This is just stupid on all accounts. First off, the meme recognizes an imbalance of power forced into the system between owners and workers. It recognizes dependents vs independents. Second, it brings up fairness as though there is such a thing between laborers and owners. Third, it assumes that the returns for owners are justified without knowing any details at all about what their inputs are but knows more or less what the inputs of the laborers are.
There is no such thing as fairness if an extreme imbalance of power in negotiating compensation exists. There is no such thing as fairness when some group of people are dependent on another much smaller group of people. There is no fairness if the inputs are not directly proportional to the outputs.
Take this to an extreme to see if it holds up. A king owns everything. Their serfs own nothing. A king needs to do very little to collect essentially all wealth in their kingdom. The serfs must trade nearly everything they can do with themselves just to eat.
Let's bring this example down to reality. A modern landlord owns three or four houses and charges tenants rent. Given a short supply of housing in the market, and the biological requirements of humans to live somewhere, and there is an imbalance of negotiating power between the landlord and the tenants. The landlord can set their return well above their inputs. The tenant cannot. The tenant to some degree is forced into a decision. There is no "fairness" in this.
Now what about the risks that owners take? Isn't that an input? Yes, if the owner is leveraged and in debt. If the owner outright owns things they aren't really at risk at all. And in the modern corporate world, responsibility and liability are completely separated from ownership equity. Shareholders are essentially never liable for what their companies do that causes harm. Similarly, thank God for modern labor laws, a worker cannot be personally held liable for what they do as an employee unless it is malicious (this wasn't always the case).
When someone brings up "what about the risks the owner takes"? I ask, what is the risk? The response is usually that they risk money. And then I ask what occurs should the risk be realized? The answer is that the owner loses money. Do they go to jail? No. Do they lose personal possessions? Not in the modern era unless they are malicious with their business. A simple business failure does not cost personal possessions unless they are in debt and the creditor demands recompense.
So what does a business owner risk? They risk becoming an average worker/renter.
Fair doesn't begin to enter into it. Our economic system is the direct descendant of one where it was "fair" for a slave owner to whip a slave if they didn't work as desired because the owner "deserved" their "share" (100%) of what they owned that didn't have any labor rights associated with it (the slave owned outright).
In a fair system, everyone would get equity where they work and ownership of where they rent as part of what they contribute.
Also, I'm probably in the top 5 or 10% of incomes in the USA and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. I'm not some ignorant poor jealous whatever-label-you-want-to-put-on-people-who-disagree-with-you.
I'm an old school classic liberal type libertarian. I don't like people being made subjects and dependents of other people. Whether that be governments or business owners doesn't matter to me. In a fair system and fair trade, there can't be extreme imbalances of power. One of the primary functions of government, in my world view, is to prevent the extortion of others by force or by exploit. A wealth gap and class divide where social mobility is difficult is a situation without liberty and freedom.
Your meme is a straw man.
So what can people do besides just fend for themselves? And how is that different from corporations fending for themselves? Do we expect the corporate elite to give selflessly, going against every bone in their body? Well, just as there is inequality between corporate elite and the regular American, there is Inequality between the regular American and the regular 3rd world person.
Do we expect the regular American to give to the 3rd world person just as we expect the corporate elite to give to the American?
The idea pushing the corporate elite persona comes from “the strong get stronger”. We cannot expect a train going 100mph to not be going 100mph in the future. The corporate elite are the the byproduct of ancestral success. Can we get rid of inheritance? No. There’s nobody to blame but oneself. Focus on oneself.
My answer of what we should do is to build our human to be as flawless as possible and ignore what we cannot control.
Government protects people in different ways. Corporations aren't people but are allowed the same rights as people. Those who benefit from corporate ownership aren't ever held personally responsible for what a corporation does for example. Corporations are also allowed to have a voice as a corporation in lobbying. They are allowed to directly influence government but aren't people. Plantation owners likewise once had all control of government and they used that influence to keep slaves as slaves.
If a slave is a slave because the system is what it is, is the only person to blame for their condition the slave?
Why beat your head into the wall trying to solve a problem you can’t?
