“Wait, you sold products before buying the machine? How did you make those products? That seems like circular reasoning.”
“Actually, you’re right, I initially took out a loan to buy the machine in the hopes I could sell enough products to pay off the loan.”
“That seems like it was a risk.”
“It was. But, I spent a lot of time analyzing the market, coming up with estimates of how much people would buy, how much someone who could operate the machine would cost in wages, all that sort of thing.”
“That seems like a lot of work.”
“It was a fair amount of work.”
“Who paid you to do that work?”
“Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products.”
“So, why didn’t your worker start his own business and buy his own machine instead?”
“Ah, well, that’s the part that’s a bit unfair. See, I could afford to spend the time analyzing the market because my family is rich, and I didn’t need to work gruelling 8 hour days. Also, when it came time to take out a loan to buy the machine, the bank was happy to give me the loan because of my family name.”
“Ah, and your worker?”
“Great guy, but he has a family to support and no rich parents. He couldn’t take the time to analyze the market for a new business because he has to hold down a job. And, even if he could find the time to do that, the bank probably wouldn’t give him a loan for a new business because he doesn’t have any business history, or assets to use as collateral. Also, he can’t really afford to fail.”
“Afford to fail?”
“Yes. Like I said, I have rich parents. If my business fails, my dad will rib me about it a bit. But, it’s not like I’ll be out on the street.”
“And your worker?”
“Well, he could certainly try to start a business, but if the business failed he’d be in real trouble. No rich parents, you see. Plus, I have great accountants. If my business fails, they’ll use it as an offset for my taxes. Technically, anybody can do that, but good luck figuring out how to do that with TurboTax or something.”
“So, really, it’s oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything.”
“Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine.”
“But, operating the machine is important.”
“Of course! It’s vitally important. But, you see, I bought a machine that costs a little more but is designed to be extremely easy to use. Because just about anybody can use it, I don’t need a worker with special skills. That means I don’t have to pay too much in wages.”
“So, really, if there’s unfairness here it’s structural. You come from a rich family, so it’s easy for you to start a business. He doesn’t, so his only real option is to get a job from someone like you.”
“That’s right.”
“But, it seems like that could all be changed with a few changes to the laws. You pay a bit more in taxes, he pays a bit less, then he can save up and maybe start his own business?”
“Yeah, that might work. But, here’s the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker’s a good guy, but he’s super racist. As long as you’re going after the brown people, that’s what matters to him.”
A relatively fair assessment, overall I approve of the framing. But, you’re describing the petit bourgeoisie.
“Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine.”
If, as a business owner, you’re doing all that, then yeah you’re doing real labor and deserve recompense. But the broader critique is of the owners who don’t do any of those things. In larger businesses, those tasks tend to be handled by other wage workers.
I think the thing I find deeply unfair about the situation is let’s say this arrangement of work is 100% accurate.
The owner did the analysis, took out the loan, set up the machine that the worker works.
At some point that work ends for the owner, the analysis is complete, the loan is paid back. There capitalists work effectively ends and the workers goes on forever and the split stays the same.
There is no point where the owner goes, “well if I had billed the company for my analysis and the initial loan I’d have been paid back 10 times over, time to give more to the worker.”
They get to set up the machine because of the wealth and privilege that is indicated here and then extract forever.
When they die, they can hand that enterprise to their heir, who did nothing. Not one ounce of analysis, not one drop of risk in taking out a loan, and that heir can extract value forever.
And they will get to take $6 of every $10 forever because they had the good fortune of being able to afford the machine and take advantage of a system set up by people that own machines which unsurprisingly has a simple rule, the people that own machines get the money.
It doesn’t really. They need to keep aware of what’s happening in the market. What are their competitors doing? Is the market becoming saturated? Are there new technologies which will change things? Are fashions changing? Are laws changing?
It’s probably less work to keep things going than it is to initially open the business, but the work never ends. Most businesses don’t even last 10 years, let alone “forever”. 5 years is about the average a business lasts. That’s because the job of the owner, spotting problems before they hit the business and adapting the business to the new situation, is hard. It’s not difficult labour, like running a machine can sometimes be, but it is difficult to get it right.
When they die, they can hand that enterprise to their heir, who did nothing
Estate taxes and inheritance taxes exist. They’re far too generous most of the time, but they exist.
In general, a successful business is a good thing for everyone. The fact that it’s successful means that people think that whatever it’s selling is worth buying. They’re better off with less money and whatever the business is selling than they were with just the money. Their world is better because the business exists. In addition, a successful business that generates a profit can be taxed. Taxes from successful businesses can be used by the government to provide services for everybody.
