Is Capitalism theft?

[Mr H]

I was brought up in the Thatcher years and been center right capitalist thinker all my life.

 

Work hard you get rewarded for your efforts. Not like those lazy socialist government layabouts who do nothing and only wish to take in taxes from the productive capitalists......

 

Recently I started dipping my toes into Marxist economic theory and it doesn't seem like how I thought it was.

 

Firstly the theory is not to do with Government. That's how socialism has been implemented in society not how it intended. Essentially state capitalism. Which is over reach etc.

 

From what I can gather the main essence of marxism is that those who contribute get the rewards and those who don't, don't. Kinda makes sense.

 

Company makes a surplus. Worker contributed 50 to the surplus so he gets 50 and 1 vote say in how the company is run.

 

Under capitalism, the capitalist aside from putting up the initial, contributes nothing and has to steal some of the profits made by the workers and give it to himself. Sounds kinda nuts when you write it out and think about it. Workers get no vote how company run either. No wonder wealth so unevenly distributed if you have to steal real value from others.

 

Just a simple example.

 

I start a lemonade company.

 

I buy $50 product. I hire a worker who can turn $50 into $100 of lemonade. He adds $50 and does all the work. For the capitalist to make money he's going to have to steal value created from the worker? How much. As much as can get away with

 

What are your thoughts comments about Marxist economic theory?

[Campion]

@Mr H  I've not researched the political and economic theory so thoroughly. But aiui capitalism was devised in the 18th C by thinkers like Adam Smith when business started going global, and then Marxism came a century later in the 19th C.  

 

Your example of a lemonade factory assumes that the workers do all the work, and the entrepreneurs just sit back and do a few deals.  If it were as easy as that, why don't the workers cut out the middle man and start their own lemonade business?  Before the industrial revolution, there were more small businesses making stuff in their own little workshops, you bought your food from the local market stall etc rather than a corporate supermarket full of global brands.

 

I suppose you do need to have all the layers of management, executives and shareholders to have large companies making high-tec things which the local mom & pop business in the corner shop can't supply.  But then if you do away with the capitalist structure, you then get central governments replacing them with state run business.

 

Either way the ordinary worker isn't in charge, in socialist societies like 1970s Britain, there ended up being a competition between the state running the industry (like the car makers or coal mines) and the unions who were trying to gain control, and it didn't end well for the country either.  I guess neither extreme is good for the regular workers, whichever 'system' is used, those of us at the bottom of the pyramid get trampled over for power to get concentrated at the top. 

[Mr H]

4 minutes ago, Campion said:

@Mr H  I've not researched the political and economic theory so thoroughly. But aiui capitalism was devised in the 18th C by thinkers like Adam Smith when business started going global, and then Marxism came a century later in the 19th C.  

 

Your example of a lemonade factory assumes that the workers do all the work, and the entrepreneurs just sit back and do a few deals.  If it were as easy as that, why don't the workers cut out the middle man and start their own lemonade business?  Before the industrial revolution, there were more small businesses making stuff in their own little workshops, you bought your food from the local market stall etc rather than a corporate supermarket full of global brands.

 

I suppose you do need to have all the layers of management, executives and shareholders to have large companies making high-tec things which the local mom & pop business in the corner shop can't supply.  But then if you do away with the capitalist structure, you then get central governments replacing them with state run business.

 

Either way the ordinary worker isn't in charge, in socialist societies like 1970s Britain, there ended up being a competition between the state running the industry (like the car makers or coal mines) and the unions who were trying to gain control, and it didn't end well for the country either.  I guess neither extreme is good for the regular workers, whichever 'system' is used, those of us at the bottom of the pyramid get trampled over for power to get concentrated at the top. 

Yes I think because they don't own the assets of production....

 

Another example.

 

If I want to hire a software engineer to do some work for me. As a capitalist I would make sure that the value produced by the engineer for my business is greater than what I pay him. So he gets less than the value he produces so I can profit from his labour. Does that seem fair is the question Marxist economic theory questions? 

 

Shouldn't the profits be more distributed to the producers who created the value and therefore profits, rather than the capitalist who had to initially risk their capital?

[Campion]

3 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Yes I think because they don't own the assets of production....

Another example.