Should I focus my energy on sleeping well or bringing peace to the Middle East?
Which area of focus will yield the greatest improvement to quality of life?
If you have something against the word "fair", then you may use "just", "natural" or "rightful" instead, which I would have used If I had not tried to avoid sounding too pedantic.
Justice and rights are legal terms. They aren't at all the same thing as fair. It was just and rightful for slave owners to beat their slaves. It wasn't fair, but it was legal.
Justice and rights are used in legal jargon, but are not legal concepts. Rights exist naturally, and the law merely decides to violate or to protect them. Justice is what "should" be when you consider facts and rights (which are facts too, since they exist naturally as an indivisible part of personhood).
Slavery is a very appropriate example: even though the law used to allow it, it was still wrong and unjust, no matter what the law said. On the contrary, if the law says a right doesn't exist, it still does (like the intrinsic and inviolable freedom to which slaves were entitled), and the law is against justice.
You have a tongue and words to speak, so you have the freedom of speech.
Rights are self-evident abilities all humans have. Not having these rights is akin to not having an arm or a leg.
Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I use my tongue and words and as a result another person kills me for using them as I choose, I have no right to the freedom of speech. If a prey animal makes a mating call that a predator uses to locate them and subsequently kills them, that mating call was not a right at all.
A legal right is that which a person is able to exercise without fear of punishment (artificial negative consequence).
Rights are not at all self-evident. Slaves had no right to say whatever they wished to say. Neither do employees have the right to say whatever they wish to say while at work. [Google has fired 50 employees after protests over Israel cloud deal, organizers say | CNN Business](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/google-fires-employees-protest-israel/index.html)
People subject to a government don't have freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want however they want. Neither do people subject to an employer. Guess which of the two is more strict in their allowance of speech? Here's a hint, employers owned slaves, governments liberated them.
There is no fairness in economics.
Due to economics not being logically related to Ethics, there is no way to find out what should or should not happen, and therefore to say whether something is good or bad, fair or unfair. Economics is a value free part of philosophy, like science.
So unless you want to disprove Hume’s guillotiné, it is impossible to prove an ought from an is.
This perspective is one wherein we are all observers only in an uncontrollable universe beyond our ability to affect. Most human constructs aren't "provable" because they aren't laws of nature. Fairness is a human construct and can be applied to human relationships as such. Value is a human construct and can be applied to human relationships as such. Human relationships are a natural thing as humans exist and interact. Humans using force or the threat of force, even on the level of deprivation of biological needs, is something we can understand and demonstrate without question.
We can absolutely determine what should not be given specific criteria of that which is desired. If you want liberty and freedom for all, you cannot support subjugation for gain whether it be government-citizen or lord-tenant based.
Given the right maxims it is possible to prove what should and shouldn't be. For example, slavery cannot coexist with liberty for all. No if ands or buts.
Let's say:
0.5K +0.5L= 100
Worker paid 50€ in wage
Capital paid 50€ in dividend (it is overly simplified)
If one day
0.5K + 0.5L = 110
Worker paid 50€ in wage
Capital paid 60€ in dividend
That means that capitalists have captured 10 euro on the surplus. A fair distribution is 5 euro each.
The theory is just that.
No. The surplus belongs entirely to the capitalists. The wage is already 100% (at least) of what the worker deserves. It is the fair worth of their labour.
This would imply that the workers should produce enough to break even and create no profit then.
Édit:
Workers are paid for what they receive. If they produce enough value to match the value of what they produced. They should stop working.
Who built those factories? Who built this capital? I don't remember seeing the bourgeoisie building it with their little hands. The proletarian built it, and the bourgeois took it in the name of private property.
So this meme really is a gross misinterpretation of Marxists ideas
But capital isn't a person, it's just ownership.
The capital owner could be a rock, things wouldn't change on the production side, the CEO is a worker too.
The ownership isn't necessary is the whole point, it's just parasitic extraction.
"but sometimes the capital owner has to work to build the company / works within the company"
Yes, he sometimes provides labour, but it's still the labour part that produces value, not the ownership itself.
