Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[AZrailwhale]

Your argument fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics of capitalism and labor exploitation. Let's break down why the exploitation of workers by capitalist employers is inherently different from any perceived exploitation by workers.

In a capitalist system, the employer owns the means of production—factories, machinery, technology, and capital. The workers, lacking these resources, are compelled to sell their labor power to survive. This labor power is rented by the employer at the lowest possible wage to maximize profit. The products of the worker's labor—created using their time, energy, and skills—belong to the employer, who then sells these products for profit. This is the essence of exploitation: the surplus value generated by the workers' labor is appropriated by the employer.

On the other hand, workers are not exploiting the employer; they are simply trading their labor for compensation. This is often done under conditions that are heavily skewed in favor of the employer, who holds more power and resources. The notion that workers exploit employers is a distortion of reality, as workers do not gain wealth or capital from this arrangement—they more often than not, merely earn a subsistence wage to cover their basic needs. Today millions of Americans are working two full-time jobs just to stay afloat, and pay their bills.

Your claim that capitalism is based on free trade ignores the inherent power imbalances. The so-called "free trade" is only free for those who own capital; for workers, it is a forced trade born out of necessity (WORK OR DIE! - Wealthy employers rely on other people's labor to live, while they amass capital without lifting a finger). When workers don't earn sufficient wages, they can't participate as consumers in the marketplace, which is why wage labor is central to the functioning of capitalism. Without wage-labor capitalists cease to exist, along with capitalism.

As for automation and AI, your argument fails to account for the transformative impact these technologies will have on labor and production. Advanced automation and AI will render many traditional jobs obsolete, significantly reducing the need for human labor in production processes. When wage labor diminishes, the market for consumers shrinks because people no longer have incomes to spend. This results in economic contraction and increased social unrest as masses of unemployed workers face poverty and hardship.

Never in capitalism's history or even human history, have we had the advanced automation and autonomous, intelligent machinery that we have today. So saying that in the past technology advanced and jobs still remained intact, fails to account for the unique level of autonomy that technology has today, no longer needing a human being to operate it, as always was the case before.

The argument that automation will create new jobs and replace the millions of jobs lost is also false. Yes, advanced automation, robotics, and AI may indeed create new jobs and industries, but they won't replace all or even most of the jobs lost. This will leave tens of millions of people unemployed. Most people will be rendered jobless, without wages or income. This is why socialism is needed.

The idea that socialism will become obsolete with automation is paradoxical. In fact, the opposite is true. As production becomes increasingly automated, the traditional capitalist model, which relies on wage labor, becomes unsustainable. Without wages, there are no consumers to drive demand, leading to market collapse. This necessitates a shift towards a system where the means of production—and the wealth generated by automation—are collectively owned and managed to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is being considered by some capitalists as a stopgap measure to address the inevitable fallout from mass unemployment due to automation. However, UBI alone does not address the fundamental issues of power and resource distribution inherent in capitalism. It is merely a band-aid on a system that is failing to adapt to technological advancements.

Your false dichotomy of "capitalism or poverty" ignores the historical progression of economic systems. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, socialism can and will replace capitalism when it becomes necessary to address the shortcomings of the latter. Socialism, with its focus on collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production, offers a viable alternative that can ensure everyone benefits from the advancements in technology.

Regarding the pictures and sci-fi images of space colonies and sea colonies, they are meant to illustrate the different options people will have in the future when automation replaces wage labor and produces all the consumer goods we rely on. We will live in cities that are cybernetically connected and automated.

In summary, your argument overlooks the inherent exploitation in capitalism, the impending crisis due to automation, and the necessity of transitioning to a more equitable economic system. Socialism is not just a theoretical alternative; it is an inevitable progression as we face the limitations and failings of capitalism in the age of automation. No wages mean no capitalism. When human labor is no longer needed for production, we must adopt a system that ensures the welfare of all, not just the wealthy elite.

In a free society like ours, there is no "inherent imbalance" the worker is free to take his or her skills and start competing with their former employer. It happens every day.

 

[dblack]

I have been forced to be productive since 1975. I need a place to live, food to eat, to support a family and make sure that my children have opportunity.

LOL - that's not force. You can tell your employer to piss off whenever you want. You might be broke, but you won't get arrested and go to jail.

What we're talking about is the "from each according to his ability" portion of your slogan. When the state decides that your "ability" is cleaning sewers, but you don't want to do that - should they force you to be "productive" anyway? Is that really how you want things to work?

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

Your view of society is fundamentally flawed, SoupNazi. In reality, our obligations extend beyond merely refraining from harming others or taking their property. Living in a society means we are interconnected and interdependent. Let's break down why your perspective is both impractical and morally deficient.

First, consider the hypothetical scenario of seeing someone drowning in a pool. In any functioning society, there's an expectation that you would at least call for help. Failing to do so could result in legal consequences because we recognize that neglecting to assist others in danger is inherently wrong. This principle underlines the fact that we have positive obligations to each other—obligations that extend beyond not harming or stealing.

