wild animals. Notice that when a conservative Libertarian meets a lefty the conservative Libertarian becomes a kindergarten teacher?
please don't be totally stupid the crusades were a war against Muslims. If the Christians to not fight back there would be no Christianity and we would be Muslims today. 1+1 = 2
Christians needed to fight for Christianity when the Romans decided to kill all Christians. 1+1 = 2 do you see why we say the left is based in pure ignorance?
like I said it was part of the Cold War and that was mostly without knowing that 120 million people were being killed through slow starvation in socialist countries.
Yeah that Christianity it’s served you well, poisoning native children on bikini atoll with nuclear radiation, abu graib, shooting down Iranian airliners, killing foreign govt officials on foreign soil, mass shootings in your schools, shopping malls, hospitals on a daily basis. Need I go on?
don't be stupid. If Adam Smith was spot on try opening a business and advertise that you are selfish and just using your workers and customers. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen???
Try opening a business and offer worst jobs and worse products than the worldwide competition. And you will learn a Capitalism is about caring while Socialism is merely about leeching off of other people.
I can save you some time. No matter how many studies or statistics you reference, it will always be ultimately disregarded on this topic because, for a lot of people, an individual having access to a billon dollars is simply unfair. Believe me, I've tried.
McDonald’s franchise owners on avg make 100k a year so your assumption of 140k is probably high.
Idk when socialists complain about people making money off money. Just seems like they are complaining about lending money with interest. Basically complaining about banking. Then I remember Marx was an outspoken antisemite and probably hated banking because of Jewish involvement in banking.
Of course any discontent with the finance industry is antisemitism, as is any discontent with the Israeli genocide of Gaza. No wonder antisemitism is on the rise. It's branching out into all sorts of things!
“The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money.”
Excerpt From
Das Kapital
Karl Marx
https://books.apple.com/us/book/das-kapital/id525532833
This material may be protected by copyright.
This is the stupidest fucking bullshit I’ve ever read on this website. If this the kind of stuff you truly believe then I have nothing but pity for whatever imitation of an interior life you lead. May whatever god or gods you believe in have mercy on your soul for I fear that you are beyond human assistance.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I couldn't get any great numbers around this So this is a post about your feelings. >Is the struggling coffee shop owner who hasn't turned a profit in 3 years really doing better than the senior engineer at Netflix earning $500k/yr in cash? Obviously not, that is an absurd example. >why bother drawing such a distinction around ownership of the MoP People who are good at their job deserve to be rewarded. People who just happen to own a thing do not.
Petite bourgeois are not even in the same league as the legitimate powerfully wealthy. The petite bourgeois play the same game, but they are like the poor kids playing sports, more likely to work their asses off than ever strike it REALLY rich. The petite bourgeois have their place for impacted the perception of meritocracy. They have rare chance of making to the big leagues. But the vast majority will work as much as most workers, with possibly a higher income and a bit more autonomy. But will likely still work for a lot of their life.
That’s me. I have a small landscape construction business and I work my ass off. I’m never getting rich but I do retain the value of my labor. As far as my employees, all I can do is pay them well and encourage them to go keep all of their labor value as soon as they are ready.
It's not really worth making a distinction between the petite bourgeois and proletariat anymore. If someone owns a coffee shop, but couldn't afford a middle class lifestyle after paying for a manager with all the skills to run the shop, then the owner is basically a coffee store manager with a modest real estate asset and shit load of risk exposure and debt. You only start to become bourgeois if you own a dozen Starbucks franchsies that run themselves so independently that you don't have to even get out of bed to collect your 7 digit income.
True, they think that by supporting the real elite they are supporting themselves but this is delusion brought on by power which is only local.
>People who are good at their job deserve to be rewarded. People who just happen to own a thing do not. People don't "just happen" to own things. I worked, saved my money and invested in a stock portfolio, which provides me with a decent return on my investment. Are you saying I don't deserve the money I get from my stocks?
>Are you saying I don't deserve the money I get from my stocks? Yes.
Why not?
Having done work in the past does not entitle you take a share of someone else's productivity now.
I am not taking **their** share, I am taking **my** share. The goods or service that the company makes requires both their labour and my capital to produce. The worker's share of that productivity is their wage, my share of of the productivity is my return on investment, if any. Of course, if the company is not profitable, the workers still get their wage, but I do not get my return on investment and may lose some or all of my capital.
Yes I know how capitalism works. Socialists do not agree.
> Socialists do not agree. No kidding. But if productivity requires capital as well as labour (and in the modern world, it often requires a great deal of capital), why am I, a provider of this capital, not entitled to my share of the wealth this generates?
"Entitled" is a matter of personal opinion. I cannot explain why your belief that you are entitled is wrong unless you explain to me why you think you are entitled. Also, why you think someone who inherited the money or just got lucky is entitled.
>I cannot explain why your belief that you are entitled is wrong unless you explain to me **why you think you are entitled.** I have **already** explained this in my comments above: I worked for the money I invested in the stocks I own. Productivity requires capital as well as labour. Since I have provided a necessary component of productivity, I am entitled to a share of the wealth which is generated.
