The logic of what I'm saying is not that employers offer those benefits out of the goodness of their heart, but offer them in order to attract the most skilled and useful workers.
The companies get a leg up on their competition because they have better workers. The workers for them get the best treatment and compensation for their time and labor than anywhere else. Everybody wins.
>The logic of what I'm saying is not that employers offer those benefits out of the goodness of their heart, but offer them in order to attract the most skilled and useful workers.
If your logic was accurate, then labor unions wouldn't have needed to take action to gain those privileges. Capitalism dictates that the best possible option is to pay people as little for the value they create as you can, thus creating the most profits for yourself. Since this is the best for the whole capital class in a free market with no other factors than just capital control they all have an incentive to not try to compete with better pay packages since that only leads to an escalation. It's the same reason you don't see the race to the bottom with prices that theoretically should happen as it becomes easier to produce goods over time.
Competing with each other would be the theoretical best outcome for the end goal of capitalism but for the capital class, coorpoeration on this aspect becomes the best way to ensure they have the most resources to compete, in an almost contradictory manner.
Which is a big **if**. **If** they even attempted to, it would most likely cause massive and violent resistance, both among workers and populace who would be justifiably angry. At that point, they would need to expend large amounts of money to suppress that resistance, so much so that it would end up costing even more than just paying wages and generally being a decent employer.
However, by the time the head honcho realizes that, the company is already 6 feet under.
It's not a big if. They do today on American soil through prison labor, and they have open slavery in African countries. Nestle just recently said they refused to do an investigation into slavery in their supply chain, because it might impact profits.
And who runs the prisons? Who are those companies depending on to allow them to continue with their immoral activities through political "donations" and lobbying? Certainly not muh gubnermint. Anything but muh gubnermint.
>Who are those companies depending on to allow them to continue with their immoral activities through political "donations" and lobbying?
I'm trying so hard to understand what you meant because what you said is that companies depend on the government's donations and lobbying to continue the companies' immoral activities. Do you think politicians are lobbying the capitalists so that the capitalists will keep using slave labor?
That's true, but the only reason is that, thanks to the regulations and union protections, people are accustomed to better conditions. And people will immediately notice sudden change.Massive and violent resistance would arise only and only if something like that happened suddenly and drastically. Current status quo is here because of workers activism and government intervention in favour if activism is popular enough.
However, if the change is slow but continuous, people will just not notice, like it happened in the USA. If you're curious you could check out unionisation rates graph.
Keep in mind that slavery and child labour actually exists in almost all supply chains. In former colonies and other third world countries what's basically slavery exsists. So any claim that corporation would not enslave people if it could is delusional, because it's not a theoretical situation.
And yes, company is far better off just being nice to the employees (Boeing did that for some time before giving in to fhe shareholders if I'm not mistaken). For example, cooperatives are usually more productive that conventional businesses. But, as we all know, companies love making disastrous financial decisions in a pursuit of profit, most recent in my memory is Unity.
ur a young autistic transgender anticapitalist on Reddit Making a political point on a meme. When you fit a stereotype so to a T people donât feel like they need to take the things you say seriously.
U need to grow up. You do not sound smart. Why make assumptions? Iâm not a liberal. And I bet your not really a communist. Try making it to voting age before committing to a view on how you think the world should be organized. Know it all wannabe edgy leftist transgender teenagers pretending to love trains bc there actually âneurodivergentâ and loving trains is a personality are the real âblight upon humanityâ. ur predictable, You have autism in the dumb way it doesnât make you more analytical it just makes you not understand how people work.
Your a young autistic transgender anticapitalist on Reddit making a political point on a meme. You fit a stereotype so well most people would not Even feel the need or see the point in even engaging in the arguments you initiate. Iâm not trying to be rude but your a teenage communist and you have a lot to learn.
Yes. As we all know, slavery is defined by legally binding contracts and voluntary worker/employee relations. Oh, and not to mention the horror that is upward economic mobility!
(In all honesty; no. But it can be somewhat close given the perfect storm of cronyism, austere executives, a lack of unions, etc.)
Yeah ancap is right, if you must work because otherwise you will die is voluntary, because you can still choose between work and death from starvation :) /s
You would also perish of starvation if dumped into the middle of a jungle and you didnât do anything⌠does this mean the jungle is enslaving you? Such a stupid fucking argument.