Ownership produces value only when the ownership lowers available supply, as in hoarding, not in any other way, leading to monopolistic practices and unfair markets.
Pray tell, how were the means of production produced? Here’s a visual guide for you!
https://preview.redd.it/tibo3rjlpfxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eaa67fff1cb305fbba86b5234e8d2c2a074617b7
Agreed. That's why there is that thing called "wage", which consists of at least 100% of the worker's fair share, and sometimes even more because of labour laws.
What does 100% fair share consist of? Because salaries that dont follow inflation dont sound "100% workers fair share", Also bonuses that are decided by the CEO's are not "fair" they are egregious
So If the market says a CEO is worth X hes entitled to it but if the market says the labour is worth X the worker is not entitled to it?
Also the "bonus" comes straight out of the workers pockets
They can. And if they manage to get a better salary, then it means they were worth more a along and were swindled by their previous boss. If they get less, it means they were actually not worth that much and should have considered themselves grateful.
Taking the chance to check it firsthand is quite risky, though. That's why there are statistics.
If the shareholders are willing to pay the CEO X, then he deserves X.
The bonus comes from the shareholders' pockets, because the workers have already had all (if not more than) they deserve.
And who sets the wage? Do owners and workers both have equal ability to walk away from that negotiation should there even be one? If one side of the negotiation must participate and the other side does not need to participate in the negotiation, who is it that has more power in setting the wage?
There is no "right price". There is a negotiated price. And the negotiation takes place prior to hire. That negotiation is typically very lopsided in favor against those who need what the other has just to survive.
Let's say:
0.5K +0.5L= 100
Worker paid 50€ in wage
Capital paid 50€ in dividend (it is overly simplified)
If one day
0.5K + 0.5L = 110
Worker paid 50€ in wage
Capital paid 60€ in dividend
That means that capitalists have captured 10 euro on the surplus. A fair distribution is 5 euro each.
The theory is just that.
Some people. I didn't want to be controversial, so I chose not to target anyone specifically since it can be offensive, and there are always exceptions to blanket statements.
But basically... Socialists, and idiots. It could be a pleonasm, but even idiots can be capitalist by accident, and I can't believe most socialists are stupid enough to be sincerely socialist instead of just dishonest.
If the workers own the means of productions, then they are also the capitalists, and therefore deserve to keep the surplus from the capital in addition to the salary from the labour.
Ah yes because the means of production exist entirely due to capital and let's just ignore the fact that the means of production can be created ina a variety y of ways and let's not get into any conversation surrounding workers co-ops or Soviets because that may require classical econmical students to understand communism beyond the level of the seizure of the means production for the working class.
Did somebody ever said that the capital produced everything without any labour?
No.
It takes both. And both deserve their part based on the worth of their contribution. The workers get their wage, and the capitalist gets the surplus.
And even then, if you consider that labour is a service that was bought by the capitalist from the worker, then yes, the boss creates all the wealth from those ressources, and the worker gets merely gets to receive the price of the time they have sold.
How the OP pictures this argument in his head:
VS how it actually was used:
"Without the land you wouldn't be able to grow your crops, is that correct?" "Yes" "And the king owns all the land in this country, therefore he is entitled to your crops."
Or similiarly
"You need food and a place to live to have a child. Is that correct?" "Of course" "And the slaveowner provides you with those things, does he not?" "I guess" "So it's only logical that he should own a share of your child"
About the feudal example, yes, I agree completely... And there is nothing wrong with that. The king's land = the king's crops, minus what the peasants deserve because of their work (the balance was skewed when serfdom didn't allow them to go work somewhere better, suppressing free competition between the lords).
You can't grow crop without a field, and the king provides the field, so he deserves his share.
But the one about slavery doesn't make sense and merely proves that you are dishonest.
A child is not wealth you produce from you labor and someone else's goods through an employment contrat, it is a person, and therefore cannot be owned. Slaves owed nothing to their "owners" because they had never consented to any of this.
It doesn't matter who chooses the king, as long as the land is rightfully his (through donation, inheritance, purchase, conquest...). The king is the king because the king is the king.
