Only Capitalists Create Jobs

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm not really arguing against your preferred social contract...
....just against the claim that being an employee is being a slave.

Oh. Well carry on then. My misunderstanding. I think though that the comparison to a slave is that in a society where the majority of people work for someone else and there are few in economic power makes a feudalistic system with very limited freedom. Not slavery by any means as that was one of the most atrocious systems ever thought up by people. But they do share, in drastically different degrees, oppression and a lack of freedom.

 

[metis]

I believe in what some call "Neo-Marxist Economics", although most of us that lean in this direction more closely are aligned with where Engels was coming from (the two had a rather nasty split, and Engels felt that Marx fell off the turnip truck because Marx went on to delve heavily in the philosophical direction).

In brief, what both felt was that both owners and politicians were all too often corrupt and/or inept, putting their own accumulation of power and money to deity levels, while the workers got little back in return yet did most of the work. Therefore, why not give the power to those who did the work-- the workers themselves, and that includes all workers from top to bottom, making relatively equal wages since they all are working to make the company/collective successful. And instead of having power concentrated at the top, have much more local influence in collaboration with the workers, even to the point whereas Marx hoped that way down the road there would be no need for any national government.

Obviously, these employee-owned businesses would then compete with one another, and regulations would be minimal since taking reckless risks could jeopardize the jobs of the entire company/collective, plus each worker and each local politician would have strong incentive not to let any one person or any small group do something that could cause a collapse that could affect them all.

Some may wonder about the question of outside investors, but this process does not disallow for that but it does not allow them to be the dominant force in any company/collective. Or what about private investments? According to Marx and Engels, private ownership is allowed but not allowed to be passed on through inheritance. IOW, once the owner either croaks or decides to get out, the ownership resorts to the workers, although any siblings of the owners may be able to work for the company/collective. Again, a reminder is that it's the workers that made the company succeed-- not the siblings.

The potential benefits for going in this direction are enormous if one thinks it through some other implications as to how this would pan out. Anyhow, I stop at this point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh. Well carry on then. My misunderstanding. I think though that the comparison to a slave is that in a society where the majority of people work for someone else and there are few in economic power makes a feudalistic system with very limited freedom. Not slavery by any means as that was one of the most atrocious systems ever thought up by people. But they do share, in drastically different degrees, oppression and a lack of freedom.

Even "feudal" is a stretch.
Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LuisDantas]

Brazil must be quite the hellhole.

I've had many employees over the years.
Not once did I ever horse whip the ones who quit.
And where I've been an employee, twas the same.
You should move.

Quite a few of us attempt to move.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even "feudal" is a stretch.
Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, feudalism was in many ways superior to our current systems. It kept people with realistic expectations about their future, more so than we have these days.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, feudalism was in many ways superior to our current systems. It kept people with realistic expectations about their future, more so than we have these days.

Oh, the joy of low expectations for one's future.
That's better for you, but some of us would rather have the opportunity to aim higher.
So....why don't you move?

 

[metis]

Actually, feudalism was in many ways superior to our current systems. It kept people with realistic expectations about their future, more so than we have these days.

Also the nobility had an obligation to take care of the serfs, which is one main reason why the RCC opposed the movement towards capitalism, especially since they provided no safety net.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, the joy of low expectations for one's future.
That's better for you, but some of us would rather have the opportunity to aim higher.

That in itself is fine. The price to be paid often is not.

So....why don't you move?

Basically, it is much too late for me personally.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also the nobility had an obligation to take care of the serfs, which is one main reason why the RCC opposed the movement towards capitalism, especially since they provided no safety net.

Indeed. "Freedom" is often in practice a nice way of expressing a disregard for others.

Feudal systems make it so that lords lose their privileges if they go too far.

Capitalism often ends up rewarding those instead, and labelling the plight of the masses "lack of wisdom" or of desire to work hard.

It is a very dangerous form of delusion, one that can only end up in tragedy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Even "feudal" is a stretch.
Feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neo-feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Neo-feudalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you add "neo" to it, then I'll allow it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Only Capitalists Create Jobs

Only the proletariat buy their crap, and make their crap.

Well, at least we agree on the premise.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well, at least we agree on the premise.

Do we?

With no one to buy stuff and no one to work, how can a job be created?
What's the function of a smart, wealthy capitalist without the community around him?

 

[metis]

What's the function of a smart, wealthy capitalist without the community around him?

And this is an important item that many on the right simply overlook, namely that any successful enterprise relies very heavily on the infrastructure and support from the community going all the way back to when one is born. This is why so many are frankly selfish-- they take but don't want to give back-- they rake in the profits but don't want to pay taxes and use every method possible to avoid them-- and even though this is not true with all of them, or maybe even most, this is a reoccurring mantra with so many as we've seen.