So, we should be encouraging people to start businesses. One obvious way of encouraging it is to allow them to keep some of the profits that result. Of course, that should be offset by the taxes the business pays. The question is what level of taxation is too little vs. too much.
It’s also unfair that starting a business is easy for some people who are already rich, and difficult for everyone else. Something like UBI would start to even the playing field, allowing someone the opportunity to fail without losing everything.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the rich and powerful always ensure that the laws and the structure of society benefits the rich and powerful. But, it goes in cycles. When they get too rich and too powerful, there is often unrest that takes the power back.
Yes, the owner does important work, but that work should not give them the right to all the profits produced by the business. Taxes are not a solution to the structural inequality created by private ownership of the means of production, they are a bandaid that alleviates some of the worst consequences. The only way to resolve the structural inequality is for the means of production to be collectively owned by all of the workers who use it, and for business decisions to be made democratically by said workers or by a person elected democratically by the workers (who should themselves be an equal owner of the means of production).
It would be better if the person in charge of determining the runnings of the factory and the allocation of all that wealth could be an elected position that could be unelected if the business was not going well.
Similarly, it’s a crazy concept to say that all of that purchasing of machines, property, and resources could be a waste because we predicate the whole thing on “risk” like it’s a game designed explicitly to put one person into a higher class over the other and not a matter of wasted resources that should be meant to increase the well-being of both individuals equally.
I think it (maybe unintentionally) falls on the pro-capitalist side because it suggests that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism — that private ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to class-based unequal relationships to production — can be reformed. In reality, reforms are used by the capitalist class to placate workers and defuse revolutionary fervor, and are eroded almost immediately after passing. Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
I meant because the trope of the poors being ignorant racists was a bit too hard to believe someone would want to admit to.
“Yeah, that might work. But, here’s the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker’s a good guy, but he’s super racist. As long as you’re going after the brown people, that’s what matters to him.”
Yeah, that’s a bit anti-worker, but racism and bigotry is one way that capitalists stoke division in the ruling class, and it has been very effective so far.
it could. unfortunately the boss’s dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won’t be.
Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
that’s just delusional. if such thing happened, and every person in the world would get the same amount of money and means of production, it would only take time for those better at management/leadership to - again - have more than the others.
people are not equal. i am not taking position and claiming it is good/bad, but it is a fact, no matter how someone might not like it. and all this is not saying that the current system is not fucked up.
<it could. unfortunately the boss’s dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won’t be.>
So de facto, due to structural issues inherent to the system, it can’t be.
Marxists never claim that people are equal. The motto is, after all, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
There’s a lot more I could say to dispute your understanding of socialist theory and history, but I don’t have all day, so suffice to say: collective ownership of the means of production does not have the same structural tendency towards class formation as private ownership does.
in what way is describing how a system works pro anything?
The best systems are those that analyze the practical processes and outcomes and optimize for distributed prosperity regardless of the individual component processes’ economic model.
Some systems make sense to be capital-driven because of the massive initial investment required to ship the first product for things that are luxury-only (movies, etc)
Other systems should NEVER be capital-driven because they are tied to basic human needs and rights (health-care, education, etc)
The first step towards reaching the best system for everyone to attain a minimum level of prosperity that scales upward based on their own desire for additional luxury is breaking down existing systems to identify the exact places where they fail, so we can be selective about how build systems going forward and intelligently implement safeguards when we choose one system vs another for a given vertical.
As with the other comments you’ve made, you’re just saying words without understanding their meaning.
I understand rhetoric very well.
Stating an intentionally limited or cherry-picked set of facts with the intent to deceive can be a rhetorical ploy, but that’s genuinely not what the OC did, by a long shot. They fairly honestly break down (one of) the actual problem(s) with capitalism and how we wound up where we are.
From my perspective, you are the naive one, looking for simple narratives to pin your arguments on, and denying attempts to engage with the nuance of human behavior and history.
Life is complicated and trying to fit everything into a tidy little “capitalism bad” box isn’t going to produce the results you hope.
Do you think wealth inequality was achieved through the behaviors of the insane? These systems were purpose built to function a certain way for the benefit of certain people. It was incredibly sane, just selfish.
Generational wealth inherited from people who benefitted from immoral systems is a fundamentally problematic system. Breaking down the logic behind it is not “sane-washing” or whatever unless it comes with opinions on the merit or fairness of the problematic elements.
