Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

[Jarhyn]

A whopping 96% of businesses in the UK employ less than 10 people. In the USA, 90% employ less than 20. Typically, business owners work, for example, longer hours, significantly so during the early years of establishing the business, and often afterwards. They also take the greater financial risks if the business goes pear-shaped. The idea that employers or owners are generally lazy, entitled fat cats who simply sit back on their haunches and watch the money earned by exploiting others flowing in, as per the socialist stereotype, is just not correct.

I might point out that in my example, these owners that you describe, as a function of their work, still retain an outsized interest in their ownership through that outsized contribution of work. Further, loss of ownership has, at least in my presentations, been proposed as a function of extraction through dividend.

The only people for whom this creates an impact are "owners" who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in. They also happen to be the people for whom 99% of the money is flowing towards.

I'm not following your point.

For starters, who are the owners who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in? That appears to be some sort of caricature.

Out of interest, have you yourself ever tried to start or run a business for either yourself or that employed others? If so, how did that go?

First, you are not following my point because I doubt you read my posts for comprehension.

The whole proposal I keep pushing is that, as a function of the extraction of dividends to ownership share, that some fraction of the ownership share be lost to the labor, the workers, of an organization.

In the context of Mom and Pop own corner store, Mom and Pop, the owners, make their money through wages or salary. Essentially, they have decision-making power over all sorts of things, but ultimately, they make their money through wages, same as all the other employees.

Now, if Mom and Pop choose to transfer business funds, as a function of ownership directly into their pockets, THEN the employees would come to own some tiny share of the business as a result of that event, because THEN, it can clearly be seen that value has beem extracted NOT as a function of work but as a function of ownership. Some large percentage of that ownership would in fact come directly back to themselves as employees.

When we apply this to a corporate ownership model, let's pick a big company like Comcast... Shareholders are generally NOT employees of the company. They do not make "wages". Instead, their value is extracted not as a function of wages but as a function of dividends to their ownership share. Just like in the situation where Mom and Pop raid the business coffers for money absent a statement of work, tens of thousands (millions?) Of shareholders in Comcast receive a check in the mail not being employed there. Further, they gain value, again, through the sale of shares themselves and the futures on dividends perceived over time and expressed by the value of those shares. Again in this exchange, we can see that it would be equitable for the extraction of value, either deferred or immediate, to result in the return of some of that value to the workers who actually produce it.

And to answer your second question, yes, I ran a business, of which I was the sole employee. Near the end of my involvement, I was pulling in close to 10k/yr, through the design, marketing, and sale of virtual goods. You could probably do a bit of digging and find out what those goods were. Eventually, I got banned from the platform on which I ran my business, not as a function of the business but rather as a function of my other activities on the platform.

 

[starwater]

I'm not following your point.

For starters, who are the owners who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in? That appears to be some sort of caricature.

Out of interest, have you yourself ever tried to start or run a business for either yourself or that employed others? If so, how did that go?

First, you are not following my point because I doubt you read my posts for comprehension.

The whole proposal I keep pushing is that, as a function of the extraction of dividends to ownership share, that some fraction of the ownership share be lost to the labor, the workers, of an organization.

In the context of Mom and Pop own corner store, Mom and Pop, the owners, make their money through wages or salary. Essentially, they have decision-making power over all sorts of things, but ultimately, they make their money through wages, same as all the other employees.

Now, if Mom and Pop choose to transfer business funds, as a function of ownership directly into their pockets, THEN the employees would come to own some tiny share of the business as a result of that event, because THEN, it can clearly be seen that value has beem extracted NOT as a function of work but as a function of ownership. Some large percentage of that ownership would in fact come directly back to themselves as employees.

When we apply this to a corporate ownership model, let's pick a big company like Comcast... Shareholders are generally NOT employees of the company. They do not make "wages". Instead, their value is extracted not as a function of wages but as a function of dividends to their ownership share. Just like in the situation where Mom and Pop raid the business coffers for money absent a statement of work, tens of thousands (millions?) Of shareholders in Comcast receive a check in the mail not being employed there. Further, they gain value, again, through the sale of shares themselves and the futures on dividends perceived over time and expressed by the value of those shares. Again in this exchange, we can see that it would be equitable for the extraction of value, either deferred or immediate, to result in the return of some of that value to the workers who actually produce it.

