So you sugest that somebody living of money/ownership is a leach by definition. But what about someone who (lets simplify things, lets say he just) saved – money (by spending less), or time and resources (for example by efective barter exchange) and now has got plenty of it. By spending less now he got a bigger surpluss, you may even call it a profit comming from diferent (better or worse) priorities management of his. How’s that bad?
It’s not bad. Nobody cares about this, I don’t know why you assume socialists do.
Why these coul’d not be invested? Work as a capital? Why if he can buy labour or aditional value on market for less he shouldn’t do it?
Because then he’d be generating money with money, which is not productivity, and that is leeching off of other peoples work.
Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more?
This doesn’t make sense, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
Aren’t we trying to pray on more successful ones, and if it is so, then how is that diferent of them trying to pray on less risk taking ones, less rich ones?
No, we’re trying to get rid of people who don’t produce value, and have the most money while not doing anything.
P.S. I’m not suposing to abolish taxes or not keeping up available some social minimum (basic) services which are enabling people, giving them more oportunities to start.
This has nothing to do with socialism beyond that this is a popular thing for socialists, it is not socialist policy to do that.
At the same time, I do not think we have to punish someone who is more efective or can make money out of the money, resources out of resources, or time out of his more efectively managed time.
If they make money off of having money, then they aren’t doing anything, if they’re helping manage people, that’s labor that should be rewarded, non-productive labor is what we seek to extinguish, not productive labor.
I honestly can barely read what you’re writing, please proofread, that made very little sense to me, and is almost impossible to read.
// Well, forgive, if my (on a go) english is a bit less comprehensive for a native speaker than for the euringlish speaking one :) Lemmy android client does not have a proofreader, but it’s not a problem for me to rephrase then you point at problemic to comprehend sections.
Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more?
This doesn’t make sense, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less? But if I corectly understood you, that is not a problem in your socialism understanding (or interpretation), right?
I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less?
It is believed this will be mostly eliminated by workers receiving the full value of their labor. It’s impossible to offer a job where you don’t pay the full value if everybody else offers the full value, due to simple competition.
Isn’t that imaginary “full value” somewhere far far above or below – lets call it, “momentum optimum value”?
As I see it: too much concurency in place (lets say geographycaly) and workers will fight between themselves for work, vages will go down. Too few specialists and the value of them goes up for the team (company, organization, comunity, town, etc…) Such specialist, for several hours and his half day trip, can be overpayed so much, that 10 full time workers (spending their time creating value, puting effort) working 8 hours/day for a whole week would not get in total. Are socialist gonna to pay them all equal or maybe even more for the second ones, reasoning that technicaly they been putting more effort and time? Or are we just playing with words and an abstraction “full value” means nothing else than “how much that is worth as part of a product”. But if so, then your before mentioned, hipotetycaly ‘nothing doing’ CEO or Owner (living from investment of capital), alsow did their value part. First one, lets say, by making a 5 minutes call (or just playing a tenis with right client) which granted a begining of 6 milion contract arangements. Second one (I’ll take an extreme), by deciding to give his money to broker or banker for them to invest in some sucsessfull busines, or by spending it on to be able to do nothing, instead of keeping it under his pilow. Oh and by spending it he also somewhat does create a value – he buys cofee for 20$ instead of 2$, creating value oportunity for the restaurant and it’s labourers and further down the chain.
How do we measure that “full value” in your understanting of (post capitalism) socialism? Is it by labour hours, labour effort, or labour effect?
What about cases, then wisely doing nothing will create value too? :) E.g. not shipping right away, but delaying/waiting for more orders to combine, will optimise logistics and so it will create value.
From a socialist perspective, the concept of workers receiving the full value of their labor is about creating a fair and equitable economic system that minimizes exploitation and inequality. Let’s address your points one by one:
Concurrent Workers and Wage Competition:
Socialism aims to prevent workers from competing against each other for wages by promoting cooperation and solidarity. It advocates for collective ownership of the means of production, where workers collectively make decisions about their work conditions and compensation. The goal is to ensure that workers’ wages are determined democratically, rather than through cutthroat competition.