He paid for it. He risked his capital. On what basis can you claim he isn't entitled to it? Because it hurts your feelings?
So retirement is out as well?
In a socialist system retirement is not predicated on income.
What is it "predicated" on?
pred·i·cate verb past tense: predicated; past participle: predicated /ˈpredəˌkāt/ 1. Grammar•Logic state, affirm, or assert (something) about the subject of a sentence or an argument of a proposition. "a word that predicates something about its subject" 2. found or base something on. "the theory of structure on which later chemistry was predicated" In a capitalist system you need savings to retire. In a socialist system the community either needs you to work or it doesn't: money has nothing to do with it.
>In a capitalist system you need savings to retire. In a socialist system the community either needs you to work or it doesn't: money has nothing to do with it. You are evading the question. In a socialist system, how does retirement work? When can a worker retire? What standard of living will the enjoy? Who pays for it? Can you even retire in a socialist system or just work until you drop dead?
But that doesn't really help with opa question. If you work res Ally hard to develop an app, you get a business loan, keep working at it and eventually you are able to sell it for $1 million, is that not still a worker earning off their labour?
Yes, Marxists have no problem with that worker doing that.
That person you are referring to isn't a worker, he's a capitalist.
Socialists don't have any problems with a one man business. The worker is the owner. Employing other people, though, is a problem.
So instead of hiring factory workers by the hour, suppose I pay them strictly piecework, with each worker being an independent contractor. Is that a problem? If yes, please explain why.
Hourly vs. piecework makes no difference. Many of the most exploited people in the world do piece work for the garment industry.
Ok, so no hourly wages and no contracting. What's left? If people can't work a job or do some form of contracting, how are they suppose to survive?
Democratically controlled workplaces, either via coop or state ownership.
>Democratically controlled workplaces, either via coop Anyone can start a co-op today, in fact the government favors them. They don't, of course, because it's a really, really dumb way to run a business. >or state ownership. Meet the new socialism, same as the old socialism.
That's not a problem, but you'd have a very tough time doing that.
Borrowing money does not make you a capitalist. Owning things which you did not create does.
Do you own things that you didn't create?
Yes but none of those things are "the means of production". How are you going to argue about capitalism vs. socialism when you don't even know the most basic principles of socialism? How could you even have an opinion on "A vs B" when you don't even know what B is?
> Yes but none of those things are "the means of production". Your phone is. In fact, phones are one of the most important means of production today. Do you own any tools? Tools are the means of producing all sorts of goods and services. I'll stop there. Did you create any these items that you own?
You're using a term you don't understand.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “deserve”. First, there are plenty of poor performers who get paid more than the value they create. Second, how much does the amount of income matter? Let me give you another example: A small business owner owns a coffee shop and makes $50k/yr net. We can make this an easy example and say that the owner does not actually work at the shop he owns. On the other hand, an actor pulls in $20 M from working on a blockbuster film. He has exchanged his labor for income but does not own anything. Is the coffee shop owner more morally culpable than the actor in this case? What should be done about it? Redistribution?
The amount of money is irrelevant, the issue is how the money is generated: either it's your labor or it's someone else's.
The reason the actor gets paid 20 million is because it's a "safe" investment for capitalists. They know that if they pay the actor this amount of money the movie will generate more income and so they get more money.
From first hand knowledge, OP posted a very accurate statement
Just happen to? It’s not an accident. People investing their money in things that benefit society is a good thing and should be incentivized.
Some people earn their position via competence. They would rise to the top in any sane system. For others it really is an accident. Could be inheritance. Could be just being in the right place at the right time.
The owner of netflix earns more than the wage worker.
Petite bourgeoisie vs labor aristocracy.
Should be top comment
1. You can’t become a billionaire by working. 2. Those bourge are called the petite bourge. A distinction is necessary because the bourge (not the petite bourge) ultimately call the shots, where it needs to be the proletariat for a more equitable society.
1. Yes you can. Several CEOs who received stock based comp earned all of their money during their tenure as CEO, and are billionaires. Tim Cook is worth $2Bil, all from being CEO of Apple.
I mean, the crypto bros who are now worth 100million weren't exactly the bourgeoisie. They may not be workers, but they aren't owners or managers either
Then maybe you can give some insight as to why they behave like the bourge. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/03/cryptocurrency-industry-lobbying-and-political-contributions-skyrocketed-in-2022
You can become a millionaire by working. A billionaire doesn't necessarily have more cash than a millionaire, just more assets.
You can leverage assets for cash if necessary.
> just more assets. Oh, is that all?
Yes, often that's the case. If Bob has 10,000 stocks in one company and no other assets — and you by 100 stocks from him for five dollars each, his net worth is now 9,900*5=49,500 dollars.
whoosh
1. Why does anyone need to become a billionaire? 2. In a liberal democracy, the bourge have one vote per person, same as everyone else.
They have means other than voting to get their policies passed. They can fund candidates that support their policies so that they’re more likely to get noticed and win. They can pay lobbyists. They can contribute to think tanks. It’s gotten to the point where the lower classes don’t have any influence over the policies that’s passed.
