it very much is a left right issue. Right wing libertarians and anarchy-capitalists may be against banks, but they somehow still are inclined to paying regular tribute to banks and financial institutions as part of debt, which they also argue is necessary to develop society.

But the thing is that wouldn’t banks simply act the same way as the state? Except they act in self interest and profit instead of for the interest of a collective? Wouldn’t that make them a parasitic entity? There’s no such thing as infinite growth, so what will happen when all capital is concentrated in financial institutions? They essentially hold all power. The freedoms we wanted to gain from the state are now in the hands of institutions that we can’t even manipulate to act in our own interests as normal people

i don’t care for loyalty. I pay people the same as me because we are, socially, the same. And this we are economically the same. They have families the same way I do, and thus they should be provided a living the same way I do.

not my job to care. I’m simply responding to points in a logical manner since a multitude of other people could be reading these messages. It’s important to provide your argument in a compelling, explicit, informative, and, if needed, belligerent manner so people understand the urgency and importance of changing the way we view labor relations

i also got time and enjoy educating people

"Right wing libertarians and anarchy-capitalists may be against banks, but they somehow still are inclined to paying regular tribute to banks and financial institutions as part of debt, which they also argue is necessary to develop society"

Yea because debt is part of a mutal agreement/contract made. if someone wants to borrow money nothing wrong with making them pay that back plus more

"But the thing is that wouldn’t banks simply act the same way as the state"

no because no one would be forced to do it.

"Wouldn’t that make them a parasitic entity"

banks are there to make money just like grocery stores are. no one is forcing you to use those services

im not a full blown libertarian def not an ancap. We need government for some things. But we should be able to have to contracts with consenting adults to do almost anything

a mutual agreement is different from the inherently exploitative system of capitalism

The idea that there is consent in the worker-owner labor relationship as it stands today is a fallacy. If one truly did have the agency to consent to the exploitation of their labor for profit (which is an unavoidable and scientific condition of capitalism as describe by both Adam Smith and Marx, the fathers of capitalism and socialism) by the owners of their workplace, then society should be expected to accommodate their rejection of the agreement in the first place, whether it be through housing or food aid, considering the fact consent means that any possible option should be reasonably accommodated by both parties

disagree with calling working a job exploitative. disagree on ur definition of consent to.

its not like u only have one option for a job there are millions of jobs put there. you can even start ur own business, farm or homestead

if anything it would be exploitation to have someone pay a lump sum up front to only be paid the same as people who didnt put that money up front.

they’re not opinions to disagree on. once again it’s economic science

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is essentially the blueprint for capitalist economic mechanisms in today’s world and it does a wonderful job of illustrating the economic system that we live in today, and how value is created by everyday workers (in the case of Smiths work it was colonial subjects in India and the Caribbean) but is concentrated in the economic stratosphere through the ownership of production

Smith himself abhorred economic magnates of Britain and landowners

define exploitation then

exploitation, in an economic context, is when the value that you create is not being returned to you at a definitively reasonable rate.

Intrinsically, every person on earth who actually works in tangible labor positions creates enough abstract “value” for themself to live and for others to live within their societal framework, whether it be an astronaut or a janitor. Society could not function without these tangible laborers, even those at the lower rung of the ladder. The fact that these people who perform essential work that we need every day (sometimes two or three times over) yet make enough money to place a roof over their heads, means that exploitation occurs somewhere along the labor chain of command.

It only grows more apparent when “essential workers” are branded as heroes for their work yet cannot be given a raise in minimum wage to combat ever increasing prices.

It also becomes apparent when owners of these major economic firms, investors, and other people who started off with enough leftover value from previous generation are able to further their own amount of wealth at the cost of said manual workers under the justification of “ownership.”

Ownership and managerial roles play little in regards to how much value is actually being created, just where it’s being directed; and having 0.1% of the worlds wealthiest nation hold FIFTY PERCENT of that nation’s wealth is simply not a natural way for society to be. It’s more akin to the feudalism of medieval europe, except the exploitation takes place on the abstract plane of the market and is dictated by ownership of fiat currencies instead of being claimant of an equally fiat divine mandate. But those conditions are only exasperated on the tangible stage by a police state that brutally oppressed reform for the laborer

Say I put a million dolllars of my own money to start a company and the company makes 1 million in profits a year. I hire 10 workers and pay them 70k would it be wrong for me take a 300k salary since I put money up front to start the business?

the issue is not you putting in a million dollars into it. HOW did you get that million? Did you prevent your workers from being fairly paid? Did you do it while taking far more than you need for yourself? What ever happened to the risks of capitalism being its security against exploitation? These are the questions that socialists want fair answers too. Not “how much are people being paid?” That was never the currency itself that is important. It’s the relationship between currency and power in society.

Putting a million dollars of value into a market means you can make equal returns and do it ethically. But it does not mean you should be able to usurp not only the livelihoods of your laborers, but the agency and democracy exercised by laborers to regain those investments.

Socialism is defined as the dictatorship of the laborer in that they must seize power so that they can direct society to be able to correctly represent their position in society fairly and to be able to prevent the overall usurpation of power amongst the common populace that is occurring through concentration of currency amongst people who take unethical measures to create capital.

I disagree with your entire premise.

If im taking most of the risk in the business I should also get a higher percentage of profits. It would be unfair for someone who didnt put money into business to get paid the same.l as someone who did.

If i own lemonade stand and pay for all the supplies but i hire you to work. I should make more
besides its my supplies you would be using etc. If you dont like the wage you can start ur own business, homestead/farm, or work somewhere else

It’s not a premise it’s a reality

I just said that the level of investment and labor you put in means you are entitled to your share to profits did you not read anything i said in the post at all

the issue is when you underpay, exploit, and abuse your workers to make your own ends meet, and you subsequently lock them out of the creation of their own profits to take it home for yourself unfairly. That is when issues arise in the workplace and that is specifically what socialism combats.

and the main idea with your second point is both an impossible notion that people hold and ignorant of your own requirements as the owner of a workplace. Somebody MUST be able to do the job that you want them to do, and you should be able to provide them a living wage in order to do so. People can’t simply go create business when they don’t agree with working conditions because once again, they must hire and maintain a business using money that they probably don’t have. You have to be considerate of other people’s economic condition

washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/20/usda-extends-universal-free-lunch

part of their effort for addressing food insecurity of over 12 million kids during the pandemic

School lunch should be free anyway.

Capitalism vs socialism debates become tedious and pointless when you realise both systems have countless different definitions to the point neither competitor will be in the same room as the other.

fax especially cause they forced to go.

good. and keep it that way

good stuff from biden admin

important to note that this is obviously not a patent waiver, however raw materials are a major obstacle to india meeting vaccine needs

i'd have hoped theyd have waived patents but still happy wth this

I am here to denounce any support of any conservatives of the past. Biden is bringing america back and the Democrats are our saviors.
Praise.