If I want to hire a software engineer to do some work for me. As a capitalist I would make sure that the value produced by the engineer for my business is greater than what I pay him. So he gets less than the value he produces so I can profit from his labour. Does that seem fair is the question Marxist economic theory questions? 

Shouldn't the profits be more distributed to the producers who created the value and therefore profits, rather than the capitalist who had to initially risk their capital?

 

Erm ... well if the engineer took all the profits and the capitalist made none, then the capitalist wouldn't hire the engineer to do the work in the first place and there'd be no profit for anyone?   

  

So the engineer would have to do his/her own product R&D, marketing and selling, and raise funds to pay for it all alone, because in this scenario he's not allowed to employ anyone else ... all the stuff which the capitalist is doing.  He'd have to be a polymath and jack of all trades to build and sell his software product as a one-man band. Including building his reputation in the market alongside all the other small businesses.  

  

Maybe that works for some kinds of product but for a big sophisticated project he probably can't compete with the big corporates.   I mean, when you go out to buy something like that, do you look into all the small back-room businesses with much less track record and uncertain aftersales service? 

[Mr H]

5 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

Erm ... well if the engineer took all the profits and the capitalist made none, then the capitalist wouldn't hire the engineer to do the work in the first place and there'd be no profit for anyone?   

  

So the engineer would have to do his/her own product R&D, marketing and selling, and raise funds to pay for it all alone, because in this scenario he's not allowed to employ anyone else ... all the stuff which the capitalist is doing.  He'd have to be a polymath and jack of all trades to build and sell his software product as a one-man band. Including building his reputation in the market alongside all the other small businesses.  

  

Maybe that works for some kinds of product but for a big sophisticated project he probably can't compete with the big corporates.   I mean, when you go out to buy something like that, do you look into all the small back-room businesses with much less track record and uncertain aftersales service? 

I am not a student. I think there are specific calculations for how much productive workers get from the surplus (profits). But the main principle being they get a greater share than under capitalism because they produced the value. And they also get voting rights or a share of a company because they produced the value.

 

In case above those other workers, R&D, marketing would be classified as productive workers I believe, so would get their fair share from the value derived...

 

Will study more

[Campion]

18 minutes ago, Mr H said:

I am not a student. I think there are specific calculations for how much productive workers get from the surplus (profits). But the main principle being they get a greater share than under capitalism because they produced the value. And they also get voting rights or a share of a company because they produced the value.

In case above those other workers, R&D, marketing would be classified as productive workers I believe, so would get their fair share from the value derived...

Will study more

 

Ah, I think I understand better now.  You can still have companies employing people to do practical and specialist jobs, except that you don't need pure capitalists who just make money out of owning the business?  * 

 

Yeah, I guess when you look at how much share of the profit goes to each type of worker, it's very unequal.  In theory, there's some link to the amount of skill and responsibility required otherwise you'd just be paying everyone the same hourly rate for their labour.  How do you divvy up the "value" of the end product into all the different trades which went into making it, and everyone's a bit selfish and wants to get rich themselves?  There's a branch of accountancy which analyses costs in that way, but that's not really the same thing. 

   

I think there were attempts to create engineering firms as workers' co-ops like Lucas in the Midlands but I've not heard of them for ages so don't know how it worked out. We have got some wholefood shops in my town which operate as true co-ops though they're quite small.   

   

It also depends on how you want to engage with 'market forces' to attract the good staff. And at the end of the line, they've still got to sell their goods in a free market so that stage of capitalism is still there, unless the govt tries to fix the market and limit our (ie the customers) freedoms.  

 

* Edit. You're making me sweat a bit now Mr H, as I'm retired and some of my income is from investments like shares and bonds!  So I guess that makes me a capitalist of a sort ...  

 

Edited April 20 by Campion

[Mr H]

2 hours ago, Campion said:

 

Ah, I think I understand better now.  You can still have companies employing people to do practical and specialist jobs, except that you don't need pure capitalists who just make money out of owning the business?  * 

 

Yeah, I guess when you look at how much share of the profit goes to each type of worker, it's very unequal.  In theory, there's some link to the amount of skill and responsibility required otherwise you'd just be paying everyone the same hourly rate for their labour.  How do you divvy up the "value" of the end product into all the different trades which went into making it, and everyone's a bit selfish and wants to get rich themselves?  There's a branch of accountancy which analyses costs in that way, but that's not really the same thing. 

