3 ms·

> You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has fi

> You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed. But none of them seem to be. You can almost hear them saying "No, no, not that way." This one really threw me for a loop. Do startup founders making or seeking a big exit really think of themselves as "labor"?

ineptech 2y ago
Developing this a bit; I get that founders might object to being lumped in with the asshole-rich-guy demographic associated with the term, but "capital" doesn't mean people who never had to work hard, it means capital. When we talk about laws and regulations that advantage capital over labor or v.v., we're talking about money rather than people. The fact that founders get rich via stock options rather than by paying themselves huge salaries is an example! If labor had won, wouldn't pg be trying to pick a startup to work for rather than one to invest in?
- skybrian 2y ago
  Capital includes everybody’s life savings. It’s common to have a goal of retiring someday, and having capital is how you retire. What would it even mean for labor to “win,” if not by controlling some capital of their own? Could a union win without a pension plan?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Capital includes everybody’s life savings. Capital in the sense being discussed (which derives from the same critique of capitalism in which "capitalism" was coined) refers to the non-financial, non-land means of production; one's life savings are not capital, though they may (or may not) be used to acquire capital. > It’s common to have a goal of retiring someday, and having capital is how you retire. Having private ownership of capital is important to being able to retire within capitalism. That's a feature of capitalism, not an inherent feature of retirement. > What would it even mean for labor to “win,” if not by controlling some capital of their own? It expressly involves control of capital by labor collectively, which is not the same as private ownership of capital. > Could a union win without a pension plan? A pension plan is not capital. In a system in which private ownership of capital is a thing, and in which capital ownership is systematically favored throughout society, it will be normal for a pension fund to own capital, but the existence of such a system means that labor has not won. Also, pension plans aren't essential to unions, they are something unions often provide because providing for retirement is a gap in the system in which they exist that they elect to plug collectively. If labor actually won, that gap would not exist.
    - skybrian 2y ago
      If you’re going to be that picky about the definition of “capital” then maybe the question is why would anyone be against farms and factories? :) So okay, for capital, substitute “ownership of a claim to the profits from capital.” I think it might be fun to imagine an economic system very different than ours, but I suspect it’s going to need cultural institutions that fulfill similar roles, because they serve human needs and those needs aren’t going away. For example, suppose that in the system you’re imagining, a retired worker goes to the store to get something to eat. Presumably, the collective has a worker making sure that nobody takes more than their fair share, or otherwise it’s all going to disappear. So the retiree has present some kind of abstract claim showing what they’re entitled to. It’s going to serve a similar role to retirement savings. How does it work? When you retire, how secure is your claim? How much can you get, and what happens when political institutions change? I think it’s easier to talk about such things in terms of familiar institutions that we understand well, but with the understanding that there could be different approaches, in theory.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Nobody is against farms and factories in general. Some people are against some specific farms and factories, such as for environmental reasons. Many people are against the way the government chooses to allocate control of farms and factories (based on tradeable scrip).
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > If you’re going to be that picky about the definition of “capital” then maybe the question is why would anyone be against farms and factories? No one is against farms and factories. Some people are against ownership of farms and factories by private parties separate from working in them. > For example, suppose that in the system you’re imagining, a retired worker goes to the store to get something to eat. Then they pay money for it. Which likely comes out of a retirement pension. > So the retiree has present some kind of abstract claim showing what they’re entitled to. That "abstract claim" is called "money", and exists separate from (and predates) capitalist property structures, and does not rely on private ownership of the means of production. > It’s going to serve a similar role to retirement savings. How does it work? When you retire, how secure is your claim? How much can you get, and what happens when political institutions change? No claim is resilient to change of political institutions; systems of property rights are themselves political institutions. > I think it’s easier to talk about such things in terms of familiar institutions that we understand well Yes, but the problem is that you are confusing entirely different institutions that do not rely on each other, simply because they happen to coexist in the system you are most familiar with (though that is not universally historically the case.) "Capital", "money", and "some form of provision for retirement" are not the same thing.
cannabis_sam 2y ago
It’s either pure delusion or malicous distortion of reality.