Now, addressing your claim that no one has the right to resources or the basics to live: this is a myopic view. Societies thrive on cooperation and mutual support. Historically, communal resource-sharing has been fundamental to human survival. In modern societies, the concept of ensuring basic resources for all is not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity. Without access to resources like education, healthcare, and housing, individuals cannot contribute effectively to the economy.

You mention that advocating for communal resources equates to advocating for slavery. This hyperbolic rhetoric ignores the fact that modern capitalist societies already depend heavily on collective resources and government intervention. The infrastructure that supports commerce, from roads and bridges to internet access and power grids, is largely funded by public money.

Contrary to your claim, the government’s role in ensuring basic needs is not a form of enslavement but a safeguard against the very kind of exploitation and inequality that unregulated capitalism perpetuates. In fact, scholars like Karl Polanyi in "The Great Transformation" have illustrated how markets, left to their own devices, can lead to significant social and economic upheavals, necessitating government intervention to restore stability and protect citizens.

Moreover, your belief that individuals owe nothing to their community ignores the concept of social contracts and civic duties that are essential for any society to function. Jury duty, paying taxes, and following laws are all part of the implicit agreement we have as members of a society. Ignoring these responsibilities leads to chaos and undermines the very fabric of community life.

Capitalism, as you describe it, operates within the framework established and maintained by government. Without regulations, protections, and public services, capitalism would not function.

In summary, the idea that we owe nothing to each other and that the free market can solve all problems is a dangerous fallacy. Our obligations to one another extend beyond mere non-interference; they include positive actions to help and support each other. Government intervention is not only necessary to correct market failures and provide public goods but also to ensure a just and equitable society where everyone has the basics needed to succeed. Ignoring these realities leads to a society that is unjust, unstable, and ultimately unsustainable.

Some of your points apply to Christian values and moral ethics… and common sense. Like the idea of public taxpayer money going to help babies and children who have no parents or anybody to take care of them that is in line with the values of Jesus. People who oppose it are obviously monsters. One cannot imagine the sight of a six-year-old whose parents are crack addicts or living in prison …..dying on the streets. … public funded taxpayer money should help out those kids.

we do have to have authority and government protections. When left to their own devices corrupt employers would employ children as sex slaves. That’s occurring in the world right now. It is only prevented it societies where they have a value system and authority to stop that.

Conservatives are not against having a police force, a military or government protections. I think you’re talking about anarchists.

It took government regulation and we could even say Christian values to put an end to child sweatshops in America in the late 19th century.

I also hope you can recognize that DEI and Black Lives Matter are racist organizations that go against both liberal and conservative values. For how they want for example to force employers to have hiring quotas.

Left her own devices renters would charge 100 times what they should be charging for monthly rent on apartments. This is obvious.

I think most conservatives and most liberals all agree that we have to have some form of authority. Otherwise, you would simply have complete madness and chaos in the United States like they do some of the countries in Africa and South America.

Democrats used to care about all these issues, even 10 years ago. But very recently they are brainwashing people with race division and utter nonsense that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The key to understanding the MAGA cult, is that they are Mussolini fascists.

Mussolini was anti-Liberal, Anti-Progressive & Anti-Socialist. His goal was to preserve the Feudal Socio-economic order that had been left after the King of Italy abdicated.

The majority of the people elected to the new Italian Parliament were liberals, progressives and Socialists who had started making major changes to the existing feudal socio-economic order.

Mussolini convinced Italian WWI vets that changing the feudal socio-economic order was Anti-Italian and used them to overthrow the Democratically elected government.

The same thing happened in Spain with Franco - Franco succeeded. Spain remained an economic & cultural shit hole until Franco died 40 years later.

Now the MAGA movement is trying to permanently instantiate a rigid socio-economic order whereby everyone's status is determined by their birth right instead of by personal achievement.

The wealthy are born wealthy, and they deserve to be wealthy for that reason. The poor are born poor, and they deserve to be poor for the same.

We are a very, very long way from being a country where either equality or equity are a reality. But those are goals that every American should believe in. The goals of the fascist MAGA movement are antithetical to American values.

The MAGA cult is trying to stop personal achievement from determining people's status in life- they've mostly been born into a privileged class - they desperately want to keep the socio-economic status the way it is or return things to the way they were.

Most wealthy in the USA are NOT born wealthy. The average millionaire drives a Ford F-150 and wear work shirts.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Don't be an idiot. No, he does not rent the person's life for Christ's sake.


It doesn't belong to him, he pays for it.

What is socialism going to do, pay you for doing nothing?

Unlike wealthy capitalist employers who don't need to work to live, when you sell your labor power, you're selling yourself as a commodity in a labor market. You're risking your health, life..etc, subjecting yourself to the totalitarian workplace, that reduces you to a commodity, a product and part of the means of production for the person whose renting you for eight, ten, twelve hourly daily. The risks workers take are much greater than the monetary risks of a wealthy capitalist, allowed to exploit you by a society under the heel of plutocrats.

