What the capitalists did was pay all the workers right after they did the work, even though the phones wouldn’t actually be sold for some time after that. Capitalists bring capital. Money. It takes money to get things started.
I completely agree that the rewards are all disproportionate. The people who put up the capital shouldn’t get all the rewards. But it’s just dumb to claim that they play no role at all. If that’s true, walk out of your house and make a phone you designed yourself out of sticks you find on the ground.
Where did that capital come from?
The same place the fed and skilled laborers came from: the proceeds of previous enterprises.
It only “takes money to get things started” because our economy is organized that way.
How else are you going to get 200 people together to assemble phones for a week?
A much higher financial incentive because they’d actually be the ones profiting from the sale of the phones. There are organizational structures other than corporations.
I was once asked to join a startup, and after a few chats I was ready to talk turkey. Then they sprung it on me that since there was no revenue yet, no one was making a wage. But my equity in the company would be correspondingly high.
I couldn’t do it. I had bills to pay. I was stunned that they thought I could do this, and I slowly realized that everyone else there was an ex-Googler and basically rich already.
So you see, I’ve been in the exact position you suggest your workers will jump at, and it does. not. work. People need to pay rent this month and can’t wait through a months long production chain and months long sales cycle all of which is full of risk. They need to get paid, for sure, not maybe, and now.
I’m not in here touting the glory of capitalism as if it’s a wonderful system. But I’m also not spouting pure fantasy bullshit about alternatives we can just switch to easy-peasy, because that’s a bunch of half-baked idealistic crap.
Yeah I mean I know it doesn’t work under this economic system, but that’s kind of the point I was making
I have heard this several times throughout this thread that sure, capital is necessary in this system, but that’s just an artifact imposed by this system. Under another system you wouldn’t need it.
I’m still waiting to hear any system where startup costs are not a factor and people can work on a thing that does nothing to meet their short term needs.
Are we talking about a utopia where all human needs have already been eliminated by magical technology so we can simply wander where we will and work on enriching projects that strike our fancy?
To keep it focused: show me a system where you can get 200 people together to assemble phones with no capital at the outset.
deleted by creator
creation of a surplus of devices, through exploitation, for the purposes of profit is capitalism.
just buying stuff is just markets. barters and lemonade stands are not capitalist.
Where can I find this arbitrary definition of capitalism? Because barters and lemonade in a free market stands still sounds like capitalism to me, just on a smaller scale. Just because it seems more sympathetic doesn’t mean it’s not the same thing.
Im not saying that what you describe in your first paragraph isn’t bad, but words have meaning. If you intend to spread your thoughts on them, you’d do well to go beyond “capitalism bad mkay” because it makes people take your thoughts less seriously. So you end up preaching to the choir who’s already on your side and we’ve learned from reddit, Twitter and Fox that echo chambers are bad.
from wikipedia, for instance, with my highlights:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
All of which can still be present for your hypothetical lemonade stand.
yeah. cause a 8yo hires people and exploits them for profit while also buying up neighbors stands and closing them so they remain a monopoly. lol.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
and during a time … before capitalism. ;)
deleted by creator
But not before capital. It was state controlled common economy. Common economy are basically proto communism.
And capitalism and communism both rely on capital. Just the controlling sector changes for the purposes of differentiating a common economy vs a modern capitalistic or communistic economy.
deleted by creator
Absolutely nothing requires the only two options to be capitalisim and planned economy. Market socialism is a thing.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Why would anyone build beepers if there are no mobile phones? That’s an entire wireless infrastructure that doesn’t need to be created or maintained. Beepers were the impetus for early wireless repeaters and signal towers. Phones created the data and load bearing standards but the hardware was built for the devices before phones.
In a planned economy the onus is on the person to be where they need to make or receive a call. Like the 70s and rotary phones. “Plan your day around what the day has planned for you” is what one of the most annoying teachers I’ve ever had said and it’s the perfect model for blaming the individual for problems outside their control. And that’s why central planners will use it to deflect from criticism.
deleted by creator
Capitalist funded the creation of the iPhone and withdrawal rent on their funding.
