this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
1519 points (97.6% liked)

Political Memes

5487 readers
2715 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

not really. a small profit accounts for the risk and work involved in obtaining it. Problem is to often its way outsized and if not the secondary objective is massive loss for the public sector to shoulder.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

yes really.

accounts for the risk

what risk? the risk of losing control of the business and becoming a laborer just like you and me?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

no the risk of losing money. are you talking a system where money does not exist as a means of trade?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

nice straw man im just gonna ignore that.

turns out that the ultra wealthy losing 99% of their money is actually not going to hurt them nearly as much as you or i losing even 25% of our savings.

calling that “risk” is like saying i took a “risk” walking outside without an umbrella today, and using the fact that i got wet as an excuse to firehose like 800 other people.

moving further into nuance, i do believe that investment should be rewarded when successful under capitalism. we probably agree on this point.

however, “rewards” in the form of long term fuck-you-money profit hundreds to thousands of times the magnitude of the non-owning laborer at the expense of those who built the business with their lives, is unacceptable and outright theft.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

you know at first I thought you were way wack but I did reread and you did say corporations and I was looking it at more generally. ie. owning a business. that being said what I was arguing really was your last line about profit being theft which as a generality is wrong but yeah large corporations making obscene profit is wrong.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

bruh okay 🗿 🤝 i guess

yeah, while there is crossover, profit is not the same thing as meet and appropriate compensation for investment. profit is strictly defined as revenue minus costs. businesses that pocket huge sums of profit in the form of executive compensation or stock buybacks are evidence that costs are far too low, that there is theft of cash that should rightfully be reinvested to the creators of that revenue value, that is, the laborers.

you have some other weird definitions of what being a corporation means going on, but it’s not altogether important to my point so i’ll leave us at this weird fortunate agreement lol.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You'll never win, they will never get what risk is in this context.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh I get it, don’t underestimate me.

In the context of capital owners, financial "risk" only refers to the potential loss of excess capital beyond what's necessary for survival. Meanwhile, for laborers, it can mean risking everything, including basic needs like shelter, food, and healthcare, in case of financial setbacks. There is incredible disparity in consequences between the two groups when facing financial challenges, both in raw value and in the number of lives at stake.

Guess why I find one to be more of a problem than the other. 🙄

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

For some business owners it can mean financial ruin, even when tools like an LLC are used.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, and I believe in the rights of those ruined business owners to a liveable wage when their business fails.

The solution to financially ruined people is not to redistribute wealth away from them for the sake of the only ones who are doing fine.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What risk? That a Capitalist may become a Worker like everyone else?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

no the risk of losing money. are you talking a system where money does not exist as a means of trade?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If a Capitalist loses money, they risk becoming a Worker like everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

if a worker loses money they risk becoming a poorer worker. is the worked paid? do they have money? what level of money makes one a capitalist? in your world. I had someone else come along with similar concerns but they seemed to just be talking about corporations which I kinda get then but commerce happens on all levels.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Workers work for wages, Capitalists recieve profits off of ownership. This isn't "my" world, this is the world.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

so workers do not own anything they make profit off of? Like a car they use to do uber rides? in this world. that is what you think? you think that is reality?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Uber drivers are gig workers, and firmly in the Proletariat. They ultimately use and depend on Uber's infrastructure and Capital. Owning a car for personal use and also using it for your job you work for a wage for does not mean you profit off of ownership in the manner a Capitalist profits off the work of others.

This is, in fact, reality.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Petite bourgeoisie. Capitalists that do not drive enough income to survive without working. It's a bit muddier than this, with respect to their personal job their power dynamic is clearly Proletarian, but they are attempting to escape that dynamic and become full bourgeois via landlording.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ok. so if they did not rent the room and the would be tenant stays homeless then they are good workers or whatever foreign word you use for them. so bad if the one guy has a roof over his head but good if he does not?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I am not making a moral judgement on what happens within Capitalism, I am stating that Capitalism itself should be replaced with a collectively owned system. Microcosms do not represent the system as a whole, nor represent the average.

In a better scenario, landlording would not need to be a necessary evil to give this person a home, when public housing can be an option.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

yeah this is much bigger topic and I doubt I would change your mind on that level. For myself I have never seen any indication that would work but also for extreme capitalism (old libertarian thought although as a movement its way away from its roots) and believe elements of both make a good society. We have way to much private ownership right now though and way to little publically ownership so I would be in favor of more changes toward your paradise but if its all or nothing then I would be against them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why? In what manner is Private Ownership better, at a systemic level?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well one. Its worked and has been shown to work and work well provided its limited and regulated. I like having my own room. Going further I like having my own home. If I could I would have some property. This is space where no one else is allowed to be except by my permission. That in a nutshell is what private ownership is. Its things that other people are not allowed to use except by the owners permission. If your allowing that but not calling it private ownership you are fooling yourself as that is what that is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Define "worked" and "works well." Disparity is rising, safety nets are eroding, wages are stagnating with respect to productivity, people are homeless despite a surplus of houses and people starve despite a surplus of food. It does not work for anyone except the wealthy.

You can own a home for personal use in Socialism, you just can't be a landlord. That is Personal Ownership, not Private Ownership, you aren't seeking an income from the labor of others, justified by your ownership.

I am not fooling myself, I just know what I am talking about with respect to Socialist theory. I'm a nerd like that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

its personal ownership rather than private ownership? yup. im done.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Clearly, you never cared about learning and only wished to preserve your fragile world view.

Call it whatever the fuck you like, in Socialism you can have your own home or live in publicly owned housing.