this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
84 points (95.7% liked)
World News
31456 readers
1095 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unless you re part of a coop (based) or run your business as a one man show, you're reliant on the labour and appropriation of surplus value of others to amas such wealth (aka committing capitalism).
Where do people that dont want to (or cant) be an owner get their income from?
And also most millionaires do it via things like a 401k and just boring saving over decades.
From selling their labour aka wageslavery. Usually.
401k and savings usually have investments, where appropriation of labour surplus happens.
Outside of stealing from other people, how would people make a living that dont own a company?
What do you mean? In what context are you asking the question?
If being an employee is exploitation, how else would they earn money that doesnt involve stealing from a person to give them money?
Your questions makes no sense to me, but assuming good faith on your part you seem to be asking:
There are different ways to organize a workplace.
The crux of this question however is the (undemocratic) relation between employee and employer.
You're only getting hired in any privately run company if you produce more value for the company than they pay you. (e.g. You earn X Dollar per month, but you make more than X Dollars per month for the company). This is true for every employee. While everyone contributes to the success of the company, noone has a say in how, when, how long, etc. the work can be done, and especially no say how profits (or "Surplus value" for marxists) are used and shared. It's not necessarily a problem per say (any type of organization requires some form of authority), but it's a problem when you entire or majority of the economy is organized in this way.
Other forms include
worker coops: the management/bosses are elected by it's employees, which decide how the firm is run; look into Richard Wolff; Mondragon; Huawei, etc. for examples of firms, and more macroeconomically: Emiglia-Romania which has a large portion of GDP created this way or JZD Sluzovice is another example
state-owned firms: Examples are United States Postal Service (USPS) and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States best if you google it altogether.
I am fine with worker co-ops, but state owned firms just suck. I think you are wanting the cuban model which is really really really bad, and there is a reason I knew a guy that floated here on an inner tube to get away from it.
If you say so chief. Thank you for your valuable contribution.
Strawmaning much here I see. Putting cuba in it's context means obviously I want the model apply everywhere, because history taught us that context doesn't matter obviously.
What was his family business and his function in the batista regime?
The cuban model of government owned businesses is what you seem to be wanting, and even vox shows how poorly that works. State owned firms sucking is just a structural problem, if you dont understand why that is then you havent had to work with the government. The guy that floated here was due to wanting freedom and the ability to not be owned by the state.
There are some services in the economy you never would want to be privately owned. e.g. Firedepartment, healthcare providers, etc. These type of business are better run as a service for society, instead of these being subject to the profit motive. Look up what a privatized fire department looked like in New York. If you can't understand that, then you havent been engaging with political theory enough..
Lol
Castro brought freedom to Cuba. Looks like your friends understanding of freedom is the same as the average Americans: Being a wageslave for 8hrs a day on average lol
Oh you are not living in the same reality as us. Have fun with that!
I mean, given enough time, just a mere salary man can become a millionaire (and with more time, a multi-millionaire) only by keeping their spending low and stashing the rest of their net salary into index funds. Sure, that's capitalism which isn't too popular in Lemmy, but it's just an example of how a millionaire can really just be a normal, somewhat frugal, person. They aren't showing their wealth though because that's the reason they are able to save such a nest-egg so you can't really tell if your neighbor is secretly wealthy or not.
Billionaires (and "multihundredmillionaires") are a completely different group of people though, and no normal person is able to amass such wealth without a shit-ton of luck and most probably some abuse as well.
Technically true, if they are a highly skilled worker that's in low supply
Index funds usually invest in other firms, where profits (read: appropriated surplus value of workers) is distributed among stakeholders.
ftfy. please consider reading theory
You don't have to earn wild sums of money, you just have to be able to live below your means and save the rest. Sure, the absolute poorest people don't have that luxury, and also in very expensive locations it's the same even for some relatively high salary people too. For the rest of us, assuming that our capitalistic system doesn't collapse, 500e (or dollars) per month for ~30 years gets you there. If you're able to start while you're 20 by some miracle, you would be a millionaire by 50. Or, 300e a month for roughly 37 years gets you above the mark. Now, one million euros or dollars will not buy you the same stuff then as it would today so you still wouldn't be "filthy rich" but that wasn't the point here. Also, if you were to just stop saving after passing the magical two commas, the money would theoretically double in 9 years making you a multi-millionaire. This is assuming 9% yearly interest for your investments over the whole time which is slightly below S&P500 all-time average (not accounting inflation).