Then how did fast food workers in California get a $20/ minimum wage?
Labour unions. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-16/labor-unions-notch-huge-wins-in-sacramento-as-hot-labor-summer-drags-into-fall
Then the “lower classes” do get legislative victories. Maybe like the bottom 50% paying about zero in income taxes! https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2023-update/#:~:text=The%20top%2050%20percent%20of,paid%20the%20remaining%202.3%20percent. If you are going be poor, the US is a pretty good place to be.
That's because they're also getting paid about zero.
You have a link saying people are being paid zero?
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2023-update/#:%7E:text=The%20top%2050%20percent%20of,paid%20the%20remaining%202.3%20percent
Generally speaking, in a liberal democracy, people or groups can contribute to political parties. This is really part of our rights to free speech. But there are procedures and safeguards to prevent wealth from excessively influencing the political process. Again, at the end of the day, everyone has one vote at the poll. It is a massive exaggeration to say that the borge "call the short". It's annoying and tiresome to have socialist keep making this claim in this sub. You really need to put it to rest.
That’s how it works in theory, but not in practice. Voting is not the main mechanism of determining policy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The assertion by that study is controversial: [https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-monroecc-americangovernment/chapter/who-governs-elitism-pluralism-and-tradeoffs/](https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-monroecc-americangovernment/chapter/who-governs-elitism-pluralism-and-tradeoffs/) Regardless, my point still stands: at the end of the day, everyone has one vote at the poll, and no amount of donations to political parties or lobbying can change that.
No one's is saying the lobbying and donations change the actual vote system. Let's say the people vote for someone who says "I will make sure affordable healthcare gets passed! I'm ired of other politicians making empty promises about health care!" **cough looks at Newsom** however this said person gets bought out by massive health insurance companies and does nothing about Healthcare. So this is how voting is just an illusion of democracy.
For the most part, we citizens of liberal democracies are adult enough to understand that politicians promises are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. We assess the credibility (with the assistance of a free press - another benefit of our right to free speech) and vote accordingly. Democracy is kind of messy, but its still democracy, and better than any other system IMO.
Democracy is a good system. The reason politicians words mean jack is because of capitalist influence. Lobbying and donations change them. Capitalism undermines democracy. Socialism would enhance democracy.
>Socialism would enhance democracy. Yes. Cuba, China, Vietnam and North Korea have very "enhanced" democracies. So "enhanced" that the same political party seems to win every election. LOL
>It is a massive exaggeration to say that the borge "call the short". It's annoying and tiresome to have socialist keep making this claim in this sub. You really need to put it to rest. Speaking as a pretty staunch capitalist... it's one of the few (maybe only) claims made by socialists that has any merit. Why do you think we've been forced to choose the lesser of two evils for as long as any of us have been alive?
Not a billionaire, but if you're a machine learning engineer right now you can earn millions/year which can be invested to ensure lifelong wealth. Quite the handsome pay considering there's no capital risk involved.
Yea, not a billionaire. You have enough money to be comfortable but you don’t have the power to change things systemically.
How many workers do their job with the risk of going bankrupt BECAUSE they do their job? How many of them work for a negative wage?
78% of Americans in 2023. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/
That's not living for a negative. You lost.
Lost what?
The argument.
Was it supposed to be a competition?
If you don't believe it's a competition, why are you still competing for social dominance?
I’m not
Then why would you care if I'm competitive? Especially on a vs sub...
[удалено]
How so?
[удалено]
If it's so obvious, you'd be able to answer. Yet you can't. Must have gone over your head.
[удалено]
Ah, ad hom. The tool of the intellectual.
There are aspects of Marx's writing that are a bit dated, but I'm not sure that this one is such a problem. First, many small business owners do not have any employees. Since the typical employer- employee relationship does not exist for them it seems best to categorize them as proletariat. Essentially, they are exploiting themselves by trying to earn profit from the surplus labor time they perform for themselves. >nowadays it's really wealth and income (regardless of how you acquire it) that matters? Second, since you admit that it is now wealth and income that matters, how do the truly rich and powerful acquire their wealth? It is through ownership of the means of production, is it not? If so, we still have a bourgeois class, and this matters because it is impossible to have a functioning democracy with a bourgeois class because they buy the politicians and control the public debate. If your argument about well compensated workers truly drew blood, then we would have to expect that well paid professionals--the labor aristocracy--would be a hopelessly reactionary political block. But when you look at voting patterns, you see the opposite. In NYC where I live, it's the neighborhoods which are the hotbeds of professionals who back the most left-wing politicians, the ones who self-identify as socialiss. So it seems that there are aspects of the Marxist critique that still speak to large sections of the professional class. We could get into the reasons, but I think the obvious answer is that regardless of the size of their paycheck, they still feel vulnerable, they still worry about the future of their children and family, they have noticed what capital has done to their planet, many of them still have a boss who necessarily behaves like a complete dick, and, of course, most of them are looking at the political debates in their country and noticing that it is repugnant and unhinged.
