• @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.

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

                  It’s a double coincidence of wants. The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business. They would also rather have a steady predictable paycheque rather than jointly own a risky venture. Meanwhile the investor has capital they are willing to risk and are able to provide a steady source of income. The workers can’t make profit on their own without the capital.

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

                    The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business.

                    Aw, golly gee, I sure do wonder why they aren’t able to do this.

                    Because our system is set up that way!! Capitalism!

                    Our system is set up to enrich owners at the expense of workers. Simple as that.

      • @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!”