• @irmoz
    link
    fedilink
    14
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    So, you support a system that inherently creates an upper class of obscenely rich people, yet are opposed to those people?

    A system set up to enrich the owner of a business, while its workers lose out, creates exactly the people you claim not to defend.

    • No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them. They can support themselves, and I can support myself just fine. I make more money from them than I would without them, and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.

      I’ve never been forced to take any job… I just manage my skillset in such a way that makes it both rare and valuable. I’ve worn many hats over the years, and I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules Worked out great for me and my family so far. I’ll even have some to leave my kids so they don’t have as hard of a time reaching even higher than I have. That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.

      • @irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them.

        It doesn’t work like that. They are in power, and by not opposing them, you consent to their continued power.

        I make more money from them than I would without them,

        That isn’t even close to true. Capitalist extraction of surplus value is exactly how they make their profits. If they paid you the value you made them, they wouldn’t have a profit. If they weren’t there to extract that value, you and your fellow workers would make more - it’s basic mathematics.

        and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.

        This part is true, yes.

        I’ve never been forced to take any job…

        So, you’re saying you’re able to retire right now and never work again?

        I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules

        That’s a slave mindset.

        That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.

        That’s cool you can think that small and that selfishly. Others, however, realise you could be living even better, and everyone else, including those with nothing, could have that standard of living, too, if we stop being complacent with mere crumbs.

        That’s what you have. Mere crumbs of luxury. It’s great that you’re not on the street, but that is an incredibly low standard to have.

          • @irmoz
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it any less true. How do you refute it? It’s a basic mathematical truth. It’s literally impossible for a capitalist to pay you the value you brought them, without them going broke.

            • @huge_clock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              16 months ago

              It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.

              Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?

              • @irmoz
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                So, surplus value doesn’t exist, simply because some capitalists can… fail to extract it?

                Listen buddy, a few people being bad at their job doesn’t mean the job doesn’t exist.

                I don’t think you know what surplus value is. It’s the portion of the value that you make for the business that doesn’t go to you, but to the owner.

                Do you also notice that I said “without going broke” and your example includes going broke?

                • @huge_clock@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?

                  Ordinary people who labour save their money. Are they not allowed to invest that money after they earn it? What are we supposed to do with the money that we save up that’s not used for consumption?

                  • @irmoz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    It’s risky to capture a slave. Are risks always entitled to rewards?

                    The profit generated by the workers belongs to the workers. They made it. The owner didn’t. They needed the workers to make it. The owners aren’t “providing” the resources - they’re gatekeeping them, so that usage only happens under the condition that it benefits the owner.

                    Also, to be quite honest, it’s even unfair to the owner. They shouldn’t have to risk it alone. It should be a joint venture from the start. These risks should be undertaken together, with all as co-owners.

                    People are entitled their basic needs on the basis of being human. And all should have social ownership of the economy in general, with no individual or group having sole ownership and thus being the only ones to profit from it.

          • @OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Read: “I only subscribe to the economics of the oppressor class. If they refuse to accept a basic mathematical truth that implies bad things about them, so do I!”

    • @SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      36 months ago

      Markets are nothing more than voluntary association. Most, if not every “obscenely rich” person got this rich because of govt interference (lobbying, govt sanctioned monopoly, corporate welfare, subsidies, etc.)

      “Organic” market economy would be beneficial to everyone

      • @irmoz
        link
        fedilink
        66 months ago

        Sorry, but a market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?

            • @AlDente@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              That’s nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I’m not sure what efficiency has to do with this.

                • @AlDente@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?

                  Edit: Upon reflection, it seems that the existence of any black market proves the point.

                  • @irmoz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    2
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    If you think the black market doesn’t have a central authority, you’re looking through rose tinted glasses. Whoever has the most money and the most guns at their disposal is the authority. The black market is actually a perfect example of where capitalist market economics lead without regulation.

          • @irmoz
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            But I ain’t got no shit cos a bigger guy took it all.