Current Events > Socialists: 'seizing the wealth is too radically liberal, so let's seize wealth'

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

I see no problem here
---

well yeah, traditional socialism has always been about seizing the means of production

I am reading that as seizing wealth isn't radical enough. Which, from the socialist perspective, is correct.
---

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.
---

it's mind-boggling that there are people out there that actually believe putting employees in direct control of businesses they have no hand or experience in managing or building is a good idea

furthermore, there is no such thing as fair division of value between "workers" and societies, as history has shown that collectivized workers, given enough power, will screw over society for their own personal gain just like corporations do with the same leverage
---

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

who decides what that is?
---

Threats of stealing wealth will just cause those with wealth to take the means of production elsewhere.
---

deltadan posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

who decides what that is?

Let's see. How many thousands of employees are working under Jeff? *hands you a calculator*
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Threats of stealing wealth will just cause those with wealth to take the means of production elsewhere.

They do so already, there's virtually zero penalties whatsoever for any business to send production and the like out of country. If not for HIPAA, all your medical paperwork and insurance payments on it would be handled in India, for instance. But every other aspect of those payment processes that aren't protected? India has its hand involved.
---

That is called free trade. In theory it is good because goods and services can be produced more efficiently which leads to a net benefit to everyone.
---

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

Except the employees would only see a very, very minimal increase in their yearly wages/salaries.

And his 'net worth' is not his money. It is not as simple as donating his money to fix problems... charity does not fix problems to begin with.
---

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.
---

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem
---

http://fortune.com/2016/12/12/michigan-marxist-vegan-restaurant-closes/
---

Socialists have DDIQ
---

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Youre talking about taking away a private business owners company away from him (and any shareholders/investors he might have), and then giving it to other people. How in the fuck can you, with a straight face, describe the business owner as the one who is stealing?!
---

gunplagirl posted...

deltadan posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

who decides what that is?

Let's see. How many thousands of employees are working under Jeff? *hands you a calculator*

Some peoples' work are more valuable than others, and therefore they deserve to make more. Dividing it evenly among every employee wouldn't necessarily mean they're getting their rightful part.
---

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

What do you do about sexual harassment?
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Youre talking about taking away a private business owners company away from him (and any shareholders/investors he might have), and then giving it to other people. How in the fuck can you, with a straight face, describe the business owner as the one who is stealing?!

Jeff Bezos (and the shareholders/investors) are making profit from someone else's work. not doing any themselves.

there is a difference between the amount of revenue generated by workers and the amount of money they take home. this difference is called a surplus, and without it, Jeff Bezos (and the shareholders/investors) wouldn't make any money.

the Value of work is equal to the amount of money it generates. for example:

suppose there's a restaurant that sells a sandwich for $15, and the combined cost of the ingredients, electricity, and other things used to make the sandwich cost $5. they make a profit of $10 per sandwich.

suppose that, at a given time, there are 10 workers at this restaurant, all doing a necessary job (cooking, waiting, washing dishes, etc.)

suppose, during a given hour, that they sell 100 of those sandwiches.

they have made $1000 during that hour, which means that the collective value of the labour of those employees during that hour is $1000.

in most companies (including Amazon), the workers only get to take home a fraction of this. the rest is, in a very literal sense, being stolen from them and given to people who did no work to earn it (at Amazon, this means Jeff Bezos and his shareholders/investors)
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

the problem is not "I am not being paid enough"

the problem is "this job is shitty and exploitative"

the job still exists if the person leaves. someone else will fill it, and then that person will be exploited.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

What do you do about sexual harassment?

Leave the job and go elsewhere.
---

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

the problem is not "I am not being paid enough"

the problem is "this job is shitty and exploitative"

the job still exists if the person leaves. someone else will fill it, and then that person will be exploited.

Then the problem is not the job, its the people who are not taking a stand and saying 'I will just do my job and not care how awful it is.'
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

What do you do about sexual harassment?

Leave the job and go elsewhere.

again, that does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

the problem is not "I am not being paid enough"

the problem is "this job is shitty and exploitative"

the job still exists if the person leaves. someone else will fill it, and then that person will be exploited.