   

I think there were attempts to create engineering firms as workers' co-ops like Lucas in the Midlands but I've not heard of them for ages so don't know how it worked out. We have got some wholefood shops in my town which operate as true co-ops though they're quite small.   

   

It also depends on how you want to engage with 'market forces' to attract the good staff. And at the end of the line, they've still got to sell their goods in a free market so that stage of capitalism is still there, unless the govt tries to fix the market and limit our (ie the customers) freedoms.  

 

* Edit. You're making me sweat a bit now Mr H, as I'm retired and some of my income is from investments like shares and bonds!  So I guess that makes me a capitalist of a sort ...  

 

Yes I think from what I understand his observation was, capitalism is much the same as feudalism. Essentially slaves still. Because the surplus produced goes mainly to the capitalist not the producers, so the proposal was to adjust the imbalance. Also, that workers should set up their own enterprises or co ops instead of using capitalist with each person having one voting share each.

 

The principal does sound logical to me. In practice we haven't seen much of it. Instead we've had state capitalism posing as socialism, which has always sucked.....

 

I think giving staff more of the profits and ownership would attract better talent than what we have currently, low wages and no share ownership.

 

Best success example is Mondragon co.op in Spain with 70,000 employees and 10bn+ revenue.

 

I don't think you need to fix market demand for this. It is just a different way to set up a company and distribute profits and ownership.

 

Full disclosure I'm pretty ignorant on this subject. Marxism to me always meant large state ownership but from what I can tell this wasn't the observations Marx made.

 

 

 

 

[Campion]

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

Yes I think from what I understand his observation was, capitalism is much the same as feudalism. Essentially slaves still. Because the surplus produced goes mainly to the capitalist not the producers, so the proposal was to adjust the imbalance. Also, that workers should set up their own enterprises or co ops instead of using capitalist with each person having one voting share each.

 

The principal does sound logical to me. In practice we haven't seen much of it. Instead we've had state capitalism posing as socialism, which has always sucked.....

 

I think giving staff more of the profits and ownership would attract better talent than what we have currently, low wages and no share ownership.

 

Best success example is Mondragon co.op in Spain with 70,000 employees and 10bn+ revenue.

 

I don't think you need to fix market demand for this. It is just a different way to set up a company and distribute profits and ownership.

 

Full disclosure I'm pretty ignorant on this subject. Marxism to me always meant large state ownership but from what I can tell this wasn't the observations Marx made.

 

Yes, well I guess the system we have now is a pretty extreme version of capitalism, which is why we also have a welfare state to avoid an uprising by the poor at the bottom of the pack. 

You seem to be advocating a compromise. That's good but you're right that not so many have tried it. And if workers want to swap some of their steady wages for a % of the profits, then they also need to take a share of the risk,  because profits fluctuate. 

Another thing is the tax treatment. At the moment it's arguably biased towards the capitalists because dividends and capital gains are taxed differently to earnings income. 

I think people should have a free choice though. The system now does encourage speculation over and above regular business risk-taking and results in instability; boom and bust. Perhaps the whole thing will destroy itself with too much greed and overreach. Perhaps the centre of capitalism is already moving out of the west to the east, and they'll do it differently. And we'll have to go back to relearn self-sufficiency after the corporations desert us. 

[Les Paul Robot]

Is Capitalism theft?
Yes

[Mr H]

5 hours ago, Les Paul Robot said:

Is Capitalism theft?
Yes

I need to read more but I'm starting to think so and perhaps I have been duped into.the biggest inverted thinking of my life. Capitalism is good supporting those who wish us harm in a system we can't win. And thinking one of the solutions, marxism is some kind of evil government thing....

[Mr Crabtree]

The bread dividing scene from 'THE RAGGED TROUSERED PHILANTHROPISTS'  by Robert Tressell explains the capitalism system very well I think!

[pi3141]

Don't know much about Marx, except he said this - 

 

'Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction'

 

He is correct. 

 

Why do we have a whole supermarket aisle of various laundry detergents?

 

Why don't we just have a few - the best detergent we can make in either Bio or Non Bio with a few fragrances being sold cheaply because the producer has gained the market and streamlined the production line.

 

But under Capitalism, that would be a monopoly and need breaking up because Capitalism can't have just 1 winner, it must have competition. 