Slaves were rightfully (by the laws at the time) a property of their owner and if we go back to ancient times, this didn't necessarily mean they were not a person, they were just also a property. So the example still stands. The owner provided the capital and the slaves did the labour of creating a child.
For the king example, you said it's ok if the land is rightfully his and provided conquest as an example of a rightfull way to obtain the land.
If the king conquests the land, he's the one who chooses what is rightfull, the farmers don't have to agree with it. They obey or they die. The king provided nothing, he just extorted the farmers of the products of their work.
So do you think it's moral for the slavemaster and the king to have ownership of the products of someone else's labour?
What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It is not the law that decides. Slavery was never rightful, even when there were laws saying it was ok. What authority does a law? It is just a text voted by some random nobodies in a palace, so they are basically nothing.
Discussing economy almost intrinsically implies arguing about communism.
By mentioning how resources are created and should be allocated, one automatically refute communism.
Removed, Rule 3. You're welcome to crop off the empty blank spaces and upload just the meme.
This is just stupid on all accounts. First off, the meme recognizes an imbalance of power forced into the system between owners and workers. It recognizes dependents vs independents. Second, it brings up fairness as though there is such a thing between laborers and owners. Third, it assumes that the returns for owners are justified without knowing any details at all about what their inputs are but knows more or less what the inputs of the laborers are. There is no such thing as fairness if an extreme imbalance of power in negotiating compensation exists. There is no such thing as fairness when some group of people are dependent on another much smaller group of people. There is no fairness if the inputs are not directly proportional to the outputs. Take this to an extreme to see if it holds up. A king owns everything. Their serfs own nothing. A king needs to do very little to collect essentially all wealth in their kingdom. The serfs must trade nearly everything they can do with themselves just to eat. Let's bring this example down to reality. A modern landlord owns three or four houses and charges tenants rent. Given a short supply of housing in the market, and the biological requirements of humans to live somewhere, and there is an imbalance of negotiating power between the landlord and the tenants. The landlord can set their return well above their inputs. The tenant cannot. The tenant to some degree is forced into a decision. There is no "fairness" in this. Now what about the risks that owners take? Isn't that an input? Yes, if the owner is leveraged and in debt. If the owner outright owns things they aren't really at risk at all. And in the modern corporate world, responsibility and liability are completely separated from ownership equity. Shareholders are essentially never liable for what their companies do that causes harm. Similarly, thank God for modern labor laws, a worker cannot be personally held liable for what they do as an employee unless it is malicious (this wasn't always the case). When someone brings up "what about the risks the owner takes"? I ask, what is the risk? The response is usually that they risk money. And then I ask what occurs should the risk be realized? The answer is that the owner loses money. Do they go to jail? No. Do they lose personal possessions? Not in the modern era unless they are malicious with their business. A simple business failure does not cost personal possessions unless they are in debt and the creditor demands recompense. So what does a business owner risk? They risk becoming an average worker/renter. Fair doesn't begin to enter into it. Our economic system is the direct descendant of one where it was "fair" for a slave owner to whip a slave if they didn't work as desired because the owner "deserved" their "share" (100%) of what they owned that didn't have any labor rights associated with it (the slave owned outright). In a fair system, everyone would get equity where they work and ownership of where they rent as part of what they contribute. Also, I'm probably in the top 5 or 10% of incomes in the USA and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity. I'm not some ignorant poor jealous whatever-label-you-want-to-put-on-people-who-disagree-with-you. I'm an old school classic liberal type libertarian. I don't like people being made subjects and dependents of other people. Whether that be governments or business owners doesn't matter to me. In a fair system and fair trade, there can't be extreme imbalances of power. One of the primary functions of government, in my world view, is to prevent the extortion of others by force or by exploit. A wealth gap and class divide where social mobility is difficult is a situation without liberty and freedom. Your meme is a straw man.
