4 ms·

You seem to defend something you don't know the definition and meaning of. You can have free markets and private property without capitalism. You can have capi

by esarbe 3y ago

You seem to defend something you don't know the definition and meaning of. You can have free markets and private property without capitalism. You can have capitalism without "free" markets or private property. Capitalism simply means that the fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers but by those owning the capital.

WJW 3y ago
> fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers How is my salary not the fruit of my labor? We can quibble (as many people have over the centuries) which division of profits between labor and capital is "fair", but stating a modern laborer is not getting anything out of their labor is quite false. Not as much as they want, sure, but it's not zero. The ways of shifting the balance between groups have also been known for centuries as well btw. Organization of labor into unions on the side of labor, various ways of divide-and-conquer on the side of capital.
- esarbe 3y ago
  So, a slave would phrase that "How is the food and shelter I receive from my master not the fruit of my labor?" Capitalism is a system where the people doing the work are not the ones deciding over the fruits of their labor. This decision is instead made by the entity that owns the means of production.
  - WJW 3y ago
    Yes, that's what I said. Tbh I think it is fair for the provider of capital to be recompensed for their contribution, since factories and machine tools cost (lots of) money and they are an essential part of modern production. There would be no jobs for laborers without the input of capital owners, just as there would be no investment opportunities for capital owners without laborers. EDIT: WOW what a dishonest way to completely edit your post, and way to escalate this completely. A modern employee is in no way comparable to a slave, especially not the kind of employee likely to visit HN.
    - thebooktocome 3y ago
      > A modern employee is in no way comparable to a slave, especially not the kind of employee likely to visit HN. What an elitist attitude. H1B visas are a modern form of forced labor you might be able to find some shred of empathy for, but I kind of doubt it.
      - WJW 3y ago
        I do indeed find it somewhat difficult to call something that people willingly apply for "forced labor". Forced labor is when the Taliban come to your village and force you to work under threat of shooting you and your entire family. I think you'll find very few people willing to volunteer for the Taliban option, while H1B applications were 9x oversubscribed in 2023. The US could do a lot better when it comes to worker rights, don't get me wrong. But comparing a H1B worker to an actual slave has a very misguided vision to what slavery is, and how it continues to impact people around the world today.
        thebooktocome 3y ago
        I’m glad my impression of you was accurate.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      Sorry about the late edit. Mea culpa. The Slave reference is not as inappropriate as you might think. The vast majority of people living in our modern capitalist systems are no more free to chose their employer than a a Slave in ancient societies or a Serf in medieval ones. They are bound by their respective circumstances and have little negotiation power. I'm happy that you are in a privileged position with more than enough negotiation power. It still doesn't change the fact that you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor, but you are left to enjoy some of the fruits of your labor by your employer. I'm curious; why do you think that there's a "capitalist" - that has enough resources to build a factory and buy the machines and the tools - and "laborers" in the first place?
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  > but stating a modern laborer is not getting anything out of their labor is quite false. Not as much as they want, sure, but it's not zero. In many cases the net benefit of working a job is negative, because many places pay below the cost of living. That’s why so many people are running two or three jobs now, in the states.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    That's not quite the right definition of "net benefit"; while there are examples of this, it's things like "the total cost of transport to the job is more than the job" (happened to my mum, back in the 70s or 80s she got a car for a part time job that didn't cover the cost of maintaining a second car) or "getting a job means lots of benefits" (UK political meme "benefits trap") — in both cases, it has to be such that not working is better than working for the net benefit to be negative. It's still a problem when people can't earn enough to get buy, just a different problem.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Just spotted a severe autocorrupt: > lots of benefits should be > loss of benefits
- Jochim 3y ago
  The ratio of the distribution of said fruits is an issue as you've stated but just as importantly there's an alienation between the worker and the thing they produce. Workers who make luxury goods are rarely in a position where they could afford to buy them, even if they saved. Assembly lines have optimised away the satisfaction and achievement of building something. Tightening the same screw for 12 hours is nothing other than an attack on the psyche. The same is happening in construction, skilled trades that people took pride in have been chopped up and optimised to the point that the guy that hangs the drywall often isn't able to skim it. I take issue with a system that relies on the constant threat of homelessness and hunger purely to the benefit of those who face no such worries. A system that weaponises that threat to force many to. The thought of technological progress and automation should bring joy, we imagine that it means people needing to work less, improving their quality of life. The reality has been swathes of people left in poverty while the rich get richer. Consider the impact and ethics of replacing cleaning staff with foreign workers who are themselves training their AI replacement[0]. The idea of automating this is fantastic when considered independently of our economic system but issues quickly arise when put in context. How does it affect the people currently doing the job, who now have to compete with workers being paid far less than the cost of living in their own country? Which country's minimum wage laws should apply? What are the ramifications of having those workers train their own AI replacements? Who ultimately benefits from all of this? Does the reduced demand for labour lead to a better work life balance for the wider society, or does it simply make a few people ever more wealthy while creating destitution for the majority? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-30/ai-robot-housekeepers-will-need-human-eyes-for-a-while?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-30/ai-rob...
dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
>Capitalism simply means that the fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers but by those owning the capital. Where did you get this definition?
- esarbe 3y ago
  If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you start with Wikipedia: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
  - dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
    I don't see anything in the wikipedia link or elsewhere eluding to what you put: >Capitalism simply means that the fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers but by those owning the capital. Side note: Even in US which is supposedly capitalist, nothing is set in stone that says that the owner shall not share the profits with his laborers. The fact that many corporations do not choose to share their profit that is a different subject.

