this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
341 points (94.8% liked)

Socialism

5162 readers
1 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
dessalines@lemmy.ml
341
Just a little class consciousness to wash down another day of work (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by rockSlayer@lemmy.world to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Point taken, but FYI billionaires don't "earn" a billion dollars regardless, it's almost exclusively because their net worth due to stock ownership makes them a billionaire.

If you bought a house somewhere cheap, and then the eyesore old factory down the road gets torn down, and the land around your house explodes in value, you did not make a million dollars in income, even though your house is now worth that much.

As well, most billionaires live off money they borrow at stupid low interest rates because that doesn't count as income. An accountant would be able to explain in depth but that's one of the way they dodge taxes.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Stocks are just an abstracted way of exploiting workers.

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ya know, workers can own stocks too. There's even companies that give stocks to employees. Stocks themselves are not the problem.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

And what percentage of stocks are held by the working class?

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As much as they wish. Also there's no working class, that's not 18th century anymore.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The working class is not defined in terms of historical dates.

The working class is everyone who lacks sufficient income to survive solely from owned assets such as businesses or rented properties.

Obviously, ability to purchase stocks is limited by wealth and income remaining after meeting other expenses.

Sorry, but the working class exists, and cannot own as much stock as it pleases.

A constructive response to the question would be of providing an actual percentage, as was asked, rather than returning an absurd deflection.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

There are no classes in a capitalist system.

Ability to make investments is not limited by wealth, this is not a 19th century anymore.

Not sure which percentages you want.

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not enough, but that doesn't mean that stocks are the problem. The current system that allows billionaires to exist is the problem, not stocks themselves. Stocks could just as easily be used to fairly share ownership of a business amongst its workers.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Stocks themselves do allow billionaires to exist.

Almost always stocks is understood to represent tradable assets.

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No dude.

You could get rid of stocks and replace them with a big book written in crayon that keeps track of what percentage of a company someone owns, but if you changed nothing else, billionaires would still exist.

It's the current financial and tax laws that allow billionaires to amass so much wealth, nothing else.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I am becoming confused about your overall position on the subject.

Nevertheless, it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings, through profit generated by the work of others.

The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society into workers and owners, even if some workers own some stocks.

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it seems plain that as long as company shares remain tradable, some holders will accumulate fortunes allowing them to survive merely by virtue of their holdings,

Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.

through profit generated by the work of others.

Sometimes yes... and sometimes no!!!

As long as you choose to fixate on ONE thing, well... then you won't see the entirety of the picture.

Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers, or without trading stocks, and that is STILL a problem.

The trading of stocks itself, not particular laws or codes, supports the stratification of society

??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.

As I've said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth then we're back in the exact same situation... because it's the rules (ie: laws and codes) that are the fucking problem

Want to see a corrupt politician lose their mind? Tell them to increase the capital gains tax.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The meaning of your objections is difficult to understand, but it seems clear that you are not understanding the broader discussion.

Instead, it feels as you are spinning in narrow loops, trying to find problems with certain ideas, yet not realizing that such ideas are outside the scope of your loops.

Hopefully I can help, at least a bit.

Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.

No one has argued that eliminating stock trading is sufficient to address the problems in current systems, but surely at least as much is necessary, and the stock market is plainly a sensible target for antagonism, noticing that in it the most wealthy and powerful of society hold their wealth, and from it, derive their power.

Sometimes yes… and sometimes no!!!

All wealth gained in the stock market is profit gained by the work of others.

Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers

Depending on interpretation, the statement either is false on its merits, or too simplistic to be meaningful.

Property, and therefore wealth, is a social relationship, that is, occuring within social systems, whose structure transcends the choices of any participant.

Since no one endeavors to be deprived of wealth relative to another, everyone who has wealth relative to others has such position due to the surrounding social system having conferred structural disadvantages to others.

Therefore, being wealthy is nothing if not taking advantage of others and their disadvantages.

Any system, including the stock market, that confers vast advantages to some, is a rotten system.

??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.

My claim is not that trading stocks is not predicated on a set of governing rules. My claim is that every set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable.

In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic more than the practice at large.

As I’ve said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth

Yes. Replacing a bad system with a slightly different system as bad or worse than the current is obviously not a thoughtful way address the current problems.

Perhaps try thinking harder.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If only there was a way to convert that stock into yachts... 🤔

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Oh I'm not arguing against the absurdity of someone having a networth in the billions, I'm just trying to add clarity that it's the financial industry and tax laws that allow it to happen.

As opposed to just grunting "BILLIONAIRES BAAAAAAAAD!!!"

[–] Konlanx@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

As opposed to just grunting "BILLIONAIRES BAAAAAAAAD!!!

But it's true.

Being a billionaire automatically makes you a bad person. A good person would realize that they are neither entitled to have a billion dollars nor need it nor earned it. A good person would use that wealth to give back.

Your initial argument of land increasing in value is wrong in my opinion. Buying cheap land, seeing it increase in value and then selling it is either inside knowledge or pure luck. Plus you need the financial options to even start buying the cheap land. Money makes money, so rich people get more rich, just because they are rich. This works because humans exploit natural resources which are becoming more and more limited and give those resources a price, meaning those price will increase forever. Therefore control of these resources makes money, but not everyone has the chance of obtaining that control, thus making the entire system unfair and once again make billionaires bad.

I could continue this rant way longer, going on about how those billionaires then cause the majority of trash, emissions and use most resources, but this comment is long enough now.

You can only become a Billionaire by exploiting people and / or resources and not giving back to those you exploited. So fuck all billionaires. All.

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Money only makes money if you choose to invest in things that increase in value.

If everybody invests in lithium mines then there will be a surplus and many investors will lose money.

It's work to collect the information to make the right choices.

Like workers don't share with the third world miners who provided the raw materials, billionaires don't share either. They can be taxed, though. But how much?

Should their billions be taken? Then who has the money to invest in risky opportunities? How much of their wages are workers willing to pool for those investments?

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You are not adding clarity.

Your understanding is misguided.

Terse messages are used not because the broader messages lack substantive justification, but rather because repetition helps them gain enough attention that more of society will feel motivated to investigate and to reflect.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Kanye: Am I a joke to you?