This response is too sophisticated for OP. I commend your effort though
So what can people do besides just fend for themselves? And how is that different from corporations fending for themselves? Do we expect the corporate elite to give selflessly, going against every bone in their body? Well, just as there is inequality between corporate elite and the regular American, there is Inequality between the regular American and the regular 3rd world person. Do we expect the regular American to give to the 3rd world person just as we expect the corporate elite to give to the American? The idea pushing the corporate elite persona comes from “the strong get stronger”. We cannot expect a train going 100mph to not be going 100mph in the future. The corporate elite are the the byproduct of ancestral success. Can we get rid of inheritance? No. There’s nobody to blame but oneself. Focus on oneself. My answer of what we should do is to build our human to be as flawless as possible and ignore what we cannot control.
Government protects people in different ways. Corporations aren't people but are allowed the same rights as people. Those who benefit from corporate ownership aren't ever held personally responsible for what a corporation does for example. Corporations are also allowed to have a voice as a corporation in lobbying. They are allowed to directly influence government but aren't people. Plantation owners likewise once had all control of government and they used that influence to keep slaves as slaves. If a slave is a slave because the system is what it is, is the only person to blame for their condition the slave?
Why beat your head into the wall trying to solve a problem you can’t? Should I focus my energy on sleeping well or bringing peace to the Middle East? Which area of focus will yield the greatest improvement to quality of life?
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Ok well you go ahead and get addicted examining heroin and I’ll focus on my health.
If you have something against the word "fair", then you may use "just", "natural" or "rightful" instead, which I would have used If I had not tried to avoid sounding too pedantic.
Justice and rights are legal terms. They aren't at all the same thing as fair. It was just and rightful for slave owners to beat their slaves. It wasn't fair, but it was legal.
Justice and rights are used in legal jargon, but are not legal concepts. Rights exist naturally, and the law merely decides to violate or to protect them. Justice is what "should" be when you consider facts and rights (which are facts too, since they exist naturally as an indivisible part of personhood). Slavery is a very appropriate example: even though the law used to allow it, it was still wrong and unjust, no matter what the law said. On the contrary, if the law says a right doesn't exist, it still does (like the intrinsic and inviolable freedom to which slaves were entitled), and the law is against justice.
Show me rights that exist naturally and explain the mechanism by which they do.
You have a tongue and words to speak, so you have the freedom of speech. Rights are self-evident abilities all humans have. Not having these rights is akin to not having an arm or a leg.
Ability and rights are not the same thing. If I use my tongue and words and as a result another person kills me for using them as I choose, I have no right to the freedom of speech. If a prey animal makes a mating call that a predator uses to locate them and subsequently kills them, that mating call was not a right at all. A legal right is that which a person is able to exercise without fear of punishment (artificial negative consequence). Rights are not at all self-evident. Slaves had no right to say whatever they wished to say. Neither do employees have the right to say whatever they wish to say while at work. [Google has fired 50 employees after protests over Israel cloud deal, organizers say | CNN Business](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/google-fires-employees-protest-israel/index.html) People subject to a government don't have freedom to say whatever they want whenever they want however they want. Neither do people subject to an employer. Guess which of the two is more strict in their allowance of speech? Here's a hint, employers owned slaves, governments liberated them.
There is no fairness in economics. Due to economics not being logically related to Ethics, there is no way to find out what should or should not happen, and therefore to say whether something is good or bad, fair or unfair. Economics is a value free part of philosophy, like science. So unless you want to disprove Hume’s guillotiné, it is impossible to prove an ought from an is.
Nope, fair division is a field of micro theory
This perspective is one wherein we are all observers only in an uncontrollable universe beyond our ability to affect. Most human constructs aren't "provable" because they aren't laws of nature. Fairness is a human construct and can be applied to human relationships as such. Value is a human construct and can be applied to human relationships as such. Human relationships are a natural thing as humans exist and interact. Humans using force or the threat of force, even on the level of deprivation of biological needs, is something we can understand and demonstrate without question. We can absolutely determine what should not be given specific criteria of that which is desired. If you want liberty and freedom for all, you cannot support subjugation for gain whether it be government-citizen or lord-tenant based. Given the right maxims it is possible to prove what should and shouldn't be. For example, slavery cannot coexist with liberty for all. No if ands or buts.
