Quote:
Originally Posted by JurisDictum
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There's the cost of labor,
The cost of materials,
The cost of management,
Then there is surplus.
The surplus produced goes a 100% to the "owner" of the venture. But that "owner" didn't do anything except own something. The owner can do other things on the list above, but that is beside the point.
The point is, the owner was not producing any value by owning anything. They merely claim it belongs to them by right.
Capitalism is based on people that are productive being paid less than they actually produce.
This is a necessary evil to get "investment" to start the venture in some cases. Especially in early human development. But after awhile, it is no longer necessary to set up the system that way.
That's the bases of Marxist theory. Capitalism is a phase in history were those that "own stuff" (starting with feudalism) invest in ventures to get more. Then Socialism comes along, and the productive members of the venture seize control over the "means of production."
Because their working/producing and the owner isn't.
and there is a whole list of reasons why that is inevitable. Starting with "concentration of capital" where a small group eventually own everything and use market power to take more and more for themselves until all the workers are subsistence workers.
|
yes, I understand that Marxism is the violation of contract, oath and law to seize property from its rightful owner and steward. Demonstrably wrecking that stewardship in all of the examples tried. Borne of envy. That's my point, too!
edit: oh i forgot you're addressing pokesan's troll question. no, i'm sorry, but you weren't robbed when you entered a contract under no duress or deceit and the terms were honored. Own a business and keep it alive, passing it down through 3 generations until it gains vast value, but that ought to be worth nothing because your great-grandchildren "aren't the ones doing the mining". That's envy and it's dumb.
Obviously the venture is worth something if it's a shiny enough coin to unite the peasantry in betraying decency to thieve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
oh okay. you're post read like it was parodying mine, so I thought maybe I wasn't communicating effectively. I wasn't saying that trust funds make people unhappy. to the contrary, they very likely make many people happy. I am also sure most people would like to have one and they would enjoy many benefits with one (I wouldn't mind to have one!) It would not however necessarily grant them or allow them to acquire the skills necessary to become a productive and responsible human being. If we are talking about a scenario of unlimited resources, then maybe that doesn't matter. When everything automates later this century,maybe none of it will matter. if so, that's fantastic. I've seen when "help" hurts though by stifling or completely arresting growth many, many, many times and so I remain cautious of help without direction/conditions.
|
no I was being unironic ^^ plenty fucks people up when there are no expectations or responsibilities.
For instance -- a royal in feudal times might be very likely to die by the sword, and to spend his and her life aggressively engaged in networking, socialization, ceremony, and other nonsense which is nonetheless hard work, despite its position and wealth.
Notch, meanwhile, wealthier than a 14th century kang in share of materials though poorer in share of violence, spews transphobic stuff on Twitter and looks like a 'cheetoh fiend'. He wakes up hung over a lot.
03-14-2019, 09:15 PM
Linear Mode