And to answer your second question, yes, I ran a business, of which I was the sole employee. Near the end of my involvement, I was pulling in close to 10k/yr, through the design, marketing, and sale of virtual goods. You could probably do a bit of digging and find out what those goods were. Eventually, I got banned from the platform on which I ran my business, not as a function of the business but rather as a function of my other activities on the platform.

I am a business owner, and I DO NOT MAKE MONEY THROUGH WAGES. My business is a science and engineering firm. I must employ top talent as a smaller player against mega players. I employ top talent for several reasons: including, reputation, ethics, and the ability to compete for large projects. In order to employ top talent I must pay high wages and offer benefits not found at the larger engineering houses. As an example, the larger engineering houses can employ the lower level talent and do a bait and switch on projects. Propose a top talent to do the work and then once they get the job switch it to a lower performer, that they pay very low wage for.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not following your point.

For starters, who are the owners who do none of the work and watch money earned by exploiting others flow in? That appears to be some sort of caricature.

Out of interest, have you yourself ever tried to start or run a business for either yourself or that employed others? If so, how did that go?

First, you are not following my point because I doubt you read my posts for comprehension.

The whole proposal I keep pushing is that, as a function of the extraction of dividends to ownership share, that some fraction of the ownership share be lost to the labor, the workers, of an organization.

In the context of Mom and Pop own corner store, Mom and Pop, the owners, make their money through wages or salary. Essentially, they have decision-making power over all sorts of things, but ultimately, they make their money through wages, same as all the other employees.

Now, if Mom and Pop choose to transfer business funds, as a function of ownership directly into their pockets, THEN the employees would come to own some tiny share of the business as a result of that event, because THEN, it can clearly be seen that value has beem extracted NOT as a function of work but as a function of ownership. Some large percentage of that ownership would in fact come directly back to themselves as employees.

When we apply this to a corporate ownership model, let's pick a big company like Comcast... Shareholders are generally NOT employees of the company. They do not make "wages". Instead, their value is extracted not as a function of wages but as a function of dividends to their ownership share. Just like in the situation where Mom and Pop raid the business coffers for money absent a statement of work, tens of thousands (millions?) Of shareholders in Comcast receive a check in the mail not being employed there. Further, they gain value, again, through the sale of shares themselves and the futures on dividends perceived over time and expressed by the value of those shares. Again in this exchange, we can see that it would be equitable for the extraction of value, either deferred or immediate, to result in the return of some of that value to the workers who actually produce it.

I don't doubt that there are those, let's call them shareholders or investors, who behave as you describe and that is part of the way capitalism tends to work. But the alternative is not mom and pop either. I'll say it again, 96% of UK businesses employ less than 10 people (and in the USA 90% employ less than 20) and by all accounts those employers work very hard (as well as taking more risks). It is therefore, imo incorrect to describe 'the capitalist system' as if it were only the particular ones you are talking about. And even in that general group, I'm sure there are many many small investors nowadays (people playing the markets with their excess money or savings) and so they can't be all tarred with the same brush.

Furthermore, I do not see 'work' (as in toil and labour) as the only valid way to profit, so I do not understand your second point about Mom & Pop transferring profit to themselves. If it was Mom & Pop's endeavour that got the business going, then that initiative alone is deserving of reward, imo, not to mention that Mom & Pop will often have literally toiled hard (harder than the employees) to get the business to the point where there are the profits to even think about taking for themselves. If I have understood you right, I don't think I agree that it could reasonably be said that the employees 'come to own' any of the business just because of what you describe. It's not based on a complete analysis. There are many other things than hours worked. Just as one example, suppose Pop, aged 18, decided to get a business degree with the idea that he's gonna work his way up (usually through employment) to starting a business. Who pays him back for that early sacrifice and investment? Other than that, I've already mentioned various qualities associated with being entrepreneurial, which imo it is appropriate to reward in a way that does not apply to an employee.

Finally, employees may get some of what are normally called the 'dividends' however, if that's part of their deal, but dividends are different from ownership.

Also I don't think anyone here is against employee-ownership, just the idea that it 'should' happen because there's something immoral going on if it doesn't.

