6 ms·

You can buy and sell almost anything under capitalism. You can buy or sell property. You can buy or sell pieces of a company (stocks). You can buy or sell hu

You can buy and sell almost anything under capitalism. You can buy or sell property. You can buy or sell pieces of a company (stocks). You can buy or sell human labor. And the way that businesses make money is by essentially arbitraging some market, for example by buying something in one place and selling it somewhere where it is more expensive, or by buying labor and selling the products of that labor at a profit. But there are certain things you already cannot buy and sell in our current system, and this is key to seeing the way forward. You can't buy and sell people, for instance. That would be slavery. The purest form of capitalism would include slavery also. You can buy labor, but no more than 40 hours per week without paying overtime. The socialist point of view on this is that it isn't just buying the life of a person that is morally wrong; buying their lives piecemeal 8 hours at a time and then arbitraging the value of their labor is wrong as well. So under socialism when people work, they work always and only for themselves or as part of a cooperative that they are an equal owner of. So they are taking part in a voluntary activity, not selling themselves. Ultimately that's the only way to fix our economic system; allowing the arbitrage of labor leads to fundamental instabilities and inequalities that cannot be resolved. Otherwise the pressures within society will continue to grow until the society tears itself apart or relieves the pressure by going to war.

chasd00 8y ago
To me the concept of labor in socialism is outdated. Consider Facebook, do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" and therefore should participate in the rewards of that labor? If everything was still physical factories, staffed by humans, and creating physical widgets then I can at least understand the socialist view. However, in the current market labor so is detached from profit it doesn't make a lot of sense.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  >>> do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" and therefore should participate in the rewards of that labor? yes. I have contributed a small part of labor, but probably more importantly I have sold my Intellectual Property - my Personal data, to Facebook who then monetise it and give me no cut of the proceeds. It is an interesting framework from fallingfrog. I like it
  - chasd00 8y ago
    If you sold them something then you should send them an invoice. Or, did you agree to their terms and conditions of using their website/mobile app voluntarily? This makes no sense to me.
    - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
      to make an (extreme and not equal example) you can enter a contract to sell your liver - society has decided that such contracts should be illegal. we shall probably make a similar decision on selling personal data.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >Consider Facebook, do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" It is labour, so yes. What do you think the concept of labour in socialism is? Only then can we judge if it is inaccurate. For instance, Marx never excluded mental/information-work/management labour, and in fact he mentioned them specifically at many points.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I was seriously just thinking that I'd like to see a Marxist analysis of this from you. So please, keep going. My initial attempt at it: Facebook is the capitalist, owning the means of production. The workers aren't the employees of Facebook (I mean, yes, those are workers too, but they aren't the ones we're concerned about here). Instead, the workers are the users who generate the content. Facebook profits by keeping the fruits of their labor (their content). What would it look like for the workers to own the means of production?
lifeisstillgood 8y ago
Thank you - this is a concise definition and gives a working pov that can be widely applied - do I own my personal data, can I sell it? Its an easy one to think around As an intellectual framework this is a great jumping off point. I hope you don't mind if I suggest you may not have originally thought of it - where can I read more?
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Haha, thanks- I gave it my own twist but really this line of thought dates all the way back to Karl Marx. But for an lighter, more up to date analysis you can start with Richard Wolff's youtube channel "Democracy at Work"- he's an economist specializing in socialist economics. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA
- chasd00 8y ago
  you can sell your own personal data all day long, how could it be otherwise? Finding a buyer is another story but there's zero barrier to putting it up for sale.
hevi_jos 8y ago
What socialism system are you talking about? Just name one socialist country that applies your ideal scenarios. IMHO this system only exist in your mind, it is not real. Countries that people say are Socialist like those in the north of Europe, are really capitalistic societies. I have known plenty of real socialist countries in the world, and they only share misery. In those socialist countries, like Venezuela or Cuba, the old Soviet World, differences between those in power and those that are not are enormous, bigger than in any capitalist system. In Venezuela for example, those in power made deals selling the gold of the country, the oil and until recently, had access to favorable exchange of currency that they sold in the black market making a tremendous profit. In Cuba people earn a maximum by law of something like 30 dollars/month. But people in charge sells access to country resources like permission to place a Hotel or a factory and make millions. All the heroes of revolution living in Mansions in front of the sea while normal people do not have permission to change a broken electrical switch in their houses or feeding the cow in front of their house, starbing. Cooperatives, like Mondragón in Spain or kibbutz in Israel have their own set of problems. If you pay everybody the same, the best people just get out soon.
- lifeisstillgood 8y ago
  I am constantly surprised by the reaction to the word socialism. I live in the UK, where the government takes 50% of GDP, and spends it mostly on communal activities - shared ownership. We share our resources so that the sick can get treated, our children educated, our air space protected from Russian invasion. We are sharing most of our national resources, and handing them out according to principles of those who need, not those who have money. Call it whatever you like but it smells like socialist utopia. Now if 99% of the resources were allocated such, would the whole thing collapse? Would we be better off if only 25% of resources were shared? I think the difference between vibrant capitalism and collpasing communism is the efficency vs fairness trade off
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >We share our resources so that... our air space protected from Russian invasion The US subsidizing more than 70% of NATO probably helps a bit there.
zozbot123 8y ago
> So under socialism when people work, they work always and only for themselves or as part of a cooperative that they are an equal owner of. The thing is that all new businesses start that way already. People, including workers, sell their shares in businesses to outside investors - sometimes even ceding their control into how the business is run, thus becoming "wage labor" at least to some extent - for all sorts of reasons. This does not make such transactions "non-voluntary"!
username90 8y ago
> So under socialism when people work, they work always and only for themselves or as part of a cooperative that they are an equal owner of. I don't see how this is possible without killing or even reversing progress. Example: You work alone and make $500k a year. You know that if you had another good developer you could make a million a year. You know a lot of developers who currently make $100k a year. What is a fair pay? You might say $500k, sure, now both of you earn the same. But, then you realize that you can earn $1200k in total with yet another developer, what should you pay that developer then? $200k? Seems unfair, now he earns less than the first developer even though they do exactly the same job. Do you reduce the salary of the first developer to $350k to make it fair for both? I doubt many workers would think that reducing salary just to hire people is a good thing. Also you yourself would still earn $150k more than them, so would you reduce your own salary to $400k to make it fair? Then why would you even do the work to hire these people? Would they be happier to be stuck with $100k a year when you could easily pay them both $150k a year while still keeping significant profit? Would the world be better off with the 3 of you producing $700k total value (your $500k + their $100k each) instead of $1200k that you would produce together at your company? Ultimately, the only reasonable thing to do is to hire people at what their job is worth for a typical company or slightly above that. Any value above that is not created by the worker but by the work creator. Then they are happy since you pay them more than they got before, you are happy since you earn money for the work of providing valuable jobs. As a bonus you never get into situations where you would like to hire a person, the person would like to work for you but you can't pay him the same as the rest of your workers since those workers are significantly overpaid compared to the rest of the market.