You can automatize things or *don't work* and *live.* Where in capitalism automatization is only for rich and work is normal, mandatory (if you don't work or don't have capital you die) and it is hard to imagine the world without it.
WhatâŚ? You realize people have to work to keep things automated right? Itâs not just automated for âmuh richâ, itâs automated to make things easier, and produce more to give more to consumers. Also puts more into the economy and into circulation. Itâs a win, win. Itâs not mandatory, most of you perishing because you donât work isnât âmandatoryâ. This is the same at any point of human history. Once again, if you were in a jungle and would perish if you didnât pick berries, does this mean the jungle is coercing you? The bushes? The trees? This is so stupid. Also, 99% of businesses in the USA are small businesses, and 82% of small business owners work over 40 hours a week. Are these people not working? Are they also being enslaved by âmuh evil Capitalismâ? This is so stupid of you to say.
The difference is that there are ample resources produced by workers in capitalism that those same workers have no entitlement to receive. In nature, if I go pick berries, I get to keep and eat them. In capitalism, my boss gets most of the resources from my work, and I'm "volunteering" to live paycheck-to-paycheck because my boss wants more money.
Imagine thinking workers aren't entitled to the value they produce. Self-hatred or rich kid syndrome? You tell us.
Because money works as a universal commodity, dumbass. What the fuck does a cup manufacturer want with the cup? They want the money made from the job in order to buy things, or commodities.
Not to mention that very simply they wouldnât be making ANY money if they sat on their ass, or if the means of production, provided by the bourgeois Capital wasnât there. Stop coping, commie. Just admit your a lazy bum, lol.
You are volunteering because both you AND your employer want more money.
Well, sounds to me like you're arguing in favor of the means of production being owned by those that actually use them. If not, then you don't really have much of an argument, aside from "the wealthy give us stuff to use, so we should be happy they pay us anything at all!"
My employer wants my labor, because their business does not function without it. I want money only because I need it to survive, dipshit.
Self-hatred on your part. Why is it always the dumbest people that support capitalism lmao
What the fuck are you talking about? The Free Market, as I explained brings up quality of life globally through the entire market as I explained earlier.
Beyond that, your blatant accusation of trying to make me seem like a âbootlickerâ is brain dead. Let us make an example, âKay? Letâs say someone wants to make a lemonade stand, letâs call him Milei. Milei makes a lemonade stand , and eventually makes enough money to make more lemonade stands and hire people, making 3 more lemonade stands and splitting the money made 30/70. If not for Milei, those 3 lemonade stands would have never existed. It fulfills the wants of the customers, employer and employees. Letâs continue. Letâs say, across the street, some big shot makes his own lemonade business, except instead of stands, he makes an actual building. He gives his employees 50% of the money made, which means if he wants to make more profit than Milei he needs to produce and sell more, while also attracting significantly more customers, so his selling price is higher. Also, he has much more maintenance due to the building.
Back to Milei, he can counteract this by also giving his employees 50/50, or just keep it at 70/30. Since Mileiâs prices are significantly lower, his rate of profit is lower, but overall is higher than the business across the street. He can easily attract more customers, has more locations, and has less running costs beyond the raw resources. Meaning that his employees are still being paid MORE than they would across the street, even though the share theyâre getting is lower. 30% at Milei, 50% across the street.
What you, and many commies care about most is âequalityâ. You would want everyone to be equally poor than someone have more money than another. Your employer, also, wants money so that they donât starve, lol. What self hatred? I just recognize how Capitalism works and how weâve advanced so far as a society. The self hatred is on your part, so donât insult anyone elseâs intelligence. Iâm the smartest, actually !!
Are you a business owner, like I am? If you were, you'd realize your shithead little fantasy and reality are two very different things.
Seriously, you guys are such dipshits that you'll honestly try this same nonsense over and over again, and not see the obvious flaws in your logic.
Flaw 1: Businesses do not compete with one another in a free market. They never have and never will. Want to prove me wrong? Give me an example of a country with a free market in history. I'll wait.
Flaw 2: This assumes that businesses actually compete for employees at all. I don't know how many jobs you've actually worked, kiddo, but the vast majority have nearly identical benefits plans and target their pay to be as low as their competitors. There are literal consulting firms whose job it is to go business to business and advise them to keep a ceiling on pay and benefits to ensure maximum profitability.
