“I don’t wanna lose these chains! They’re all that I have!”
The last thing I want to hear is how great capitalism is - as told by someone that capitalism refers to as capital.
The person who happily answers “yup” to the first two questions isn’t going to understand the meaning of “You’re a worker.”
*wage slave
what’s wrong with being a worker? Who is this post making fun about?
This post is not making fun of workers. Too often we see workers identify with rich capitalists and see their own lack of capital as a personal failing. But once we recognize the difference between the two classes we can dispel ourselves of that notion.
Members of the working class sell their labor in order to gain money and buy the necessities of life. The ruling class buys labor in order to see a profit on the money they already have. Since capitalism compels the capitalist to make a profit, they must pay the worker a fraction of the value that the worker creates. (The business owner wants to stay in business and the shareholders demand every-increasing value.) Hence we should not consider ourselves capitalists: we are workers who are being exploited, as necessitated by the system.
In not sure this accurately portrays the message you want it to.
Does the post really come across as saying being a worker is bad and being a capitalist is good? If so, that might say something about the connotations we attach to these terms.
I think it’s more how the meme format is usually used.
Oh, I see what you mean. Wupps
Why can’t you be a worker and a capitalist?
Buying work also has some risk. Everyone gets their cut, you’re only exploited if the revenue is really unbalanced
Let’s consider an analogy: the slave owner and the slave. The slave owner lives on the labor of his slaves. The slave owner takes the value of the slaves’ labor and returns a fraction of that value to the slave in the form of food, clothing, and shelter. (Suppose it would be unprofitable to let the slave die.) To your point, the slave owner can also work with his slaves in the field if they so choose. And maybe the slave owner has a pleasant demeanor and treats the slaves (relatively) well. But no matter how he works in the fields and no matter how nice he is, the slave owner is still living off of the value of the slaves. Moreover, in a system of widespread slavery, he needs slave-labor in order to compete with other slave owners.
You may object that there are several disanalogies here. The modern-day worker can choose who gets the value of their labor. The experienced worker can negotiate higher wages based on higher earning potential. The successful worker may acquire enough money to go into business for themselves and hire others.
Perhaps these are fair objections but they do not touch on the point of the analogy. There is a fundamental distinction between the slave owner, who lives on the labor of slaves, and the slaves who labor for the slave owner. Similarly, there is a fundamental distinction between the capitalist, who lives on the labor of workers, and the workers who labor for the capitalist.
Using strong words is cool and all, but it doesn’t talk about the important part: is it really bad? If the workers are treated well, its a win win situation
No matter who you are, you are a slave of the economy. Companies with everyone being able to take decisions democratically exist, you’re not forced to take the traditional rule, it’s just the safest one
is it really bad? If the workers are treated well, its a win win situation
“If the slaves are treated well, it’s a win-win”
I’m not just using strong words. I suspect you miss the point of the analogy (i.e., the owner vs the worker).
No matter who you are, you are a slave of the economy.
Because the economy is centered on capital and profit. If our economy was based on community need rather than shareholder profit, workers would always be working for themselves.
People thinking they’re capitalists.
I mean, is “worker” considered a bad word?
By people who consider themselves upper class, yes
This makes more sense, thanks
So the post assumes only rich people are for capitalism?
No. It states that capitalist are the ones who own the means of production and just collect profits without any real input needed.
The worker therefore is someone who works for the capitalists and does not own these means thus they have to work for their money.
Doesn’t make sense anymore
The image clearly says “you have to work to life” and you’re saying the opposite
If you own a factory you don’t need to work to live. You just collect the profits and are a capitalist.
If you work in said factory to make enough money to live you are a worker.
This meme says you should not be for capitalism if you are a worker.
Both people in the meme are workers, but Michael is pointing out that Pam thinks she’s a benefactor of capitalism, but isn’t, by being a worker.
The lines in the meme aren’t exactly a match for the personalities from the show, and it sort of flips the meme format regarding who’s “in the know”, i.e. normally Pam is confounded by nonsense while Michael is just oblivious.
Edit: Interestingly, though, the format still kind of follows in that both workers, Michael (boss) and Pam (employee), are helplessly taking orders from corporate (capital).
Just like Capitalism
That’s not the point.
