You think we're gonna fight corporations as individuals if we strangle government?
No. Government is our protection from those who would want to consolidate power, especially corporations. I understand that the government often fails at that protection, but it's still a hell of a lot better than being completely defenseless.
The whole point of the founding fathers was to spread power and attempt to keep it spread. They wanted to avoid both the abuses of monarchy and the eventual decapitation of leadership (seeing as how that'd be their heads).
It ain't going well for the little guy lately - the thread in my Lemmy right below this one is "Amazon, SpaceX and other companies are arguing the government agency that has protected labor rights since 1935 is actually unconstitutional".
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the working man that labor unions were gasp COMMUNIST
Wouldn't it be an interesting few years if governments banned companies from owning companies (maybe with carve outs for pension funds)
Government is our megazord. Got it.
Edit: added wiki link for the curious. In short, episodes of the Power Rangers often end with the rangers battling a monster that inevitably revives as a much larger, Godzilla-scale version.
As the rangers are suddenly too small to fight the larger foe that towers above them, they must instead organize their individual vehicles into one giant “megazord” — a large mech, like a gundam crossed with a transformer — in order to defeat the enemy.
That only works if it can be meaningfully said that the working class directs the state, rather than the owner class. In America, the Owner Class dominates the state via lobbying and being able to contribute to election campaigns.
The working class directs the state. The owning class directs the working class. The owning class doesn't give two shits about abortion beyond how they can use it to get the people they want elected.
It's why they bother with Fox News and all this propaganda. At the end of the day they still need votes.
One might argue that the government is there to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. James Madison certainly did
Thus the beheading part. Spreading power was good for everyone.
I'd rather have a billion USD as an American citizen than have 10 billion USD as a Russian oligarch. For some reason the GOP doesn't seem to understand why.
Yes. The point of government is to fight things too big for us to fight ourselves. That is the only reason government has to exist. All the other things are nice to have features, but a government is a fighting force.
That doesn’t mean we give up our own weapons though. We need an army to fight the other armies, law to fight the power of money, and government for those. But we also need weapons of our own to prevent the government from physically fighting us.
Our weapons keep the government polite. The government keeps other governments and other large organizations polite.
It’s the minimum structure necessary for a society where respectful interaction is the norm.
All these weapons and power structuring aren’t about dominating. They’re about maintaining a power balance to prevent domination … and make space for respect and trade.
Government therefore exists in order to:
- Prevent any individual from dominating any other individual, creating guaranteed space for respectful trade
- Ensure the first item by having enough physical power (army) to control any individual including removing them
- Also configure that army to oppose other armies so that they can’t come dominate the local individuals
- Be unable to dominate the whole polity if it fights together (government carries a sword but each individual carries a small knife; only large groups of individuals can oppose the sword)
It all starts from needing a way to enforce nobody is dominating anyone else.
But we also need weapons of our own to prevent the government from physically fighting us.
And the most important and effective weapon is collective action. The reason people look weird at Americans about gun culture is because alone, you can have as many guns as you want, the police will bash your head in either way. Together, you don't even need guns, you can cripple the government in a week by just not going to work.
And that ability is incredibly heavily regulated in the US. From our perspective, the US is the country where people don't have the ability to fight the government.
That said, guns can be good against nazis at your door, but at that point, the government has long failed at taking out the trash.
As someone who's self employed, I feel like self employment is a form of rebellion against this system.
My dad teases me that his socialist son is now a capitalist because I give music lessons and host events. I'm pretty sure I'm not because I don't profit from the labor of someone else, I do all the work and anyone who helps me isn't existentially tied to me.
Sounds like your dad has fuck all for a grasp on what socialism is
Yup. The good part about it is that if I know the trip wire words to avoid, I can get him to agree on some really progressive things.
Like I got him to agree that history is uncomfortable and that victors tend to write history, so we should be critical in how we learn it and teach it. We should consider the perspectives of who "the losers" are to get a true grasp of what actually happened, and that the society you grow up in will shape your world view. Our history classes should confront these issues and teach events with consideration of different groups of people and how they were affected, even if it may make us uncomfortable.
Hmmm what does that sound like?
A boomer!? (presumably) There's a shock...
There is no badge for not hiring people. Its better to hire someone and treat them better than another employer than pretend like you are virtuous and not "profiting from their labor".
An interesting thought. A kind of harm reduction. Alternately (or perhaps coinciding) I'm very interested in workers co-ops where the distinction between employee/er kinda goes away. You can still have managers and people setting the quarterly goals or whatever, but they aren't "above" you, except maybe in their skill at managing people.
It's better entirely to set up a worker co-operative and cease exploitation.
I'm pretty sure I'm not because I don't profit from the labor of someone else, I do all the work and anyone who helps me isn't existentially tied to me.
Idk, I'm in a similar boat. I work at a state-run hospital, but I also own a company with my wife and friend and we do all the labour together. I think sometimes to deal with the work load I have a "home me" and a "work me".
Home me is chill, just wants to relax and have a good time.
Work me..... He's a scoundrel who doesn't work nearly hard enough to afford "home me" more leisure time. You can't trust him, gotta watch him like a hawk. I'm going to wring that guy dry until I can retire off his sweat.
So it makes an odd amount of sense to me, but I've constructed an odd coping mechanism i think.
Self-employment is detrimental to people. Because it has the workers support all the risks. It's not the solution.
If we're being honest, corporations don't "pay" taxes at all, those costs are instead passed on to the consumer. They collect taxes from you, just like the government, they just hide it better.
Also the employees! Your employer and you split your taxes. If the company didn’t have to pay ~15%, they could theoretically increase your salary by that much. They wouldn’t, but they could.
