You must log in or register to comment.
Funnily enough the problem with capitalism is actually that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
Tap for spoiler
Capitalism inherently serves to concentrate wealth since the ones with the money make the rules. As wealth disparity increases and people get poorer they can’t buy as much stuff and growth dries up. Then the only way for the rich to keep getting richer is to degrade labour conditions, but that’s unpopular so you need to blame a scapegoat and enact a repressive regime to enforce it. That’s quite a problem, and it’s one which might feel familiar to the astute reader.
Hey I recognize this happening.
😱
Then the only way for the rich to keep getting richer is to degrade labour conditions, but that’s unpopular so you need to blame a scapegoat and enact a repressive regime to enforce it.
I didn’t get this part. Please explain?
The money they collect is the money we pay them minus the money they pay us. If we can’t pay them more the only way to get more is for them to pay us less. Gross simplification obviously. Then the typical strategy is to blame immigrants or Jews or whatever for the decrease in living standards, and crack down on anyone who tries to improve things.
Edit: this is sort of a meme-ified version of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which is the real theory of how economic crises in capitalism come about and not really the same as what I’m describing here, but along some similar lines. It’s worth reading about from actual scholars in detail if you’re interested in that sort of thing.
Honestly? Their real plan is to get us to kill each other, and the ones who remain will be kept as slaves (for… multiple purposes). That is why the cost of living keeps increasing; we are becoming more and more violent, and after a lot of deaths, they will “control” the “chaos”.
Imagine that the entire world is a 100 people neighbourhood and you start selling peanuts, at first you start growing by acquiring more clients but what happens when everyone is already your client? How do you grow at that point?
For anyone interested, here’ a short excerpt on this point from a socialism crash course:
Unlike workers, Capitalists make their living, not by clocking in and being paid a certain fixed wage per hour, but through absentee ownership. Their wealth is earned while sleeping, playing golf, or visiting the mailbox to collect pieces of this wage theft, often in the form of stock dividends. A worker’s wealth is dependent on the number of hours they can work; a Capitalist’s wealth is based on how much absentee property they can accumulate, and as such can multiply infinitely. Some Capitalists earn an average worker’s yearly salary in a single night’s sleep.
For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager. Yet, because they have a piece of paper that says they own it, they get a large cut of everything that was mined: the ultimate free lunch.
A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked (or 43% of labor value added) by English workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages<sup>1</sup>. In other words, at least 40% of the work you do every day is stolen by Capitalists.
Giving away 40% of your salary to the state for healthcare and welfare -> Crazy crime incredible inhumane and brutal theft
Giving away 75% of your salary to private companies who do the same things but worse and that don’t even ensure you full coverage -> Amazing business Enterprise of freedom choice of Democratic democracy 💀
“If you’re unhappy, just work for a different company!!”
This needs that Drake meme.
I also like the response “mfw I’m in a capitalist society and have to choose between shelter and food” when I hear that socialism joke.
“Ask people what they hate about socialism/communism and they’ll describe capitalism.”
The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money
see: Nvidia-Oracle-OpenAI bubble
The real problem with socialism is that it offends the CIA, and bad things happen to people who offend the CIA.
What we don’t seem to ever run out of is bullshit.
Man I hate it when socialism capitalisms.
I wish the watermark said “made with beer” at the bottom left.
Well yes, the rich are running out of their worker’s money after a while and that totally is an issue for them. Isn’t that exactly what they say all the time? I don’t get it.
itt people who don’t know who Margret Thatcher was enough to have seen this misattributed/misquoted from her before.
The problem with socialism is that people put it as: “You won’t need to do any work and still get money”.
And that makes the whole system sound stupid, because it just won’t work that way.Use the correct words and explain the real thing.
No socialists say that though. That’s just what opponents of socialism pretend socialists say.
Or maybe just someone fooled by said pretenders.
I don’t see anyone explaining socialism that way.
Capitalists love making straw men of socialism like that.
Perhaps because you are not in spaces where people do so, trying to make Socialism and Communism sound stupid to make other people uninterested in others that would talk about it.
It might even be a part of someone’s misinformation campaign, really.
The same place had people calling themselves Muslim and trying to make others angry at them, in ways that it would increase -ive sentiment towards the religion itself.Simply put, the moment you put a buzzword onto anything (like any *-ism), that opens it to be grouped with anything anyone might claim it to be. And that’s why one needs to make sure to explain what they mean by the word, every time they want to argue about its pros/cons with others.
I suppose that exists on Reddit, but I don’t really see that much overall.
The problem with socialism is that people put it as: “You won’t need to do any work and still get money”.
I’ve only heard anti socialists say that as a way of smearing socialism. This is the kind of shit you hear in a PragerU video or something.
a way of smearing socialism
That’s the problem.
It is pretty easy to smear any *-ism or honestly any buzzword.See what’s happening with the word AI.
Some scientists use a very specialised model to make an actual +ive impact and everyone says “AI is great!” and use that to drive funding for destabilising the technology industry/market.Those who like to irresponsibly control people, will use buzzwords to attract people into groups and then use them to further an unrelated agenda by slowly drifting away from everything the word once stood for.
