you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 4 hours ago (15 children)

"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."

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 hours ago (11 children)

    I can't tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

    it is a fact. facts are not pro- or anti- something, they just are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    It's true that capitalists deserve to exploit workers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 child)

    it suggests that (...) can be reformed.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 45 minutes ago

    <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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

    I really enjoyed this. I hope AI didnt write it haha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments