850
Why does working class not simply eat the rich? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by CombatWombatEsq@lemmy.world to c/leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 year ago

For some reason there is a large group of people who think they have more in common with billionaire parasites like Musk, Buffett, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos than the local beggar on the street.

In reality, well over than 90% of us are closer to the penniless homeless person in terms of net worth than a billionaire.

[-] another_lemming@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

They are just apolitical, kek. I, being from r-ssia, was kinda surprised how many logical hoops ordinary people would make to rationalize not even showing support to corpo-rats, but killing people for money, being shot for doing that. Class conciousness needs a lot of work to start to be. There's none at this moment.

[-] foo@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

Have you seen them lately? All that Botox... Yuck

[-] Addition@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

We only have to eat one!

[-] Awhiskeydrunker@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

One per year

[-] ConfirmingMoose@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago

Because in the USA the police murder peoples that go at the rich.

[-] sofazen@eslemmy.es 3 points 1 year ago

Everywhere works like that. Police are there to serve the rich

[-] ConfirmingMoose@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

That is the problem.

[-] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I wish there was some kind of saying with an easy abbreviation that could express this

[-] yeeter@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Answering as an American:

Because the working class understands that “elites” are a necessary decadence and side effect of free markets, and they are fine with billionaires if it means those free markets enable them to live like a king from the 1800s, and they are not consumed with narcissistic jealousy of people that have more than them. Plus they understand history, and they see how class wars worked out in the Bolshevik revolution.

I consider myself rich AF, because I have a roof over my head, AC, and healthy food to eat, which is RELATIVELY easy to come by in America. Tradespeople like plumbers and electricians are doing very well in America, and if they are reasonably fiscally responsible and save their money well, then they can retire comfortably after 15-20 years of work.

Many people all over the world understand all of this, and they clamor to immigrate to America.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

between 15 and 25% of Americans are facing food insecurity. 25% of Americans are facing bankruptcy due to medical debt. 10% of Americans have no medical insurance. 63% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

That is not doing well, that is very fucking bad. And no, free markets do not require billionaires. We can get rid of all billionaires and distribute the money to the workers who actually generated that value, and still have healthy and relatively free markets.

[-] davidhaller@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would you choose to be paid in stocks instead of cash? That's exactly what "distribute money to the workers" means: Workers become shareholders of their company and profit through dividends and increased stock value, but they also have the risks of no dividends and decreased stock value if the company has a bad time. Lots of companies actually offer these "employee stocks".

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, all workers should get stocks in the companies they work for.

[-] davidhaller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would take the stocks, but most people seem to prefer cash instead.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

CEOs get cash as well, worker should get both.

[-] davidhaller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is already possible with many companys, but most workers choose 100% cash.

[-] Tavarin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not all that many. And it should be in addition to the cash, not an alternative. Workers should own at least 50% of all companies, and be able to outvote the board on any decisions that affect the company.

[-] kugel7c@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

There is a better alternative to this, especially since a lot of the time this stock is virtual/ non voting stock which doesn't really change the power dynamic it doesn't give the workers control over the capital. The workers resonably should be equal owners for example in a worker co-op.

[-] davidhaller@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Beeing in a cooperative would come with a finincially liability. You participate in both profits and losses, you even sometimes have to provide additional capital if losses were too heavy, and it's usually not so easy to leave the cooperative. Not many workers want that. They want the upside, the profits, of course, but are not willing to accept the downside.

[-] kugel7c@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

If there are limited liability business co op should also be allowed to be limited liability, also large losses where the business is in actuall cash flow trouble don't happen so frequently because they are generally less speculative, and have the option to instead of laying people off to reduce hours or pay temporarily. They largely don't even want the profits, they want to know the can live by their own therms, and work without being needlessly managed by people with no idea of the core business.