Compounding interest is the keyword and that's why rich people keep on getting richer and poor people poorer - it works both ways, in savings and in loans. Not everyone has to achieve the million coin mark either - just be aware of how the system functions and make your decisions accordingly. If you decide to live in a nicer location or enjoy traveling or nice vehicles or eat nice food or do whatever instead of accumulating wealth, it's completely fine. That's actually required for our eternal growth in the market after all. On the other hand, wealth accumulation gives you options in the future if you get fed up with your boss for example.
I think you might've misunderstood my point, and that's probably my bad for leaving it a bit ambiguous. At least in my mind, the people that get to hundreds of millions or into billions, are usually some startup founders (where success is mostly luck) or people achieving big corporation CxO level which usually is not happening by just making friends on the way climbing up the corporate ladder. That also needs a little bit of luck, because as you mentioned, you could be shafted at any point in your career hard. Also you need to be a workaholic and at least slightly narcissistic. Getting born into the right family wouldn't hurt either. So that's not something everyone could do in my opinion and that's why I wouldn't mix "normal" workforce into this at all.
And well, I don't know what you mean by "refusing to participate in such system". Usually people have a choice of working for a big corporation or choosing to work for smaller companies that tend to be more employee-friendly, at least in my experience. Maybe there are differences in some expertise areas that I'm not aware of but otherwise if you wish to work for some humane employers, seek smaller companies and skip the Elon Musk -like sweatshops that try to squeeze you to work 60 hours a week minimum all the time. Relocation is not an entirely bad thing either if that helps you find a healthier workplace. Now, if you refuse to work at all, well, that wouldn't work even in socialism or in small African villages where everyone expects others to contribute to the village functioning. You just have to find the right "village" that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.
It doesn't matter where you work, as long as it's privately owned you're at the mercy of the firms owners. Be it big or be it small. Would you make the argument to a slave that one owner is better than the other based on the size? Or would you despise the entire economic system of slavery?
No noone is saying that? Every society needs a method of procuring the means of life, which can only be done an economy? What I've been saying is that you're forced to participate in capitalism, because the majority places where you can work are capitalist.
You just have to find the right “plantation” that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.
If you really want to compare working to a company you can freely choose and you can leave whenever you like, sure. In that case I would make the argument to a slave, that they absolutely should find a kind master who treats them more like a human being than all the other scumbag slavelords do. It's just that the slaves were actual slaves, they didn't have any freedom of choice unlike you and I have.
There are alternatives, it's just that maybe you wouldn't REALLY want to live in that alternative economy? China is a slight alternative, there is this fake capitalism going on and it's not looking too great. North Korea is a 100% different country and you can see how well they are doing. Pretty much all socialistic countries in the world are in a bad shape and people are fleeing into the capitalistic world people here in Lemmy so much loathe. I get it, there are lots and lots and lots and lots of really bad companies and bosses and co-workers around that only think of themselves, but in the meantime there are also lots of places that do care about their employees because they know they couldn't exist without them and that people tend to work better if they enjoy what they do and where they work.
Yes, I'm comparing economic systems. Slavery is an economic system. While slavery allows you owning all aspects of a humans life, Capitalism and Wageslavery only allow you to own some aspects of a humans life (Mainly 8hrs lifetime/day on average).
Also congratulations for arguing on terms of slavery and not rejecting it altogether.
Thank you for your analysis.
You are actually really privileged, if you already own so much crap that you think you need all that when you move somewhere. Realistically you only need yourself, your IDs and a one-way ticket to wherever you are going.
I agree. People living in global north countries are definitely privileged on a global scale. But even among those privileged so societies you have exploitation. It doesn't help telling a single mom raising a child on her own and living paycheck to paycheck, to just move.
This says more about you and your social life than anyone else's. And you advocating on forcing this experiment of a lifestyle onto others.
What no theory does to a mf.
China has been outperforming western countries on a variety of metrics. North Korea had more than 20% of their population decimated an forced into isolation. Cuba has higher life expectancy is way more progressive and the US, despite crippling embarings. There's more than one interpretation, you know.
Could you open this a bit more because I'm not sure I understand your perspective currently? From what I know, slavery by itself is absolutely not an economic system but it used to be a part of capitalistic system where black people were traded like pets and slaves had a market value where if they were doing their work better and had some education, they would cost more for the next owner just like some people would pay more money for a dog that has been specifically trained for assisting blind people for example. It's a disgusting and revolting thing of past and anyone comparing current day work life to that must either have some undealt personal issues or a weird perspective to things that at least I don't know of. At least it needs heavy clarification for others to understand the point.