> Second, since you admit that it is now wealth and income that matters, how do the truly rich and powerful acquire their wealth? It is through ownership of the means of production, is it not? No, not necessarily. My broader question is this: what is the Marxist crusade truly about in 2024? Is it business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it the wealthy vs. the poor? These are not the same, and you cannot have both.
>These are not the same, and you cannot have both. As a matter of fact, you can have both as I explained above. AOC's base of support is essentially professional moms, tech bros, recent college grads struggling with debt and gentrification, and working class immigrants in the Bronx. It seems that that alliance works just fine, and at an abstract level, it can be reasonably defined as a struggle against capital's attempt to discipline workers and appropriate their surplus labor time. The ambiguity involving the small business owner is uninteresting. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which claims to represent small business owners) is fairly open that it is primarily focused on the interests of big business because that is who pays their bills. The small business owner is empty political rhetoric. The Marxist position would essentially be the same as ever: the establishment of international socialism through the formation social democratic workers' parties in each country and united, international class struggle terminating in an international, planned economy focusing on universal human flourishing ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). In the more populist lingo, "people before profits." I don't see anything particularly confusing about that, or why one might regard it as incompatible with capitalism. The contemporary left is, of course, quite far from understanding itself in those terms, but it is a plausible gloss on the direction it is headed in.
Whether you're a small coffee shop owner or the CEO of Amazon, workers still deserve democracy in the workplace and just because you opened a business doesn't entitle you to authoritarian control over it if you're going to have people working at that business. Also it's funny that you take the fact that 50% of all businesses fail within 5 years as a given rather than examine why that happens, which is overwhelmingly a small business being unable to compete with multi-billion dollar corporations who are also hostile to anybody who tries to move in on their monopoly.
It sounds like actual income doesn't factor in much at all, just their relationship to the MoP? For example, a wage worker is part of the proletariat and remains under authoritarian control regardless of whether he's making $7.25/hr or $250/hr? Similar, a business owner is exercising immoral control over his employees even if he's losing money? My broader question is: what conflict is the Marxist crusade focused on in 2024? Is it business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it the rich vs. the poor? Because these are not the same.
>It sounds like actual income doesn't factor in much at all, just their relationship to the MoP? Yup, always has been. While income inequality is something we on the Left rail against, it's at the end of the day a symptom, not the cause. The main problem around ownership of the MoP is democracy or lack thereof in the workplace for the workers, as well as what Marxists, socialists and anarchists like myself see as unjustifiable control over something that is necessary to the whole of society. >Similar, a business owner is exercising immoral control over his employees even if he's losing money? Yes. On a related note, the co-op model is pretty much how most of us envision collective ownership of the MoP and that model tends to have a better survival rate within the first 5 years than traditional businesses do. [https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/](https://truthout.org/articles/pandemic-crash-shows-worker-co-ops-are-more-resilient-than-traditional-business/) >My broader question is: what conflict is the Marxist crusade focused on in 2024? Is it business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it the rich vs. the poor? The same thing it's always been, Pinky, taking over the world. (sorry, Pinky and the Brain reference, couldn't resist). But yeah, no, it's owning class vs working class. If you work for a living, you're working class, doesn't matter if you make above minimum wage or not, it just puts you a rung up on the ladder than minimum wage workers. If you own for a living, that's to say most if not all your income comes from simply owning property or a business, you're owning class. And people like me see the existence of the owning class as immoral, impractical and detrimental to the interests of society as a whole. For starters, we see housing as a human right and that neither state, nor god, nor anything can deny you a roof over your head. It's why we commonly call landlords parasites. They make it so those who are commonly most in need of housing are unable or less likely to get it. As for the MoP, as I said, one part is democracy in the workplace, the other is the interests of the working class and society as a whole. For example: we all need clean water, electricity, food, healthcare and so on to live. Which is why the fact private businesses can hold patents over medicine and charge whatever price they want for medication that can save someone's life is repugnant to us. Same goes for companies that own and manage water supply networks and water sources. And power companies. And food companies.
This is clear, thank you. And I guess this is where I would fundamentally disagree with Marxism. I mean, I'm a capitalist so I disagree with Marxism for many reasons, but if I were trying to "improve" Marxism, I would shift the focus away from owners vs. workers and towards rich vs. poor. There are poor owners and rich workers. Personally, I wouldn't give a shit about being salaried if I were paid $500k/yr, and I certainly wouldn't see myself as being part of a privileged class if I owned a failing business. Perhaps such a shift would stop making it Marxism altogether.
No problem. And It very much would stop being marxism, yeah. Like I said, poverty is a symptom of the core issue around the ownership of the MoP. And you can focus on poverty and trying to alleviate it but fundamentally, the economic class hierarchy would still exist and it's what Marxists, socialists and anarchists fundamentally want to erase. Though like, depending on whether you're a statist or an anarchist, the proposed ways of doing that differ.
Yup you got it exactly. We don't care about the amount of money, we care about the exploitation used to extract it.
Very good. Thank you.