Then the problem is not the job, its the people who are not taking a stand and saying 'I will just do my job and not care how awful it is.'

so now you're blaming the victim of shitty circumstances instead of the person creating those circumstances
---

averagejoel posted...

again, that does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

If people keep leaving the position, or it is not filled, then the agency/business/etc will not be able to operate that position any more.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

darkjedilink posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Especially important to note since Jeff bezos could put forth not even a tenth of his fortune and end homelessness and poverty and hunger in much of the world.

An employee's only rightful share of profits is the pay he agreed to upon hire.

Agreed. If you want more, ask for more or go elsewhere.

As a high school student, I started at min wage, and by the time I was done high school, I was making over double min wage (for the record; that was from grade 9 to grade 12... four years). I did have to leave a job to get that much, but it was well worth it and I knew what I was worth. Keep in mind; that was WITHOUT a high school diploma.

worker: this job is shitty and exploitative
you: so work somewhere else

your advice does not fix the problem

Worked fine for me. Workers need to understand that they are a commodity... sell yourself, and make yourself necessary.

What do you do about sexual harassment?

Leave the job and go elsewhere.

So if someone j.o.es in a potted plant near you, you just quit?
---

averagejoel posted...

so now you're blaming the victim of shitty circumstances instead of the person creating those circumstances

Not at all, I am saying people need to stand up for their rights. If they do not see a problem, why should they be concerned with it? If they do not feel they are exploited, then why not work there?
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

again, that does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

If people keep leaving the position, or it is not filled, then the agency/business/etc will not be able to operate that position any more.

which still does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment
---

SK8T3R215 posted...


---

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

again, that does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

If people keep leaving the position, or it is not filled, then the agency/business/etc will not be able to operate that position any more.

which still does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

So what is your solution then, since the economic approach does not work for you?
---

averagejoel posted...

I see no problem here

treewojima posted...

well yeah, traditional socialism has always been about seizing the means of production

Musourenka posted...

I am reading that as seizing wealth isn't radical enough. Which, from the socialist perspective, is correct.

---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

so now you're blaming the victim of shitty circumstances instead of the person creating those circumstances

Not at all, I am saying people need to stand up for their rights.

your post from 4 minutes ago disagrees:

the problem is not the job, its the people who are not taking a stand

---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

again, that does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

If people keep leaving the position, or it is not filled, then the agency/business/etc will not be able to operate that position any more.

which still does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

So what is your solution then, since the economic approach does not work for you?

I was never claiming to have a solution for sexual harassment. that's irrelevant to my point.
---

I've always been inclined to thinking in a socialist way for economics despite my career as a trader that absolutely benefits and enhances the capitalist economic system

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

I want to resolve this for myself since the socialist economic ideals are super appealing and humanitarian to me, I'm just a victim of the capitalist establishment economic education

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

so now you're blaming the victim of shitty circumstances instead of the person creating those circumstances

Not at all, I am saying people need to stand up for their rights.

your post from 4 minutes ago disagrees:

the problem is not the job, its the people who are not taking a stand

Yes, exactly what I said, good job!

If people do not see a problem with their job, then there is no need to do anything. There are no victims if people are not feeling victimized.
---

Socialism is a delusion.

lesidesi posted...

I've always been inclined to thinking in a socialist way for economics despite my career as a trader that absolutely benefits and enhances the capitalist economic system

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

I want to resolve this for myself since the socialist economic ideals are super appealing and humanitarian to me, I'm just a victim of the capitalist establishment economic education

If there is no incentive to invest your money, people won't invest their money. No new capital will enter the system and no one will bother to take risks if they can't profit. The majority of the goods and services we enjoy exist because of profit.

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand basic economics.

silentwing26x posted...

lesidesi posted...

I've always been inclined to thinking in a socialist way for economics despite my career as a trader that absolutely benefits and enhances the capitalist economic system

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

I want to resolve this for myself since the socialist economic ideals are super appealing and humanitarian to me, I'm just a victim of the capitalist establishment economic education

If there is no incentive to invest your money, people won't invest their money. No new capital will enter the system and no one will bother to take risks if they can't profit. The majority of the goods and services we enjoy exist because of profit.

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand basic economics.

Exactly. That said, some things should be more publicly controlled.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

again, that does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

If people keep leaving the position, or it is not filled, then the agency/business/etc will not be able to operate that position any more.

which still does not solve the problem of workplace sexual harassment

So what is your solution then, since the economic approach does not work for you?

Sexual Harassment is illegal and you can file a sexual harassment complaint to the EEOC.
---

lesidesi posted...