This is essentially the history we know of: under the names of gods of religions, of languages, and then ideologies and regimes.
In the end, all of them go to help those who will control people without caring about how they use them.What’s your proposed solution then?
I don’t have a solution for others.
Only one that I decided for myself and then applied it.
You gotta find your own balance point for how much you care about correctness and how much you are fine being led astray by “leaders” in turn for likeability and easy conversations.I personally don’t subscribe to the idea of leaders who can’t justify their position. Maybe your problem is that you see socialism as a system to be implemented rather than a thing that you do? Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.
Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.
If you try to put it that way, that then again opens it for others to add/remove as they feel like.
While I understand that socialism is not some hard program that can exactly apply to every scenario, there has to be some tenets of it that are defended well, to prevent a malicious actor from uprooting its base.My personal solution is simply that I don’t subscribe to any *-ism and don’t group myself with anything even if it tends to provide similar solutions in the current scenario, simply because in some other one, the group’s solution might end up greatly differing from what I would consider acceptable.
Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.
If you try to put it that way, that then again opens it for others to add/remove as they feel like.
While I understand that socialism is not some hard program that can exactly apply to every scenario, there has to be some tenets of it that are defended well, to prevent a malicious actor from uprooting its base.There’s is. It’s really simple: “From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need.” Anything else on top of that is philosophical.
My personal solution is simply that I don’t subscribe to any *-ism and don’t group myself with anything even if it tends to provide similar solutions in the current scenario, simply because in some other one, the group’s solution might end up greatly differing from what I would consider acceptable.
This is a similar tact that I took when I was about 16-17, but I find that to be a very naive point of view. Regardless of whether or not you want to apply any label to yourself (which is perfectly valid) the material conditions of the system we live in will come down on you too. So you either end up in the “We are stronger together” camp, or you end up in the “Me and mine are what needs to be protected. Other people be damned” camp. And if you find yourself in the former, you most likely align with people who call themselves socialist, and if you find yourself in the latter, well then you’re probably a bootlicker
“You won’t need to do any work and still get money”.
Redditors mis-defining socialism as capitalism again.
Unlike workers, Capitalists make their living, not by clocking in and being paid a certain fixed wage per hour, but through absentee ownership. Their wealth is earned while sleeping, playing golf, or visiting the mailbox to collect pieces of this wage theft, often in the form of stock dividends. A worker’s wealth is dependent on the number of hours they can work; a Capitalist’s wealth is based on how much absentee property they can accumulate, and as such can multiply infinitely. Some Capitalists earn an average worker’s yearly salary in a single night’s sleep.
For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager. Yet, because they have a piece of paper that says they own it, they get a large cut of everything that was mined: the ultimate free lunch.
A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked (or 43% of labor value added) by English workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages<sup>1</sup>. In other words, at least 40% of the work you do every day is stolen by Capitalists.
For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager.
And while they try validating their position with, “I take all the risks”, they would also, transfer all the damage to the workers at the drop of a hat, then lobby the Government to undo their losses at the cost of everyone else giving power to the Government.
Are you arguing about a meme and demanding it be remade for you?
no.
I can use some GIMP, if I required that.
You really should read some theory and look at real socialist practice before you arrogantly state things that are just completely false.Edit: misread the comment thought the were making the quoted point.
So you’re saying that noone does any work in socialist countries? They wouldn’t last many days if that was the case
No? To the contrary, people need to work if they are able, at least until automation can cover most production and distribution.
Exactly, that’s why it was weird of the commenter to object to someone saying that socialism isn’t “You won’t need to do any work and still get money” with “you should read some theory” as if socialist theory said that that was exactly what socialism is
I don’t think that was their intention.
Based on their edit it wasn’t, they had misread the original comment
I understand that that is not what Socialism actually means.
People who thought of the system weren’t idiots.
I think you replied to the wrong person
Nope
Then you didn’t understand what was being said and should reread it. People work in socialist countries like I work in China we just have a minimum standard guaranteed to us and the government actually works for us instead of for corporations.
Then you didn’t understand what was being said and should reread it.
yeah i did actually read it multiple times to make sure i didn’t misread it, did you?
Edit: misread the comment thought the were making the quoted point.
Let’s double check before making accusations next time
read some theory and look at real socialist practice
I live in a socialist country. And it works (well, at least better than current US).
You should go around interjecting people who say, “You won’t need to do any work and still get money” and link them to places where they can read the theory, to reduce such BS’ers.
Do you live in Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, DPRK, Laos, or Venezuela? If not, you don’t live in a socialist country, but a social democracy, which is capitalism but with safety nets. These social democracies in Europe rely on imperialism to subsidize their safety nets.
They live in India
Ah, gotcha.
Heyyy! No spoilers.
Now they don’t have the drive to read my extremely lengthy comment explaining the situation and then trying to guess my country from that.Sorry!
I live in a country that went from Imperial control to almost fully Socialist (except for the Police, which are mostly tamed bullies) and is now rapidly progressing towards Capitalism (probably because anyone that refuses to do so, gets on the offside of US).
And PRC qualifies as neither Socialist nor Capitalist.
