|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
The Kingfish posted:Private ownership and control of the economy is immoral. Our ancestors will look back at these times with the same sense of bewildered fascination we have towards feudalism. such optimism about the future existence of ancestors
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Private ownership and control of the economy is immoral. Our ancestors will look back at these times with the same sense of bewildered fascination we have towards feudalism. Our ancestors all died long ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
oops lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:A capitalist system is defined by the working class's relation to the means of production, as is a communist system. Things like healthcare, social security and state intervention in the economy can exist in both capitalist and communist societies and are more explicitly associated with social democracy than anything else, they're nice to have but are often irrelevant to the larger question of who holds the economic power in a given society. The soviet project, with its concentration of political and economic power in the hands of an elite, came no closer to realising communism than nazi germany came to realising socialism. The Soviet Union was also avowedly democratic, but was manifestly not so. Just because something claims to be the embodiment of an idea does not mean it is representative of that idea and we should not conflate the Soviet Union with the many competing models for communist organisation. This is a good post, appreciate your thoughts. For your first point, I'd argue that the definition of capitalism to simply relate workers to some sort of economic output isn't enough. By focusing just on workers, we miss the utilitarian aspects that increase economic output that capitalism theory advocates - things like specialization, profit motive, competition and free trade. The US nationalized heavy industry like GM as well as banks during the 2008 crisis - this runs absolutely counter to allowing the invisible hand maximizing utility and competitive efficiency. So, I don't think things like healthcare, social security, etc are "nice to have" but are instead required for a functioning so called "capitalist" society. The 2008 crisis showed just how volatile unregulated capital can be and the bailout was the state trying to stabilize the situation. The financial industry itself advocated for the necessity for state intervention because they knew that without confidence returning, the entire system would collapse. This is nothing new, but a recent and relevant example of state intervention, which is why I don't think we can 100% call the US a capitalist society. As far as using the Soviet model as a case study or history lesson - I'm hesitant to buy into that. Zizek and neo-communists make this argument, but the issue I always come back to is that real people are impacted. We can absolutely say that modern first world nations are not perfect - but they are not failed states. Revolutionary action in the first world is an upend to a relatively decent living standard - at which point is the communist project "ready" to begin? When do we come to a consensus that the kinks have been worked out? What do we do with people that don't agree with it? How do we transition without catastrophe? These questions seem to be quickly dismissed. I don't disagree that we can improve, but the dogged insistence in the coherence of the communist ideology confuses me. If we have seen marked improvements in the real world through socialism, what real reason is there to scrap that and create a workers paradise which itself sounds pseudo-religious to me? However, the psychological aspects of neoliberalism has indeed proved to be insidious - the turn to nationalism across the world today can be rationalized as a failure of the mainstream leftist ideology. That being said, I still believe that the real work is not continue to massage 19th century thought, but rather to fight to improve labor's negotiating power, create more safety nets, and improve basic living standards all within the framework of a regulated capital market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
dk2m posted:This is a good post, appreciate your thoughts. It's because your model leaves the capitalist class in power, and any good you manage to accomplish will eventually be undone because the people who control the economic power in society will do their utmost to roll back every progressive reform as soon as they're able to. Even in the very best case senario we're eternally doomed to refight the same drat battle every thirty or forty years, which is an absurd goal to set. Also societal transformation doesn't work like in Civilization where you research some new civic and then click a button to implement it fully formed, hth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's because your model leaves the capitalist class in power, and any good you manage to accomplish will eventually be undone because the people who control the economic power in society will do their utmost to roll back every progressive reform as soon as they're able to. Even in the very best case senario we're eternally doomed to refight the same drat battle every thirty or forty years, which is an absurd goal to set. Assuming you're talking about the US - what capitalist class? What does that even mean in this day and age? It's not 1905 anymore, there are no evil guys twirling mustaches behind their huge oak desk. The people that run businesses respond to external pressures - communists don't. You can protest and peacefully change society in ours, you cannot in a communist system. There will be winners and losers like in every system, but the moral case in a communist society is built around the idea that anyone that doesn't fall in line is a traitor to revolutionary ideals. Even neo-communists STILL disdain socialists - if they can't even get along with fellow leftists, what hope is there for anyone else? The basic practical questions of communism are never, ever answered. It's always couched in broad, sweeping "history is on our side" rhetoric. And yes, I too remember rolling back child labor laws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