 

This is not exactly what Marx meant, he was talking about the need for ever increasing profits.

 

So, i make a laundry detergent, it's a success, my shareholders are happy with the profits, but next year they want more.

 

So I start using cheaper ingredients, but the following year, the shareholders want more profit, so I lay off workers, reduce wages, but next year, the shareholders want more, do I outsource my cleaners, sell my factory and rent it back, but next year the shareholders want more profit.

 

Now, I produce an inferior product, outsourced workers and no property, but the shareholders want more profits.

 

Eventually, the company goes to the wall.

 

When I was in Education, a lecturer told us about the reel to reel audio recording equipment used in all the recording studios, they were solidly built with good components, well documented with drawings and diagrams, meaning the studio engineer could maintain and repair the equipment themselves. 

 

So the company went bust, after the initial supply of machines to industry, nobody came back to buy more, because the equipment rarely failed, and when it did, the studio engineer repaired it.

 

So you see, there is little profit in making a perfect product, more money can be made manufacturing inferior products, and that keeps shareholders happy.

 

Cue the song line - 

 

'When everything is made to be broken'

 

Hence Capitalism carries its own seed of destruction, by producing inferior products and an increasing demand for more profit, no matter what.

 

Anti-Monopoly laws prevent a company dominating a market, which would allow job security and cheaper product to consumer.

 

Who remembers the early days of Windows?

 

You could go and buy a camera, a scanner or a printer, plug it in, windows fetches the drivers and it just worked.

 

Then they got hit with Anti-Monopoly laws, they weren't allowed to do that anymore.

 

So now the consumer had to faff around looking for drivers and buying software to use the device, because that's better for us apparently. 

 

Do you remember the I.E farce, they had to put a pop up telling us other browsers were available because otherwise they had a monopoly. 

 

Now look where we are, Windows has got worse with every new release.

 

Why can't I have integrated CD burning software, a virus checker inbuilt, a browser that works?

 

Because more profit can be generated without included freebies. 

 

The need for ever increasing profits, by making inferior products and not allowing the best product to come to market and dominate.

[sock muppet]

On 4/20/2025 at 4:40 PM, Mr H said:

Yes I think from what I understand his observation was, capitalism is much the same as feudalism. Essentially slaves still. Because the surplus produced goes mainly to the capitalist not the producers, so the proposal was to adjust the imbalance. Also, that workers should set up their own enterprises or co ops instead of using capitalist with each person having one voting share each.

 

The principal does sound logical to me. In practice we haven't seen much of it. Instead we've had state capitalism posing as socialism, which has always sucked.....

 

I think giving staff more of the profits and ownership would attract better talent than what we have currently, low wages and no share ownership.

 

Best success example is Mondragon co.op in Spain with 70,000 employees and 10bn+ revenue.

 

I don't think you need to fix market demand for this. It is just a different way to set up a company and distribute profits and ownership.

 

Full disclosure I'm pretty ignorant on this subject. Marxism to me always meant large state ownership but from what I can tell this wasn't the observations Marx made.

 

 

 

 

 

No, but CRAPitalism is, which is what we got under the Trickle Down bolloxs of Ronnie Raygun/Muh-Regrets Thrasher & Co of getting pissed on, as the family silver once again disapears into the boots of the purveyors of the 'ism' in the Schism, MEH!

[pi3141]

Our Capitalist system could be fixed.

 

Allocate 49% of shares to employees. 

 

1 share to cleaner

2 shares to factory worker

3 shares to supervisor 

4 shares to manager

 

Etc

 

The shares stay with the post or position.

 

They could delay payment by 1 year so company has money in the bank in case of difficulties. 

 

It would naturally distribute profits fairly to workers.

 

You could just give everyone 1 share to everyone, including cleaners and canteen workers etc so everyone involved in the companies success gets the same amount as a bonus paid yearly.

 

Delay it by 1 year so only workers employed for over 1 year qualify and thus the company holds funds in its accounts for that year for those workers, it would then have cash for difficulties. 

 

Nothing wrong with Capitalism if it's done fairly. 

 

Id like to see a synergy.

 

If you work for government  - teacher, council worker, energy sector, trains, roads etc, you are employed by the state, with slightly lower benefits but sufficient for average standard of living comparative to your position. Not everyone gets paid the same, your wages are still based on skill, education or difficulty etc

 

If you don't do anything state infrastructure job, you work in the private sector, the free market, job security may not be as good, but rewards are higher.