If it’s not on the list, it isn’t socialist. As for the PRC, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state, it’s socialist by definition.
and the working classes control the state
I find it hard to believe that the majority of the working class people consider territorial expansion to be good for anyone in this age.
I find it hard to believe that China is engaged in territorial expansion when it hasn’t dropped a single bomb in 35 years
Or do mean the border dispute with India? Because that’s an artifact of the British drawing shitty borders and imposing them on subjugated people and those people have not established an effective framework for redressing the problem yet
China isn’t expansionist, though.
You are an interesting person
deleted by creator
I get that it’s a meme but 85% is delusional. If you think under socialism we could work 15% as much as we do now and maintain the same standard of living then lol, lmao, etc.
*online leftists coping and seething after food and housing don’t just magically spring forth from the earth when you abolish rent-seeking
If you have a Real Job where you interact with the material world it is impossible to believe that 85% of the things you physically make or do are consumed by capitalists.
If you have a Real Job where you interact with the material world it is impossible to believe that 85% of the things you physically make or do are consumed by capitalists.
See, once I started working a “Real Job” I saw just how much surplus value was stolen, and turned to Marxist theory to make cohesive sense of it. 85% isn’t an over-estimation, especially if we factor in imperialism. Workers in the imperial core are paid more and exploited less than workers in the periphery.
If you think under socialism we could work 15% as much as we do now and maintain the same standard of living then lol, lmao, etc.
We will probably all work 30-40 hours a week for the next great length of time even in socialism, but with far greater societal guarantees and a less predatory system of distribution.
The top 10% of households hold 67% of all wealth. If we assume that every worker produces roughly the same value, that implies ⅔ of value produced by the average worker is being taken.
Of course, 33% is not 15%, but I’d say it’s roughly in the ballpark. And in certain cases, there are definitely workers who are exploited to that level.
Wealth is not income. You can’t derive the rate of exploitation from wealth inequality.
If we assume that every worker produces roughly the same value
I mean lol again. Especially if you need to stretch as far as the top 10%. Doctors, surgeons, electricians, linemen, plumbers, veterinarians, dentists, engineers, etc are all going to be producing more than double the value of your average retail worker.
The only way to create wealth is via work, e.g., income. It’s not a perfect measure, I concede, since wealth is static and can accumulate over time. However, I think we can still use it as a rough estimation of stolen income over time.
However, this source claims there is a 70% gap between wages and produced value. That roughly matches the number I gave.
That is not what that data is or says.
158 is not 30% of 285 for starters.
Total wages paid are a bit over half of gdp. 55% is notably quite a bit more than 15%.Think I had gdp from a different year than wages, still closer to accurate than 85%*the fact that somebody completely misreading a graph and claiming it as a source is getting upvoted is about to turn me into a liberal out of embarrassment. Like damn, I guess there was negative exploitation in 1970. Neoliberals might be evil but at least they usually appreciate nuance and factuality more than ideological improv. The online left can never settle for reality, everything has to be embellished. Every injustice has to be 'yes, and’ed until society would actually fluorish under a new golden age where we all work 10 seconds per week if you just got rid of landlords.
literally feelings over facts.
85% is a bit of an overestimate, but not by all that much. For the United States, total wages paid by companies to employees are about 11 trillion, out of a GDP of 29 trillion (stats from a year or two ago). This doesn’t count sole proprietorships and partnerships, but the high-end estimate is 62%.
@draco_aeneus@mander.xyz’s implication that wealth follows linearly from income isn’t super rigorous, but it does match up closely enough in this case.
If you have a Materially Productive Job and you have the ability + information required to calculate how much revenue a worker contributes to the company, you’ll know that this checks out. I wouldn’t expect everyone to be adequately positioned and also care enough in order to have that insight though.
Nitpicking whether the executive and shareholders appropriate 85% or 50% of value is pointless. It’s a huge amount, it’s far more than income taxes, and it is the most important dynamic of the capitalist economy. And it is further corroborated with reports (from mainstream/orthodox sources) over the past year of how the majority of consumer spending is done by the rich.
85% vs 50% is a massive difference. It would be the difference between a 20 hour work week and a 6 hour work week.
Both those possibilities (20h work week and 6h work week) sound great. The prospect is either working less, or working the same amount and keeping the monetary value of your labor, as opposed to working full-time just to pay 3/4 of your income just sustaining your existence, which goes straight to landlords or bigger companies.
And if you can arrange a living that avoids the most common money traps, you can easily get by with 20 hours of work per week or less. I’ve certainly done enough juggling of part-time jobs to know this.
Norway is classic example of how country should function. The pathetic excuse by most AmeriKans, the USA is too large. F-off, you have the money, but spend it on stupid policies and shit.
Norway relies on imperialism to subsidize its safety nets.
❤️ so concise and to the point
♥️
Ask Rosa Luxembourg about Social Democrats
Lawmakers in the US had the option to spend $97B on something meaningful like addressing homelessness. That amount of money would cover housing and wrap around services for a significant portion of those affected for at least 5 years. Instead they chose to fund ICE to terrorize the US’s own communities, immigrants and citizens alike.