dk2m posted:Assuming you're talking about the US - what capitalist class? What does that even mean in this day and age? What, seriously? Instead of spending your effort sniping at philosophical alternatives, learn how your economy actually works. e: maybe you misspoke and I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt where I ought to, but that statement had all the brilliance of "what racism?" BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
dk2m posted:Assuming you're talking about the US - what capitalist class? What does that even mean in this day and age? It's not 1905 anymore, there are no evil guys twirling mustaches behind their huge oak desk. The people that run businesses respond to external pressures - communists don't. You can protest and peacefully change society in ours, you cannot in a communist system. There will be winners and losers like in every system, but the moral case in a communist society is built around the idea that anyone that doesn't fall in line is a traitor to revolutionary ideals. Even neo-communists STILL disdain socialists - if they can't even get along with fellow leftists, what hope is there for anyone else? Why do you respond to criticism of your own ideas with some weird word salad attacking a position that nobody ITT really holds? Could you maybe try to address points raised instead of doing a bad Ronald Reagan impression? Besides that, the capitalist class consists of the people who could subsist entirely on their income from capital gains if the chose to do so, hth. dk2m posted:And yes, I too remember rolling back child labor laws. The capitalist system has outsourced its child labour to third-world sweatshops, just so you know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
dk2m posted:Assuming you're talking about the US - what capitalist class? What does that even mean in this day and age? It's not 1905 anymore, there are no evil guys twirling mustaches behind their huge oak desk. The people that run businesses respond to external pressures - communists don't. You can protest and peacefully change society in ours, you cannot in a communist system. There will be winners and losers like in every system, but the moral case in a communist society is built around the idea that anyone that doesn't fall in line is a traitor to revolutionary ideals. Even neo-communists STILL disdain socialists - if they can't even get along with fellow leftists, what hope is there for anyone else? The like ten CEOs who own a huge portion of global capital cannot, in fact, be swayed or affected in any meaningful way by peaceful protest, and we are completely beholden to them in terms of the global power structure. They're also the ones responsible for climate change killing us all in 10-15 years. So yeah, hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Communism killed 20 million people but capitalism killing 7 billion will be fine because,
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Communism killed 20 million people but capitalism killing 7 billion will be fine because, Because in our ideological firmament the obsessive pursuit of power through capital accumulation is considered rational.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Look, obviously when some dude with a big hat decides that millions should starve it's super bad and he's a monster, but when price speculation couses millions to starve that's just the unknowable invisible hand of the free market at work, and as such nobody is to blame and we don't have to do any self-reflection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
"Are Capitalists a Community?" is a legit question. And I think it gets at one of the big contradictions within Marxism. Marx's theory of crisis-by capital accumulation relies on the fact that Capitalists can't put class interest ahead of their self-interest. quote:Capitalism is inherently an expanding system, for capitalists must constantly accumulate and extend their capital in order to preserve it; they must continually expand in order to remain capitalists, for if they did not they would be destroyed by competitors; they would be consumers and not capitalists. ... Nevertheless, capitalists also have an urge to enjoy the consumption of their capital. The overcoming of this urge is supposed to be "abstinence," which is a bourgeois justification, according to Marx, for the private appropriation of surplus value. (Via: http://rbutler.sdsu.edu/gurely2.htm) So, I own a shoe factory. It's profitable. What I really want is to take my profits and buy a boat somewhere tropical. But, I know that my competitors, acting out of their own immediate self-interest, are going to re-invest their profits. They'll purchase extra capital. And that capital will let them extract more surplus value. If I buy the boat, I'll end up less profitable than my competition. And I'll go out of business. Then then I'll no longer be a capitalist. So, instead of a fun boat, I have to buy shoe-making equipment. My competitors do the same. This gets extra profit that we all end up having to re-invest in order to maintain our position as capitalists. This spiral of endless accumulation is one of they key things Marx thinks will kill the system. ---- But that spiral is only inevitable because capitalist's can't coordinate. They're unable to put their self-interest aside in favor of their own community's interests. If they could, the factory owners could just get together and agree to cap re-investment rates. Then, instead of pouring their profits into an endless (and ultimately destructive) capital accumulation arms-race, they could all just agree to use it for personal consumption. Then all the capitalists gets boats, Marx's crisis is averted, and none of the capitalists die in the inevitable people's revolt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Well we found the solution then. Just distribute responsibility so diffusely across the communist structure that the inevitable gently caress ups and oversights that come with any system will get disregarded as just a force of nature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:"Are Capitalists a Community?" is a legit question. And I think it gets at one of the big contradictions within Marxism. Capitalists can coordinate to further their class interests (see: the United