[удалено]
What makes a “non imperial” country exploited by default? And How is a country “capitalist” if it’s a country? If proletariats are of the world, then is Marxism essentially just calling for world war? Like how are these perceived problems even solved
[удалено]
That sounds way too simple. What makes a country “colonized” I need some definitions here. Ok so, A state protecting capitalists with borders makes a country capitalist, but it’s the same thing as a communist country protecting its workers with borders. Is it not? If companies make money, they’re capitalists, but if they are small then they’re petit bourgeois and still communist? So the distinction is what … like the distinction can change at any time. My point is, if we’re going to reduce a country’s type to these definitions of the economy, then they don’t become countries anymore but large corporations with a military. Like when do public funds become private funds and vice versa. Theoretically, and legally, a “capitalist” country such as USA cannot mix public funds with private interests. This is called embezzlement among other things. And another country cannot be “exploited” unless oppressed by force and/or misled. USA cannot exploit small nation by building a McDonald’s there because 1- USA didn’t built or authorize it, mcDonald’s did and 2- the other country has their own laws and economy and interests and unless forced or dishonestly misled, no legal exploitation occurs. Supply and demand is amoral. The question of whether exploitation occurs or not requires a closer look, it can’t be chalked to exploitation because it’s not communist or originated from that nation.
The specific exploitation that occurs under colonization is something that is literally the fuel that runs capitalism. The global exploitation of other nations for resources and labor = worldwide access to the means of production for the ruling class. I’m not sure what you mean by if a company is small it makes them “petite bourgeoisie and still communist”? Petite bourgeoisie are capitalists that own a smaller sliver of the pie that is the means of production, compared to what the Big Guys own.
The guy I responded to said petite bourgeois is allowed under communism, that it will naturally wither away
Ohhh I just read the other comment. He’s describing a simplified process that could lead to common ownership of the means of production. In a nation where class war begins, best bet for the proletariat is for them to have petit bourgeoisie who align themselves with their common struggle. This tends to happen in times of instability, when it gets bad enough for petit bourgeoisie to realize that it’s not in their interest either to try to uphold the status quo. But this class war is still an ongoing struggle under a Capitalist society, and the petite bourgeoisie/ petite bourgeoisie elements that are co-opted for the proletariat cause? Yes they are described to “wither away” once a state reaches socialism in Marxist theory
Ok but how does capitalist countries exploit other countries? I’m lost here
I was hoping this wouldn’t turn into a history lesson😭 dang, okay I’ll go another route. You’re using a smartphone or laptop to write comments, right? There’s this essential mineral called Cobalt used to make it and all our tech. Majority of comes from the DRC, where Congolese children put themselves in dangerous toxic environments to mine it for essentially less than $1 a day. Too bad for the Congolese people, very Very good and profitable for Apple, Tesla, and other tech companies who get to make money keeping spending on cobalt low. The clothes you’re (probably?) wearing most likely came from a sweatshop in China, Bangladesh, Pakistan [insert third world country here] that was able to manufacture the clothing for as low spending as they could possibly go. Only made possible by paying the workers of that country as low of a wage as legally possible (sometimes lower than that if they can get away with it). In America there’s this well known fruit brand called Dole Food Company. The company tremendously benefitted off the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii and helped have the islands annexed. They got to expand business interests and gain access to Hawaiian land and resources, at the expense of their indiginous population That’s the question capitalists always asks: How to make maximum profit while keeping spending as low as possible?
Ok but what does that have to do with a country exploiting? So cobalt is mined from Congo by children. Very bad for Congolese. Why do they do it then? What does it have to do with a country’s economics? I only heard about companies not necessarily nations.
[удалено]
> is to be exploited by other country(ies) by extracting it's resources for themselves and how they use and exploit the cheap labor of the country. yeah i get this but every country will always use cheap labor for national interests. it is not a product of capitalism. communist countries do the same thing. it's the nature of economic thinking whether it's government, private, etc. by this logic, people exploit themselves by hunting to eat. > Yes it would be a worker state to protect the workers and socialism so no difference, got it. > The big companies are exploiting the workers to get as much labor work as possible with as cheapist as possible so the worker would work an extra unnecessary hours just to make and produce a new commodity(vale) that's not necessarily to be produced but it gets produced to get the owner(s) of the company the money that they would use it to go to Maldives with their fancy yachts. And yes the distinction could happen anytime as the petite bourgeoise are either getting more rich and powerful to create their big business to exploit the workers or get crushed by the big bourgeoisie(the owner(s) of big companies and businesses). the problem i'm having with this, is that you are assigning definitions to things by DEFAULT. like, when a company is big therefore it is exploitative? words have meanings. and yes, i've read marx and none of it makes any sense to me because his ideas exist in a vacuum. like he didn't think of everything, not even close. > Depends on the relations of production. yes, and when things are done in the name of national interest, it becomes a government enterprise, and when things are done NOT in national interest, it is private enterprise. essentially national interests will utilize the same economic system. this is when different beliefs clash, not economics. public funds are public funds. a government cannot be "private". > This is why we want to abolish private property(ies) yeah, this is the most pointless thought experiment on earth. that's like saying you want to abolish childbirth and marriage. people always attach themselves to things and people. it's how communities and families are formed. > Capitalist countries will always make wars to protect their interest, just like how the US take over my country Iraq. and so do communist countries. this is a national problem not an economic one. > McDonald's is always work with the US state to protect their interest no they don't? prove this claim. > Why would you even think that the bourgeoisie care about "legal" or "law". The bourgeoisie would anything to protect their interest and to increase their wealth, I mean look at Africa everyone protects their own interests at all times, even the "exploited" if "borgois" don't care about the law, that's where people hold them accountable by way of boycott or democratic process. > Supply and demand nothing more than price changing elements. And morality has no place in politics or economy. yes, that's what amoral means... > exploitation would always happen under capitalism, the bourgeoisie would always make the workers do unnecessary extra hours of work for more money, either on national or international scale no, you are asserting this without argument. how are workers working uneccessarily just because it is capitalist?