ineptech 2y ago

Developing this a bit; I get that founders might object to being lumped in with the asshole-rich-guy demographic associated with the term, but "capital" doesn't mean people who never had to work hard, it means capital. When we talk about laws and regulations that advantage capital over labor or v.v., we're talking about money rather than people. The fact that founders get rich via stock options rather than by paying themselves huge salaries is an example! If labor had won, wouldn't pg be trying to pick a startup to work for rather than one to invest in?

skybrian 2y ago
Capital includes everybody’s life savings. It’s common to have a goal of retiring someday, and having capital is how you retire. What would it even mean for labor to “win,” if not by controlling some capital of their own? Could a union win without a pension plan?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Capital includes everybody’s life savings. Capital in the sense being discussed (which derives from the same critique of capitalism in which "capitalism" was coined) refers to the non-financial, non-land means of production; one's life savings are not capital, though they may (or may not) be used to acquire capital. > It’s common to have a goal of retiring someday, and having capital is how you retire. Having private ownership of capital is important to being able to retire within capitalism. That's a feature of capitalism, not an inherent feature of retirement. > What would it even mean for labor to “win,” if not by controlling some capital of their own? It expressly involves control of capital by labor collectively, which is not the same as private ownership of capital. > Could a union win without a pension plan? A pension plan is not capital. In a system in which private ownership of capital is a thing, and in which capital ownership is systematically favored throughout society, it will be normal for a pension fund to own capital, but the existence of such a system means that labor has not won. Also, pension plans aren't essential to unions, they are something unions often provide because providing for retirement is a gap in the system in which they exist that they elect to plug collectively. If labor actually won, that gap would not exist.
  - skybrian 2y ago
    If you’re going to be that picky about the definition of “capital” then maybe the question is why would anyone be against farms and factories? :) So okay, for capital, substitute “ownership of a claim to the profits from capital.” I think it might be fun to imagine an economic system very different than ours, but I suspect it’s going to need cultural institutions that fulfill similar roles, because they serve human needs and those needs aren’t going away. For example, suppose that in the system you’re imagining, a retired worker goes to the store to get something to eat. Presumably, the collective has a worker making sure that nobody takes more than their fair share, or otherwise it’s all going to disappear. So the retiree has present some kind of abstract claim showing what they’re entitled to. It’s going to serve a similar role to retirement savings. How does it work? When you retire, how secure is your claim? How much can you get, and what happens when political institutions change? I think it’s easier to talk about such things in terms of familiar institutions that we understand well, but with the understanding that there could be different approaches, in theory.
    - immibis 2y ago
      Nobody is against farms and factories in general. Some people are against some specific farms and factories, such as for environmental reasons. Many people are against the way the government chooses to allocate control of farms and factories (based on tradeable scrip).
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > If you’re going to be that picky about the definition of “capital” then maybe the question is why would anyone be against farms and factories? No one is against farms and factories. Some people are against ownership of farms and factories by private parties separate from working in them. > For example, suppose that in the system you’re imagining, a retired worker goes to the store to get something to eat. Then they pay money for it. Which likely comes out of a retirement pension. > So the retiree has present some kind of abstract claim showing what they’re entitled to. That "abstract claim" is called "money", and exists separate from (and predates) capitalist property structures, and does not rely on private ownership of the means of production. > It’s going to serve a similar role to retirement savings. How does it work? When you retire, how secure is your claim? How much can you get, and what happens when political institutions change? No claim is resilient to change of political institutions; systems of property rights are themselves political institutions. > I think it’s easier to talk about such things in terms of familiar institutions that we understand well Yes, but the problem is that you are confusing entirely different institutions that do not rely on each other, simply because they happen to coexist in the system you are most familiar with (though that is not universally historically the case.) "Capital", "money", and "some form of provision for retirement" are not the same thing.

cannabis_sam 2y ago

It’s either pure delusion or malicous distortion of reality.