States since 1950s). What this analogy fails to appreciate is that the authentic capitalist agent doesn't want to retire with a nice boat. The true capitalist only wants to play the game of capitalism indefinitely until somebody wins. The capitalist who wants to relax will "cash out," selling or intrusting his capital to others who are still playing the game. E: so when capitalist coordinate to further their class interests they do so to insure that the game is not disrupted The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Capitalists can coordinate to further their class interests (see: the United States since 1950s). What this analogy fails to appreciate is that the authentic capitalist agent doesn't want to retire with a nice boat. The true capitalist only wants to play the game of capitalism indefinitely until somebody wins. The capitalist who wants to relax will "cash out," selling or intrusting his capital to others who are still playing the game. I disagree about "authentic" capitalists, and your take on history. There are guys who want to "play a game". They seem to get crushed by the dudes who want to make tons of money by colluding with their nominal competitors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Colluding with one competitor to destroy another is a classic strategy though? I fail to see the distinction. E: I'm not saying that capitalists think they are playing a game, I'm saying that capitalism is played like a game. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Have you ever heard of Chambers of Commerce? Even if they like to pretend otherwise the capitalist class has a very strong class consciousness, which they use to further their goals as a class. This isn't in contradiction with Marx at all, because it's entirely possible that the best way of maximizing profits is collusion with others capitalists. In fact, it would be very strange if Marx didn't appreciate this, seeing how he goes on at length about how the bourgeois state is in fact controlled by and working in the interests of the capitalist class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
I feel like the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a confusing one. Rather than being like anything the Soviet Union did, it was meant to describe a form of democracy without all of the measures put in place to make the process slow and deliberative and out of the direct control of the public in order to avoid "mob rule" or the "tyranny of the majority" or whatever other phrases liberals like to use to hide their essentially technocratic political beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Communism is good if you like monstrous crime, unthinkable suffering, and mass murder, but I don't, so I am not a fan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Communism is good if you like monstrous crime, unthinkable suffering, and mass murder, but I don't, so I am not a fan. You misspelled Capitalism there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Besides that, the capitalist class consists of the people who could subsist entirely on their income from capital gains if the chose to do so, hth. And that's really a worthless distinction. A computer programmer who saves 50% of their income and is happy living on 40k a year can acheive that by age 40 meanwhile an actor making millions might save nothing while ultimately controlling orders of magnitude more economic power over their lifetime. The fundamental problem of communism/marxism to me is this degenerate model of power. Capitalists have it all and capitalists are defined narrowly and technically. No surprise real life socialists states deleted the capitalists then faced huge problems of concentrated political power. Fiction posted:The like ten CEOs who own a huge portion of global capital cannot, in fact, be swayed or affected in any meaningful way by peaceful protest, and we are completely beholden to them in terms of the global power structure. In real life the CEO is checked by government regulations, competitors, the labor market and customers. In communism we take the same guy with the same powers (or more), bury him in the national economic bureaucracy and pretend his power is magically contained.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And that's really a worthless distinction. lol. Sure some code monkey will make enough money to net themselves a capital gains income of 40k a year in about twenty years. That's almost as reasonable as you thinking that economic power is determined by spending. To get you started, the economic power in society is determined by control of means of production, hth, but I know it won't. asdf32 posted:The fundamental problem of communism/marxism to me is this degenerate model of power. Capitalists have it all and capitalists are defined narrowly and technically. The problem doesn not lie in the model, it lies in the fact that you're ignorant as gently caress and entirely unwilling to learn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:lol. Sure some code monkey will make enough money to net themselves a capital gains income of 40k a year in about twenty years. That's almost as reasonable as you thinking that economic power is determined by spending. To get you started, the economic power in society is determined by control of means of production, hth, but I know it won't. But 'controlling the means of production' isn't actually defined by the legal technicality of ownership since there are a myriad of ways owner's power is checked and limited. The car in my driveway represents a significant chunk of economic output which I managed to divert towards me. The owners can't stay in business without delivering cars to people like me. That's control and power. Separately far from all power is economic which is why simply moving power from economic capitalists to the political bureaucracy doesn't automatically solve problems - something that's obvious if you have a reasonable model of power and its problems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:But 'controlling the means of production' isn't actually defined by the legal technicality of ownership since there are a myriad of ways owner's power is checked and limited. The car in my driveway represents a significant chunk of economic output which I managed to divert towards me. The owners can't stay in business without delivering cars to people like me. That's control and power. The car in your driveway doesn't even represent a rounding error of the total economic output of a single car manufacturer, not to mention the entire national economy. Like, holy poo poo dude, I'm surprised that even you can be this goddamn ill-informed about the basic concepts under discussion. You have no clea what you're even talking about which is why you're pretending that "regulations exist" is some kind of silver buller argument, when it is in fact a complete nonsense reply to a nonsense strawman based on a nonsense caricature of Marxism that you've cobbled together half from concepts that you've misunderstood and half from poo poo you've made up yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