You're right. Unless the only alternative for an employer is to raise wages or die, they won't.
And people don't pay taxes either, since they get money from companies to pay the taxes! Nobody actually pays taxes, it is the circle of money.
That is what you sound like.
Circle of money is incredibly important. People get money they spend it, improving their lives.
Goverment spend money building and maintaining infrastructure, and in normal countires education and healthcare.
Companies get money (pay less tax) they give most of it to shareholders to hoard. Who sits on a bigger and bigger pile of societys life blood, draining it to a lifeless husk. Parasites pure and simple.
Exactly. They just pass the cost onto consumers because there's no way they could reduce CEO pay.
But please ignore how stock buybacks and c-suite pay was way lower when corporate taxes were high. That's a silly correlation that has nothing to do with price inelasticity.
Reducing CEO pay is a logical fallacy. They will find a way to recoup those lost monies in another, harder to find and even harder to tax way, generally by reducing quality/ quantity of product, making cuts to workforce costs, or passing on costs to consumers in the form of increased prices. Altruism doesn't keep the lights on.
Companies charge for their products and services as much as they can get away with charging, quite independently of taxes - it's all about how much customers will pay, not about taxes.
The only taxea companies collect for the State are Sales Taxes.
Your view is the same delusion about how Markets works as the one were companies will raise salaries if they increase prices: no they won't, they charge as much as they can get away with and pay as little as they can get away with since what's in between the company owners (and upper management) get to keep.
This is basic Economics.
Pretty sure you're thinking I'm supporting the "companies". I'm not. Their sole purpose is to make money, be it for the ownership, board, or investors. Regardless of how you feel about that, it's "real world" economics. , Raising taxes on them comes with consequences, we need to be honest with the ripple effect it causes. The board, shareholders, ownership, etc isn't going to just "take it" and lower their own compensation. They will lower their costs to compensate, in the form of reducing hours, lowering quality of their product, raising prices on their product, lowering other compensation provided to employees, drastic cuts to their workforce, contracting workers, even famously "giving you less chips in a bag" for the same price. Companies will only willfully raise wages when the alternative is to be pushed out of lucrative markets.
Nothing about economics is "basic".
If we tax income then employees will just demand higher salaries! Don't tax income, just let corporations pay more tax without having to enrich their greedy employees even further. There's no point to income taxes, employers just end up paying for them anyway.
Am I remembering wrong or is this the first NSF “terrorist” leader’s monologue in Deus Ex?
governme-
nts
He had to catch a breath.
Mid-syllable hyphen >:(
90% was self employed in 1900.
That can't be right can it?
Yeah, it's correct if by "self employed" you mean "subsistence farmer". The US was basically a third world country in 1900. We only won the Spanish American War in 1898 because Spain was a dying empire.
50% according to this article. They mention 80% in 1860.
I'm not 100% sure of the source there but I have heard similar numbers around 50%. Think of all the self-employed people doing jobs that just don't exist today in the US - delivering milk, fruit, fish, newspapers, door-to-door salesmen, and that's on top of jobs that still exist today with a lot of self-employed people like AC repair, plumbing, etc...
From 1860 to 1900 the average size of American farms had declined from 199 acres to 147 acres and the percentage of farmers in the labor force declined from 58 to 38 percent.
No, doesn't seem right.
Don't even get me started on the litigation terrorism against states that want to implement green laws
This guy is gonna get laid
...off.
Also likely, but it doesn't invalidate his point
If you talk to me that way you can have me any way you please. I'm more bear than femboy though, but still. Any hole a goal?
Even today, Deus Ex proves to be relevant and provokes discussion. True art.
Who's reinstalling it right now?
Yo I wanna hang with you at the parties.
So whats the context for the original image ???
A club called Milk in Edinburgh posted it on their Facebook page. Presumably it was taken there.
Of course it's Edinburgh lmao.
He's from the future and there to tell her about all the things the internet will be making him say once the photo goes up.
Yeah? well I don't see any corporations getting hot puss puss. Later nerds.
You got invited to parties?
She's not zoning out, she's trying to remember how to make TATP.
The meme didn't upload.
Self employment is very much not something you should seek. Self employment means the worker support all the risk. That's a boon for the capitalists. Why do you think uber and stuff are so successful?
I think in this context self-employed means being a farmer, carpenter, grocer, etc. not a 1099 contractor.
And that's even worse.
Being self employed means you support all the risks of your activity, without any mutualisation or support from society or partners. That's a distopia.
I would hardly call that self-employed.
It depends on whether your business accumulates assets of value. Uber drivers are functionally employees, and they really ought to be classified as such. They can't sell their right to drive for Uber, their car wasn't exactly a business asset before they started driving for Uber. The mere fact that we say "they're diving for Uber" and not "they started an independent taxi service and have partnered with Uber" should really be all you need to know about the reality of the practical ownership and employee status when a person drives for Uber.
Anyway, when you're self-employed you should be building up assets, in part, because if things go tits up you can at least sell what's left of your business. You're right, self-employed does mean greater risk, but there's also the potential for higher reward. As a society, we benefit from having a decent fraction of the population be self-employed, because smaller businesses can be more flexible and more innovative. That's part of why it's important to have strong social safety nets, so that the risk of self-employment is lower than it has to be.
The problem with what you're saying is that either you're employed without any if the benefits of employment, or you are a capitalist.
In either way you lose.
On the other hand a company can be a cooperative or state owned.
But in the US you hate the state, you are indoctrinated with individualism and you hate socialism. So it's a lost cause.
Employment is production for the direct benefit of capitalists. Uber drivers are employees, whether Uber wants to call them that or not.
Self-employment is literally the worker owning and operating the means of production.
Our economic and social policies should favor self employment.