[-] davidhaller@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Even with limited liability, your shares on the cooperative are always at stake. The cooperative needs money to invest, which comes from their owners, which are the workers in that case (they trade a fraction of their salary to get shares of the cooperative, to participate in later profits). If the business fails, the money is gone and you would have been better of taking 100% cash. You have a combined risk of losing both your income and your savings.

Also, there a conflicts of interest. Look at automation, for example. A worker's cooperative would probably decide against automation, because the workers want to secure their own jobs, but in the long run the cooperative would go bankrupt as competitors could produce more efficiently and charge lower prices. That might be the reasons why such cooperatives are not very widespread.

[-] kugel7c@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Even with limited liability, your shares on the cooperative are always at stake. The cooperative needs money to invest, which comes from their owners, which are the workers in that case (they trade a fraction of their salary to get shares of the cooperative, to participate in later profits). If the business fails, the money is gone and you would have been better of taking 100% cash. You have a combined risk of losing both your income and your savings.

So it's the same as getting virtual stock as compensation just that you also get control over how the business is run. Which in my opinion makes the business better, you don't seem convinced but you don't seem to have a good reason for why because ..

Also, there a conflicts of interest. Look at automation, for example. A worker’s cooperative would probably decide against automation, because the workers want to secure their own jobs, but in the long run the cooperative would go bankrupt as competitors could produce more efficiently and charge lower prices. That might be the reasons why such cooperatives are not very widespread.

isn't really an argument against coops, similar shortsighted thinking can frequently be found in other forms of enterprise, if a private enterprise can rationalize automation a coop can as well and they can both fail to come to that conclusion. It's just that control over this automation is in the workers hand, and even if all the workers automate themselves away without finding other places to create value, the profit of that automation wouldn't be centralized quite so aggressively, because all (former) workers share in it. The workers fundamentally don't need to preserve their own jobs, rather they aim to preserve their livelihood.

I can offer a different explanation which partially explains their uncommon existence, which points again to the central conflict under capitalism, which is the unwillingness of conventional banks to approve credit for coops, making it much harder to start anything in the first place, particularly large capital investment like automation.

[-] davidhaller@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

In the financial sector, cooperatives are very common actually. Germany has a long tradition of "Genossenschaftsbanken" - banks that are owned by their customers. In the US, there is Vanguard for example, the seconds largest investment company, that is also owned by their customers.

Well, customers, not workers. Businesses are successfull when their customers are happy and purchase their goods and services, and they pay also the workers salary. Those cooperatives can have an competitive advantage over other types of corporations, as they don't need to make external investors happy, and are less prone to hostile take-overs.

If workers have significant influence over the business strategy...yes, automation wouldn't kill their shares, but it would kill their jobs and their monthly income, and most likely the yearly dividend is not high enough to replace your salary (unless you are an old worker close to retirement, maybe).

There are historical examples of workers cooperatives, however. In post-war Germany, there were real estate cooperatives where, instead of paying rent, you build new houses and get to live in one of them in return. Today, these cooperatives also collect rent but instead of construction work new tenants are required to invest into the cooperative, to they kind of transformed from worker-owned to tenant-owned.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Careful, if you keep licking that hard you might choke on that boot that's standing on all of our necks...

[-] Rhodin@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

The working class literally can’t afford to revolt.

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

ironically we have more to loose now than in the age of revolutions (at least in the imperial core). When most people truly had nothing to loose but theirs chains. Nowadays most of what we have "to loose" tho are empty platitudes, it's not bread and circuses anymore, just fastfood and apps...

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Can't afford to exist though either, so surely doing all out on the one that might actually get change is the better way?

(that's more rhetorical, sadly I am well aware of all of the hurdles put in our way by the very system we seek to destroy, and that keeping us fighting for survival, and against each other, so that we have no energy or resources to fight those in power is a feature not a bug)

[-] sensibilidades@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

perhaps they are saving that for sweeps

this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
850 points (100.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

4137 readers
355 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!

Rules

0. Only post socialist memes

That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
squid_slime@lemm.ee