Wendy I’m familiar with your argument and I’ll tell ya why it doesn’t hold with the marxist. Wealth accumulated either through inheritance or through profiting from buying labor, that gets lost in taking a ‘risk’, is wealth that the capitalist appropriated and did not create. Meaning he’s technically ‘risked’ what somebody else made.
Say I had a mil that I made off my sweatshop. I invest half of it in another business venture and fail. The risk I took was greater than any blue collar worker ever took, but I never worked a lick to make any of the money I lost. I literally haven’t even been to the sweatshop factory and dont even know who runs it. I got guys who handle that for me. Really it’s no problem because one of my other companies makes that much in profit in one day.
The ‘risk’ in the abstract is certainly greater- that’s a shit ton of money. But ‘risk’ by itself is meaningless unless we are able to evaluate the kind of ‘loss’ that is occurring. A good quick but crude example of what I mean is… we’d consider a man with only five dollars who lost two, to have experienced a more significant loss than a billionaire who lost a million.
So I’d sooner have sympathy for a worker who risked having car trouble for having to drive 75 miles to work every day, than a millionaire who lost a hunerd grand on a bad call.
How is the Entrepreneur, the ones who actually start the business and own it, “extraneous”?
He is the most essential core of the business! Without the Capitalism, there is no business! Without the ownership, there are no factories, no economy, no work at all!
Imagine yourself as a Contractor. It’s not easy as you say. You could very well lose all of your investments. You could very well lose money, lay-off your workers, and go bankrupt. Most business startups fail.
Although i, contra the communist, would permit passing inheritance in the form of property and/or savings. You have every right to be given personal property or money from your family. That’s none of the governments goddamn business what yo moms is tryna do with her stuff when she die.
Yeah but how do you measure how ‘bad’ that is? Is it what was lost, or where he ends up because of that loss? If the former, refer to my reply to wendy. If the latter, then, assuming this guy doesn’t become homeless (rare for failed business men), he’s now more or less in the same circumstances as a lotta workers; very little property and assets, but a place to live and an income allowing you to barely sustain it all.
If that’s the case, then you’d be sympathizing with te he working class because they’re ALREADY like that, bruh.
So which is it. How do you gauge the meaning of the word ‘loss’. Is it so bad because the cappy is now a wage worker living in an apartment, or because he lost a hunerd grand?
Do the math. Or better yet, do it yourself. Start a contract. Do you know the costs of the houses you work on???
The Contractor buys the materials. Have you not had deals fall through? Bad construction jobs? Accidents? The Contractor is taking the brunt of the risk, not you the worker.
A theory without a centre, without a ground, a logic without premises; a gigantic hype to rouse up the uninformed to kill people and feel good about it.
Dont pretend there is a peaceful way to be a marxist. No one believes it.
Sure, but modern capitalism allows banks (and thus bankers) to make money out of the act of loaning money. Not, mind you, just via interest, but the act of loaning money means they can now invest money they did not have before they made that loan. And they can loan money, of course, that they do not have, then invest the hallucinated money. Modern capitalism allows you to make profits off of other people’s ideas. It allows you do make money by betting or know that a company will fail. In fact it allows you to let other people make such bets for you. Modern capitalism, in the US say, allows you to pay lobbyist to press for legislation that will get you money. it allows you to buy or rentshare candidates (when they come into office) via campaign finance. Modern capitalism allows a politician to enact policies so that he gets paid incredible sums, by the companies he benefits, when he shifts to the private sector. And he may come back again to being a politician or cabinet member and do it all over again. There’s clever as in creative or genius
and then there’s clever as in
slimy bastard.
The latter accounts for why, for example, the US is not a democracy and not even really capitalist.
It’s an oligarchy and it’s a weird kind of mixed feudalism.
Karpel, phoneutria’s just a merchant who thinks she has to therefore defend capitalism because she’s afraid of Brazilian socialism because she learned in Sao Paulo high school that the commies were evil.
K: and we have another failure to understand Marxism…
You have conflated Marxism, written by Marx, with Leninism/Stalinism…
they are two completely different things…
Under Lenin and Stalin, they turned Marxism, which is an economic system,
into a political system, which it was never meant to be… of course there
was failure, the second part is that Leninism and Stalinism is really
just another word for a Dictatorship… that is what Leninism and Stalinism
is, a dictatorship… it had nothing to do with what Marx was talking about…
which was an economic plan for the state…which made workers the priority,
not the leadership of the Party…
You can blather all you want but with your blindness to suffering and your happiness to spread nazi propaganda you’re still complicit in child drape and child murder on a great scale.
I dont really feel like excusing you people for that anymore.
so what
the whole collective human global civilization is growing wealthier
capitalism doesn’t solve inequality, but it promotes wealth across all classes
marxism has been proven literally every time it was implemented to fail to promote wealth
while at the same time also fail at solving inequality