2111
fair share? (discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MattsAlt@hexbear.net 43 points 11 months ago

They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

What's your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

[-] fox@hexbear.net 38 points 11 months ago

Yes, if you can control more wealth than a mid size city earns in ten lifetimes, you should not be allowed to do that

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago

I don't think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it's worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

[-] very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net 28 points 11 months ago

Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago

Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What's the problem ?

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 26 points 11 months ago

Why don't the underpaid employees simply buy enough stock to sway company policy blob-no-thoughts

[-] silent_water@hexbear.net 24 points 11 months ago
  1. those shares don't give you voting rights

  2. those shares amount to a tiny fraction of the total value of the company

  3. without the employees there would be no company

you try to square those three facts

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago
  1. So all those times I've gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

  2. Of course they do, I don't expect a given employee who isn't the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

  3. So what? What's your point?

[-] DictatrshipOfTheseus@hexbear.net 22 points 11 months ago
  1. Mostly it was about fooling you into thinking that, as a worker, you have even an iota of power within that company.

  2. You: "The owners deserve all the value that results from owning the company and not the workers because the owners own the company, duh." Reread what you said and note the ridiculous circular logic.

  3. The company would continue to function perfectly fine without the owner(s), yet would immediately cease to function or even exist without the workers. The only role the owner plays in the company (that the workers operate), is to siphon the value away from the workers who made it and unto themselves.

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago
  1. The workers get paid, they get value out of it, they aren't slaves.

  2. The company wouldn't exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

Look at a company like Blockbuster. With a better owner they could have changed their position to stay around as a company, but the owner made bad choices. If there was no owner what would have happened? It probably would have failed even quicker because there is nobody making decisions and most employees probably didn't see the wiring on the wall until it was too late.

A good owner would have seen the direction the market was going and changed the company to prepare. Netflix has been fighting this fight for a while now, switching from streaming other's content to making their own content. Without an owner they would have died a long time ago.

[-] very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net 5 points 11 months ago

The company wouldn't exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

The kingdom wouldn't exist without monarchs, someone created it, someone started it, someone rules it. The monarchs are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the kingdom.

Americans are so pro-democracy, but they'll bust out the most self-defeating, thoughtless, begging-the-question-ass logic to argue against having democracy in the workplace. Sad.

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

I hope you can realize this is a false equivalency, but maybe you can't?

[-] very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago

I hope you can realize this is a false equivalency, but maybe you can't?

If you believe so little in democracy in the workplace, why do you bother with democracy at all? Should other institutions that govern our lives also function as oligarchies, dictatorships, autocracies?

[-] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Maybe a workplace and a government are different and shouldn't be run the same way? Just a thought.

[-] very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net 16 points 11 months ago

Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else.

And vote with what money? Income inequality is arguably as worse as it has ever been. More and more workers are forced to live on wages that can't even cover their basic needs, let alone buying power, while the capitalist/owning class is hoarding unbelievable wealth.

How can workers vote with their money to overturn a system designed by wealthy employers to make themselves as wealthy as possible (a system that involves keeping employee wages as low as possible, btw)? That's the fucking problem, lmao.

Consider this: Wealth inequality in America today is worse than it was in ancient Egypt. Your "solution" is like asking asking what's the problem with the slaves of ancient Egypt not buying their way into power.

[-] Zuzak@hexbear.net 11 points 11 months ago
[-] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 24 points 11 months ago

Why would you expect a different opinion from a bunch of communists?

[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 3 points 11 months ago

i'd expect a debate between taking away ownership from them, and taking away ownership from their estate.

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
2111 points (96.6% liked)

Lefty Memes

4134 readers
691 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