The question is what is it then
If you work for a living you are not a capitalist
Class differences.
People struggling financially acting like they got “fuck you” money being shitty to everyone like they’ll be billionaires some day. Being mean to people they perceive beneath themselves for not being white like the peach pedophile. Shit like that is the problem.
I think OP is operating under the idea that workers aren’t voting for their own interests (or alternatively not holding a revolution) because they don’t see themselves in one of two broad categories.
Elon Musk of course, dude works more hours than most of us. He even slept in tesla factory for quite some time
EDIT: Obvious /j, but at the same time not really. If you think CEOs don’t work, then that sounds a bit delusional
lmao OP thinks this is some kind of eye opening epiphany or something. Workers know they’re workers, what they need is the realization who represents them and who is the enemy.
There are ideological capitalists and capital holders.
There are people who are capital holders who are ideologically left economically, some instances as far as full socialist.
There are people who hold little to no capital at all but believe capitalism is the best possible system.
As a percentage of their respective classes though, the later class traitor is unfortunately more common than the former class traitor.
I agree. I can nearly taste it.
No I do not work. I use to work so guess I graduated to Capitalist?
Devils in the details
Not using any social programs so not a socialist.
The VA provides socialized healthcare. I’m from a family of veterans and I can tell you firsthand that the socialized healthcare the VA provides is eons better than dealing with predatory insurance companies.
You earn the VA Healthcare benefit. It isn’t given to anyone. You serve then you qualify.
Sure but most of the working class earn their benefits from hard work yet they can’t access those benefits because of predatory insurance companies. I’ve seen the stark contrast as I have taken care of aging family. The point is socialized healthcare is much better and the VA provides that for now.
do you have a business that is incorporated? You enjoy socialist policies favorable to business.
Not owner of a business.
then you’re simply retired.
The only thing I know you work at right now is being full of shit so quit being so fucking cryptic
Earned benefits from military service. I only live off my earned benefits.
Per definition, a capitalist is a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
If you are, congratulations, you’re rich.
Negative not living on investments. Not inheritance, not lottery money, not criminal money. No I didn’t marry someone with money. No I am not a influencer or make money from any social media.
Then you’re not a capitalist, as per definition. Even though being an influencer or making money from social media wouldn’t make you a capitalist per se as well.
Best I can offer is proletarian defending the capitalists.
I think we can be both. Most of our pensions depend on it for growth.
Might as well put it with the rich people money, because they rule everything and aren’t about to let that shit sink in the long term…
You guys have pensions?
Nah, we’re still light years away from class consciousness given how much stupid shit the self-proclaimed “class conscious” people write and who they support.
Are you referring to democratic socialists who try to work within the law (like Bernie and Mamdani)?
Yes, but also ML’s that come from “Deprogram” podcast who uncritically support China/Russia/Nationalism and liberal types who rally behind capitalist political figures for “more liberalism” and who consider it class consciousness (like what’s happening in Turkey and Serbia).
Not necessarily calling these movements and groups bad, there might be class conscious particles in them even, but they ultimately reinforce our class society and the ideas/mechanisms of it.
I think human nature prevents a non-stratified society, unfortunately. Maybe in a way similar to greed being an evolutionary construct some of us are now capable of overcoming, it seems like some people feel an innate need to feel superior to others. Without authoritarian measures to “make” people be part of a collective, you can’t really force it, and lots of people are selfish greedy myopic fools.
deleted by creator
I don’t agree that capitalism is a good system, but I also agree that those who can work should work, because that’s the only way society can function and get better.
If we were a hunter gatherer tribe and no one hunted or gathers we would die.
Just because we have cars and computers doesn’t mean no one has to grow food or sell food or clean the water and build the houses.
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.
Get out of here with your
ChristianMarxist propaganda! /sspoiler
“When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.” - Jesus
I agree with the “to their ability” but not so much with “to their need”
If everyone worked to just sustain themselves, those left in the fringes suffer and die. We need people who are willing to work more than what they need to in order to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.
That’s literally what that means.
Through technology we have become way more productive though. Every increase in productivity can either be used to better the standard of living (assuming that requires more work) or be used to lower the amount of time people have to work. I think the people that want to work just because they like it are a big enough portion of the world population to feed and house every single person on the planet. But instead, the increase in productivity is being gobbled up by a few people at the top. (see productivity / pay gap)
You can work without furthering capitalism. Not everything is for-profit.
