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

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again yes I did. I asked if you were confused because you kept trying to substitute your context for the one I meant my comments in.

If I was knowingly trying to substitute my context for yours then I wasn't confused, was I?

What do you have to disagree about in regards to my original comments in the context in which I meant them?

Other than that he didn't express it the way you said, nothing.

You asked me to explain it to you.

Was that a question?

 

[Curried Goats]

If I was knowingly trying to substitute my context for yours then I wasn't confused, was I?

Guy I don't know what you're doing now. I'm happy to admit I'm confused by this whole exchange.

Other than that he didn't express it the way you said, nothing.

What? Who's the he you're referring to here?

Was that a question?

It ended in a question mark. That's usually the telltale sign of one.

 

[Tyrion234]

He does it because he wants to, not because he has to as you just admited it. If you want to defend your good slave master, that's your prerogative. During slavery, there were good slave-masters, who treated their slaves well. The problem isn't so much with the salve-masters but with the institution of slavery. You're comfortable working for a good master, but nonetheless, you're a wage slave. Are you aware that when your master has access to intelligent robot cashiers, you're out of a job?

For people who work in the food industry:





What billionaires are saying:

​

Just like capitalism replaced feudalism, eventually due to advanced automation and AI, socialism (i.e. A marketless, non-profit, rationally planned, more democratic system of mass-production) will replace capitalism. Society will be forced out of necessity to adopt socialism. Even if markets continue to exist, with the government providing everyone with a UI i.e. Universal Income, that will be a form of socialism. Eventually markets will become completely obsolete and unsustainable due to the lack of wage-labor, and society will adopt marketless socialism. Think.

I want to like you I really do, it think about this, LeBron James and Tom Brady both earned everything they have because they provide a service (yes entertainment is a service) that others cannot, one is white one is black, but according to you we gotta take Tom’s money cause he’s white and LeBron earned his so he keeps his for his family cause you know slavery and sh*t

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You do sound like a loser. Does it keep you up at night worrying about losing. Equity does not keep the best down because it is not about being the best. Best is just a word. It is about understanding that all men and women are created equal.

But you believe your better than everyone else that why you will do anything to win even cheat.

That’s because you have no idea how to compete or what winning actually is. You think winning is your participation trophy collection. Which is exactly what equity is. Participation trophy’s for everyone. No winners or losers. All results must be equal.

So that in itself makes me better. And yes I’m willing to stomp your ass into the mud to win. That’s what winners do.

 

[scruffy]

In profits. That's value for the employer, profits. Your employer owns everything you produce and provides you with a wage, which is worth much less than the market value of what you're producing.

My employer is myself. I own everything I produce I even own stuff that other people produce for me. It's just stupid not to be your own company in today's world.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I want to like you I really do, it think about this, LeBron James and Tom Brady both earned everything they have because they provide a service (yes entertainment is a service) that others cannot, one is white one is black, but according to you we gotta take Tom’s money cause he’s white and LeBron earned his so he keeps his for his family cause you know slavery and sh*t

You don't get it. You're comparing Lebron and Tom Brady, two millionaires, to what I'm saying about over 60% of the American workforce, who live paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth.

 

[TruthNotBS]

My employer is myself. I own everything I produce I even own stuff that other people produce for me. It's just stupid not to be your own company in today's world.

Not everyone has the capital to start a business or become self-employed. However, despite people being self-employed, we still have to mine the raw materials from the mines, we need to process those raw materials, and then sell them and transport them to the factories that purchased them..etc. The factories will manufacture the products that you and I consume. All of that requires human wage labor until advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace those jobs. Those industries are the foundation of any modern, industrialized economy.

If we're buying everything from China and not mining or manufacturing anything here in the USA, then we're up the creek without a paddle, because we don't have the industrial, manufacturing infrastructure and base that we once had (We're a post-industrial nation, under the heel of Wall Street speculators and bankers). If all we have is retail and service jobs, without the industrial base to mine the raw materials and manufacture our own products, we're in trouble once advanced automation and AI, eliminate most retail and service jobs. You can be self-employed but without enough people earning wages, your one man business isn't going to survive.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You don't know what you talking about. The real productive value of work that I've done was worth many millions of dollars while I was being paid a whopping $24k.

Employers always asked how much money I was making at my previous job, and what my circumstances were so that they could calculate my financial status and only offer me the lowest salary they thought I'd be willing to accept - based on my financial desperation.

There was no relation between the value of the work that they demanded of me and what they were paying me.

Fortunately, in Connecticut it is illegal for employers to ask potential employees what their current salary is.