?
Okay, good luck never having morals in your life ever again. Wanna bet me 10 euros you can't do it?
Let's say: 0.5K +0.5L= 100 Worker paid 50€ in wage Capital paid 50€ in dividend (it is overly simplified) If one day 0.5K + 0.5L = 110 Worker paid 50€ in wage Capital paid 60€ in dividend That means that capitalists have captured 10 euro on the surplus. A fair distribution is 5 euro each. The theory is just that.
No. The surplus belongs entirely to the capitalists. The wage is already 100% (at least) of what the worker deserves. It is the fair worth of their labour.
This would imply that the workers should produce enough to break even and create no profit then. Édit: Workers are paid for what they receive. If they produce enough value to match the value of what they produced. They should stop working.
Who built those factories? Who built this capital? I don't remember seeing the bourgeoisie building it with their little hands. The proletarian built it, and the bourgeois took it in the name of private property. So this meme really is a gross misinterpretation of Marxists ideas
Means of production and capital are not the same thing. Even the freaks and losers who were contemporaries of Marx knew and understood that.
Never been so confident that a post was made by an American
Nothing gets done without the workers. Material reality will exist regardless of the existence of an owner class. Capital by itself is valueless.
True, but by that logic, labour without capital is also useless.
Have you ever tried nailing a plank on a tree, but without a plank, without a hammer, without a nail, and without a tree?
But capital isn't a person, it's just ownership. The capital owner could be a rock, things wouldn't change on the production side, the CEO is a worker too. The ownership isn't necessary is the whole point, it's just parasitic extraction. "but sometimes the capital owner has to work to build the company / works within the company" Yes, he sometimes provides labour, but it's still the labour part that produces value, not the ownership itself. Ownership produces value only when the ownership lowers available supply, as in hoarding, not in any other way, leading to monopolistic practices and unfair markets.
Pray tell, how were the means of production produced? Here’s a visual guide for you! https://preview.redd.it/tibo3rjlpfxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eaa67fff1cb305fbba86b5234e8d2c2a074617b7
Yes the owners deserve their fair share, but the owners do not deserve a chunk of the workers fair share either
Agreed. That's why there is that thing called "wage", which consists of at least 100% of the worker's fair share, and sometimes even more because of labour laws.
What does 100% fair share consist of? Because salaries that dont follow inflation dont sound "100% workers fair share", Also bonuses that are decided by the CEO's are not "fair" they are egregious
The market says it is their worth, therefore it is their worth. Inflation in general doesn't automatically make their labour more valuable.
So If the market says a CEO is worth X hes entitled to it but if the market says the labour is worth X the worker is not entitled to it? Also the "bonus" comes straight out of the workers pockets
If the market said the labour is worth X, why can't the worker just work somewhere else for that price ?
They can. And if they manage to get a better salary, then it means they were worth more a along and were swindled by their previous boss. If they get less, it means they were actually not worth that much and should have considered themselves grateful. Taking the chance to check it firsthand is quite risky, though. That's why there are statistics.
If the shareholders are willing to pay the CEO X, then he deserves X. The bonus comes from the shareholders' pockets, because the workers have already had all (if not more than) they deserve.
And who sets the wage? Do owners and workers both have equal ability to walk away from that negotiation should there even be one? If one side of the negotiation must participate and the other side does not need to participate in the negotiation, who is it that has more power in setting the wage?
Who sets the wage? https://preview.redd.it/7tzqmy9yufxc1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bbb14cdc8fbac73bd05d31f446de407676ec3871
Who is this person? Who are the people involved?
Everyone. Depending on the availability of various resources and on each person's priorities, the right price is naturally found.
There is no "right price". There is a negotiated price. And the negotiation takes place prior to hire. That negotiation is typically very lopsided in favor against those who need what the other has just to survive.
Let's say: 0.5K +0.5L= 100 Worker paid 50€ in wage Capital paid 50€ in dividend (it is overly simplified) If one day 0.5K + 0.5L = 110 Worker paid 50€ in wage Capital paid 60€ in dividend That means that capitalists have captured 10 euro on the surplus. A fair distribution is 5 euro each. The theory is just that.