 

[PyramidHead]

Health insurance company executives work pretty hard too. So do American pharmaceutical company marketing departments. The leftist indictment of the capitalist/ownership class is not that they don't work hard enough, it's that they are doing something that only needs to be done because of how the system is structured, not something that directly serves the principle of meeting the needs and wants of the majority of people.

In the case of health insurance companies, the only way people in America can stay alive while putting their bodies at risk of injury and disease is to give up a portion of their income to private parties who insert themselves between doctors and patients purely for profiteering. They are no doubt run by people who work very hard at maintaining their continued ability to do so. Since this country is also among the only ones to allow drug companies to directly advertise to patients-as-consumers, an entire industry of pharmaceutical marketing has sprung up to convince people to buy their medicines, and here too there are thousands of hard-working individuals tirelessly churning out material for magazines and YouTube ads.

This does not nullify the statement that the roles these people play are unproductive, in the strict sense that rather than producing something that is useful to humans in a primary sense, they maintain and renew the conditions of production that allow others to produce those things. To ensure that life-saving (or erection-causing) drugs are made, given an environment of competition between private producers who are allowed to directly sway patients with advertising, marketing firms must exist to push out those pamphlets and insurance companies must cover medical costs that take large advertising budgets into account. Neither the marketing guru nor the insurance executive actually make anything of direct utility for human beings, although both may be hard workers.

The same is true of the owners of private property.

 

[ruby sparks]

If that wasn't dogmatic guff, I'd bother to reply to it, but it is.

I would start by explaining how most property owners get to be property owners nowadays (post-Marx's era). Most don't have it gifted to them. Most work hard, spend less in order to save up a deposit, and then take out a giant risk called a mortgage. This is true even if the property is not for themselves to live in but to rent to others, either for business or residential purposes. Most are part of the new middle class that capitalism allowed the expansion of.

My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.

Look, it's true that capitalism can get out of kilter. In some places, property ownership can be almost out of reach for most 'ordinary' people, even many professionals. Or, they can get shafted by the property-buying system, especially if it's deregulated and full of sharp practices. I would call those excessive capitalism. But capitalism, of itself, is a useful ingredient along with others.

Mixed, regulated, progressive systems for the win (even if it doesn't satisfy the 'purists' on either side)!

Drat, I did reply after all.

 

[PyramidHead]

If that wasn't dogmatic guff, I'd bother to reply to it, but it is.

I would start by explaining how most property owners get to be property owners nowadays (post-Marx's era). Most don't have it gifted to them. Most work hard, spend less in order to save up a deposit, and then take out a giant risk called a mortgage. This is true even if the property is not for themselves to live in but to rent to others, either for business or residential purposes. Most are part of the new middle class that capitalism allowed the expansion of.

Marx wrote thousands of pages on this. You haven't read any of it, and have no intention of doing so, but you know that it's something vaguely threatening to your worldview so it has to be "dogmatic guff".

My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.

Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites, who purchase homes they have no intention of living in and intentionally profit from the basic human requirement for shelter. This activity amounts to placing oneself between a person who needs something to live and the object of their need, and using the coercive power of the state to extract profit from that person. Landlords are the perfect example of capitalism's moral failure to provide people with the resources they need to live. They only exist because we accept that a person may acquire something they have no desire or need to use for themselves, purely in order to deprive others of it unless they pay a fee.

If the goods and services of society were produced and distributed democratically, with the aim of meeting human wants and needs rather than siphoning money into the accounts of people who place barriers around human necessities.

 

[ruby sparks]

Marx wrote thousands of pages on this. You haven't read any of it, and have no intention of doing so, but you know that it's something vaguely threatening to your worldview so it has to be "dogmatic guff".

It probably makes you feel better to think that. In reality, (a) it is dogmatic guff and (b) it does not threaten my worldview (which, I should remind you, is not neoliberal, as you suggested when you were being a bit dogmatic) partly because it's guff. Guff is not all that threatening.

Also, if Marx actually, literally wrote thousands of pages, you should have said. A page count that high changes everything, obviously, even if it was about a situation that is now out of date.