 

The state should set the standard, but if you look at our state, a lot of it are outsourced, even council office workers were outsourced to Capita, a foreign company. That should not happen.

 

Let alone outsourcing or privatising our energy or transport sectors.

 

That's just dumb.

 

But so is Ed Milliband so there's that.

 

 

 

[pi3141]

My opinion is that outsourcing is a symptom of decline. 

 

When the government can't afford to run it's own council staff and look for someone else to do it cheaper, it means they are struggling. 

 

Same for any company.

 

Outsourcing means you either can't afford to maintain your company, or your being greedy. Either way, it's a sign of decline.

Where will the greedy end?

 

If your company doesn't own anything (buildings/equipment) and you don't employ anyone directly, you only have the product as a business asset.

 

That's a precarious situation, if the product goes under, there is nothing left.

 

Take a look at 'The Mayfair Set' by Adam Curtis.

 

The Mayfair Set, subtitled Four Stories about the Rise of Business and the Decline of Political Power, is a BBC television documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis.

 

It explores the decline of Britain as a world power, the proliferation of asset stripping in the 1970s, and how buccaneer capitalists helped to shape the climate of the Thatcher years, by focusing on Colonel David Stirling, Jim Slater, Sir James Goldsmith and Tiny Rowland—members of London's elite Clermont Club in the 1960s.

 

It won a BAFTA Award for Best Factual Series or Strand in 2000.[1]

 

 

Link- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayfair_Set

 

 

It was this lot that sold the lie of outsourcing to government and industry. 

 

 

 

Edited April 23 by pi3141

[Mr H]

On 4/23/2025 at 9:00 PM, pi3141 said:

Our Capitalist system could be fixed.

 

Allocate 49% of shares to employees. 

 

1 share to cleaner

2 shares to factory worker

3 shares to supervisor 

4 shares to manager

 

Etc

 

The shares stay with the post or position.

 

They could delay payment by 1 year so company has money in the bank in case of difficulties. 

 

It would naturally distribute profits fairly to workers.

 

You could just give everyone 1 share to everyone, including cleaners and canteen workers etc so everyone involved in the companies success gets the same amount as a bonus paid yearly.

 

Delay it by 1 year so only workers employed for over 1 year qualify and thus the company holds funds in its accounts for that year for those workers, it would then have cash for difficulties. 

 

Nothing wrong with Capitalism if it's done fairly. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure how this would work. Would a capitalist(51% owners in this model)  be happy about paying $10,000 per share with 5% return, when the cleaner gets 1 share and 5% for sweeping up?

 

Is it fair that someone who works at the company who contributed to the profit gets the same as someone who just put up capital? (The main Marxist observation I can gather)

[Campion]

59 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Is it fair that someone who works at the company who contributed to the profit gets the same as someone who just put up capital? (The main Marxist observation I can gather)

 

Let me turn it round and ask, why isn't it fair?   

  

Both the investor and employee get paid in proportion to how much they put into the business.  The investor as a multiple of the number of shares they own, and the employee as a multiple of hours they work. 

    

The thing is, there's no limit on the number of shares you can buy, if you have enough money.  But there is a limit on how many hours you can work, so if that's how you earn your living it's necessary to increase your hourly rate by getting a better job. 

  

How to get a better job?  Mostly that means either: getting more educated, experienced and qualified and having better paid skills; or becoming a manager and managing other employees; or starting your own business (especially if that means employing your own workers - oh dear that means becoming a capitalist yourself).  Being a manager is like half-way to being a capitalist because you earn money off other people's work.  

  

There's nothing to stop workers becoming shareholders in their firm if they want to and can afford it, but many people can't afford to buy very many.  And in any case it's not recommended to put all your investments in a single firm but to spread them round to reduce the risk. 

 

Another thing is that capitalism is global, nowadays a lot of people work in firms which have headquarters abroad. So even if our govt introduced a scheme like this, the elites have a habit of offshoring to another jurisdiction to avoid rules which they don't like.  To reduce their tax bill for example.  And to get round that we end up with the govts taking more power for themselves to make the corporations comply.  So I think that methods like this one work better if they're voluntary and not forced. 