No it was not

It was worth presicely what you were paid and not a red cent more.

 

[Soupnazi630]

In the U.S., homelessness and starvation are the punishments for non-conformity.

Unless mammy and daddy will take you in.

Wrong they are not punishments at all they are failures of the individual

 

[Soupnazi630]

Convincing the American People that 'Freedom' means being a slave to your boss or being homeless was the greatest scam in human history.

The punishment for refusing to be obedient isn't being whipped, it's being homeless.

It's the business owners, executives and trust fund babies that do no productive work and are just parasites on the working class.

No one is a slave to their boss

Homelessness is the fault of the individual.

the busienss owners and executives do more productive work than all of their employees

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

​

Wealthy capitalists do in fact work to live and work harder than most.

That is how wealth is earned and created.

When you sell your labor power it is NOT selling your self it is trading what you have. There is NO such thing as a totalitarian workplace except under collectivist systems such as marxism,


Expoitation is more rampant and evil in ANY collectivist system such as marxism because it is involuntary. Under capltialism it is voluntary

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Wrong

YOU do not grasp the first thing anything whatsoever about the dynamics of labor to capitalism

This is because you ar ea marxist. Marx was the greatest fool and grifter who ever lived, His entire premise and theory has been disproven. Not debunked but DISPROVEN.

There is no PERCIEVED exploitatiuon of employers by the workers it is a very real exploitation and NO it is not different.

Surplus labor is one fo the many fictional busswords invented by marx to justify his idiotic and failed theories it does NOT exist,
So your breakdown is a complete failure from the first sentence

It is not a dichootomy nor is it false that collectivism and especially marxism ALWAYS has and ALWAY will result in poverty this is the result of slavery whcih is the heart and soul of marxism and the denial of reality

Socialism never replaces capitalism and never will it is always forced on people and then always fails and collapses resulting in a return to capitalism which works

Yoyu are completely wrong and ignorant of reality

My argument openly ACKNOWLEDGES the exploitation of people under capitalism.

What you ignore is that exploitation exists in every system to include communism and in fact it is worse because it removes voluntary choice,

Under capitalism you choose the manner of your exploitation under communism you do not.

You are posting lies

Your stupid sci fi pictures are meant to be a LAME attempt to convince peopel that communism leads to a bright future but it never does and never will

 

[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.

no you have not

You are simply responding to nature which dictates that your life requires maintenance and that maintenance is YOUR responsibility. It is no more FORCE than one is forced to learn to swim when they jump into deep water.

No it ewas never destroyed your lack of initiative is strictly on you.

 

[scruffy]

Not everyone has the capital to start a business or become self-employed. However, despite people being self-employed, we still have to mine the raw materials from the mines, we need to process those raw materials, and then sell them and transport them to the factories that purchased them..etc. The factories will manufacture the products that you and I consume. All of that requires human wage labor until advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace those jobs. Those industries are the foundation of any modern, industrialized economy.

If we're buying everything from China and not mining or manufacturing anything here in the USA, then we're up the creek without a paddle, because we don't have the industrial, manufacturing infrastructure and base that we once had (We're a post-industrial nation, under the heel of Wall Street speculators and bankers). If all we have is retail and service jobs, without the industrial base to mine the raw materials and manufacture our own products, we're in trouble once advanced automation and AI, eliminate most retail and service jobs. You can be self-employed but without enough people earning wages, your one man business isn't going to survive.

You don't understand.

EVERYONE should be a corporation unto themselves. That includes your mine workers.

You don't need capital. You can start an LLC for free in California and most other places.

This way the big corps have to pay you corp to corp, and you can sue the piss out of them if they steal your intellectual property.

Which you can't do if you're an "employee".

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Guy I don't know what you're doing now. I'm happy to admit I'm confused by this whole exchange.

I'll bet.

What? Who's the he you're referring to here?

Jesus please us. The guy who said "the value you provide".

It ended in a question mark. That's usually the telltale sign of one.

No it didn't. That's why I asked.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'll bet.


Jesus please us. The guy who said "the value you provide".

No it didn't. That's why I asked.

And then he responded to my post with...

Your value is what allows you leverage. If you provide no value to your employer, he fires you when you complain and gets a more pliable employee.

With both understand that your value in this context is the value you are providing to your employer. You're the one trying to make it more complicated for some reason.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And then he responded to my post with...

With both understand that your value in this context is the value you are providing to your employer. You're the one trying to make it more complicated for some reason.

Meh.

 

[Curried Goats]

Meh.

Good try.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Good try.

"Good try" at what?

 

[Curried Goats]

"Good try" at what?

Inventing disagreement