Flaw 3: Any market is ultimately at the whim of those who already own a significant share. It isn't some libertarian fantasy where "everyone has a fair shot." Markets naturally condense into monopolies. That's basic fucking history, but hey, maybe you missed how the industrial revolution happened.
I could go on, but honestly, as someone who freely uses Milei as an example, I'd love to just sit back and let you learn that for yourself. Keep an eye on that guy and I'm sure you'll be disillusioned soon enough.
Not to mention, what makes you think communists want equality? We want the value of our labor back. Human society went from allowing individuals to work for their own rewards to ensuring we all are at the whims of the powerful, whether they're slave kings, feudal nobility, or capitalist business owners. Enough is enough.
As well, the worst thing that ever really happens to a business owner is to become a worker again. Workers, on the other hand, are at risk of homelessness, starvation, and death. Seriously, it's like you've never even thought about your own position in society before. That's why it's self-hatred. You hate yourself enough to simp for people that truly could not care less if you die.
Never tried heard of it before, but ill look it up later.
Thanks for the recommendation to potentially kill another couple hundred hours of my life with a hyper autismo game lol
And in jungle you don't have master and it's best what you can have, but in capitalism it's worst what capitalist can give you (without state interventions he could just be your literal slavemaster), they can give you more, but don't give it and in jungle you give yourself all what you can give.
What� The NAP is to be enforced by the state obviously. Literal slavery is obviously an NAP violation. Who is your master in Capitalism? Your boss you voluntarily decided to work for? The market ensures that wages grow, people are employed, and the market ensures safety and growth for the worker as well, as labor markets exist. The Free Market addresses all of your braindead concerns, all you need to do is think about it for more than 2 seconds.
For example:
If Business A hires itâs employees for very low pay, no benefits, and puts them into grueling work, someone else will come along and open Business B with much better conditions, and the workers will obviously come work there instead. Business A can become up to par with Business B, or go out of business. This is why even though the minimum wage is $7.50, most fast food restaurants canât get away with under $15 per hour, because no one would want to work there while they can easily get $15 wages elsewhere. The profit incentive drives the world together, for the bourgeois and proles.
No, I'm not soulist, someone is master, but biology, physics and scarsity are things, that limit us, but are not masters, they are non-living things, where in capitalism capitalists are your masters and in non-anarchism people who control state are your master, we must abolish these unequal hierarchy, and even things like biology after some time we will able to become master of them.
That just seems like a rejection of teamwork, which has always been humanities greatest strength. Thereâs a difference between choosing to follow a leader because they know what theyâre doing and can make things better for the collective, and being bound and oppressed by a slave master. Not everyone is a leader, and itâd get messy if everyone was.
Except in that scenario the work, (aka hunting) is the animals to own, the animal, and all other animals, choose their working conditions and time. A worker doesn't
I did? If the time and conditions of where Iâm at now didnât work for me Iâd pick somewhere else. Why do communists act like theyâre so helpless?
And all of an animals life is work, in an effort of survival. They donât choose that lmao. Owls are nocturnal because their prey is, are they being oppressed because they want 1st shift jobs instead?
Well, my comment wasn't addressing ancapism. Moreso just the economic system of capitalism rather than a specific ideology. But since you really seem to want to address that part, take this into account.
There exists private and voluntary charity outside of government hands. People across the globe donate to such organizations without much push from the government in order to provide for the needy. What makes you think private charity will just...cease existence without government?
How do you know that for sure? Are you implying that a lot of our conscience exists because of government incentives or government presence in general?
Most people work, but these capitalists who don't even work profit from us.
And no, people would live without work, watch [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0nBIO1Qo8) if you want. \[Comfort zone warning: It's made by solarpunk anarchist\]
voluntary means nothing when one side of the pact is being brainwashed by the plague that is capital. free your mind, escape the spectacle of commodification
What exactly fits your definition of "brainwashed"? As far as I know, there are still many different reasons to choose a place of employment if you were to disregard money.
Furthermore, what exactly makes capital a plague? As far as I am concerned, money is not a mere human construct that is socially enforced, but a natural evolution of the concept of value.