Specialists and High Wages:
In a socialist system, the value of specialized work is indeed recognized. Socialists typically argue for a wage structure that takes into account factors like skill, effort, and time spent on a task. Specialists may receive higher compensation, but it would be subject to democratic decision-making and not driven solely by profit motives. The goal is to ensure that everyone’s work is fairly rewarded based on the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
CEOs and Owners:
In socialism, the compensation of CEOs and owners is subject to scrutiny. Socialists often advocate for limiting excessive income disparities and ensuring that wealth is distributed more equitably. Compensation for CEOs and owners may be determined democratically, and mechanisms would be in place to prevent exploitation and wealth accumulation at the expense of workers.
Measuring “Full Value”:
The measurement of “full value” can take into account various factors, including labor hours, labor effort, and the effect of one’s work. It is not just about the abstract value of a product, but also the social and human elements involved in its creation. Socialists typically support systems where these factors are collectively assessed and where decisions on compensation are made democratically to ensure fairness.
Value in Doing Nothing:
Socialists recognize that there are cases where strategic inaction or delayed action can create value, such as optimizing logistics. In a socialist system, these decisions would be made collectively, taking into account the best interests of society as a whole, rather than being driven solely by profit motives. The goal is to prioritize the common good over individual profit.
In summary, the socialist ideal of workers receiving the full value of their labor is rooted in principles of fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. It seeks to create an economic system where wealth and value are distributed more equitably, and where decisions about compensation and resource allocation are made with the well-being of all members of society in mind.
We workers (not beeing owners, not caring about long term, jumping jobs each 2-5 years) vote to get 99% of next two years sales profits: a) owners vote to hire new workers; or b) bussiness fails (no reinvestments, no acumulation of capital, owners vote themselves out minimising losses). ;)
We workers are coowners of bussines (we invest into shares) – we vote, make decisions rooting them in those good and nice principles you have mentioned, fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. But now we think about bussiness, including growth of our shares (our common capital) too.
How I see it, the dream socialists (leftists) are dreaming of (or declare to dream to get popular votes) is already here and now. The only difference in between talking about that dream and living in it, is the decision. Decision to take responsibilities, take part in risks by coowning not only profits and values, but risks and development too – that is literally meaning becoming a coowner. Buying into the bussiness, making your own, working into it.
The problem (if any) is not in the capitalism of democratic world, but in the people who do not want to participate and coown their enviroment. Be it a bussines where they don’t want to coown risks and futures, but want to divide value. Be it a businesses owners whom do not coown a public good and future and just look into their subspace by depleating everything whats outside their assumed ownership. Or be it a public park, or just simple plain wild, semi-wild nature where some people litter without care, without understanding that all society coowns it, and that means they are already included, that means they themselves individualy also coown it.
Want to divide value in to some other understanding of fairness than current owners, management, board, public, city, town, community? Coown it, but coown it whole and all, not just parts you like.
It’s not bad. Nobody cares about this, I don’t know why you assume socialists do.
Because then he’d be generating money with money, which is not productivity, and that is leeching off of other peoples work.
This doesn’t make sense, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
No, we’re trying to get rid of people who don’t produce value, and have the most money while not doing anything.
This has nothing to do with socialism beyond that this is a popular thing for socialists, it is not socialist policy to do that.
If they make money off of having money, then they aren’t doing anything, if they’re helping manage people, that’s labor that should be rewarded, non-productive labor is what we seek to extinguish, not productive labor.
I honestly can barely read what you’re writing, please proofread, that made very little sense to me, and is almost impossible to read.