In capitalism you are free to own pretty much anything you'd like as long as you can afford it. People can debate about wages but up to a certain point the amount one earns is dependent on the choices one makes during their lives. There is also some aspect of luck here where your family matters, your natural interests matter etc. but the capitalistic system itself is not the limiting factor here. Also, capitalism is not 100% USA but instead there are lots of countries in Europe (Nordics especially) where capitalism is very much there but government takes care of the weakest people and tries to offer all options in life to kids in poor families. Trading time for money is no different to living in the small village where you spend your days working for the community and maybe get enough time to sleep during the day. We actually have it quite well nowadays, and after working for a while, you could as well decide to not work for 8h/day but instead maybe 6h/day or maybe only three or four days a week instead of five. Most of the time it comes down to the choices you make during your lifespan. Not always of course, there are always people that just can't get on their feet and that's why we also need the government to help the weakest portion of people.
I mean if there's nothing there for the family in the place where they currently live, what else should they do? Shout into the void and hope that someone miraculously comes to offer them a roof on their head and food on the table? Nobody enjoys that situation, and moving into a different location where the mother gets a new (better) job will absolutely benefit the entire family. If, and only if, the mother could get a higher paying job in a different location which would raise the entire family's life quality, they absolutely should move even if it would feel difficult at first. Some (capitalistic) countries even offer support for that (if they were unemployed at first).
Of course it does. I've done it, multiple times, and I can't understand why someone would rather be stuck in a shitty situation instead of moving into a new location where they have opportunities to build a better life. It's not a lifestyle, it's a choice. One shouldn't of course have to move every year but if they live in a tiny village without any jobs, it just makes sense for them to move into a city with lots of open jobs to get on with their life. You always have the option of moving back if you feel like it - most people just don't do so because they see no future in the place they left behind.
Sure, cherry pick some numbers here and there and even Iceland feels like a tropical island. China has made numbers out of thin air for a long time and it starts to show now that their real estate industry is in shambles. Thanks to their otherwise restrictive money system, most wealthy citizens there bought empty properties just to park their wealth somewhere, and now that the prices start to come down, it also starts to hit the people as well. Cuba vs. US, well, given the list, cherry picking is cherry picking.
Reading Marxist theory helps. Here's a pretty good lecture of comparing the systems which gives a pretty good overview:
The History of Capitalism, Slavery, Feudalism and Marxism Richard Wolff
Thank you for acknowledging that you might have a perspective missing (This is by design). Considering this, you could benefit exploring terms like "hegemony" and "ideology".
To me it seems that you think you're asking a rethorical questions with no answer. If you engage with Marxist theory, play with the thought, you don't have to adopt it. Doing so you might realize that there are answers to this.
Again, you're advocating for people relocating and adapting to the market. Meaning, people serving the economy and not the other way around. This doesn't fix the systemic problem.
How is someone who lives paycheck to paycheck to just move? Who rents to someone like that? Moving costs money. What if someone doesn't have the social support for moving? You're saying this form a very priviledged position. It's not a free choice. It's being forced on you, because bourgois politics doesn't tackle the problem at it's roots.
You're saying it like you don't do it.
With a liberal perspective it sure looks like that. This is not cherry picking, right? lol Most of your treats come from China..
Well considering one is the hegemon, the other being an embargoed island with restricted access to the global economy it's impressive I would say. Show me another country with this many sanctions and that high of a life expectancy.. Libs ignoring context, a classic duo...
So a surgeon doesnt earn their wealth off their own labor & value? Hard disagree, even accounting for their assistants that couldnt do what they do. The surgeon provides some amount of value, their staff makes them more efficient, so theres an equilibrium where theyre being fairly compensated. The hospital owners and investors are the leeches.
Sure they do. The question that I answered was in regards to commerce/investing. (Rereading the question, it included also saving where highly skilled workers operating where there's a low supply comes to play - assuming that's why you mentioned surgeons)
If the surgeon employs the their staff they're engaging in capitalism, but I'm assuming you meant that they are also an employee of the hospital in your example.
Yeah my main point being that the 1 million mark is a bit low for automatically declaring someone a capitalist taking advantage of others. Youre right that the majority do definitely have to at least invest to get there, though.
This is a fundamental sticking point between people who believe in any form of capitalism and communism. If someone develops a method of creating a surplus of labor, under communism, they have no right to that surplus beyond the surplus they would get as a worker.
Keyword surplus. If a surgeon would bring in $1000 a day alone and an assistant brings this to $1200, if the assistant gets $200 then theres no skimming, a win-win. Like i said, in reality there ARE people skimming the surplus, but there are laborers that produce significant value on their own.