 

Edited April 26 by Campion

[Mr H]

9 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

Let me turn it round and ask, why isn't it fair?   

  

Both the investor and employee get paid in proportion to how much they put into the business.  The investor as a multiple of the number of shares they own, and the employee as a multiple of hours they work. 

    

The thing is, there's no limit on the number of shares you can buy, if you have enough money.  But there is a limit on how many hours you can work, so if that's how you earn your living it's necessary to increase your hourly rate by getting a better job. 

  

How to get a better job?  Mostly that means either: getting more educated and qualified and having better paid skills; or becoming a manager and managing other employees; or starting your own business (especially if that means employing your own workers - oh dear that means becoming a capitalist yourself).  Being a manager is like half-way to being a capitalist because you earn money off other people's work.  

  

There's nothing to stop workers becoming shareholders in their firm if they want to and can afford it, but many people can't afford to buy very many.  And in any case it's not recommended to put all your investments in a single firm but to spread them round to reduce the risk. 

 

There's details to work out.  Eg I wonder how it would be paid for: when someone starts working for a firm, are they just given some shares for free?  Are their shares related to how long they work there, or their FTE, or does every employee get the same? Do they have to return the shares when they leave?  

 

Another thing is that capitalism is global, nowadays a lot of people work in firms which have headquarters abroad. So even if our govt introduced a scheme like this, the elites have a habit of offshoring to another jurisdiction to avoid rules which they don't like.  To reduce their tax bill for example.  And to get round that we end up with the govts taking more power for themselves to make the corporations comply.  So I think that methods like this one work better if they're voluntary and not forced. 

The observation that Marx made would be the answer. It boils down to who you think deserves the money more. The ones who create it (Marxist view) or the ones who own the capital (capitalist view).

 

My personal opinion is the workers should get it. And the workers should collaborate in the first instance to eliminate the need for capitalist.

 

Is it the case that worker and owner get paid in proportion to how much they put into a business? Someone asks Tom Hanks to set up a medical facility as owner. He signs a cheque, forgets about it, reaps tens of millions a year. A nurse works there 16 hours a day, brings people back from life. Tom pays her 30ks.......

 

 

[Mr H]

27 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

Let me turn it round and ask, why isn't it fair?   

  

Both the investor and employee get paid in proportion to how much they put into the business.  The investor as a multiple of the number of shares they own, and the employee as a multiple of hours they work. 

    

The thing is, there's no limit on the number of shares you can buy, if you have enough money.  But there is a limit on how many hours you can work, so if that's how you earn your living it's necessary to increase your hourly rate by getting a better job. 

  

How to get a better job?  Mostly that means either: getting more educated, experienced and qualified and having better paid skills; or becoming a manager and managing other employees; or starting your own business (especially if that means employing your own workers - oh dear that means becoming a capitalist yourself).  Being a manager is like half-way to being a capitalist because you earn money off other people's work.  

  

There's nothing to stop workers becoming shareholders in their firm if they want to and can afford it, but many people can't afford to buy very many.  And in any case it's not recommended to put all your investments in a single firm but to spread them round to reduce the risk. 

 

Another thing is that capitalism is global, nowadays a lot of people work in firms which have headquarters abroad. So even if our govt introduced a scheme like this, the elites have a habit of offshoring to another jurisdiction to avoid rules which they don't like.  To reduce their tax bill for example.  And to get round that we end up with the govts taking more power for themselves to make the corporations comply.  So I think that methods like this one work better if they're voluntary and not forced. 

 

To add. Majority of companies do not allow employees to own shares.

 

This whole concept of needing or earning, wanting more than you need is something I hope we abandon in the future as it has caused major problems. There is enough for everyone not just a few. 

 

It's funny what you say about managers. Because to be a manager you have to give up real productive skills for soft people skills and somehow they get paid more....

 

Yes I agree it should be voluntary

 But I think most workers would go for it, as they would get paid actually for the work they have done rather than give it to their boss. A d would mean a lot more income 

[Mr H]

You also hear the motto in capitalism work hard play hard. But the problem is, workers don't get paid in capitalism they get exploited. The only way to win the capitalist game is to opt out of the workforce and become a capitalist provider yourself so you can get rich exploiting others. Work less hard, play hard, should be the motto.

