- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
From my understanding, our case studies in communist societies have the same if not worse weath dispersal, so I don’t believe that this is a communist Vs capitalist issues, and more of a corruption of either societal type problem due to people being easily taken advantage of in groups.
Please correct me if I’m wrong in this though, I may simply be falling for the propaganda machine.
Criticisms of rampant capitalism do not necessitate promoting communism as the solution.
How is this corruption of capitalism? It’s kinda like, the entire point. Capitalism without inequality is contrary to its definition
Capitalism without inequality is contrary to its definition
I mean kinda, but it’s a matter of degrees. Capitalism revolves around the private ownership of capital, so will not enforce a given level of (in)equality. Still though, the overall amount of inequality (I.e. by the GINI index) can vary quite dramatically between capitalist societies. From Brazil up in the 60’s to Germany down in the 30’s.
I don’t know but if people could agree to take just a tiny bit of profit, everyone would be happy. Sure, inequality would still exist but it wouldn’t be the-top-one-percent-owns-half-of-the-total-wealth inequal
I mean not really. Certainly could be argued that it’s the natural conclusion of capitalism in our society, but it’s not the point. With capitalism as intended, the worker who is working longer hours in a position far more crucial to society should be earning significantly more than the fat cat who is making little positive impact on society and is working shorter hours.
So yeah, pretty much any real-world implementation of capitalism will reach this result because greed exists, but the ideals of capitalism are quite opposite.
Not really. The worker should be making however much it costs to replace them. If the worker is easily replaced, they’ll make very little, but if they have niche skills, they should be well paid. The worker can always move somewhere that they’ll be paid better, and the employer can always look for a replacement.
You are correct. Also, these one dimensional posts fail to acknowledge the cost of buildings, utilities, taxes, marketing, administration, etc.
In a communist society, isn’t the wealth not supposed to be accumulated by a handful of investors ? If that wealth not centralized on a few staleholders isn’t it more distributed or spent on social systems / societal expenses ?
In communism there is no wealth, since it would be a moneyless society.
communist societies
Which exactly would those be? I’ve never heard of one
Presumably there was an agreement between these two as to how the value would be distributed before it was produced, no? If Hat Guy didn’t like that deal, why would he perform the work in the first place?
Hat man does not own a factory
If Hat Guy didn’t want to work for that split then Capitalist Guy would just hire someone else who would. Refusing to work until the split is better only works if all the Hat Guys organize and do it unison. That’s what a union is. It’s an organized negotiation tactic for better employment contracts for everyone.
deleted by creator
Because hat guy has the unfortunate limitation of being human. Requiring food that he can’t necessarily procure himself, as well as the ability to pay for housing which is not giving out freely.
And since everyone that owns Factory has this same level of disparity between worker produced value and worker given pay there isn’t much option for hat guy