This biggest problem with 20th century communism was it's teleological core, the fact that they thought that history would redeem their every attrocity because Communism was certain to arrive at the end and all would be pardoned as necessary evils in the train of history. Communism might in some way still be a valuable term today because the Soviet Union (and company) besides their horrible problems and crimes were in fact the best attempt at changing society in the 20th century and indirectly allowed for the formation of the social democratic concesus of the post-war which brought about the most prosperous era of humanity's existence. It is no coincidence that the fall of the Soviet Union is directly correlated with the downfall of worker's rights everywhere in the west and probably also in the East. Following this, if we do want a communism for the 21st century, if we want the repeat the leninist gesture of trying to find a new ground for our society and move beyond the 'end of history', we must at first, completely forget about the stupid marxist teleology, and accept that political antagonism is irreducible and there is no end to alienation, ever. Next one could probably start from a negative basis instead of a positive one: instead of arguing endlessly about central planning vs market, private property, etc, we should recognize what are our common problems today where capitalism will encounter its inherent limit and won't be able to provide adequate responses, some suggestions being: ecology, intelectual property, inequality, apartheids, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:But 'controlling the means of production' isn't actually defined by the legal technicality of ownership since there are a myriad of ways owner's power is checked and limited. The car in my driveway represents a significant chunk of economic output which I managed to divert towards me. The owners can't stay in business without delivering cars to people like me. That's control and power. Ownership is not a legal technicality. Your car does not represent a significant chunk of economic output. You didn't "divert" that car towards yourself; you purchased the car, presumably with wages. We need cars and other consumer goods to sell our labor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Fados posted:Next one could probably start from a negative basis instead of a positive one: instead of arguing endlessly about central planning vs market, private property, etc, we should recognize what are our common problems today where capitalism will encounter its inherent limit and won't be able to provide adequate responses, some suggestions being: ecology, intelectual property, inequality, apartheids, etc. Identifying the problems is easy. Solving them is harder. There's a reason the left spends its time internally debating political and economic structures instead of "is capitalism bad?" If you read between the lines of posts here, almost nobody is trying to defend the inherent flaws of capitalism, they're arguing the inherent flaws of other systems are worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
its come to my attention that communism enjoys some popularity amongst the white cishet fuckbois of the world, and so im forced at the present time to acknowledge that communism is not good
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:its come to my attention that communism enjoys some popularity amongst the white cishet fuckbois of the world, and so im forced at the present time to acknowledge that communism is not good Wouldn't this be counterbalanced by the naxalites?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
you might think so, but no. white + cishet + fuckboi is a huge negative modifier, like x100 or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:"Are Capitalists a Community?" is a legit question. And I think it gets at one of the big contradictions within Marxism. The factory boss who earns a wage is different from the capitalist who earns a living on the growth of company. It's not about class vs self interest. Lets rewrite the analogy. You own a large share of a large shoe and clothing company. You together with your likeminded stock owners together elect a CEO, which in turn controls the chain of command down the lonely worker. That means you are ultimately in charge. Your income depends on the companies growth: you only get money when the money pays dividends, which it can only do when it grows. If the company you own simply sold the same amount of shoes as last year for the same price at the same cost, you would earn nothing. In fact, part of your investment would be eaten up by interest. Thus you have a vested interest in making sure your investment, your big pile of money, is somewhere which will continue to grow. So you have a built in incentive to pressure the company into cutting cost, increase the potential customer base or increase the price. Thusly, the CEO moves the production to Cambodia. Meanwhile, the company who dosen't move production gets outcompeted. Even if you personally cash out, someone else will buy your stocks if the company is profitable. If it's not, everyone will sell and start over in a new company that will use the same tactics for the same reasons. Besides, you can probably buy a pretty good yatch while reinvesting part of the dividends, so why would you cash out? It would be like quitting your job and living the rest of your life on your savings. This is even less true for hedge funds, and all the other companies in which you do not actually own the money you are investing. This is why capitalism MUST continue to expand. If capitalism ever reached a point where the economy could not expand, the system would collapse. If any individual decides that to try not to be beholden to the laws of capital, they will find themselves outcompeted, and replaced by more ruthless capitalists. Any CEO which does not keep profitability as no.1 will be fired.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