[pi3141]

16 hours ago, Mr H said:

You also hear the motto in capitalism work hard play hard. But the problem is, workers don't get paid in capitalism they get exploited. The only way to win the capitalist game is to opt out of the workforce and become a capitalist provider yourself so you can get rich exploiting others. Work less hard, play hard, should be the motto.

 

Thing is, we can't all be billionaire's, we can't all be Prime Minister, we can't all equally exploit each other and ger rich.

 

We need cleaners, canteen staff, delivery drivers, security guards, they all play a part in making the company successful, in my view, they all deserve a share of the profits.

 

We can't expect a capitalist to take a risk set up a company and give away all the profits.

 

There's been a few good capitalists, but not many.

 

So the only way, apart from total regulation of the markets or communism, to make the system fair is to build into the system a way to distribute the wealth equally.

 

The company owner must get most of the profits, but its wrong to pay minimum wage, give minimum benefits and treat your staff with disdain, they all helped, played a part in creating and sustaining the company and generating profit.

 

Capitalists ignore that. 

 

I wouldn't want the staff to buy their own shares, I want a share allocated contractually when employee is employed. When they leave, or get promoted, they leave the share with the post.

 

 

[Mr H]

44 minutes ago, pi3141 said:

 

Thing is, we can't all be billionaire's, we can't all be Prime Minister, we can't all equally exploit each other and ger rich.

 

We need cleaners, canteen staff, delivery drivers, security guards, they all play a part in making the company successful, in my view, they all deserve a share of the profits.

 

We can't expect a capitalist to take a risk set up a company and give away all the profits.

 

There's been a few good capitalists, but not many.

 

So the only way, apart from total regulation of the markets or communism, to make the system fair is to build into the system a way to distribute the wealth equally.

 

The company owner must get most of the profits, but its wrong to pay minimum wage, give minimum benefits and treat your staff with disdain, they all helped, played a part in creating and sustaining the company and generating profit.

 

Capitalists ignore that. 

 

I wouldn't want the staff to buy their own shares, I want a share allocated contractually when employee is employed. When they leave, or get promoted, they leave the share with the post.

 

 

Yes it's a pyramid system. With parasites at the top, feeding off of worker's labor at the bottom. It is not a win win situation, it's an "I win" " you lose" situation, in contradistinction to our nature and being imo. 

 

The alternative to capitalist taking the risk, is for employees to take up the risk via a co.op. Or for the capitalist to at least distribute profits in a more equitable fashion. CEOs of car manufacturers get multiples of 400x plus the average worker. Do you think they worked 400 times as hard? What did they make? Some phone calls to other REALLY important people.

 

The system you describe is very similar to what Marx proposed...

[Campion]

5 hours ago, pi3141 said:

The company owner must get most of the profits, but its wrong to pay minimum wage, give minimum benefits and treat your staff with disdain, they all helped, played a part in creating and sustaining the company and generating profit.

 

Indeed the level of inequality is shocking, and that's not only in more developed capitalist countries (which even have a minimum wage) but also there's just as much if not more inequality and exploitation in less developed countries.   In accounting terms, employees are seen as a cost to the business as well as makers of goods, so they try to minimise costs in order to boost profits.  

  

5 hours ago, pi3141 said:

I wouldn't want the staff to buy their own shares, I want a share allocated contractually when employee is employed. When they leave, or get promoted, they leave the share with the post.

  

Sounds like an improvement on the current setup. Presumably you mean a % of shares rather than just one share, as many companies have millions, if not billions of shares.  

 

Owning shares also gives you a vote at the shareholders' AGM, which gives some control over the company and the directors. But I think your voting strength depends on your % of the total, 51% is a controlling stake.   

[Mr H]

23 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

Indeed the level of inequality is shocking, and that's not only in more developed capitalist countries (which even have a minimum wage) but also there's just as much if not more inequality and exploitation in less developed countries.   In accounting terms, employees are seen as a cost to the business as well as makers of goods, so they try to minimise costs in order to boost profits.  

  

  

 

What I envisage for the future is firstly a waking up process that this is exploitation. Secondly a movement from concentricity to omnicentricity, in natural alignment with the universe, which itself has no center point, we will see the same at work. You could call this decentralization. Beginnings are already happening

[Miltonic]

I'm a Malthusian. I think the problem is people have too many children. Contraception is the solution to not all, but most of the problems in the Third World today.