chasd00 8y ago

To me the concept of labor in socialism is outdated. Consider Facebook, do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" and therefore should participate in the rewards of that labor? If everything was still physical factories, staffed by humans, and creating physical widgets then I can at least understand the socialist view. However, in the current market labor so is detached from profit it doesn't make a lot of sense.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
>>> do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" and therefore should participate in the rewards of that labor? yes. I have contributed a small part of labor, but probably more importantly I have sold my Intellectual Property - my Personal data, to Facebook who then monetise it and give me no cut of the proceeds. It is an interesting framework from fallingfrog. I like it
- chasd00 8y ago
  If you sold them something then you should send them an invoice. Or, did you agree to their terms and conditions of using their website/mobile app voluntarily? This makes no sense to me.
  - lifeisstillgood 8y ago
    to make an (extreme and not equal example) you can enter a contract to sell your liver - society has decided that such contracts should be illegal. we shall probably make a similar decision on selling personal data.
claudiawerner 8y ago
>Consider Facebook, do all the uses who generate the content and activity that gives Facebook its value count towards "labor" It is labour, so yes. What do you think the concept of labour in socialism is? Only then can we judge if it is inaccurate. For instance, Marx never excluded mental/information-work/management labour, and in fact he mentioned them specifically at many points.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I was seriously just thinking that I'd like to see a Marxist analysis of this from you. So please, keep going. My initial attempt at it: Facebook is the capitalist, owning the means of production. The workers aren't the employees of Facebook (I mean, yes, those are workers too, but they aren't the ones we're concerned about here). Instead, the workers are the users who generate the content. Facebook profits by keeping the fruits of their labor (their content). What would it look like for the workers to own the means of production?