// Well, forgive, if my (on a go) english is a bit less comprehensive for a native speaker than for the euringlish speaking one :) Lemmy android client does not have a proofreader, but it’s not a problem for me to rephrase then you point at problemic to comprehend sections.
I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less? But if I corectly understood you, that is not a problem in your socialism understanding (or interpretation), right?
It is believed this will be mostly eliminated by workers receiving the full value of their labor. It’s impossible to offer a job where you don’t pay the full value if everybody else offers the full value, due to simple competition.
Isn’t that imaginary “full value” somewhere far far above or below – lets call it, “momentum optimum value”?
As I see it: too much concurency in place (lets say geographycaly) and workers will fight between themselves for work, vages will go down. Too few specialists and the value of them goes up for the team (company, organization, comunity, town, etc…) Such specialist, for several hours and his half day trip, can be overpayed so much, that 10 full time workers (spending their time creating value, puting effort) working 8 hours/day for a whole week would not get in total. Are socialist gonna to pay them all equal or maybe even more for the second ones, reasoning that technicaly they been putting more effort and time? Or are we just playing with words and an abstraction “full value” means nothing else than “how much that is worth as part of a product”. But if so, then your before mentioned, hipotetycaly ‘nothing doing’ CEO or Owner (living from investment of capital), alsow did their value part. First one, lets say, by making a 5 minutes call (or just playing a tenis with right client) which granted a begining of 6 milion contract arangements. Second one (I’ll take an extreme), by deciding to give his money to broker or banker for them to invest in some sucsessfull busines, or by spending it on to be able to do nothing, instead of keeping it under his pilow. Oh and by spending it he also somewhat does create a value – he buys cofee for 20$ instead of 2$, creating value oportunity for the restaurant and it’s labourers and further down the chain.
How do we measure that “full value” in your understanting of (post capitalism) socialism? Is it by labour hours, labour effort, or labour effect?
What about cases, then wisely doing nothing will create value too? :) E.g. not shipping right away, but delaying/waiting for more orders to combine, will optimise logistics and so it will create value.
From a socialist perspective, the concept of workers receiving the full value of their labor is about creating a fair and equitable economic system that minimizes exploitation and inequality. Let’s address your points one by one:
Concurrent Workers and Wage Competition:
Specialists and High Wages:
CEOs and Owners:
Measuring “Full Value”:
Value in Doing Nothing:
In summary, the socialist ideal of workers receiving the full value of their labor is rooted in principles of fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. It seeks to create an economic system where wealth and value are distributed more equitably, and where decisions about compensation and resource allocation are made with the well-being of all members of society in mind.
We workers (not beeing owners, not caring about long term, jumping jobs each 2-5 years) vote to get 99% of next two years sales profits: a) owners vote to hire new workers; or b) bussiness fails (no reinvestments, no acumulation of capital, owners vote themselves out minimising losses). ;)
We workers are coowners of bussines (we invest into shares) – we vote, make decisions rooting them in those good and nice principles you have mentioned, fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. But now we think about bussiness, including growth of our shares (our common capital) too.
How I see it, the dream socialists (leftists) are dreaming of (or declare to dream to get popular votes) is already here and now. The only difference in between talking about that dream and living in it, is the decision. Decision to take responsibilities, take part in risks by coowning not only profits and values, but risks and development too – that is literally meaning becoming a coowner. Buying into the bussiness, making your own, working into it.
The problem (if any) is not in the capitalism of democratic world, but in the people who do not want to participate and coown their enviroment. Be it a bussines where they don’t want to coown risks and futures, but want to divide value. Be it a businesses owners whom do not coown a public good and future and just look into their subspace by depleating everything whats outside their assumed ownership. Or be it a public park, or just simple plain wild, semi-wild nature where some people litter without care, without understanding that all society coowns it, and that means they are already included, that means they themselves individualy also coown it.
Want to divide value in to some other understanding of fairness than current owners, management, board, public, city, town, community? Coown it, but coown it whole and all, not just parts you like.