4 ms·

> A farmer’s dog may be eating the scraps, but has a fundamentally different role in the farm as an enterprise than the animals the dog is herding. And yet the

by ElFitz 3y ago

> A farmer’s dog may be eating the scraps, but has a fundamentally different role in the farm as an enterprise than the animals the dog is herding. And yet they are both animals, often get treated as less than most people, the shepherd dog only gets the proverbial scraps. Precisely the analogy’s entire point. I’m Glad I didn’t have to spell it out. > A definition that excludes CEOs from the upper class isn’t a very workable one. Absolutely. Hence the "Were we to push that to the extreme", followed by a ridiculous application of the definition. > Another way to look at it is that there’s a large class of people whose jobs wouldn’t be nearly as well compensated without monopolistic capitalism. And thus we can differentiate those of these people who are part of the upper class from those who aren’t by wether they get an actual share of the value they produce, or merely scraps. Wether they are compensated as equals, or as useful tools. Interesting bit about Sweden and Norway. I didn’t know that.

rayiner 3y ago
> And yet they are both animals, often get treated as less than most people, the shepherd dog only gets the proverbial scraps. Yes, but focusing on those factors gives you an incomplete understanding of the dog’s place on the farm. At the end of the, day the dog is helping the farmer extract value from the sheep. Indeed, the dog’s very specialized skills wouldn’t have much value outside the context of the farming enterprise. That means the dog’s interests are much more aligned with the farmer’s than the sheep. His unique role, and relatively comfortable position, wouldn’t exist outside the value-extractive context of the farm. > And thus we can differentiate those of these people who are part of the upper class from those who aren’t by wether they get an actual share of the value they produce, or merely scraps. Wether they are compensated as equals, or as useful tools Facebook engineers building the infrastructure the company uses to extract monopolistic profits from consumers are receiving a share of the value. The actual value creation ultimately comes from someone making shoes in a factory in China, which sells them to Nike, which uses Facebook advertising and branding to sell them to consumers for far more than they’re worth. Yes, he’s a “useful tool” for the shareholders, but so are the senior executives (besides Zuck). Their ability to command $500,000 salaries or $1 million salaries, or $10 million salaries doesn’t exist outside the context of these enormous monopolistic profits. You’re getting hung up on “equality” but being in the same class doesn’t mean you’re equal. In a feudal society, knights may be quite lowly compared to a high ranking landowner. They’re “useful tools.” But I’m not talking about equality of rank, I’m talking about interests and incentives. On that front, the knights have fundamentally different interests and incentives than the serfs. Whatever resentment they might have toward higher ranking nobility, they still reap the benefits of the feudal structure. The my would be much worse off outside that structure.
- ElFitz 3y ago
  I’m not hung up on equality. I’m hung up on the huge gap between some and the rest of the world. Which, to me, reflects a huge gap in power and freedom. One decides what the other does. One can decide how much the other will earn. One can decide wether or not the other will still have a job tomorrow. The other needs a job if they want to have a roof over their head and food on the table in six months. Which is why I still don’t find your definition satisfactory. Sure alignment of interests matters, but to me it’s not enough. It’s been an insightful discussion, and I’ve truly enjoyed it, but I’m afraid we won’t be able to reach a conclusion we can both agree on.

by ElFitz 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

> And yet they are both animals, often get treated as less than most people, the shepherd dog only gets the proverbial scraps. Yes, but focusing on those factors gives you an incomplete understanding of the dog’s place on the farm. At the end of the, day the dog is helping the farmer extract value from the sheep. Indeed, the dog’s very specialized skills wouldn’t have much value outside the context of the farming enterprise. That means the dog’s interests are much more aligned with the farmer’s than the sheep. His unique role, and relatively comfortable position, wouldn’t exist outside the value-extractive context of the farm. > And thus we can differentiate those of these people who are part of the upper class from those who aren’t by wether they get an actual share of the value they produce, or merely scraps. Wether they are compensated as equals, or as useful tools Facebook engineers building the infrastructure the company uses to extract monopolistic profits from consumers are receiving a share of the value. The actual value creation ultimately comes from someone making shoes in a factory in China, which sells them to Nike, which uses Facebook advertising and branding to sell them to consumers for far more than they’re worth. Yes, he’s a “useful tool” for the shareholders, but so are the senior executives (besides Zuck). Their ability to command $500,000 salaries or $1 million salaries, or $10 million salaries doesn’t exist outside the context of these enormous monopolistic profits. You’re getting hung up on “equality” but being in the same class doesn’t mean you’re equal. In a feudal society, knights may be quite lowly compared to a high ranking landowner. They’re “useful tools.” But I’m not talking about equality of rank, I’m talking about interests and incentives. On that front, the knights have fundamentally different interests and incentives than the serfs. Whatever resentment they might have toward higher ranking nobility, they still reap the benefits of the feudal structure. The my would be much worse off outside that structure.

ElFitz 3y ago
I’m not hung up on equality. I’m hung up on the huge gap between some and the rest of the world. Which, to me, reflects a huge gap in power and freedom. One decides what the other does. One can decide how much the other will earn. One can decide wether or not the other will still have a job tomorrow. The other needs a job if they want to have a roof over their head and food on the table in six months. Which is why I still don’t find your definition satisfactory. Sure alignment of interests matters, but to me it’s not enough. It’s been an insightful discussion, and I’ve truly enjoyed it, but I’m afraid we won’t be able to reach a conclusion we can both agree on.