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

no great invention/innovation has come about because someone was looking to make money off it. people invent things and improve on things because their brain won't let them not do it.

money is not the best motivator - it's not even a particularly good motivator.
---

averagejoel posted...

lesidesi posted...

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

no great invention/innovation has come about because someone was looking to make money off it. people invent things and improve on things because their brain won't let them not do it.

money is not the best motivator - it's not even a particularly good motivator.

Historically, maybe, but modern society is based on economics. If that was not the case, why would patents exist? Why would copyright laws exist?
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

lesidesi posted...

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

no great invention/innovation has come about because someone was looking to make money off it. people invent things and improve on things because their brain won't let them not do it.

money is not the best motivator - it's not even a particularly good motivator.

Historically, maybe, but modern society is based on economics. If that was not the case, why would patents exist? Why would copyright laws exist?

believe it or not, the existence of copyright laws does not contradict my point
---

averagejoel posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

lesidesi posted...

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

no great invention/innovation has come about because someone was looking to make money off it. people invent things and improve on things because their brain won't let them not do it.

money is not the best motivator - it's not even a particularly good motivator.

Historically, maybe, but modern society is based on economics. If that was not the case, why would patents exist? Why would copyright laws exist?

believe it or not, the existence of copyright laws does not contradict my point

But if you have some great invention or improvement, does it matter if someone else 'steals' it from you? I am basing this on your statement that money does not motivate invention or innovation, btw.
---

Virtually nothing about the nice civilized lifestyle we enjoy came out of the goodnesd of people's hearts. Profit-chasing created and enabled a 1st world and a rapidly advancing 3rd world.

My point is that often innovations take substantial financial resources, and to make them available to the public even more so

Are we proposing that the government allocate resources appropriately? Do we have faith that a governmental body would result in more efficient resource allocation than markets? I'd love to believe it but I've been trading for long enough to be extremely skeptical of this idea

lesidesi posted...

Where I've always struggled with in socialist economics is understanding how people are rewarded for putting their capital at risk in a business for example. And if this isn't an option, and capital comes only from labourers, how does innovation ever end up occuring?

You're talking about pure socialism/communism. Most socialists now-a-days are democratic socialists.

There's many socialised institutions that work better without a profit motivation.

Private police and armies would just create anarchy where the richest warlord wins.

A profit driven fire department might buy your burning house for much less than it's worth before putting it out and selling it back marked up.

A trip to the hospital can bankrupt you in America.

Just a progressive tax budget doesn't make you a pure socialist.
---

averagejoel posted...

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The difference is that liberal ideas will still allow people like Jeff to steal profits that employees made and take them for himself while having little incentive to provide any semblance of a fair wage to the employees. By seizing the means of production, employees will be able to claim their rightful part of the profits and a comfortable living wage.

Youre talking about taking away a private business owners company away from him (and any shareholders/investors he might have), and then giving it to other people. How in the fuck can you, with a straight face, describe the business owner as the one who is stealing?!

Jeff Bezos (and the shareholders/investors) are making profit from someone else's work. not doing any themselves.

there is a difference between the amount of revenue generated by workers and the amount of money they take home. this difference is called a surplus, and without it, Jeff Bezos (and the shareholders/investors) wouldn't make any money.

the Value of work is equal to the amount of money it generates. for example:

suppose there's a restaurant that sells a sandwich for $15, and the combined cost of the ingredients, electricity, and other things used to make the sandwich cost $5. they make a profit of $10 per sandwich.

suppose that, at a given time, there are 10 workers at this restaurant, all doing a necessary job (cooking, waiting, washing dishes, etc.)

suppose, during a given hour, that they sell 100 of those sandwiches.

they have made $1000 during that hour, which means that the collective value of the labour of those employees during that hour is $1000.

in most companies (including Amazon), the workers only get to take home a fraction of this. the rest is, in a very literal sense, being stolen from them and given to people who did no work to earn it (at Amazon, this means Jeff Bezos and his shareholders/investors)

Okay, this has been puzzling me. What constitutes work? How far abstracted from direct production of material goods does a task have to be to still be considered work in these examples?

The people who manage workers and assign them specific tasks and coaching in order to be optimally productive - are they doing work?
Human resources and staffing - does that qualify as work?
How about the people managing them? And so on, and so forth? How far up the chain do we go until we decide someone in a particular role is not contributing to production of a good?
How would this apply to the service industries?
---