141

submitted 3 months ago by join_the_iww@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 12 points 3 months ago

For me the difference is between survival and personal gain, those funds are a forced compromise

[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So then, where is the barrier? Is this an argument based in Moralism, or Materialism? The Proletariat can and must do whatever it can to improve its own conditions, and in the absence of a state that provides for it, this must be done via the Market.

I agree that Workers, especially Marxists, should try to reduce their harmful footprints as much as possible. Boycott union busters and supporters of genocide. However, when it comes to retirement savings, there exist no ethical ways to move forward, except to live entirely off the grid and refuse to use banking systems.

Unfortunately, this can lead to reactionary behavior, a turning back of the clock to an earlier stage of Capitalism. That's why homesteading has a huge fascism problem.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think it's productive to say investing is antithetical to leftism, considering the context. That would be like saying purchasing video games is antithetical to leftism, as they are for personal enjoyment yet support Capitalists. I try to think in terms of Dialectics and what materially benefits the proletariat, and ultimately if it becomes a matter of purity testing I believe we lose sight of the goals of Communism.

I dunno, this became a bit of a ramble. I'll end this with a fun quote:

“The moment anyone started to talk to Marx about morality, he would roar with laughter.”

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

I guess I haven't been clear enough in this thread, I completely agree with you

Retirement funds are an example of unavoidable participation in capitalism, but that doesn't mean that it's compatible with a socialist world view

Investing is and will always be antithetical to the immortal science, the goal is to make gains from other people's work

I have money on pension and insurance funds that use all available investment vehicles to maximize their profits, I have to compromise my values to get a (significant) portion of my produced value back because some libs thought that everyone should be an investor instead of feeding and housing old people as a right

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

Investing is and will always be antithetical to the immortal science, the goal is to make gains from other people's work

Yes, in principle, however in the context of the western proletariat who must engage with the market to ensure their own existence, I do not consider it anti-leftist to give investment advice. Only if it supports landlordism or business ownership outright.

I have money on pension and insurance funds that use all available investment vehicles to maximize their profits, I have to compromise my values to get a (significant) portion of my produced value back because some libs thought that everyone should be an investor instead of feeding and housing old people as a right

I don't believe this structure is because of Liberal ideas, but an attempt by Capitalists to tie Workers' futures to the same mechanism that enriches Capitalists, therefore reducing revolutionary pressure. This is a consequence of Imperialism, it's an effort to turn the Proletariat into complicit Labor Aristocracy.

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Yes, in principle, however in the context of the western proletariat who must engage with the market to ensure their own existence, I do not consider it anti-leftist to give investment advice.

I completely agree, the whole point I've tried to make in this thread is that A) investment is antithetical to leftist thought and B) most of us are still forced to participate in it

If you try to optimize your forced investments, I will look down on you

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So you can have retirement accounts, but moving money in those accounts to a better fund is immoral?

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Any capital gains from the work of others is immoral, the forced participation in investments is (currently) unavoidable

Billionaires and politicians have addresses

[-] sub_ubi@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What do you mean by forced?

[-] RION@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

i really do not understand how you're making that distinction. is it "anything specifically earmarked for retirement" is okay and all other investments beyond that aren't okay? what about college funds for children?

another point: it's perfectly conceivable to invest for the future outside a retirement account and still use those proceeds for survival. What if you need expensive medical treatment in your old age and that's the only way you're able to pay for it?

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Oh, if it's for your kids' college fund, invest in whatever you want, they obviously deserve more off the value the workers produce than the workers, they are so cute

[-] RION@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

???? do you think that if someone doesn't invest in a company that share of surplus value is just given back to the worker? it's never going to the worker in the first place under capitalism.

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

do you think that if someone doesn't invest in a company that share of surplus value is just given back to the worker?

100% of the value the worker produces belongs to the worker, this is at least my basis for Marxist thought

it's never going to the worker in the first place under capitalism.

And this is the first reason for our activism, it should

[-] Kolibri@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

I don't know if you have read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, but if not I want to quote this part that feels relevant to what your saying. Mainly just that even under a socialist state, the value produced by the worker isn't gonna 100% belong to them.

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

Critique of the Gotha Programme

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

A single worker doesn't produce 100% of the value, but 100% of the value is produced by the workers and 0% by the investors

[-] Kolibri@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing value isn't produced by the workers. I'm more saying if you think that surplus value is gonna go back into the workers that made it, that not entirely correct. Since as Marx points out, there would be deductions made and such like for the total working class, but someone making surplus-value isn't gonna get 100% of it back. Also to point something else out. Nature is a source of value to just as much as labor is.

[-] mayo_cider@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

Sorry, reading back my reply it sounds way more antagonistic than I intended

I agree with everything you said, my point was just that the current investment market is not the same as paying back a portion of the value you produce

[-] Kolibri@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Okay, sorry for being aggressive and yea it def. isn't the same

[-] marxisthayaca@hexbear.net 6 points 3 months ago

lol what a mature way of dealing with active questions that play a factor in our daily life, and could be the thing blocking a parent from being a communist.