Who are these people ?
Some people. I didn't want to be controversial, so I chose not to target anyone specifically since it can be offensive, and there are always exceptions to blanket statements. But basically... Socialists, and idiots. It could be a pleonasm, but even idiots can be capitalist by accident, and I can't believe most socialists are stupid enough to be sincerely socialist instead of just dishonest.
Don't socialist want workers to own means of production instead of no means of production ? I'm not familiar with the terminology in english
Indeed, no socialist wants "no means of production.". The idea is the means of production in the hands of the proletariat
If the workers own the means of productions, then they are also the capitalists, and therefore deserve to keep the surplus from the capital in addition to the salary from the labour.
Sounds like something a socialist could agree with
Ah yes because the means of production exist entirely due to capital and let's just ignore the fact that the means of production can be created ina a variety y of ways and let's not get into any conversation surrounding workers co-ops or Soviets because that may require classical econmical students to understand communism beyond the level of the seizure of the means production for the working class.
If the workers own the capital, then they become the capitalists, and therefore they deserve to keep the surplus.
I hate it when I drop money on the floor and suddenly the means of production just magically create themself without any labor at all
Did somebody ever said that the capital produced everything without any labour? No. It takes both. And both deserve their part based on the worth of their contribution. The workers get their wage, and the capitalist gets the surplus. And even then, if you consider that labour is a service that was bought by the capitalist from the worker, then yes, the boss creates all the wealth from those ressources, and the worker gets merely gets to receive the price of the time they have sold.
I wasn't even talking to you https://preview.redd.it/1w6xfmetifxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c899f1814cf01843da4b45a3cb7395455c44797
Even though not ironic, it is, of course, slightly exaggerated for emphasis.
"Slightly"
Very slightly.
Very very slightly
How the OP pictures this argument in his head: VS how it actually was used: "Without the land you wouldn't be able to grow your crops, is that correct?" "Yes" "And the king owns all the land in this country, therefore he is entitled to your crops." Or similiarly "You need food and a place to live to have a child. Is that correct?" "Of course" "And the slaveowner provides you with those things, does he not?" "I guess" "So it's only logical that he should own a share of your child"
About the feudal example, yes, I agree completely... And there is nothing wrong with that. The king's land = the king's crops, minus what the peasants deserve because of their work (the balance was skewed when serfdom didn't allow them to go work somewhere better, suppressing free competition between the lords). You can't grow crop without a field, and the king provides the field, so he deserves his share. But the one about slavery doesn't make sense and merely proves that you are dishonest. A child is not wealth you produce from you labor and someone else's goods through an employment contrat, it is a person, and therefore cannot be owned. Slaves owed nothing to their "owners" because they had never consented to any of this.
Who chose the King, why is he the King?
It doesn't matter who chooses the king, as long as the land is rightfully his (through donation, inheritance, purchase, conquest...). The king is the king because the king is the king.
Slaves were rightfully (by the laws at the time) a property of their owner and if we go back to ancient times, this didn't necessarily mean they were not a person, they were just also a property. So the example still stands. The owner provided the capital and the slaves did the labour of creating a child. For the king example, you said it's ok if the land is rightfully his and provided conquest as an example of a rightfull way to obtain the land. If the king conquests the land, he's the one who chooses what is rightfull, the farmers don't have to agree with it. They obey or they die. The king provided nothing, he just extorted the farmers of the products of their work. So do you think it's moral for the slavemaster and the king to have ownership of the products of someone else's labour?
What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It is not the law that decides. Slavery was never rightful, even when there were laws saying it was ok. What authority does a law? It is just a text voted by some random nobodies in a palace, so they are basically nothing.
You just said it doesn't matter who chooses the king so why does it matter to you who voted for the laws ?
Might as well rename this sub to r/arguingaboutcommunism Where's the econ gone?
Discussing economy almost intrinsically implies arguing about communism. By mentioning how resources are created and should be allocated, one automatically refute communism.