Quite the contrary, the OC did not offer any opinion on whether these things were fair or “okay”. They only fleshed out the specific logic used in the creation of these systems.
You’re just saying words without meaning at this point. I’m sure it feels good to put a label on something you don’t like but you have done nothing to communicate what you actually intend in an effective way.
The fact that you only called out the four surnames that are most visible on social media and the news says a lot about where you get your info, tbh.
No mention of the Waltons. Or the Kochs. None of the hedge fund managers, or Blackstone leadership. Or any of the dozens of other families and organizations that have been manipulating global politics for over a hundred years.
And the silly name-calling makes you look really immature btw. Say “fucking Zuckerberg” like an adult instead of sound-bite nicknames that put you on the same level as MAGA hate parrots.
where did i say or agreed to that “workers deserve to be exploited”, the sentence YOU put in my mouth so you have something to disagree with? i replied to right comment and you know very well what i meant, you manipulative asshole.
Beep, boop, you’re right that that post might have been written by AI. If you would like, I can swear like a sailor and we can delve into whether or not that shows I’m human.
“Well, but I own the machines.”
“How did you get the machines?”
“Sold products and bought them.”
“Wait, you sold products before buying the machine? How did you make those products? That seems like circular reasoning.”
“Actually, you’re right, I initially took out a loan to buy the machine in the hopes I could sell enough products to pay off the loan.”
“That seems like it was a risk.”
“It was. But, I spent a lot of time analyzing the market, coming up with estimates of how much people would buy, how much someone who could operate the machine would cost in wages, all that sort of thing.”
“That seems like a lot of work.”
“It was a fair amount of work.”
“Who paid you to do that work?”
“Nobody paid me, I hoped to get paid once I could start selling products.”
“So, why didn’t your worker start his own business and buy his own machine instead?”
“Ah, well, that’s the part that’s a bit unfair. See, I could afford to spend the time analyzing the market because my family is rich, and I didn’t need to work gruelling 8 hour days. Also, when it came time to take out a loan to buy the machine, the bank was happy to give me the loan because of my family name.”
“Ah, and your worker?”
“Great guy, but he has a family to support and no rich parents. He couldn’t take the time to analyze the market for a new business because he has to hold down a job. And, even if he could find the time to do that, the bank probably wouldn’t give him a loan for a new business because he doesn’t have any business history, or assets to use as collateral. Also, he can’t really afford to fail.”
“Afford to fail?”
“Yes. Like I said, I have rich parents. If my business fails, my dad will rib me about it a bit. But, it’s not like I’ll be out on the street.”
“And your worker?”
“Well, he could certainly try to start a business, but if the business failed he’d be in real trouble. No rich parents, you see. Plus, I have great accountants. If my business fails, they’ll use it as an offset for my taxes. Technically, anybody can do that, but good luck figuring out how to do that with TurboTax or something.”
“So, really, it’s oversimplifying to say that you do nothing, and the worker does everything.”
“Yeah, he makes what I tell him to make, but I figure out how much to charge, where to sell it, where to buy the raw materials, basically everything about the business other than operating the machine.”
“But, operating the machine is important.”
“Of course! It’s vitally important. But, you see, I bought a machine that costs a little more but is designed to be extremely easy to use. Because just about anybody can use it, I don’t need a worker with special skills. That means I don’t have to pay too much in wages.”
“So, really, if there’s unfairness here it’s structural. You come from a rich family, so it’s easy for you to start a business. He doesn’t, so his only real option is to get a job from someone like you.”
“That’s right.”
“But, it seems like that could all be changed with a few changes to the laws. You pay a bit more in taxes, he pays a bit less, then he can save up and maybe start his own business?”
“Yeah, that might work. But, here’s the kicker. He voted for the same guy I did. The other candidate was promising tax reforms, enforcing anti-monopoly laws, etc. But, my guy got everyone scared about trans athletes and brown people crossing the border. My worker’s a good guy, but he’s super racist. As long as you’re going after the brown people, that’s what matters to him.”
A relatively fair assessment, overall I approve of the framing. But, you’re describing the petit bourgeoisie.
If, as a business owner, you’re doing all that, then yeah you’re doing real labor and deserve recompense. But the broader critique is of the owners who don’t do any of those things. In larger businesses, those tasks tend to be handled by other wage workers.
I think the thing I find deeply unfair about the situation is let’s say this arrangement of work is 100% accurate.
The owner did the analysis, took out the loan, set up the machine that the worker works.