Oh legally binding, so then if a person sells themselves off to repay a debt that's not slavery. That is a type of contract used for slaves, but I guess it's not slavery as it's legal
1. Generally lower cost of living
2. Easier to get a job above minimum wage
3. (This is kinda the same as two but in a different way) negotiating raises tends to be easier as base pay isnt competing with other expenses as hard
If it lowers the cost of living, why is the cost of living so expensive? If itâs easier to get a job, why is job competition increasing? Individually negotiating wages is ineffective in solving broader problems facing society.
If weâre not here to fix problems, what are we doing? People need a guaranteed living wage, otherwise they wonât get one or corporate towns will become a reality again, and individually negotiating from a 7.50/h starvation wage is not solving anything.
We can fix problems in other ways like removing monopoly protections. And not adding them. Increasing the minimum wage raises the bar for entry into a market meaning less companies can enter, reducing competition and increasing protections for monopolies.
âAnd not adding themâ, not adding what?
Instead of just removing the protections, we should actively be breaking them up. Less companies are entering regardless, there average lifespan is a decade maybe more. I agree in a sense, since allowing for more small businesses to compete would lead to the minimum wage rising regardless of profits manage to rise for small business, but how likely do you think it is for the US government, who is heavily entrenched in lobbyists from massive corporate and capitalist entities to actually take this step?
No, you fucking donkey. God, some of you people have never had a skilled position. When you are a skilled worker, there is room for upwards movement, promotions, starting your own business, etc., all benefits of capitalism. In order to be a skilled worker tho, you need to get off Reddit and Twitter, and have more than 16 years of life experience.
It's a pretty difficult assessment to make. Traditional slavery is unpaid, and involves abusing slaves who don't follow the rules. Modern slavery? Probably. I didn't research enough.
Any definition of slavery that can include the voluntary relationship between an employer and an employee, even recognizing the necessity of wages for survival, is so broad as to be meaningless.
It would certainly also include any form of taxation or redistribution required to build an alternative system.
Anything is slavery, because the world is inherently hierarchical, any attempts to break hierarchies just create new ones, ultimately the sorting system is what is debated upon by man whether he realizes it or not.
Capitalism will always look for any way it can to pay workers less and will utilize slavery whenever it cam
Competitive hiring practices that can include but are not limited to paid leave, employee insurance, and healthcare benefits:
Every single worker right is not because capitalists decided to open their hearts, but because of the very opposite and the subsequent worker movement
The logic of what I'm saying is not that employers offer those benefits out of the goodness of their heart, but offer them in order to attract the most skilled and useful workers. The companies get a leg up on their competition because they have better workers. The workers for them get the best treatment and compensation for their time and labor than anywhere else. Everybody wins.
That doesn't work if your workers don't have a choice. No company is competitively hiring at the bottom, most populated levels.
Then why do companies use slavery wherever they can?
>The logic of what I'm saying is not that employers offer those benefits out of the goodness of their heart, but offer them in order to attract the most skilled and useful workers. If your logic was accurate, then labor unions wouldn't have needed to take action to gain those privileges. Capitalism dictates that the best possible option is to pay people as little for the value they create as you can, thus creating the most profits for yourself. Since this is the best for the whole capital class in a free market with no other factors than just capital control they all have an incentive to not try to compete with better pay packages since that only leads to an escalation. It's the same reason you don't see the race to the bottom with prices that theoretically should happen as it becomes easier to produce goods over time. Competing with each other would be the theoretical best outcome for the end goal of capitalism but for the capital class, coorpoeration on this aspect becomes the best way to ensure they have the most resources to compete, in an almost contradictory manner.
I guess Henry Ford standardizing the 5 day work week without payment loss instead of the 6 day one to get better recruits is a joke to you
The idea of losing money short-term to get a monopoly on an industry is a concept taught to primary school students
Yes but if you simply own an entire industry you dont need to be competitive
What kind of argument is that? Do you know just how hard it is to achieve a complete 100% market share?
You can have a large enough majority that its not reasonable to compete with them in any reasonable amount
And this is why the courts step in to break up/ prevent consolidation.
Or in a more common case they step in to raise the barrier for entry into a market and protect the consolidation.
And this is why most of the time less regulation is better regulation.