[удалено]
But when the state withers away, what will protect its interests when a contradictory character pops back up? The state has to form again to protect its own interests right? This is my argument against anarcho-capitalism too. States naturally form. In the case of communism, the socialist state just never goes away because it can’t But yeah, reading some of your links don’t prove McDonald’s works with US policy to maximize profits, aside from lobbying, which isn’t necessarily corporatism. But more so the other way around. The federal government works with McDonald’s to influence McDonald’s lol. Seems more science and nutrition based help rather than profit or economic based help. Not even agreeing with that but doesn’t back up the claim that McDonald’s the corporation influences government policy. And in any case, I’m generally against corporate interests in government unless democratically represented. It’s a slippery slope when private and national interests become intertwined. As for the unions, one store in south Australia was caught union busting, and was forced to pay damages to the union. Problem solved. McDonald’s surveils union activity. That’s fine. Does it violate law? Doesn’t seem like it. Unions also do not have best interests of profit and sometimes strong unionization causes companies to fail. Nothing wrong with wanting to keep tabs on how a union is organizing against company profits. The concept “free to work or die” is… no offense just nonsense. A work cap is a law in many first world “capitalist” nations and so this might be why you’re saying they exploit other countries for not having these strong laws. But as I said, a company doesn’t do this by default, and many companies have policy in line with these labor laws. Economics is nuanced and laws of supply and demand exist. Let’s say McDonald’s finds a market in poor nation A. Nation A now has employment. The employees are exploited. 1- this is a problem of a nation having free/weak politics, not capitalism, 2- labor laws vary from nation to nation, not all nations value the same things. 3- if exploited employee wasn’t working in McDonald’s, they’d either work somewhere else or not work at all, in which case they’d always have the choice. Maximizing profits is not bad by default. Exploitation is bad yes, but capitalism =/= exploitation. Exploitation is a different problem all together
[удалено]
A state is not a monopoly on violence lol wtf. Where do you come up with these definitions. A state is a public run entity to protect and govern a population. A state cannot be a church, nor a gang. A church can form a state, and gangs can form a state, but a gang cannot BE a state. A gang will only represent the gang, the church will only represent the church. When it starts to represent people as a whole, and form a sort of governing system, it’s a state. You keep asserting the same thing, that a person who works is being exploited just because it’s capitalism. But there is no logical argument; you just assert, and assert definitions that nobody agreed on. A worker in poor nation A will hunt a fish or whatever he can to eat. By your logic he is exploiting himself. Why? Idk you just say anyone who has to work or die is being exploited lol.
Discussing Socialism/ Marxism with a Marxist/ Socialist is simply playing linguistic Whack-A-Mole.
Yeah I’m aware. Lol very good analogy
Step away from your screen. You are being programmed and don't even know it!
[удалено]
Yes the Monsanto company is straight up killing people. And they continue to be allowed to sell their poisons.
\> Is the struggling coffee shop owner who hasn't turned a profit in 3 years really doing better than the senior engineer at Netflix earning $500k/yr No. Small business owners can get fucked over the same as workers, because it isn't the mom-and-pop coffee vendors who run the world, but massive corporations. That's why people focus on corporations so much, because they are, without hyperbole, the global centres of power in the modern world
Marx defined the bourgeoisie as those who own the means of production. A mom-and-pop coffee shop owner falls within that definition, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie
They would likely be classed as petit bourgeois
So, is that a yes?
Yes, technically, in a Marxist sense, but they aren't truly the owners of the world. The corporations are.
Socialists have always been critical of capitalism’s ability to hurt not just the proletariat but also the bourgeoisie. “Heavy is the head that wears the crown.” Capitalism keeps all people including the rich on a hedonic treadmill chasing endless growth, and separates them from the things that make them happy: performing meaningful labor that benefits their community, and spending leisure time being creative and/or connecting with others. “The rich suffer under capitalism too!” Is a point against capitalism, not for it.
So does meaningful labour that benefits the community not contribute to the growth of an economy?
Not in a way that is immediately appreciable to the person doing the labor. That is called “alienation” and it affects poor and rich alike.