You can go too far in one direction with anything and you're going too far in one direction. It's a lovely hypothetical though, even if probably an unworkable pipe dream. Can we do world peace next? Or would socialism sort that out too? Is there anything socialism wouldn't sort out? Hypothetically I mean, of course.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[James Madison]

Proposed California "ethnic studies" curriculum to teach that capitalism is oppressive ...

If that wasn't dogmatic guff, I'd bother to reply to it, but it is.

I would start by explaining how most property owners get to be property owners nowadays (post-Marx's era). Most don't have it gifted to them. Most work hard, spend less in order to save up a deposit, and then take out a giant risk called a mortgage. This is true even if the property is not for themselves to live in but to rent to others, either for business or residential purposes. Most are part of the new middle class that capitalism allowed the expansion of.

Marx wrote thousands of pages on this. You haven't read any of it, and have no intention of doing so, but you know that it's something vaguely threatening to your worldview so it has to be "dogmatic guff".

My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.

Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites, who purchase homes they have no intention of living in and intentionally profit from the basic human requirement for shelter. This activity amounts to placing oneself between a person who needs something to live and the object of their need, and using the coercive power of the state to extract profit from that person. Landlords are the perfect example of capitalism's moral failure to provide people with the resources they need to live. They only exist because we accept that a person may acquire something they have no desire or need to use for themselves, purely in order to deprive others of it unless they pay a fee.

If the goods and services of society were produced and distributed democratically, with the aim of meeting human wants and needs rather than siphoning money into the accounts of people who place barriers around human necessities.

Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites, who purchase homes they have no intention of living in and intentionally profit from the basic human requirement for shelter. This activity amounts to placing oneself between a person who needs something to live and the object of their need, and using the coercive power of the state to extract profit from that person. Landlords are the perfect example of capitalism's moral failure to provide people with the resources they need to live.

Moral failure? Are you a cognitivist? A non-cognitivist? A moral realist? Moral absolutist? Moral relativist? Moral realism?

Maybe there isn’t any inherent morality value of the landlord charging rents of tenants or the capitalist taking the surplus value. Apparently you think otherwise, that’s fine, but what morality are you invoking? Is it universal? How do you know of this morality? What makes something immoral/specifically what moral precept makes charging rent or taking the surplus value immoral?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

View attachment 23212

Ho ho. Not that cartoon again.

Hey, a mix of socialism and capitalism works pretty well and it might even be said that it has produced the most equitable and successful societies that have ever existed, albeit still imperfect. Show me a purely socialist regime that works or has worked as well and I'll listen. If you can't (and I'm not assuming you can't) then your believing that it would really, actually be a good system could be badly wrong. In reality, most people might not in fact be better off at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

My daughter is 23 and already owns (ie has a big mortgage on) a 4-bed house that she rents out, because when she was 15, she started a little dog-minding business (that also paid her own way through university) and worked hard at it in her spare time (while a student) and eventually had enough to put a small deposit on the house before she'd even qualified from uni. Granted, she needed me as a guarantor. Hopefully, that initiative and endeavour will pay off for her. It might not. She could lose out. Dems de breaks for many landlords. Now I don't know exactly where the money lent to her is coming from, but my guess is it's probably coming, indirectly, from 'investors'. You know, the bad people.

Counterpoint: all landlords function as parasites....
Dogma: all landlords function as parasites....

FIFY.

 

[James Madison]

But they should both have an equal say on the terms of the exchange.

What does that mean?

I don't know what was unclear? I think the most fair way to determine a wage would be a negotiated agreement between two equally empowered parties. And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work. Questioning either quality in any nontrivial sense results in immediate termination for all but the most privileged Americans. Perhaps it works differently in Ireland. When you were last hired to a permanent position, would you say that you had control over what sort of work you would be doing and what constituted fair compensation for that work? Not complete control, but effectively equal to that of your employer?

I think the most fair way to determine a wage would be a negotiated agreement between two equally empowered parties.

You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work.

Yeah, so? That disparity isn’t necessarily a feature of capitalism, i.e. an employer willing to negotiate with an applicant because his last name is Rockefeller the 5th, isn’t necessarily because of capitalism.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know what was unclear? I think the most fair way to determine a wage would be a negotiated agreement between two equally empowered parties. And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work. Questioning either quality in any nontrivial sense results in immediate termination for all but the most privileged Americans. Perhaps it works differently in Ireland. When you were last hired to a permanent position, would you say that you had control over what sort of work you would be doing and what constituted fair compensation for that work? Not complete control, but effectively equal to that of your employer?

