141 ms·

Citizens (aka labour) are not assets under a capitalist system?

by orf 3y ago

FredPret 3y ago
No, they are the owners of the system, or at least most of then have a stake.
- xtian 3y ago
  [dead]
- orf 3y ago
  Can you quantify “most” please? Specifically what do you mean that “most” labour has a stake in the system? Which companies have a labour majority stake, stocks or otherwise? Isn’t labour having most of a stake a more communist leaning system?
  - FredPret 3y ago
    I didn't say "majority stake". Most people have a stake, period. Everyone with a pension, everyone who owns even one share, everyone who owns their house or any land. These are people with real power in the system, and even if it's not a majority, it's really almost impossible to be a tyrant when there's lots of minor centers of power spread very wide throughout society. Even for "the rich" who own the majority of assets - there are millions upon millions of such rich people in the US. They will never all agree on everything.
    - orf 3y ago
      You said most people have a stake, and I asked you to be specific about that. And you didn’t. When you say most people have a stake, are you saying 51% or above of people have a stake? Can you quantify that to clarify your point? 40% of Americans rent. Do they have a stake?
      - FredPret 3y ago
        Oh my god dude.
        orf 3y ago
        > No, they are the owners of the system, or at least most of then have a stake. Seems like a pretty simple statement to back up. Weird that you won’t.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The defining characteristic of capitalism is how companies are owned. Land isn't part of it. And most people have negligible stakes in companies. Pensions don't spread power very much. A whole bunch of people sharing power near the top is good for avoiding tyrrany yes, but it doesn't stop normal people from being treated as assets, which was the claim being made.
feoren 3y ago
Capitalist is not the right opposite here; democratic or democratic-republic is. You can have a totalitarian capitalist system (in fact that's what I'd argue China roughly is). Totalitarian socialist systems are often called "communism", but of course ask 10 people what those words mean and you'll get 12 answers (and start a big argument). You can have democratic capitalist and democratic socialist systems and lots more in between (and argue all day about which last longer). No, under a democratic system, citizens are not assets. Whose assets would they be?
- FredPret 3y ago
  I agree with you but I wonder if totalitarian capitalism is something that can last more than a few years. Surely someone who has gotten rich won't want to tolerate the state's complete control and will find ways around it. I suspect it's not sustainable.
  - morkalork 3y ago
    Isn't that pretty much what Russia is today? The elections are a sham and the government works hand in hand with the oligarchy to plunder the country. As for tolerating government interference, anyone that doesn't like it eventually finds themselves flying out a window.
  - elteto 3y ago
    > I agree with you but I wonder if totalitarian capitalism is something that can last more than a few years. China is so far a counterpoint. And the terrifying thing is that this is not at all a settled question. If you throw enough technology at surveillance and social control, as the Chinese do, the state might be able to become an actual Big Brother state with pervasive control over the daily life of its citizens. The Chinese government is working _hard_ on this. The Chinese undoing will probably come from more mundane reasons, such as Xi becoming a dictator and the usual decline that comes from these types of governments. > Surely someone who has gotten rich won't want to tolerate the state's complete control and will find ways around it. I suspect it's not sustainable. Jack Ma...

Citizens (aka labour) are not assets under a capitalist system?

by orf 3y ago

Citizens (aka labour) are not assets under a capitalist system?

FredPret 3y ago

No, they are the owners of the system, or at least most of then have a stake.

xtian 3y ago
[dead]
orf 3y ago
Can you quantify “most” please? Specifically what do you mean that “most” labour has a stake in the system? Which companies have a labour majority stake, stocks or otherwise? Isn’t labour having most of a stake a more communist leaning system?
- FredPret 3y ago
  I didn't say "majority stake". Most people have a stake, period. Everyone with a pension, everyone who owns even one share, everyone who owns their house or any land. These are people with real power in the system, and even if it's not a majority, it's really almost impossible to be a tyrant when there's lots of minor centers of power spread very wide throughout society. Even for "the rich" who own the majority of assets - there are millions upon millions of such rich people in the US. They will never all agree on everything.
  - orf 3y ago
    You said most people have a stake, and I asked you to be specific about that. And you didn’t. When you say most people have a stake, are you saying 51% or above of people have a stake? Can you quantify that to clarify your point? 40% of Americans rent. Do they have a stake?
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Oh my god dude.
      - orf 3y ago
        > No, they are the owners of the system, or at least most of then have a stake. Seems like a pretty simple statement to back up. Weird that you won’t.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The defining characteristic of capitalism is how companies are owned. Land isn't part of it. And most people have negligible stakes in companies. Pensions don't spread power very much. A whole bunch of people sharing power near the top is good for avoiding tyrrany yes, but it doesn't stop normal people from being treated as assets, which was the claim being made.

feoren 3y ago

Capitalist is not the right opposite here; democratic or democratic-republic is. You can have a totalitarian capitalist system (in fact that's what I'd argue China roughly is). Totalitarian socialist systems are often called "communism", but of course ask 10 people what those words mean and you'll get 12 answers (and start a big argument). You can have democratic capitalist and democratic socialist systems and lots more in between (and argue all day about which last longer). No, under a democratic system, citizens are not assets. Whose assets would they be?

FredPret 3y ago
I agree with you but I wonder if totalitarian capitalism is something that can last more than a few years. Surely someone who has gotten rich won't want to tolerate the state's complete control and will find ways around it. I suspect it's not sustainable.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Isn't that pretty much what Russia is today? The elections are a sham and the government works hand in hand with the oligarchy to plunder the country. As for tolerating government interference, anyone that doesn't like it eventually finds themselves flying out a window.
- elteto 3y ago
  > I agree with you but I wonder if totalitarian capitalism is something that can last more than a few years. China is so far a counterpoint. And the terrifying thing is that this is not at all a settled question. If you throw enough technology at surveillance and social control, as the Chinese do, the state might be able to become an actual Big Brother state with pervasive control over the daily life of its citizens. The Chinese government is working _hard_ on this. The Chinese undoing will probably come from more mundane reasons, such as Xi becoming a dictator and the usual decline that comes from these types of governments. > Surely someone who has gotten rich won't want to tolerate the state's complete control and will find ways around it. I suspect it's not sustainable. Jack Ma...