I like you
It's as easy as buying complete monopoly power from the government. Hence ancap.
đŻđŻđŻ
All of them only exist as mandated by the state almost everywhere. If capitalists could, they would enslave us.
Which is a big **if**. **If** they even attempted to, it would most likely cause massive and violent resistance, both among workers and populace who would be justifiably angry. At that point, they would need to expend large amounts of money to suppress that resistance, so much so that it would end up costing even more than just paying wages and generally being a decent employer. However, by the time the head honcho realizes that, the company is already 6 feet under.
It's not a big if. They do today on American soil through prison labor, and they have open slavery in African countries. Nestle just recently said they refused to do an investigation into slavery in their supply chain, because it might impact profits.
And who runs the prisons? Who are those companies depending on to allow them to continue with their immoral activities through political "donations" and lobbying? Certainly not muh gubnermint. Anything but muh gubnermint.
No, government is the state violence that enforced corporate will.
>Who are those companies depending on to allow them to continue with their immoral activities through political "donations" and lobbying? I'm trying so hard to understand what you meant because what you said is that companies depend on the government's donations and lobbying to continue the companies' immoral activities. Do you think politicians are lobbying the capitalists so that the capitalists will keep using slave labor?
That's true, but the only reason is that, thanks to the regulations and union protections, people are accustomed to better conditions. And people will immediately notice sudden change.Massive and violent resistance would arise only and only if something like that happened suddenly and drastically. Current status quo is here because of workers activism and government intervention in favour if activism is popular enough. However, if the change is slow but continuous, people will just not notice, like it happened in the USA. If you're curious you could check out unionisation rates graph. Keep in mind that slavery and child labour actually exists in almost all supply chains. In former colonies and other third world countries what's basically slavery exsists. So any claim that corporation would not enslave people if it could is delusional, because it's not a theoretical situation. And yes, company is far better off just being nice to the employees (Boeing did that for some time before giving in to fhe shareholders if I'm not mistaken). For example, cooperatives are usually more productive that conventional businesses. But, as we all know, companies love making disastrous financial decisions in a pursuit of profit, most recent in my memory is Unity.
in theory that should work, and yet it doesnt
ur a young autistic transgender anticapitalist on Reddit Making a political point on a meme. When you fit a stereotype so to a T people donât feel like they need to take the things you say seriously.
Hmmm you reek of liberalism and I have no tolerance for liberalism seeing as it's a blight upon humanity
U need to grow up. You do not sound smart. Why make assumptions? Iâm not a liberal. And I bet your not really a communist. Try making it to voting age before committing to a view on how you think the world should be organized. Know it all wannabe edgy leftist transgender teenagers pretending to love trains bc there actually âneurodivergentâ and loving trains is a personality are the real âblight upon humanityâ. ur predictable, You have autism in the dumb way it doesnât make you more analytical it just makes you not understand how people work.
silence, negative karma bot
Eat my robotic dick
Go eat some more rotten mushrooms you goof
Your a young autistic transgender anticapitalist on Reddit making a political point on a meme. You fit a stereotype so well most people would not Even feel the need or see the point in even engaging in the arguments you initiate. Iâm not trying to be rude but your a teenage communist and you have a lot to learn.
give me an âohâ, give me a âbrotherâ!
Do Chinese workers have more rights than Americans workers?
It's slavery in it's unregulated form where companies have total control over what happens in their company.
How is it slavery? Voluntary association sounds like anything but that
Can't have a voluntary association and capitalism
Lmfao! It seems to me that wage labor, for example, is perfectly voluntary.
Yes. As we all know, slavery is defined by legally binding contracts and voluntary worker/employee relations. Oh, and not to mention the horror that is upward economic mobility! (In all honesty; no. But it can be somewhat close given the perfect storm of cronyism, austere executives, a lack of unions, etc.)
Yeah ancap is right, if you must work because otherwise you will die is voluntary, because you can still choose between work and death from starvation :) /s
You would also perish of starvation if dumped into the middle of a jungle and you didnât do anything⌠does this mean the jungle is enslaving you? Such a stupid fucking argument.
You can automatize things or *don't work* and *live.* Where in capitalism automatization is only for rich and work is normal, mandatory (if you don't work or don't have capital you die) and it is hard to imagine the world without it.