I think the most fair way to determine a wage would be a negotiated agreement between two equally empowered parties.

You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work.

Yeah, so? That disparity isn’t necessarily a feature of capitalism, i.e. an employer willing to negotiate with an applicant because his last name is Rockefeller the 5th, isn’t necessarily because of capitalism.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because consent is a function of symmetrical information and power. It always is. Because accepting any less is solipsism, which is an efficient race to hell on earth.

 

[Politesse]

You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

I wasn't aware that I claimed this was anything other than an opinion. Obviously other people think differently, or exploitative labor wouldn't exist. You know before it was made illegal, plenty of employers thought it was quite fair and reasonable to pay many of their laborers with just food and housing, no salary at all? It was considered reasonable, since the laborers themselves were bettered as people, being given "free" apprenticeship in useful talents and religious instruction by which their souls might be saved for eternity. In return, their employers were being compensated for the cost of importing and/or purchasing the laborers. It was all very reasonable. Lots of people thought so. It was a matter of hearty bipartisan and very nearly ecumenical agreement. (radical Quakers excluded).

But time moves on, and society improves. Or if it doesn't improve, it at least changes. Shafting the poor and disadvantaged for the benefit of the rich and well-armed only works for a while, before social consciousness catches up with the gritty reality of whatever the industrialist aristocracy happen to be peddling in defense of their abuses. Like Marx, I don't believe this has to be proven in the academy, or created by political manipulation. Absent voluntary negotiation, those whose bodies have been appropriated will eventually demand compensation of their own accord, and after their own (likely quite violent) fashion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 23212

Some of us don't have the tolerance for BS needed to weigh through too much of it.

 

[James Madison]

You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

And indeed, this is exactly how it works under capitalism.... if you've been born into considerable wealth. Salaries and other compensation are negotiated like business deals. This of course is nothing like what happens to most laborers, who have no power at all to define the value or terms of their work.

Yeah, so? That disparity isn’t necessarily a feature of capitalism, i.e. an employer willing to negotiate with an applicant because his last name is Rockefeller the 5th, isn’t necessarily because of capitalism.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because consent is a function of symmetrical information and power. It always is. Because accepting any less is solipsism, which is an efficient race to hell on earth.

What exactly are you commenting upon? What is “most fair”? The disparity? Both?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

You think, you think, you think, someone else may think differently. How do you know this is the “most fair way”?

I wasn't aware that I claimed this was anything other than an opinion. Obviously other people think differently, or exploitative labor wouldn't exist. You know before it was made illegal, plenty of employers thought it was quite fair and reasonable to pay many of their laborers with just food and housing, no salary at all? It was considered reasonable, since the laborers themselves were bettered as people, being given "free" apprenticeship in useful talents and religious instruction by which their souls might be saved for eternity. In return, their employers were being compensated for the cost of importing and/or purchasing the laborers. It was all very reasonable. Lots of people thought so. It was a matter of hearty bipartisan and very nearly ecumenical agreement. (radical Quakers excluded).

But time moves on, and society improves. Or if it doesn't improve, it at least changes. Shafting the poor and disadvantaged for the benefit of the rich and well-armed only works for a while, before social consciousness catches up with the gritty reality of whatever the industrialist aristocracy happen to be peddling in defense of their abuses. Like Marx, I don't believe this has to be proven in the academy, or created by political manipulation. Absent voluntary negotiation, those whose bodies have been appropriated will eventually demand compensation of their own accord, and after their own (likely quite violent) fashion.

I wasn't aware that I claimed this was anything other than an opinion... plenty of employers thought it was quite fair

Then why should anyone accept your mere opinion of what is “most fair”? Great, you have an opinion of what is “most fair,” but you certainly were making an attempt at persuasion in responding to Ruby Sparks! Appealing to notions of fairness is indicative of an attempt to persuade and certainly implies, if not explicitly says, your view is right.

Your opinion of fairness is parallel to, say, an employer who is of the opinion the good ol’ days of capitalism in the early 1900s is fair. There are competing views of fairness. What renders your opinion as special?

