5 ms·

> and organizations get unfairly accused. I understand people, but why organisations? Capitalist firms literally thrive on the exploitation of labour, disregar

by ue_ 10y ago

> and organizations get unfairly accused. I understand people, but why organisations? Capitalist firms literally thrive on the exploitation of labour, disregard for the environment and otherwise reckless pursuit of profit.

linkregister 10y ago
Capitalist firms employ people, who support families. They may have relocated to a region where they can't find alternate work if the company folds. Capitalist firms are owned by asshole billionaires, nice billionaires, pension funds, individual investors, and retirement funds. They're still owned by and made up of people. Instead of inventing false accusations about them, debate them on their merits.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >Capitalist firms employ people, who support families. The feudal lord supports families by giving them a place to live while the workers pay tribute with the fruit of their labour. The idea that the workers ought to be grateful for being exploited is, in my opinion, silly. Capitalist firms pay for the labour-time, which includes the cost of (i) the worker staying in the work force (ii) the worker "recharging" with a moderate amount of sleep and entertainment (iii) the worker adding more to the workforce via reproduction, so the children are also paid for. The worker is an expense, the family is an expense. The family is an expense because if it was not paid for, the workers could not work or the supply of workers becomes more scarce. So yes, while the capitalist firm may employ people who provide for the family, so does the slave owner, for the purpose of future slaves. And as soon as the worker is not profitable, what happens to that support for the family? It disappears. So the merits are thus: people are kept in servitude by virtue of their status of being a worker, with just enough income to pay to replenish the work force and stay motivated. That's the merits of the capitalist firm. Edit: if the downvoters would like to ask questions or respond, it would be nice to know where I'm going wrong, thanks :)
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    You seem to not be a fan of capitalism. Do you live in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos or North Korea? If not, why not?
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >China, Cuba, Vietnam These are capitalist countries, in which wage labour is the primary way by which workers sustain themselves; property is privately owned (and yes, the government can privately own property). >North Korea North Korea is an ethno-nationalist dictatorship run by a hereditary monarchy. What's your point?
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        Others disagree with your sentiment: http://www.thenewstrack.com/top-5-communist-countries-in-the-world/ http://www.thenewstrack.com/top-5-communist-countries-in-the... Where is an example of a good system then?
        ue_ 10y ago
        People disagreeing with me does not mean that I'm wrong. Communism is defined as a stateless, classless and monelyess and anarchistic society in which peolpe are not paid with wages for work. Even in Socialism, the means of production are owned by the workers. None of the countries in this post have either of these qualities. However they all exhibit the fundamental properties of capitalism: the primacy of wage labour, private ownership of capital and the means of production, and production is for exchange value to be maximised over use value. I am an anarcho-Communist. I believe in the demolishing of the state and all unjustified hierarchical relations, including but not limited to the government and the bourgeoisie, to advance toward a society in which the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. Distributed networks of councils of workers, each of which implementing direct democracy to decide what is made and in what quantity. The workers take home the products of their labour, or agree to have them distributed to those who are unable to work, again via direct democracy. My system is the abolishment of exploitation of the workers and with it the system of oppression aided by capitalism's power structures, including misogyny, racism, homophobia etc.
dang 10y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It's tedious and leads to flamewars. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13926144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13926144 and marked it off-topic.

by ue_ 10y ago

linkregister 10y ago

Capitalist firms employ people, who support families. They may have relocated to a region where they can't find alternate work if the company folds. Capitalist firms are owned by asshole billionaires, nice billionaires, pension funds, individual investors, and retirement funds. They're still owned by and made up of people. Instead of inventing false accusations about them, debate them on their merits.

ue_ 10y ago
>Capitalist firms employ people, who support families. The feudal lord supports families by giving them a place to live while the workers pay tribute with the fruit of their labour. The idea that the workers ought to be grateful for being exploited is, in my opinion, silly. Capitalist firms pay for the labour-time, which includes the cost of (i) the worker staying in the work force (ii) the worker "recharging" with a moderate amount of sleep and entertainment (iii) the worker adding more to the workforce via reproduction, so the children are also paid for. The worker is an expense, the family is an expense. The family is an expense because if it was not paid for, the workers could not work or the supply of workers becomes more scarce. So yes, while the capitalist firm may employ people who provide for the family, so does the slave owner, for the purpose of future slaves. And as soon as the worker is not profitable, what happens to that support for the family? It disappears. So the merits are thus: people are kept in servitude by virtue of their status of being a worker, with just enough income to pay to replenish the work force and stay motivated. That's the merits of the capitalist firm. Edit: if the downvoters would like to ask questions or respond, it would be nice to know where I'm going wrong, thanks :)
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  You seem to not be a fan of capitalism. Do you live in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos or North Korea? If not, why not?
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >China, Cuba, Vietnam These are capitalist countries, in which wage labour is the primary way by which workers sustain themselves; property is privately owned (and yes, the government can privately own property). >North Korea North Korea is an ethno-nationalist dictatorship run by a hereditary monarchy. What's your point?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Others disagree with your sentiment: http://www.thenewstrack.com/top-5-communist-countries-in-the-world/ http://www.thenewstrack.com/top-5-communist-countries-in-the... Where is an example of a good system then?
      - ue_ 10y ago
        People disagreeing with me does not mean that I'm wrong. Communism is defined as a stateless, classless and monelyess and anarchistic society in which peolpe are not paid with wages for work. Even in Socialism, the means of production are owned by the workers. None of the countries in this post have either of these qualities. However they all exhibit the fundamental properties of capitalism: the primacy of wage labour, private ownership of capital and the means of production, and production is for exchange value to be maximised over use value. I am an anarcho-Communist. I believe in the demolishing of the state and all unjustified hierarchical relations, including but not limited to the government and the bourgeoisie, to advance toward a society in which the means of production are collectively owned by the workers. Distributed networks of councils of workers, each of which implementing direct democracy to decide what is made and in what quantity. The workers take home the products of their labour, or agree to have them distributed to those who are unable to work, again via direct democracy. My system is the abolishment of exploitation of the workers and with it the system of oppression aided by capitalism's power structures, including misogyny, racism, homophobia etc.

dang 10y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. It's tedious and leads to flamewars. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13926144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13926144 and marked it off-topic.