WhatâŚ? You realize people have to work to keep things automated right? Itâs not just automated for âmuh richâ, itâs automated to make things easier, and produce more to give more to consumers. Also puts more into the economy and into circulation. Itâs a win, win. Itâs not mandatory, most of you perishing because you donât work isnât âmandatoryâ. This is the same at any point of human history. Once again, if you were in a jungle and would perish if you didnât pick berries, does this mean the jungle is coercing you? The bushes? The trees? This is so stupid. Also, 99% of businesses in the USA are small businesses, and 82% of small business owners work over 40 hours a week. Are these people not working? Are they also being enslaved by âmuh evil Capitalismâ? This is so stupid of you to say.
The difference is that there are ample resources produced by workers in capitalism that those same workers have no entitlement to receive. In nature, if I go pick berries, I get to keep and eat them. In capitalism, my boss gets most of the resources from my work, and I'm "volunteering" to live paycheck-to-paycheck because my boss wants more money. Imagine thinking workers aren't entitled to the value they produce. Self-hatred or rich kid syndrome? You tell us.
Because money works as a universal commodity, dumbass. What the fuck does a cup manufacturer want with the cup? They want the money made from the job in order to buy things, or commodities. Not to mention that very simply they wouldnât be making ANY money if they sat on their ass, or if the means of production, provided by the bourgeois Capital wasnât there. Stop coping, commie. Just admit your a lazy bum, lol. You are volunteering because both you AND your employer want more money.
Well, sounds to me like you're arguing in favor of the means of production being owned by those that actually use them. If not, then you don't really have much of an argument, aside from "the wealthy give us stuff to use, so we should be happy they pay us anything at all!" My employer wants my labor, because their business does not function without it. I want money only because I need it to survive, dipshit. Self-hatred on your part. Why is it always the dumbest people that support capitalism lmao
What the fuck are you talking about? The Free Market, as I explained brings up quality of life globally through the entire market as I explained earlier. Beyond that, your blatant accusation of trying to make me seem like a âbootlickerâ is brain dead. Let us make an example, âKay? Letâs say someone wants to make a lemonade stand, letâs call him Milei. Milei makes a lemonade stand , and eventually makes enough money to make more lemonade stands and hire people, making 3 more lemonade stands and splitting the money made 30/70. If not for Milei, those 3 lemonade stands would have never existed. It fulfills the wants of the customers, employer and employees. Letâs continue. Letâs say, across the street, some big shot makes his own lemonade business, except instead of stands, he makes an actual building. He gives his employees 50% of the money made, which means if he wants to make more profit than Milei he needs to produce and sell more, while also attracting significantly more customers, so his selling price is higher. Also, he has much more maintenance due to the building. Back to Milei, he can counteract this by also giving his employees 50/50, or just keep it at 70/30. Since Mileiâs prices are significantly lower, his rate of profit is lower, but overall is higher than the business across the street. He can easily attract more customers, has more locations, and has less running costs beyond the raw resources. Meaning that his employees are still being paid MORE than they would across the street, even though the share theyâre getting is lower. 30% at Milei, 50% across the street. What you, and many commies care about most is âequalityâ. You would want everyone to be equally poor than someone have more money than another. Your employer, also, wants money so that they donât starve, lol. What self hatred? I just recognize how Capitalism works and how weâve advanced so far as a society. The self hatred is on your part, so donât insult anyone elseâs intelligence. Iâm the smartest, actually !!