There are many ways to fund the process.
Capitalists like capitalism because they get to extract more than they funded with no upper bound.
They leech off of the value of the workers who created the product because they think funding the arrangment entitles them to infinite returns on their investment.
It’s rent seeking with more steps and no overhead. There is zero upkeep because the input is the output, capital.
If capital was additive then adding twice as much capital would result in twice as much output and that is clearly not the case.
It’s a valve and it is like a damn operator taking credit for the river.
I love when these assholes try to convince you that the capitalists created the company and therefore deserve all the capital.
Like, ok, give all your money to your parents and grandparents.
Always fun to see a nuanced Marxist concept escape lemmy.ml and be argued against by people who have zero idea what they’re talking about.
I always blame Edward Bernays for a lot of things we have today.
Because he was responsible for taking his uncle’s insights and weaponizing them for profit and power?
deleted by creator
Calling China’s economic system “communist” is a big stretch.
deleted by creator
The comment only has one other reply that I can see, and that one takes issue with something else.
deleted by creator
there is no such thing, nor can there be, as a communist nation.
deleted by creator
why does there not being any actual communist nations (by the very definition) mean to you there is no capitalist nation? we are in one right now.
deleted by creator
Capitalism is a historical development from feudalism, so you don’t need communism as a point of comparison/contrast for capitalist nation to exist.
Also, the “communist” countries are, strictly speaking, capitalist if you look at their mode of production and mode of distribution. Stuff is made largely for profit, there’s private ownership, markets, things are distributed via money. As a wise man once said, name doesn’t make a thing.
Under communism there would be no state. So a “communist nation” cannot exist by definition.
deleted by creator
I don’t see how collective ownership completely invalidates a state
States exist to protect class interests through exploitation, war, police, and armies. They protect the interests of the owners, the bourgeoisie. Without classes separating people, the state loses its purpose and withers away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state
Under communism there are no classes, everyone is equal. Therefore there is no purpose for a state, therefore it dies.
Democratically controlling production != state
deleted by creator
When there is a line at a restaurant do you cut the line?
Is there laws in place to deal with people who cut the line?
If the answer to both of those is no, then you’ve already participated in a system in which group decisions are adhered to, without any enforcement mechanisms. And arguably, the group decision to wait in line instead of cutting is a democratically decided one. Nobody likes having somebody cut in front of them, so most people prefer that waiting in line is adhered to.
That’s just a small thought experiment, applying the same rational to larger society is straightforward. And these kinds of things already exist in the form of community gardens, mutual aid orgs, really really free markets, community cleanups, community workshops, and other similar things. Some of these are set up as nonprofits out of a necessity of working under capitalism, but not all of them. And they work together despite nobody enforcing usage or contributions.
They are also democratic, if the group working the local community garden decides as a collective that the existing garden is too small, they may find that they agree to expand it by adding an extra row of beds along some section of the plot. This is also, all without enforcement.
deleted by creator
People do cut in line because it is not illegal
You’ve missed the point, which is to show that you already participate and adhere to a democratic decision despite there being no enforcement.
just like how people did murder other people and their families and in some cases entire tribes in the Wild West Frontier because it was not illegal.
And that happened under a system in which labor was not collectively owned, where automation was not anywhere where it is now, and the resources were not spread fairly. Scarcity causes exactly that kind of strife.
But how does the concept of collective ownership invalidate a state?
It doesn’t, the dissolution of classes is what does that under Marxist theory.
It’s really not that complicated. Someone or something. Had to finance the research that lead to the technology. So, yes. Capitalism did indeed make your iPhone. It’s the driving factor of financing technological advancements outside of perhaps the military
That doesn’t mean those working the lines, writing the software, cleaning the office, maintaining the buildings, etc, deserve a fiftyeleven:th rate payoff.
It’s the same with all of your paraphrasing posts. It’s just unnecessary. You could just let the content speak for itself without looking like a clown.
It can be true that capitalism did indeed make your iPhone, and that it’s growing out of control in terms of exploitation and evolving into an oligarchy.(US)
Capitalists told workers to make the iphone.
deleted by creator