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

Thank you - this is a concise definition and gives a working pov that can be widely applied - do I own my personal data, can I sell it? Its an easy one to think around As an intellectual framework this is a great jumping off point. I hope you don't mind if I suggest you may not have originally thought of it - where can I read more?

fallingfrog 8y ago
Haha, thanks- I gave it my own twist but really this line of thought dates all the way back to Karl Marx. But for an lighter, more up to date analysis you can start with Richard Wolff's youtube channel "Democracy at Work"- he's an economist specializing in socialist economics. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK-6FjMu9OI8i0Fo6bkW0VA
chasd00 8y ago
you can sell your own personal data all day long, how could it be otherwise? Finding a buyer is another story but there's zero barrier to putting it up for sale.

hevi_jos 8y ago

What socialism system are you talking about? Just name one socialist country that applies your ideal scenarios. IMHO this system only exist in your mind, it is not real. Countries that people say are Socialist like those in the north of Europe, are really capitalistic societies. I have known plenty of real socialist countries in the world, and they only share misery. In those socialist countries, like Venezuela or Cuba, the old Soviet World, differences between those in power and those that are not are enormous, bigger than in any capitalist system. In Venezuela for example, those in power made deals selling the gold of the country, the oil and until recently, had access to favorable exchange of currency that they sold in the black market making a tremendous profit. In Cuba people earn a maximum by law of something like 30 dollars/month. But people in charge sells access to country resources like permission to place a Hotel or a factory and make millions. All the heroes of revolution living in Mansions in front of the sea while normal people do not have permission to change a broken electrical switch in their houses or feeding the cow in front of their house, starbing. Cooperatives, like Mondragón in Spain or kibbutz in Israel have their own set of problems. If you pay everybody the same, the best people just get out soon.

lifeisstillgood 8y ago
I am constantly surprised by the reaction to the word socialism. I live in the UK, where the government takes 50% of GDP, and spends it mostly on communal activities - shared ownership. We share our resources so that the sick can get treated, our children educated, our air space protected from Russian invasion. We are sharing most of our national resources, and handing them out according to principles of those who need, not those who have money. Call it whatever you like but it smells like socialist utopia. Now if 99% of the resources were allocated such, would the whole thing collapse? Would we be better off if only 25% of resources were shared? I think the difference between vibrant capitalism and collpasing communism is the efficency vs fairness trade off
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >We share our resources so that... our air space protected from Russian invasion The US subsidizing more than 70% of NATO probably helps a bit there.

zozbot123 8y ago

> So under socialism when people work, they work always and only for themselves or as part of a cooperative that they are an equal owner of. The thing is that all new businesses start that way already. People, including workers, sell their shares in businesses to outside investors - sometimes even ceding their control into how the business is run, thus becoming "wage labor" at least to some extent - for all sorts of reasons. This does not make such transactions "non-voluntary"!

username90 8y ago

> So under socialism when people work, they work always and only for themselves or as part of a cooperative that they are an equal owner of. I don't see how this is possible without killing or even reversing progress. Example: You work alone and make $500k a year. You know that if you had another good developer you could make a million a year. You know a lot of developers who currently make $100k a year. What is a fair pay? You might say $500k, sure, now both of you earn the same. But, then you realize that you can earn $1200k in total with yet another developer, what should you pay that developer then? $200k? Seems unfair, now he earns less than the first developer even though they do exactly the same job. Do you reduce the salary of the first developer to $350k to make it fair for both? I doubt many workers would think that reducing salary just to hire people is a good thing. Also you yourself would still earn $150k more than them, so would you reduce your own salary to $400k to make it fair? Then why would you even do the work to hire these people? Would they be happier to be stuck with $100k a year when you could easily pay them both $150k a year while still keeping significant profit? Would the world be better off with the 3 of you producing $700k total value (your $500k + their $100k each) instead of $1200k that you would produce together at your company? Ultimately, the only reasonable thing to do is to hire people at what their job is worth for a typical company or slightly above that. Any value above that is not created by the worker but by the work creator. Then they are happy since you pay them more than they got before, you are happy since you earn money for the work of providing valuable jobs. As a bonus you never get into situations where you would like to hire a person, the person would like to work for you but you can't pay him the same as the rest of your workers since those workers are significantly overpaid compared to the rest of the market.