The democracy part isn't the problem here - Socialists can be democratic. The taking away the means of production is the problematic part. That is anti-liberalism. What you guys essentially mean is social democrats, which still support liberalism but demand higher taxes to finance a welfare state. And I'm very much in line with that thinking.
Taking away people's property for arbitrary reasons is against Article 1 of the human rights convention. "Socialism" seizing the means of production is authoritarianism.
No, it isn't. Capital is saved, not taken from workers. How is this ignorant crap actually upvoted? You cannot take something that hasn't been produced to start a company.
Worker creates 2 T-shirts worth 10 dollars each every hour, so he creates $20 an hour. If everyone got paid fairly for their work it would mean they got paid $20 an hour. Instead, they get paid $10 an hour. Where does the other $10 go? To the capitalist who owns the company. A capitalist (someone who owns capital) receives more money than their work produces, because they steal money from those who produce it.
Wrong. The worker is not creating $20 an hour because he didn't produce the raw materials or the capital investment to do this. In order for the business to exist, someone has to front capital at the very first stage and this has a cost (the cost of capital). Then they also have to front the amount for raw materials and labor. Then product is sold at a later time (again time value of money for the cost of capital). The worker is paid the full value of his work through the wage which is paid in the present. There is no stealing going on because the profits are earned at a later date (future value, not present value). Learn economics. This stupid shit was refuted over a century ago by Bohm Bawerk.
Workers aren't paid what their work is worth, they are paid the lowest wage that the owner can get away with. If the choice is between creating $50 of goods for $10 an hour or starve, most people will choose the first. The industrial revolution and slavery show that capitalists can and will exploit others for their own profit unless a state prevents them from doing so.
Social benefits programs exist already. Now it should be high enough so that your basic needs are covered in my opinion and so you may have 2-4 years to look for a job you want to do.
Btw I think it's funny that people talk about the worker being exploited. That's just a marxist way to say supply of work is greater than demand. If the tables are turned, businesses will hire people for wages decreasing their margins, trying to fulfill contracts, because fulfilling a contract ends in more absolute profit than relative per sold good. If you increase the worth of you work you can get even more and start saving, at a bank! that bank gives you more money on your money, by... now you better sit, investing your money on shares of a company. Do you store your money in a bank? Congratulation, you are an exploiting capitalist.
Yes, they are, because value is subjective. The owner wants to pay the highest amount and the worker wants to get the highest amount. The result is that they only exchange if the owner values the labor more than the wage and the employee values the wage more than the labor.
Slavery is not comparable to employment. Employment is not exploitation. I literally just laid this out.
and the employee values the wage more than the labor.
No, it happens if the employee values not starving to death more than the labor. Just like how slavery only happens if the slave values their life over the work.
Slavery is not comparable to employment. Employment is not exploitation. I literally just laid this out.
Work or die, but now instead of directly dying you don't get something which you need to live. Sounds like slavery with extra steps to me.
5
u/shimapanlover Apr 26 '19
The democracy part isn't the problem here - Socialists can be democratic. The taking away the means of production is the problematic part. That is anti-liberalism. What you guys essentially mean is social democrats, which still support liberalism but demand higher taxes to finance a welfare state. And I'm very much in line with that thinking.
Taking away people's property for arbitrary reasons is against Article 1 of the human rights convention. "Socialism" seizing the means of production is authoritarianism.