e- my bad. wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Fados posted:
I don't think this is a very good analysis.The Welfare state was in it's genesis well before the formation of the Soviet Union as you can see from things like Social legislation in places like Germany decades before. A lot of that was an attempt to undermine support for leftist movements but nevertheless it laid down the groundwork. If anything you could make the argument that by the 30s the deprivations of Stalin had seriously damaged internationalist Socialist movements while also making it easier for leaders in the west to tar far left movements as Russian subterfuge, and through all of this Fascists pretty much wrongfooted their Communist foes in most countries until the end of the war. Later, the erosion of the worker's position started way before the fall of SU, mostly as a result of the rise of new right movements represented by people like Thatcher and Reagan coming off of the economic crises of the 1970s. Within China the retooling of the state and its economy to what you see today began under the auspices of the likes of Deng Xiaoping in the late 70s too. Even ignoring all of this the Soviet Union was hardly a relevant force in most of the world, especially the west, in trying to protect workers and their rights by this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't think this is a very good analysis.The Welfare state was in it's genesis well before the formation of the Soviet Union as you can see from things like Social legislation in places like Germany decades before. A lot of that was an attempt to undermine support for leftist movements but nevertheless it laid down the groundwork. If anything you could make the argument that by the 30s the deprivations of Stalin had seriously damaged internationalist Socialist movements while also making it easier for leaders in the west to tar far left movements as Russian subterfuge, and through all of this Fascists pretty much wrongfooted their Communist foes in most countries until the end of the war. The reason that the postwar consensus about the necessity of the construction of the modern welfare state was even possible to form was the explicit argument that social welfare would undercut the appeal of communist parties in Western Europe. Just go back and look at what postwar leaders were saying about the welfare state and it's competely obvious. Even people like Churchill and de Gaulle were all in on what would be considered the reddest of communism today. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
I wonder how communist a country would become over time just by establishing a direct democracy. Randomly draw a statistically representative sample of people every couple of years and provide them the knowledge resources required to make decisions. Do the same for municipalities and throw some referenda into the mix. Or maybe instead of emulating the current house of representatives system, have public servants and citizens' associations identify problems and draw task-specific workgroups of workers that have a stake in the problem that they need to solve. For one, it would be a lot tougher to legally buy the loyalties of politicians that are selected randomly and often, cannot campaign for re-election and can't believably shift careers or start giving $100k speeches to bankers right after their stint. I know Switzerland is a normal liberal country, but citizens are mostly limited to voting there instead of actually proposing solutions that get discussed and polished with the help of the public apparatus before being put to vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Ownership is not a legal technicality. The average US car is 3X the average global yearly income and if you have one that's economic power in it's most basic and obvious form. There is a piece of paper somewhere in N Korea which says everyone owns the means of production. It's a worthless technicality and likewise the Soviet Union was another great example of a population that had no meaningful control over the means of production which were actually controlled by an unaccountable party elite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The average US car is 3X the average global yearly income and if you have one that's economic power in it's most basic and obvious form. No. Economic power in its most basic and obvious form is the ability to turn other people's wages into profits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:There is a piece of paper somewhere in N Korea which says everyone owns the means of production. It's a worthless technicality and likewise the Soviet Union was another great example of a population that had no meaningful control over the means of production which were actually controlled by an unaccountable party elite. Why couldn't a system of communism exist based around some sort constitutionally democratic system with functional checks and balances? That's what I'm interested in achieving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
White Rock posted:The factory boss who earns a wage is different from the capitalist who earns a living on the growth of company. It's not about class vs self interest. The shoe company that profits X dollars this year and X dollars next year doesn't collapse. It makes X dollars. The Kingfish posted:No. Economic power in its most basic and obvious form is the ability to turn other people's wages into profits. It's consumption. It's consuming other people's labor. The label profit is ultimately as significant as other labels for money like 'fee' or 'tax' - not significant. What ultimately matters is who gets what portion of the economic pie - not the label for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 03:16
|
|