It's like the child who wants everyone else's toys to play with but who cries and whines if anyone dare and try to take even one of theirs. And this is just one reason why so many who fall into this category want fewer regulations and lower taxes, as Barry Goldwater lamented when he said that too many of these people are really not conservatives but are just plain selfish.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Do we?
With no one to buy stuff and no one to work, how can a job be created

We're talking Econ 001 here. Caveman Org walks into cave community Schlub for the first time. Org is carrying a spear with a chicken on it and is eating it raw. The head Schlubovian, Klok, asks where he got that cool thing he killed the chicken with. Org tells him he calls it a spear and he made it from materials back at his home, particularly the sharp point. Then Klok asks him why he's eating the bird raw. "What 'raw' mean?" asks Org. Klok takes him around to the back of the hut to a fire pit where Mrs. Klok is cooking a chicken which she has salted. Org tastes the chicken. "Voilà!" he exclaims. Next thing you know they're exchanging information about resources and knowledge they have and decide to trade those resources with each other on a regular basis. Klok's brother-in-law, Slick, even volunteers to make a trade run once every moon, for a cut of the take of course. Soon he has to hire some muscle from the nearby Troglodite klan for security. And of course he has to give the village Hoo-Doo man something so he will bestow the gods blessing on his journey. The Troglodites and the Hoo-Doos eye each other knowingly and soon form an inter-tribal council.....and the rest is history.

What's the function of a smart, wealthy capitalist without the community around him?

What's anyone's "function" without a community? A castaway and a hermit are the only exceptions I can think of. In the story above, Slick is a capitalist, as well as the groups (dare I say capitalist companies) who got together to mine salt, manufacture spears, and produce fire starter kits. I could take this little parable and bring it all the way up to the 21st Century, but I hope you get the picture. As I'm sure you probably picked up, even back then in that holy natural state, all was not hunky-dory in paradise. Government and religion have built-in advantages for the abuse of power. Moral of the story? Pick one.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Yes, government has jobs, but they are financed by private sector funds collected by government in the form of taxes. If government errs, it can use force to collect more taxes. Private businesses can't do that.

Care to disagree?

We public employees pay taxes too, you know.

 

[Revoltingest]

We public employees pay taxes too, you know.

...which is quite odd, when I think about it.
They promise to give you money, but they withhold about 30%-40% of it, keeping it for themselves.
Then you still have to give them more when you buy goods or services, & own a home.
Sounds like a raw deal. You should demand a raise!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We public employees pay taxes too, you know.

The point is that private capitalists pay the government for protection and the legal system as government's primary mandate, which requires the legal use of force, with guns. Without it, there are no public employees--at least not paid ones. The obvious problem is the people sell their votes to corrupt power-grubbing governments to take more money from the capitalists and give it to them via entitlements--minus their cut of course. No matter how hard the capitalists work, the system will eventually succumb to socialist greed. (Ooo, "legal use of force, with guns", "socialist greeeed"--ain't that a rock with a hard place.)

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is that private capitalists pay the government for protection and the legal system as government's primary mandate, which requires the legal use of force, with guns. Without it, there are no public employees--at least not paid ones. The obvious problem is the people sell their votes to corrupt power-grubbing governments to take more money from the capitalists and give it to them via entitlements--minus their cut of course. No matter how hard the capitalists work, the system will eventually succumb to socialist greed. (Ooo, "legal use of force, with guns", "socialist greeeed"--ain't that a rock with a hard place.)

The best we can hope for is self-correction to this problem, ie, a stable feedback loop. If voters recognize that excessive taxation gives diminishing returns, then the pendulum will swing back & forth, ideally without catastrophic failure.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The point is that private capitalists pay the government for protection and the legal system as government's primary mandate, which requires the legal use of force, with guns. Without it, there are no public employees--at least not paid ones. The obvious problem is the people sell their votes to corrupt power-grubbing governments to take more money from the capitalists and give it to them via entitlements--minus their cut of course. No matter how hard the capitalists work, the system will eventually succumb to socialist greed. (Ooo, "legal use of force, with guns", "socialist greeeed"--ain't that a rock with a hard place.)

First of all, capitalists don't work. That's pretty much by definition. The working class are the people the capitalists mooch off of in order to maintain their wealth and position, by having them do all the real work while only paying them a small fraction of the profits. They also mooch off the public sector more than they actually put into it. The wealthiest corporations actually pay relatively little to nothing in taxes, since they're excellent at manipulating the system and dodging their responsibilities, yet there are whole segments of government infrastructure that they are the only ones who make extensive use of.

Nor is the primary mandate of government the defense of the capitalist class. Government has existed as a concept much longer than capitalism, which is a post-industrial phenomenon. Even the US governmental system predates capitalism as such. The purpose of government ought to be to serve its constituents. Insofar as it fails to do that--or only serves capitalist interests, which amounts to a tiny minority of its actual contituency--it is failing to fulfill its purpose. Most likely because private-sector funds and lobbyists have all but completely captured the public sphere.

So, if we're done with the capitalist propaganda... And it's not as if they have anything to complain about; the disparity in wealth is higher than ever, and that means the capitalists are making bank. Many of them are now billionaires, which was something unheard of just a generation ago (and not just because of inflation, either). The public sector is practically at their mercy, begging for scraps from their table. Things have never been better for them. Never mind that it's not sustainable and that it's morally repugnant. But what's more morally repugnant is that for many of their propagandists, it's still not enough. But I imagine they won't be happy until access to oxygen is privatized, and even then they'll claim that the greedy socialists won't let them charge enough.