​

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So what are you saying because the original person I was responding to seems to have understood me just fine?

Him understanding you was not the problem, it was you not understanding him. He made it clear he was talking about the value (of the work) provided to the employer, not the value of the person.

 

[366h34d]

Equity does give everyone a chance at that apple by making adjustments.

equality does not guarantee that you will get that apple and failure is always an option simply because of circumstances beyond your control. There are winners and losers.

So equity makes everyone a winner. levels the playing field.

when everyone is a winner, it also means everyone is a loser

 

[AZrailwhale]

Unlike wealthy capitalist employers who don't need to work to live, when you sell your labor power, you're selling yourself as a commodity in a labor market. You're risking your health, life..etc, subjecting yourself to the totalitarian workplace, that reduces you to a commodity, a product and part of the means of production for the person whose renting you for eight, ten, twelve hourly daily. The risks workers take are much greater than the monetary risks of a wealthy capitalist, allowed to exploit you by a society under the heel of plutocrats.

​

You are one of the idiots who thinks management/owners don't work. Here's a clue, most managers/owners work about twice the hours their employees do per week. If someone is a member of the "idle rich" they have employees swindling them of their wealth and their children go broke. Why do you think most professional athletes and mega-stars go broke? The people they pay to do the work of managing their wealth either rip them off or allow them to waste it by spending far faster than they can earn wealth.

 

[366h34d]

What is equity? only need to look at China in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It is "FINE", will it work in the US? imagine the US is one big unionized organization, maybe some people like it, but I don't.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Unlike wealthy capitalist employers who don't need to work to live, when you sell your labor power, you're selling yourself as a commodity in a labor market. You're risking your health, life..etc, subjecting yourself to the totalitarian workplace, that reduces you to a commodity, a product and part of the means of production for the person whose renting you for eight, ten, twelve hourly daily. The risks workers take are much greater than the monetary risks of a wealthy capitalist, allowed to exploit you by a society under the heel of plutocrats.

You seem to be under the impression that we have no choices.

​

What is the purpose of this video?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I have been forced to be productive since 1975. I need a place to live, food to eat, to support a family and make sure that my children have opportunity.

However, my ability to have any capitalist initiative was destroyed by the extremely low pay when I was young. My employers made sure that I lived paycheck to paycheck - despite the fact that I produced far more than I was being paid. They got wealthy from my hard work, intelligence and naive good will.

That's what capitalism has become - the economically advantaged taking advantage of the economically disadvantaged.

Wrong.

You and only you ensured you live pay check to pay check.

You produced less than you were being paid bvy definition,

 

[Curried Goats]

Him understanding you was not the problem, it was you not understanding him. He made it clear he was talking about the value (of the work) provided to the employer, not the value of the person.

He did not make that clear. In fact he re-used my phrase and said Your value is what allows you leverage. He didnt go on a silly tangent where he pretended a persons skill and knowledge is separate from themselves rather than an extension of themselves.

 

[Tyrion234]

People get paid based on the value they provide.

This is correct and according to whom you were responding to it seems they feel people should be paid what they earns company and the owners should get nothing right? Sounds genius

 

[Curried Goats]

In a free society like ours, there is no "inherent imbalance" the worker is free to take his or her skills and start competing with their former employer. It happens every day.

Of course there is an imbalance of power between capitalist and laborers.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

He did not make that clear. In fact he re-used my phrase and said Your value is what allows you leverage. He didnt go on a silly tangent where he pretended a persons skill and knowledge is separate from themselves rather than an extension of themselves.

I didn't say a person's skill and knowledge are separate from themselves.

 

[Curried Goats]

I didn't say a person's skill and knowledge are separate from themselves.

So what are you saying? Clearer this time so that I can understand the point you're trying to make.

 

[Tyrion234]

Social programs or public services that provide affordable housing, healthcare, education, job training, and employment opportunities, help people get out of poverty.

Or perhaps keep people comfortable and in poverty…

 

[MarcATL]

No citations. No authorship. Not even a date on your "articles." If you had actually done the 40 years of research you claimed, then you would have some idea of an authoritative source.

Seems we have a new far rightwing idiot in town folks, stand back and stand by!

 

[struth]

Unlike wealthy capitalist employers who don't need to work to live, when you sell your labor power, you're selling yourself as a commodity in a labor market. You're risking your health, life..etc, subjecting yourself to the totalitarian workplace, that reduces you to a commodity, a product and part of the means of production for the person whose renting you for eight, ten, twelve hourly daily. The risks workers take are much greater than the monetary risks of a wealthy capitalist, allowed to exploit you by a society under the heel of plutocrats.

​

employers don't need to work to live? what?

 

[dblack]

employers don't need to work to live? what?

It's the standard socialist trope. Profit is "money for nothing" (and chicks for free).