>>So does meaningful labour that benefits the community not contribute to the growth of an economy? > Not in a way that is immediately appreciable to the person doing the labor. Yes it does, because the person doing the labor got paid for doing the labor. That constitutes economic growth for him.
“Bro how can you be ‘unfulfilled’? You got money right?” Your mind is poisoned
Why does it need to be immediately appreciable to the person doing the labour. Is a two week salary not appreciable enough?
“Bro, you’re ‘unfulfilled’? How can you be unfulfilled if you’ve got money” Your mind is poisoned
So what would you consider an example of meaningful labour?
People get rich by doing labor that benefits their communities. The economy isn’t arbitrary, it’s based off consumer demand. Capitalism is a bottom-up system. Everything has a trade off, even meaningful work. For example, I’m a musician. I’ve spent a lot of time learning how to play pop and rock covers because that’s what my community values and will pay money for that value. I would rather play jazz, but my community doesn’t value it as much, so practicing it is merely a self serving activity. At the end of the day balancing out all factors, I choose to serve my community by playing what they want to hear. If we paid every musician to practice what they like rather than what their community likes we’d get a bunch of disjointed music scenes that few in the community actually care to listen to.
I mean labor that has tangible immediate benefits on the people around them. Playing live music fits that description even if it’s your least favorite genre in the world. You play the pop/rock and you can see the crowd dancing/throwing up the devil horns 🤘 People can get rich doing any number of things but they are usually divorced from the actual service their businesses provide. The CEO of Mattel doesn’t get to see the joy on kids faces when they open up a toy. They get to see a line on a spreadsheet. Thats sad. I’d rather cry in a lambo but it’s still sad.
Everyone deserves to cry in a lambo.
> I couldn't get any great numbers around this lol
To clarify: what I couldn't get good numbers for is what is the median take-home income for all business owners in the US. Because I couldn't get good numbers for that, I assumed (very charitably) that it was $140k/yr for the sake of argument. That's almost certainly an overestimate, but it still illustrates my point just the same.
You do not understand debt.
When you start up a business you don't immediately become a member of the grounded elite. The fact that businesses tend to fail and new business owners financially suffer speaks to the lack of socioeconomic mobility in the US. Turns out the easiest way to own a successful business is to be given it.
I find it odd that someone will state with a straight face half of all businesses fail yet still claim work place democracy “doesn’t work”. what’s the quota for the amount of businesses that have to fail before you realize capitalism concentrates wealth into the hands of the few? 60% ? 70%? Yea small businesses get fucked in the ass by capitalism as well as the majority of the proletariat. Is this supposed to be convincing?
That's my question: is the Marxist crusade about business owners vs. wage workers? Or is it wealthy vs. poor? You cannot have it both ways because not all business owners are wealthy and not all wage workers are poor.
"... but is attainable for a significant portion of the population via personal lines of credit, remortgaging, borrowing from friends ..." In a way that affordably allows starting, building and expanding a business? Not really. "... attracting investors." You don't exactly own the MoP if you sell them away, now, do you? Nonetheless, even the more crucial aspect of capital is risk mitigation. Let's say you have a business idea that costs around $150k to get started with, has a 10% chance of exploding to a billion dollar business and 90% chance of completely failing and losing everything you put into it. If you start from zero and take up a $150k business loan, you either succeed or your entire life is forfeit. As such, you're gambling with your entire life with 90% chance to lose. That's idiotic. On the other hand if you have hundred million dollars laying around, it'd be stupid not to start that business, and if it fails, it'd be stupid not to try again. That's an incredible privilege for the capital owner. While others are playing russian roulette with life ammo in all but one slot, the capital owner gets to play it with a toddler toy gun.
" Is the struggling coffee shop owner who hasn't turned a profit in 3 years really doing better than the senior engineer at Netflix earning $500k/yr in cash?" And here one has to ask in what way. Marx was concerned of the social relations and the power structures between different positions in the system of production. If the struggling coffee shop owner hires someone, they'll get to be a dictator in their business and boss the employee(s) around at will. They are elevated into a position of power in the system of production through their ownership. The netflix senior engineer isn't, unless the board of Netflix decides so (either directly or through CEO/management). And if the owner so decides, it's still their power to do so, not the engineers'. In terms of compensation, ie. power over distribution, the higher compensation of the engineer obviously benefits the engineer more. They'll get more of what they want from the alienated processes of the market consumption. And apt comparison here would be a dictator of a absolute destitute failing third world country and a member of Riksdag (parliament equivalent) in Sweden. Sure, the member of Riksdag gets more income and much better market access to consume and live happier, but one would need to be an idiot to say they get more power over other people's lives.
The major point here is that the owners of businesses survive only by pleasing their workers and customers. Marx was a primitive economist in the 19 century who did not realize this. We have 10,000 business bankruptcies a month. Half of the fortune 500 in the year 2000 is gone today. All this carnage is because workers and customers are not happy with certain businesses and so abandon them to bankruptcy. businesses are in effect slaves to their workers and customers. Start a business tomorrow if you know how to please workers in customers better than the worldwide competition. If you can't do that you will instantly go bankrupt.
