4 ms·
The perspective is the problem here. Looking from the angle of "investor" (ie, someone with capital) twists everything into a horrific hellscape. For example:
by btbuildem 3y ago
The perspective is the problem here. Looking from the angle of "investor" (ie, someone with capital) twists everything into a horrific hellscape. For example:
Suppose I own you, my slave. I can work you for ten years, collecting the profits off your labour - or I can sell your kidneys, liver, eyes and heart for a large up-front profit. One approach is long-term sustainable, the other is not.
But looking at it this way entirely disregards your perspective on the situation. Perhaps you would like to have a say in some of the decision making? Perhaps the owner's profits aren't the be-all-end-all of things?
You can pretend to have a billion dollars and show great concern about how to turn it into two. Or you can accept that for 99.999% of people this is an exploitative system that destroys everything of true value, in the end leaving the one biggest capitalist with a giant bag of money and nothing left to buy with it.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI dont think it twists it. Even if the owner is the employee, the questions and calculus is the same. If you work for a completely employee owned coop with a profit, would you reinvest it for less money tomorrow? You can even take money out of it and talk about goods. IF your coop job runs a profit, would you rather get 2 free hams this year, or choose to wait and instead get 1 free ham next year.