At some point that work ends for the owner, the analysis is complete, the loan is paid back. There capitalists work effectively ends and the workers goes on forever and the split stays the same.
There is no point where the owner goes, “well if I had billed the company for my analysis and the initial loan I’d have been paid back 10 times over, time to give more to the worker.”
They get to set up the machine because of the wealth and privilege that is indicated here and then extract forever.
When they die, they can hand that enterprise to their heir, who did nothing. Not one ounce of analysis, not one drop of risk in taking out a loan, and that heir can extract value forever.
And they will get to take $6 of every $10 forever because they had the good fortune of being able to afford the machine and take advantage of a system set up by people that own machines which unsurprisingly has a simple rule, the people that own machines get the money.
It doesn’t really. They need to keep aware of what’s happening in the market. What are their competitors doing? Is the market becoming saturated? Are there new technologies which will change things? Are fashions changing? Are laws changing?
It’s probably less work to keep things going than it is to initially open the business, but the work never ends. Most businesses don’t even last 10 years, let alone “forever”. 5 years is about the average a business lasts. That’s because the job of the owner, spotting problems before they hit the business and adapting the business to the new situation, is hard. It’s not difficult labour, like running a machine can sometimes be, but it is difficult to get it right.
Estate taxes and inheritance taxes exist. They’re far too generous most of the time, but they exist.
In general, a successful business is a good thing for everyone. The fact that it’s successful means that people think that whatever it’s selling is worth buying. They’re better off with less money and whatever the business is selling than they were with just the money. Their world is better because the business exists. In addition, a successful business that generates a profit can be taxed. Taxes from successful businesses can be used by the government to provide services for everybody.
So, we should be encouraging people to start businesses. One obvious way of encouraging it is to allow them to keep some of the profits that result. Of course, that should be offset by the taxes the business pays. The question is what level of taxation is too little vs. too much.
It’s also unfair that starting a business is easy for some people who are already rich, and difficult for everyone else. Something like UBI would start to even the playing field, allowing someone the opportunity to fail without losing everything.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the rich and powerful always ensure that the laws and the structure of society benefits the rich and powerful. But, it goes in cycles. When they get too rich and too powerful, there is often unrest that takes the power back.
Yes, the owner does important work, but that work should not give them the right to all the profits produced by the business. Taxes are not a solution to the structural inequality created by private ownership of the means of production, they are a bandaid that alleviates some of the worst consequences. The only way to resolve the structural inequality is for the means of production to be collectively owned by all of the workers who use it, and for business decisions to be made democratically by said workers or by a person elected democratically by the workers (who should themselves be an equal owner of the means of production).
It would be better if the person in charge of determining the runnings of the factory and the allocation of all that wealth could be an elected position that could be unelected if the business was not going well.
Similarly, it’s a crazy concept to say that all of that purchasing of machines, property, and resources could be a waste because we predicate the whole thing on “risk” like it’s a game designed explicitly to put one person into a higher class over the other and not a matter of wasted resources that should be meant to increase the well-being of both individuals equally.
I can’t tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh
Good.
it’s almost like the economic model name we give it is irrelevant and we should instead be focused on processes and outcomes 🤔
“Processes and outcomes”
The title of the book you are describing is literally “Capital.”
Because it’s presented in such a villainous manner.
I think it (maybe unintentionally) falls on the pro-capitalist side because it suggests that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism — that private ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to class-based unequal relationships to production — can be reformed. In reality, reforms are used by the capitalist class to placate workers and defuse revolutionary fervor, and are eroded almost immediately after passing. Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
I meant because the trope of the poors being ignorant racists was a bit too hard to believe someone would want to admit to.
Yeah, that’s a bit anti-worker, but racism and bigotry is one way that capitalists stoke division in the ruling class, and it has been very effective so far.
it could. unfortunately the boss’s dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won’t be.
that’s just delusional. if such thing happened, and every person in the world would get the same amount of money and means of production, it would only take time for those better at management/leadership to - again - have more than the others.
people are not equal. i am not taking position and claiming it is good/bad, but it is a fact, no matter how someone might not like it. and all this is not saying that the current system is not fucked up.
<it could. unfortunately the boss’s dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won’t be.>
So de facto, due to structural issues inherent to the system, it can’t be.
Marxists never claim that people are equal. The motto is, after all, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
There’s a lot more I could say to dispute your understanding of socialist theory and history, but I don’t have all day, so suffice to say: collective ownership of the means of production does not have the same structural tendency towards class formation as private ownership does.