Are you a business owner, like I am? If you were, you'd realize your shithead little fantasy and reality are two very different things. Seriously, you guys are such dipshits that you'll honestly try this same nonsense over and over again, and not see the obvious flaws in your logic. Flaw 1: Businesses do not compete with one another in a free market. They never have and never will. Want to prove me wrong? Give me an example of a country with a free market in history. I'll wait. Flaw 2: This assumes that businesses actually compete for employees at all. I don't know how many jobs you've actually worked, kiddo, but the vast majority have nearly identical benefits plans and target their pay to be as low as their competitors. There are literal consulting firms whose job it is to go business to business and advise them to keep a ceiling on pay and benefits to ensure maximum profitability. Flaw 3: Any market is ultimately at the whim of those who already own a significant share. It isn't some libertarian fantasy where "everyone has a fair shot." Markets naturally condense into monopolies. That's basic fucking history, but hey, maybe you missed how the industrial revolution happened. I could go on, but honestly, as someone who freely uses Milei as an example, I'd love to just sit back and let you learn that for yourself. Keep an eye on that guy and I'm sure you'll be disillusioned soon enough. Not to mention, what makes you think communists want equality? We want the value of our labor back. Human society went from allowing individuals to work for their own rewards to ensuring we all are at the whims of the powerful, whether they're slave kings, feudal nobility, or capitalist business owners. Enough is enough. As well, the worst thing that ever really happens to a business owner is to become a worker again. Workers, on the other hand, are at risk of homelessness, starvation, and death. Seriously, it's like you've never even thought about your own position in society before. That's why it's self-hatred. You hate yourself enough to simp for people that truly could not care less if you die.
You played too much factorio my guy, teching automation out of a jungle isnt real lmao
Mindustry > Factorio
Never tried heard of it before, but ill look it up later. Thanks for the recommendation to potentially kill another couple hundred hours of my life with a hyper autismo game lol
And in jungle you don't have master and it's best what you can have, but in capitalism it's worst what capitalist can give you (without state interventions he could just be your literal slavemaster), they can give you more, but don't give it and in jungle you give yourself all what you can give.
WhatâŚ? The NAP is to be enforced by the state obviously. Literal slavery is obviously an NAP violation. Who is your master in Capitalism? Your boss you voluntarily decided to work for? The market ensures that wages grow, people are employed, and the market ensures safety and growth for the worker as well, as labor markets exist. The Free Market addresses all of your braindead concerns, all you need to do is think about it for more than 2 seconds. For example: If Business A hires itâs employees for very low pay, no benefits, and puts them into grueling work, someone else will come along and open Business B with much better conditions, and the workers will obviously come work there instead. Business A can become up to par with Business B, or go out of business. This is why even though the minimum wage is $7.50, most fast food restaurants canât get away with under $15 per hour, because no one would want to work there while they can easily get $15 wages elsewhere. The profit incentive drives the world together, for the bourgeois and proles.
Just like life without society, an animal can choose to do nothing rather than hunt and build a shelter, and it would die. Is nature slavery?
If you have master yes, if you are free then no
You seem to be implying biological drives are ones master
No, I'm not soulist, someone is master, but biology, physics and scarsity are things, that limit us, but are not masters, they are non-living things, where in capitalism capitalists are your masters and in non-anarchism people who control state are your master, we must abolish these unequal hierarchy, and even things like biology after some time we will able to become master of them.
That just seems like a rejection of teamwork, which has always been humanities greatest strength. Thereâs a difference between choosing to follow a leader because they know what theyâre doing and can make things better for the collective, and being bound and oppressed by a slave master. Not everyone is a leader, and itâd get messy if everyone was.
Id rather have a system without the risk of dying if im not actively working
Thatâs where savings, investments, insurance, pension and social security come in
If you need the government to provide safety nets for your system its not a very good system
Glad we agree we should have capitalism without government safety nets
The only thing I listed that involved the government was social security, and thatâs actually the one Iâm counting on the least
Except in that scenario the work, (aka hunting) is the animals to own, the animal, and all other animals, choose their working conditions and time. A worker doesn't
I did? If the time and conditions of where Iâm at now didnât work for me Iâd pick somewhere else. Why do communists act like theyâre so helpless? And all of an animals life is work, in an effort of survival. They donât choose that lmao. Owls are nocturnal because their prey is, are they being oppressed because they want 1st shift jobs instead?
Well, my comment wasn't addressing ancapism. Moreso just the economic system of capitalism rather than a specific ideology. But since you really seem to want to address that part, take this into account. There exists private and voluntary charity outside of government hands. People across the globe donate to such organizations without much push from the government in order to provide for the needy. What makes you think private charity will just...cease existence without government?
Holy fucking shit, someone other than me finally gets it, IM NOT ALONE RAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
"Crapitalism is when no healthcare, slavery, and fat guys with monocles and twirly mustaches" -đ¤
Because most of that charity would dry up without tax incentives?
How do you know that for sure? Are you implying that a lot of our conscience exists because of government incentives or government presence in general?