You can be both a capitalist and a worker…
Not only that, but being a capitalist doesn’t necessarily you’re giga rich, it just means you think favorably of capitalism as an economic system.
it just means you think favorably…
By that logic, a literal slave could be a capitalist so long as they believe in the efficacy and morality of capitalism.
That doesn’t even track the layperson usage of “capitalist”.edit: Apparently this last claim is false.
So what do we call people who are in favor of capitalism but are working-class? “Bootlicker” is too vague, “liberal” is too specific (especially if you’re talking to an American, but even if you aren’t).
It’s as if words can have more than one meaning
Words have meaning based on usage. If I ask for a glass of water and you give me bleach, it won’t really matter whether you think the two are synonymous–I’m still going to have a bad time. This is why I appealed to the layperson’s usage in the comment above. Your definition of ‘capitalist’ certainly doesn’t track any academic usage, but it also doesn’t track the general usage of the term.
But now I’m stressing the terminological point too much which is really secondary to what the post is about. The goal is to note the fundamental difference between people who need to work for a living and people who can live on the profit from their investment & capital.
What are you rambling about? There’s two definitions to the word and both are commonly used:
Def 1:
someone who supports capitalism (= an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state, with the purpose of making a profit):
Def 2:
someone who has a large amount of money invested (= given hoping to get more back) in business:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/capitalist
Fair enough. The reasonable assumption is that the dictionary tracks the colloquial usage. So although the layperson’s usage is contradictory in some cases (e.g., “the slave was a capitalist” or “the capitalist was a communist”) this is more an indication of the ambiguity of natural language. Just like we can use the word “literally” to mean figuratively, we can refer to a slave as a capitalist. This is a rare case in which pointing to a dictionary does resolve a dispute. So I’ll concede your point about the dual-meanings of the word “capitalist”.
This is still not the main idea, however, as evidenced by the question “Do you have to work to live?” So let’s circle back to your first comment. When you argue that, “You can be both a capitalist and a worker.” this is not using the term capitalist in the same way as the post. In other words, if we concede your point that there are two ways to understand “capitalist”, then your original comment is not addressing the claim at issue.
When you argue that, “You can be both a capitalist and a worker.” this is not using the term capitalist in the same way as the post. In other words, if we concede your point that there are two ways to understand “capitalist”, then your original comment is not addressing the claim at issue.
Reasonable point. The way I see it is this. A capitalist, in the sense that it’s meant in the meme and my statement, implies that somebody has capital to invest. This isn’t necessarily tied to billionaires. A lot of working class people invest their money in hopes of making more. A lot of working class parents and grandparents put their lives savings into a rental properties to help them during their retirement. Most main street businesses are owned by locals. A good chunk of the stock market is owned by small investors. Obviously, these aren’t going to have the impact of a Bezos or Zuckerburg type of money, but they still count. These are examples of working class people who are also capitalists.
These are examples of working class people who are also capitalists.
They are capitalists in the sense that they believe in capitalism. But they are not capitalists in the sense that the post is using (i.e., a part of the capitalist class).
Members of the working class sell their labor in order to gain money and buy the necessities of life. Those in the capitalist class buy labor in order to see a profit on the money they already have. The worker lives on their labor while the capitalist lives on their profits. The idea that someone is in the capitalist class based on a minimal investment in the stock market ignores the fact that they must continue to sell their labor in order to survive. Similarly, Jeff Bezos can can work hard as the CEO of Amazon, but that does not make him working class. It makes him a “worker” in the weak sense that he decides to work, but that’s not what’s at issue in the post.
To be fair, most people who disagree with the ideology behind the post are not aware of the class analysis and so will default to the weaker use of the terms. (“Everyone can just choose to be a capitalist or a worker!”) But the question “Do you work for a living?” is an indication that we’re invoking deeply entrenched class distinctions. Typing this out, I realize the people who upvote the post already know all this, which gives the illusion that everything I’ve written above is immediately obvious.
These are not mutually exclusive terms.
Definitions, especially definitions of political terms, vary a lot these days. But if we go by the leftist (and original) definition, the terms are definitely mutually exclusive.