by esarbe 3y ago

WJW 3y ago

> fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers How is my salary not the fruit of my labor? We can quibble (as many people have over the centuries) which division of profits between labor and capital is "fair", but stating a modern laborer is not getting anything out of their labor is quite false. Not as much as they want, sure, but it's not zero. The ways of shifting the balance between groups have also been known for centuries as well btw. Organization of labor into unions on the side of labor, various ways of divide-and-conquer on the side of capital.

esarbe 3y ago
So, a slave would phrase that "How is the food and shelter I receive from my master not the fruit of my labor?" Capitalism is a system where the people doing the work are not the ones deciding over the fruits of their labor. This decision is instead made by the entity that owns the means of production.
- WJW 3y ago
  Yes, that's what I said. Tbh I think it is fair for the provider of capital to be recompensed for their contribution, since factories and machine tools cost (lots of) money and they are an essential part of modern production. There would be no jobs for laborers without the input of capital owners, just as there would be no investment opportunities for capital owners without laborers. EDIT: WOW what a dishonest way to completely edit your post, and way to escalate this completely. A modern employee is in no way comparable to a slave, especially not the kind of employee likely to visit HN.
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    > A modern employee is in no way comparable to a slave, especially not the kind of employee likely to visit HN. What an elitist attitude. H1B visas are a modern form of forced labor you might be able to find some shred of empathy for, but I kind of doubt it.
    - WJW 3y ago
      I do indeed find it somewhat difficult to call something that people willingly apply for "forced labor". Forced labor is when the Taliban come to your village and force you to work under threat of shooting you and your entire family. I think you'll find very few people willing to volunteer for the Taliban option, while H1B applications were 9x oversubscribed in 2023. The US could do a lot better when it comes to worker rights, don't get me wrong. But comparing a H1B worker to an actual slave has a very misguided vision to what slavery is, and how it continues to impact people around the world today.
      - thebooktocome 3y ago
        I’m glad my impression of you was accurate.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    Sorry about the late edit. Mea culpa. The Slave reference is not as inappropriate as you might think. The vast majority of people living in our modern capitalist systems are no more free to chose their employer than a a Slave in ancient societies or a Serf in medieval ones. They are bound by their respective circumstances and have little negotiation power. I'm happy that you are in a privileged position with more than enough negotiation power. It still doesn't change the fact that you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor, but you are left to enjoy some of the fruits of your labor by your employer. I'm curious; why do you think that there's a "capitalist" - that has enough resources to build a factory and buy the machines and the tools - and "laborers" in the first place?
thebooktocome 3y ago
> but stating a modern laborer is not getting anything out of their labor is quite false. Not as much as they want, sure, but it's not zero. In many cases the net benefit of working a job is negative, because many places pay below the cost of living. That’s why so many people are running two or three jobs now, in the states.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That's not quite the right definition of "net benefit"; while there are examples of this, it's things like "the total cost of transport to the job is more than the job" (happened to my mum, back in the 70s or 80s she got a car for a part time job that didn't cover the cost of maintaining a second car) or "getting a job means lots of benefits" (UK political meme "benefits trap") — in both cases, it has to be such that not working is better than working for the net benefit to be negative. It's still a problem when people can't earn enough to get buy, just a different problem.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Just spotted a severe autocorrupt: > lots of benefits should be > loss of benefits
Jochim 3y ago
The ratio of the distribution of said fruits is an issue as you've stated but just as importantly there's an alienation between the worker and the thing they produce. Workers who make luxury goods are rarely in a position where they could afford to buy them, even if they saved. Assembly lines have optimised away the satisfaction and achievement of building something. Tightening the same screw for 12 hours is nothing other than an attack on the psyche. The same is happening in construction, skilled trades that people took pride in have been chopped up and optimised to the point that the guy that hangs the drywall often isn't able to skim it. I take issue with a system that relies on the constant threat of homelessness and hunger purely to the benefit of those who face no such worries. A system that weaponises that threat to force many to. The thought of technological progress and automation should bring joy, we imagine that it means people needing to work less, improving their quality of life. The reality has been swathes of people left in poverty while the rich get richer. Consider the impact and ethics of replacing cleaning staff with foreign workers who are themselves training their AI replacement[0]. The idea of automating this is fantastic when considered independently of our economic system but issues quickly arise when put in context. How does it affect the people currently doing the job, who now have to compete with workers being paid far less than the cost of living in their own country? Which country's minimum wage laws should apply? What are the ramifications of having those workers train their own AI replacements? Who ultimately benefits from all of this? Does the reduced demand for labour lead to a better work life balance for the wider society, or does it simply make a few people ever more wealthy while creating destitution for the majority? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-30/ai-robot-housekeepers-will-need-human-eyes-for-a-while?leadSource=uverify%20wall https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-05-30/ai-rob...

dennis_jeeves1 3y ago

>Capitalism simply means that the fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers but by those owning the capital. Where did you get this definition?

esarbe 3y ago
If you are interested in the subject, I suggest you start with Wikipedia: > Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- dennis_jeeves1 3y ago
  I don't see anything in the wikipedia link or elsewhere eluding to what you put: >Capitalism simply means that the fruits of the labor are not enjoyed by the workers but by those owning the capital. Side note: Even in US which is supposedly capitalist, nothing is set in stone that says that the owner shall not share the profits with his laborers. The fact that many corporations do not choose to share their profit that is a different subject.