this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
739 points (84.7% liked)

Memes

45775 readers
2569 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
739
eat the rich (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ThunderChunk@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 

It's a meme

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let's start with your first assumption. Why must a factory have individual owners? Why not instead have it owned by the workers who are the ones actually producing?

Also, don't conflate private and personal property. If you are indeed talking about private property, it is very unlikely you have any to begin with. The vast majority of private property is owned by a few billionaires.

Lastly, people do not need money to incentivise work. Boredom, creativity and the desire to help and or contribute to society does that well enough. Given a stable level of comfort, people will seek work that matters to them.

[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Because the workers didn’t find the money to buy a whole factory..

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And what system do you think is keeping the workers too poor to do that?

What system makes it so that work must involve the buying of private property in the first place?

Also, here's a perspective you might not hear often: why should the owner bear that burden and risk alone? That seems like too much pressure for one person. Poor capitalist. Doesn't he realise he needs help?

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even if we ignore the artificially increased transaction costs and hold out problems associated with private ownership that make acquiring means of production more expensive, this point only justifies some sort of compensation from the workers as part of the negative fruits of their labor in production. It does not justify the capitalist appropriating 100% of the positive (legal right to produced outputs) and negative (legal liability for the used-up inputs) fruits of the workers' joint labor

[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The workers get money for their labor..

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Property's moral basis is getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. Capitalism denies the workers this as the employer solely appropriates the positive and negative fruits of their labor. The core of property's moral basis is the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. Receiving wages is not sufficient because the workers remain de facto responsible for the whole (positive and negative) product of the enterprise and are entitled to it on that basis

[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I own private property and am not a billionaire, so not sure what you are on about with that statement. I got educated and have a decent living situation with a nice corporate remote job. I’ll have my student loan paid off around 40. These things were all easy to do. The people with issues do this to themselves. Sorry you are lazy and want to leach off my success.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's like you're ignoring everything I say. Unless you're a landlord or the owner of some business, you probably don't own private property. If you can sit back and let other people make money for you without your input, you own private property.

Your comment reads like a copypasta. Why are you callibg me lazy? Did I say I don't want to work? Of course I want to work. You're not paying attention. There are huge barriers to people being able to succeed, and getting past thrm requires immense effort, luck or privilege. And the last one is the only guaranteed win.

[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I learned ro code from handmedown computers at a young age and worked my way up the corporate ladder. I own a nice big home and am a millennial. I completed a part time MBA while working and am able to take vacation every three months or so. Nothing is stopping you all from being successful, but yourselves. I agree that the system has massive flaws, but destroying capitalism isn’t the answer. The risk-reward system works.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like you don't own any private property, then.

[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. I live in it, but I could because it is a free country. Unlike the “people-owned” regime that you are proposing.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't deserve to own land you don't use. Sorry :)

[–] porkins@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean. I live on my land. Also, if I wanted to buy other land, I can because the system works.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

This reads like dialogue from a satirical sketch about an out of touch wannabe landlord