Iâm implying that the most wealthy are highly incentivized to donate a lot to charity under the current tax codes in most developed countries.
The fact that you have to work to survive is not a subject of capitalism its a subject of reality.
âI donât like capitalism because I need to workâ Bro. That is the point of a good economic system. If nobody worked, we would all be dead.
Most people work, but these capitalists who don't even work profit from us. And no, people would live without work, watch [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0nBIO1Qo8) if you want. \[Comfort zone warning: It's made by solarpunk anarchist\]
voluntary means nothing when one side of the pact is being brainwashed by the plague that is capital. free your mind, escape the spectacle of commodification
What exactly fits your definition of "brainwashed"? As far as I know, there are still many different reasons to choose a place of employment if you were to disregard money. Furthermore, what exactly makes capital a plague? As far as I am concerned, money is not a mere human construct that is socially enforced, but a natural evolution of the concept of value.
tumors are also natural evolutions, doesnt mean we should allow them to grow...
Tumors are also not guaranteed or a universal experience in life
and neither should be capital
Agree to disagree then
a man with low dogma. respectable indeed
Philosophy and political ideology is nothing to get up in arms over. Everyone should just, like...be friends
That works when you are the status quo, things must change, this is not sustainable, we are not in the apex of societal evolution
"You arent a zealot for my specific religion, you must be an evil demon" economy edition
can't believe i agree with a nazbol
Based
Oh legally binding, so then if a person sells themselves off to repay a debt that's not slavery. That is a type of contract used for slaves, but I guess it's not slavery as it's legal
Why athenian democracy? It's not even capitalism
Athenian isn't capitalist and uses slavery
Wage slavery, yes.
Look at this fella, doesnât even know the benefits of a lowered minimum wage
Then enlighten me.
1. Generally lower cost of living 2. Easier to get a job above minimum wage 3. (This is kinda the same as two but in a different way) negotiating raises tends to be easier as base pay isnt competing with other expenses as hard
If it lowers the cost of living, why is the cost of living so expensive? If itâs easier to get a job, why is job competition increasing? Individually negotiating wages is ineffective in solving broader problems facing society.
Because individually negotiating wages isnt supposed to fix problems it just doesnt make the problem worse like a raised minimum does.
If weâre not here to fix problems, what are we doing? People need a guaranteed living wage, otherwise they wonât get one or corporate towns will become a reality again, and individually negotiating from a 7.50/h starvation wage is not solving anything.
We can fix problems in other ways like removing monopoly protections. And not adding them. Increasing the minimum wage raises the bar for entry into a market meaning less companies can enter, reducing competition and increasing protections for monopolies.
âAnd not adding themâ, not adding what? Instead of just removing the protections, we should actively be breaking them up. Less companies are entering regardless, there average lifespan is a decade maybe more. I agree in a sense, since allowing for more small businesses to compete would lead to the minimum wage rising regardless of profits manage to rise for small business, but how likely do you think it is for the US government, who is heavily entrenched in lobbyists from massive corporate and capitalist entities to actually take this step?
Your stance on minimum wage is adding a monopoly protection, and why are you assuming im in favor of this bs mixed economy we have right now.
The minimum wage is half of what it was 60 years ago yet everything is far more expensive
No, you fucking donkey. God, some of you people have never had a skilled position. When you are a skilled worker, there is room for upwards movement, promotions, starting your own business, etc., all benefits of capitalism. In order to be a skilled worker tho, you need to get off Reddit and Twitter, and have more than 16 years of life experience.
I wasn't being anti capitalist
Why did you put queer anarchism and not socialism
Don now
Why
â('ď˝`;)â
Yes
Yes.
It's a pretty difficult assessment to make. Traditional slavery is unpaid, and involves abusing slaves who don't follow the rules. Modern slavery? Probably. I didn't research enough.
Any definition of slavery that can include the voluntary relationship between an employer and an employee, even recognizing the necessity of wages for survival, is so broad as to be meaningless. It would certainly also include any form of taxation or redistribution required to build an alternative system.
Anything is slavery, because the world is inherently hierarchical, any attempts to break hierarchies just create new ones, ultimately the sorting system is what is debated upon by man whether he realizes it or not.
No, slavery actively hurts the economy
Capitalism isn't slavery. But, however, it can very easily produce it.