Absent voluntary negotiation, those whose bodies have been appropriated will eventually demand compensation of their own accord, and after their own (likely quite violent) fashion

This is not presently a situation devoid of consent. The fact capitalism is the only game in town doesn’t transform their decision to work for a specific employer as non-consensual and/or involuntary. But I appreciate your attempt at playing the role of Pythia in the temple as you prognosticate as a forgone conclusion a particular outcome in the future.

Shafting the poor and disadvantaged for the benefit of the rich and well-armed only works for a while, before social consciousness catches up with the gritty reality of whatever the industrialist aristocracy happen to be peddling in defense of their abuses.

Or, a significant number in society taste the benefits of capitalism, and conceive they’ve achieved palatable benefits, and determine burning down the whole house is unwise. Better to make improvements to the existing structure.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Politesse]

Then why should anyone accept your mere opinion of what is “most fair”? Great, you have an opinion of what is “most fair,” but you certainly were making an attempt at persuasion in responding to Ruby Sparks! Appealing to notions of fairness is indicative of an attempt to persuade and certainly implies, if not explicitly says, your view is right.

I really was just stating my opinion on the matter. You got a bit of a thin wire, or what?

Or, a significant number in society taste the benefits of capitalism, and conceive they’ve achieved palatable benefits, and determine burning down the whole house is unwise. Better to make improvements to the existing structure.

I agree, if most people felt that "capitalism" was doing right by them, they probably would not be very interested in burning it down.

This is not the same thing as agreeing that the system is fair or ethical. But it won't self-destruct-- as long as people feel they are getting a fair shake.

So the question is, do they? And will they continue to do so?

 

[Bomb#20]

In order for the business owner to realize a profit, the workers cannot, as a matter of pure mathematics, be paid wages that reflect all of the value they create for the business owner.

Congratulations -- you've reached a synthetic conclusion from an analytic argument. That would be a Fields-Medal-level contribution to pure mathematics, if only you hadn't been scooped 900 years ago by St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for God.

For there to be more value when production is complete than simply the same that was started with but in a different form (and capitalism requires this to be the case), the workers must not be compensated for all of their work.

Socialism also requires this to be the case, according to Marx. The Critique of the Gotha Program is quite clear on that point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Except that it isn't.

First, might does not make right. Nor does "having been there first".

First, we need to examine basic justification. On a fundamental level, basic justification is the idea that "I exist therefore I may". There are two ways of operating on this justification: social and solipsistic.

In the solipsistic mode, one ignores all others. I exist therefore I can do whatever ... I want (and so can anyone else). This paradigm is how serial killers and warlords happen. It is the fundamental basis for theft, conflict, parasitism, and all manner of behaviors we see in nature as fundamentally detrimental.

Such as, for instance, communism. That after all is the Communist Manifesto in a nutshell: seize the means of production because you want to and because you can.

The other mode is "I may only do as others may do; if I prevent others I ought prevent myself." This invokes a restriction on self in the interest of peace. It is a treaty with the universe. But it also means a war between this mode and the solipsistic mode.

Yes. If you wouldn't like others to seize your property, don't seize theirs. This is why capitalism restricts itself to consensual trade.

In the latter mode, the decision to deny others a seat at the table of decisions as to social paradigms is itself solipsistic on some level. It means a war, and an abandonment of this treaty.

This is not a made up rule that we have social inclusion, it is a direct requirement for peace to exist between people for the benefit of everyone.

When a private employer employs me in exchange for a mutually agreeable wage, we aren't stopping other workers from setting up their own social paradigm in which they form co-ops and all their working members vote on how to run their companies, or in which they hand over ownership of their companies to the government and put public officials in charge of the them. We're opting out -- those sorts of arrangement don't suit us -- but we're not imposing our paradigm on the other workers. Wage labor and worker-ownership and state-ownership can happily coexist in a capitalist country. But not in a socialist country. Because running their own lives socialistically doesn't satisfy socialists -- they claim the right to impose their preferred arrangement on everyone and to prohibit my employer and me from opting out. The socialists are trying to bar the capitalists from participating in decisions as to social paradigms, not vice versa.