both of yall and the creator of the image above are skating past the questions of labor as private property aka wage slavery and wealth concentration. im just letting yall know that those who critique capitalism are not talking about anything on that list but instead concerned with the fact that labor, housing, health, and policy are commodified under capitalism to create terrible conditions for youth and families to thrive as well as a massive wealth gap between those at the top and us. only a state forged by the CEOs maintains that contradiction.

marxist economics emerged as a critique to the 2 class caste system (the class that hoards capital via the commodification of labor and policy and the working class AKA the haves and the have nots). by regurgitating conservative talking points about what marxism is or isnt and putting me in a category of not being able to think outside of the "shell" of capitalism, you're displaying an inability to engage in a rigorous debate about models of production in society. only when structural incentives change in these production models will the state dissolve and the world move beyond capitalism / socialism to something better. economic freedom should not be reserved only for the capitalists. the laborers deserve it too. we deserve a choice in selling our labor to a CEO, the epitome of centralized power, or using it to better our communities.

that whole absolutism about there being no alternative to capitalism is also disingenous. global capitalism has been mad unstable in the last couple hundred years. along with periodic recessions caused by the excess surplus in production, it had to be saved by SOCIALISM during the great depression via the new deal as well as the 07 - 08 financial crisis via bank bailouts. within these "cycles" of capitalism lies turmoil and tragedy for the every day family. i know people that know people that killed themselves when they lost everything in 07-08.

the puppet masters are the CEOs who exploit the economic model of production to maintain a hegemony over the world and its institutions. these are the same puppet masters that inspired facist dictators through Latin America, Europe, and southeast Asia over the last century to weaponize the state to maintain a two class caste system (laborer aka exploitee and employer/state aka exploiters) in their coutries and squash all dissent.

Labor is not private property.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ahhh its not?? why don't I own what I produce in the 8 hours of my shift? why does all of that surplus go to a CEO?

nostr:nevent1qqs8780kdkv4sp8lzjalyxm7ftg8taca4evun9fjt3jkj59jyapmrysppamhxue69uhhxmmvda3k7tnwdspzqth65u2mhdrd6klxkldg6acqyek3ze6tjyacz79dmdwzuc7esue3qvzqqqqqqy28ywkc

can you flesh out a little better what you mean by "mixes" in the context of labor as an economic input of capitalism by the employer/capitalist class? plantation owners also mix their economic goods (land, accumulated wealth, tools aka CAPITAL) with labor (slaves) to yield economic goods like sugar, cotton, etc.

Why don't you own what you produce? Because you signed a voluntary employment contract that states you won't own what is produced. Perhaps you shouldn't have signed it if you didn't want that outcome. You can't be forgiven for renegging on your voluntary agreement.

By "mixes" I meant: if I own an unimproved resource and I improve it by working on it, I've made it more valuable to others and I can trade it with those who want it. And they'll pay a price for the improved product that reflects the work I put in to improve it. If instead of Me working on it, I offered someone else a wage (they agreed to) to improve it, the situation is no different. Except maybe I have to sell it for a little more to account for the wages I paid.

Nobody in that situation has been "enslvaved" - all of those agreements, from wages to final trade, were voluntary.

Just because someone doesn't have access to some imagined better situation doesn't mean they were enslaved against their will (where they "could have had otherwise if not for being forced) into their current reality. I don't have access to a flying car. Is my current car enlsaving me to the ground without my consent? No, it's simply not an option for me to have a flying car. Hopefully my children will have that option, but I don't. Shall I forceably coerce others with the ultimate (unobtainable) goal of providing me with flight? Is that reasonable of me or even in my own best interests?

every employment contract ever signed between a capitalist and an employee whose labor they want to exploit is one signed under duress. its not in the employee's interest to not accept these wages. How else are they going to pay for shelter, food, or health care? if you don't provide a roof over your head, the police will arrest you for sleeping at the park. the affordable care act mandated most us residents to have health care, meaning that the state could come for you if you didnt. if you dont feed your kids, the state will take them from you. at every turn, its forced coercion by the capitalists, who have the means to pay you wages, or the state, who will come for you if you don't.

Take the community of exploitation you're describing and imagine there are a set of stateless, voluntary anarchist societies open to immigration. Some are ancap, some are ancoms, some are something else entirely. These exploited laborers can go to one of those where they suspect they'll fare better.

Do you see a a problem with that?

nostr:nevent1qqsfxhgjh20g6r2yaq306ksxzltz4umusl85ppxew25tshss23nlzkspr3mhxue69uh5ummnw3ezucmvda6kgtnkd9hxuete9eu8j7szyqh04fc4hw6xm4d7dd7634msqfndz9n5hyfms9u2mk6u9e3anpenzqcyqqqqqqgc2vmgy

nope. just like Castro didnt hold anybody hostage in Cuba, anybody and everybody is free to find better for themselves and their communities.

🤝

What if they don't have the means to travel away from Cuba because they were never allowed to accrue wealth? Couldn't that been seen almost similarly to "wage salves" in the sense that "they can go elsewhere if they want!" (But really they don't have options or means to exit because the state system defacto reduces their options)

maybe? a u.s. government corporation (FDIC) currently manipulates the cost of credit to reduce options for their citizens to afford a home for their families. the u.s. state also works with private corporations in keeping criminals out of the work force by prioritizing hiring folks without a record, reducing their options too.. Cuba's particular situation is a cruel blockade by the u.s. that bars them from accessing credit markets and disincentivizes companies from doing business with them or shipping anything into or out of the country easily, so its a capitalist fascist empire state that is ultimately preventing any kind of wealth accumulation from happening in Cuba, not any kind of socialist government suppression of economic development. there are lots of private cooperatively run enterprises in Cuba. a lot of these folks get help from family outside.

until the capitalist state is abolished we will all be wage slaves.

Under socialism in Cuba you could get personally rich enough to leave?

yup, why wouldnt you?