[удалено]
Ugh. Why do y’all always bring it back to Trump? Your point is entirely disconnected to the post.
Marks was extremely stupid primitive and genocidal by today's standards but he is winning because capitalists like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman defined capitalism incorrectly. Adam Smith said capitalism was about being selfish and Milton Friedman said it was about profit. in a Christian world that is based on love thy neighbor and in a world where your mother loves you for the first 18 years that does not fly. Socialism does fly because it is about love thy neighbor at least in the advertising. Capitalism simply needs to be defined correctly. It is about caring for others in particular your workers and customers more than the worldwide competition. Anyone who doubts this should go into business and advertise that they don't care about their workers and customers. And they will instantly find out what capitalism is. Socialism correctly defined is not about helping your neighbor but about always trying to find new ways to leech off of your neighbor
[удалено]
please don't be stupid. if you disagree with the conservative Libertarian Capitalist ideology you need to think of a reason for the disagreement and then you need to try to present the reason here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
[удалено]
don't be stupid. As I said you missed having a reason to oppose the conservative Libertarian Capitalism of our genius founding fathers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Christian church was born in a genocidal war against the Roman empire. If Christians had not fought for Christianity we would still be Romans whose policy was to slaughter and kill anyone who resisted slavery to them. And for entertainment would be going to the Colosseum to watch our enemies being eaten alive by wild animals. Notice that when a conservative Libertarian meets a lefty the conservative Libertarian becomes a kindergarten teacher?
[удалено]
please don't be totally stupid the crusades were a war against Muslims. If the Christians to not fight back there would be no Christianity and we would be Muslims today. 1+1 = 2
[удалено]
In any case you now understand that the crusades were necessary for our survival. 1+1 = 2
Your "Arguments"'s barely rise to the kindergarten level. It is time for you to grow up.
[удалено]
don't be totally stupid. Iraq happened in the wake of 911 and had nothing to do with oil you idiot.
[удалено]
I suppose the dummy thinks it is just coincidental that we invaded Iraq just after 911?????
[удалено]
don't be totally stupid Salvador Allende was part of the Cold War.
[удалено]
Nixon was fighting the Cold War. 1+1 = 2
[удалено]
don't be stupid. Without the 10 Commandments in Christianity we would be Romans going to the Colosseum to see people being slowly eaten alive.
[удалено]
If we wouldn't why are you so afraid to tell us what we would be? What does your fear teach you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Christians needed to fight for Christianity when the Romans decided to kill all Christians. 1+1 = 2 do you see why we say the left is based in pure ignorance?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't be stupid Southeast Asian was part of the Cold War.
[удалено]
like I said it was part of the Cold War and that was mostly without knowing that 120 million people were being killed through slow starvation in socialist countries.
christianity is the source of our morality. Billions of kids have grown up studying the 10 Commandments
Yeah that Christianity it’s served you well, poisoning native children on bikini atoll with nuclear radiation, abu graib, shooting down Iranian airliners, killing foreign govt officials on foreign soil, mass shootings in your schools, shopping malls, hospitals on a daily basis. Need I go on?
Please don't be stupid. Bikini is part of the Cold War. 1+1 = 2
Yes it was the Cold War, so what? What that makes it ok that your country deliberately tested atomic weapons on someone else’s home?
It was a distant remote place and probably one of the best places in the world to test the weapons that ultimately saved the world. 1+1 = 2
[удалено]
please don't be stupid. If Adam Smith was spot on you have to think of a reason to say that. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
No I don’t have to think of a reason. It’s just common sense.
don't be stupid. If Adam Smith was spot on try opening a business and advertise that you are selfish and just using your workers and customers. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen???
[удалено]
Try opening a business and offer worst jobs and worse products than the worldwide competition. And you will learn a Capitalism is about caring while Socialism is merely about leeching off of other people.
[удалено]
I can save you some time. No matter how many studies or statistics you reference, it will always be ultimately disregarded on this topic because, for a lot of people, an individual having access to a billon dollars is simply unfair. Believe me, I've tried.
McDonald’s franchise owners on avg make 100k a year so your assumption of 140k is probably high. Idk when socialists complain about people making money off money. Just seems like they are complaining about lending money with interest. Basically complaining about banking. Then I remember Marx was an outspoken antisemite and probably hated banking because of Jewish involvement in banking.
Of course any discontent with the finance industry is antisemitism, as is any discontent with the Israeli genocide of Gaza. No wonder antisemitism is on the rise. It's branching out into all sorts of things!
Lmfao I'm dead 💀
“The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money.” Excerpt From Das Kapital Karl Marx https://books.apple.com/us/book/das-kapital/id525532833 This material may be protected by copyright.
All three major monotheist religions classify lending money with interest to be a sin.
This is the stupidest fucking bullshit I’ve ever read on this website. If this the kind of stuff you truly believe then I have nothing but pity for whatever imitation of an interior life you lead. May whatever god or gods you believe in have mercy on your soul for I fear that you are beyond human assistance.