Even the best co-ops have traces of it
pretty obviously pro cap
Worse yet, I think it is pro-government
in what way is describing how a system works pro anything?
The best systems are those that analyze the practical processes and outcomes and optimize for distributed prosperity regardless of the individual component processes’ economic model.
Some systems make sense to be capital-driven because of the massive initial investment required to ship the first product for things that are luxury-only (movies, etc)
Other systems should NEVER be capital-driven because they are tied to basic human needs and rights (health-care, education, etc)
The first step towards reaching the best system for everyone to attain a minimum level of prosperity that scales upward based on their own desire for additional luxury is breaking down existing systems to identify the exact places where they fail, so we can be selective about how build systems going forward and intelligently implement safeguards when we choose one system vs another for a given vertical.
lol you know anything about rhetoric because this is really naieve
As with the other comments you’ve made, you’re just saying words without understanding their meaning.
I understand rhetoric very well.
Stating an intentionally limited or cherry-picked set of facts with the intent to deceive can be a rhetorical ploy, but that’s genuinely not what the OC did, by a long shot. They fairly honestly break down (one of) the actual problem(s) with capitalism and how we wound up where we are.
From my perspective, you are the naive one, looking for simple narratives to pin your arguments on, and denying attempts to engage with the nuance of human behavior and history.
Life is complicated and trying to fit everything into a tidy little “capitalism bad” box isn’t going to produce the results you hope.
lmao words have meaning
and i don’t really care to read paragraphs from you
“Too many words” is the response of a disinterested child who views engaging in conversation like eating their vegetables.
Go back to your YouTube shorts I guess.
lmao
just an accurate description of the hellhole we live in.
it is a fact. facts are not pro- or anti- something, they just are.
this is sane washing wealth inequality
the reality is usually those original rich family members did some real heinous shit to get that wealth
it is not sane washing of anything. it is a description of things.
stop, calm down, take a deep breath, and then answer the question:
not
because it seems you have trouble grasping that these two are completely different questions.
if you don’t understand how framing works thats on you
Do you think wealth inequality was achieved through the behaviors of the insane? These systems were purpose built to function a certain way for the benefit of certain people. It was incredibly sane, just selfish.
Generational wealth inherited from people who benefitted from immoral systems is a fundamentally problematic system. Breaking down the logic behind it is not “sane-washing” or whatever unless it comes with opinions on the merit or fairness of the problematic elements.
Quite the contrary, the OC did not offer any opinion on whether these things were fair or “okay”. They only fleshed out the specific logic used in the creation of these systems.
insanity is more sane washing
selfish greed is more honest
sometimes evil is more descriptive
You’re just saying words without meaning at this point. I’m sure it feels good to put a label on something you don’t like but you have done nothing to communicate what you actually intend in an effective way.
if it makes you feel better thinking that…
if you actually care about the subject pick some actual rich family names a do a little googling
keeping it contemporary, the less bad assholes are the zuckerfucks or bezshits
the actual evil families are like the musks or the trumps, they don’t get the silly titles, heious fuckers
and i have zero interest in convincing boot lickers of anything
The fact that you only called out the four surnames that are most visible on social media and the news says a lot about where you get your info, tbh.
No mention of the Waltons. Or the Kochs. None of the hedge fund managers, or Blackstone leadership. Or any of the dozens of other families and organizations that have been manipulating global politics for over a hundred years.
And the silly name-calling makes you look really immature btw. Say “fucking Zuckerberg” like an adult instead of sound-bite nicknames that put you on the same level as MAGA hate parrots.
It’s true that capitalists deserve to exploit workers?
where do you see such statement in the comment i reacted to? some red circles would help.
Does react mean reply? You replied to my comment which was
Maybe you replied to the wrong comment?
where did i say or agreed to that “workers deserve to be exploited”, the sentence YOU put in my mouth so you have something to disagree with? i replied to right comment and you know very well what i meant, you manipulative asshole.
Where did I say you said anything?
i hope you are not going to play the game of “i did not say that, i was just asking”, because that would be pathetically lame.
I got a solution: we stop rewarding this by all taking a risk and making our own stuff, instead of bending over backwards to get exploited.
Thank you for the nice, pedagogical explanation!
I really enjoyed this. I hope AI didnt write it haha.
But who made the AI?
Beep, boop, you’re right that that post might have been written by AI. If you would like, I can swear like a sailor and we can delve into whether or not that shows I’m human.