As a capitalist, I can stand behind this. Valid criticism.
If corporations are people, and all people are the same under the law…
We should have a corporate death penalty
True, but that’s how any legal system protects anything.
No, capital has the means to enact the legal system. If, for arguments sake, we had perfect legal systems where legal representation was free, everyone would be protected equally. To be clear, I’m not proposing any particular solution, just being nitpicky in that “that’s how any legal system protects anything” isn’t correct - there clearly are possible systems that aren’t imbalanced.
possible systems that aren’t imbalanced
…such as in the many countries where capitalism operates but doesn’t dominate politics like it does in the US.
thats actually called fascism but we pretend we have capitalism if we had capitalism 2008 would have all of the banks and mortgage land lords property owners all go bankrupt but here we are still subidizing the epstein class with tax payer dollars to promote the epstein class saying its ok and not arresting them all. in fact both biden and trump pardoned the epstein class constantly depending on bribes woops i mean donations of course. China communism would be better than this.
by the way door dash uber lyft all platforms in general seem to be inflating costs by at least 20% and now up to 30-40% of the total cost of the fare goes to them rather than creater developer eg rent extraction. when its suppose to lower cost and increase efficiency. when these platforms charge a huge percentage of the product it is no longer beneficial to have said service or platform around. instead it is a net NEGATIVE VALUE TO THE WORLD and all these companies should in fact go bankrupt
No, this is capitalism. It’s capitalists doing the exact things Marx predicted 150 years ago that they’d do, under the exact conditions he said they’d do them under.
It’s almost like the whole thing was entirely predictable and followed a very logical sequence of events.
Totally totally unintentional.
Pinky promise bro.
Clock in and steal time. Shit on the clock. Check your local job postings. Use social media. Ask for clarification on that last email. Walk over for clarification. Just sit there.
But note these are all good “resistance” strategies, not solutions to the problem
this doesnt work for doordash because you’re being paid a flat per delivery rate. you won’t get anything for “clocking in”
ironic
Couldn’t you even get a checkmark by just being popular?
caitlyn johnstone has the typical .ml takes on russia, voting, etc and only the most standard one week old propaganda accounts and standard .ml megaposters get mad about having this pointed out
If Caitlyn Johnstone was running for office as a Democrat, you’d vote for them, right? Blue no matter who?
If only libs applied the same level of purity testing to their politicians that they do to anonymous internet commenters, we might have a functioning electoral system.
haha
Those with power shit on those who have little. Might makes right.
Except when someone shoots their CEO. Then they cry victim
Not realy.
That’s capitalism being managed by neoliberal economic philosophy.
It really has more in common with feudalism, than capitalism.
Capitalism by definition requires fair transparent markets, with no dominant players able to unfairly manipulate the market.Capitalism as managed by democratic socialist philosophy (not sure if there’s an official term it) is closer to the actual definition of capitalism.
Did you really just say “socialist capitalism.” You really have zero idea what you are talking about.
Yes I did!
Neither socialism, communism, capitalism, feudalism, or any other economic system, can yield the best result in every situation. There is no one answer for everything. No economy in the world is all one thing or another. It’s only by blending the strengths of each, using what works best where it works best, can we find greatest benefit for everyone.So yes, a socialist minded form of capitalism, improving on the post depression US, is probably the best default baseline. Then in certain specific naturally monopolistic markets, a more communistic model would fit better.
You are not using those words in a coherent or meaningful way at all. You can’t have a socialist and capitalist mixed system. You either have bourgeois or proletarian ownership not both.
Get your nose out of your schoolbooks, and look around you, there is a socialism mixed with capitalism everywhere you look, over the entire planet.
The Fire Department is a perfect example of a capitalist concept (buying fire protection from a company), that was replaced by a socialist concept (pooling the community’s funds to pay for a municipal fire department that benefits all citizens), and exists within a capitalist system. Same with public schools, public libraries, parks, law enforcement (in concept, anyway), and more.
No political system could survive in its purest form. Any successful government is going to have to mix the best of all political systems, and reject the worst parts of them. That means lots of grey areas, which are hard for many people to accept. Many people need clearly delineated lines, and that’s not possible when your government is a Frankenstein’s monster, so they want a pure system, even if it doesn’t work as well.
No goverment services aren’t socialism do basic research before confidently stating blatantly wrong opinions.
It’s not blatantly wrong, you just can’t understand nuance, which is common for people who trust definitions over actual life. Fire departments were the earliest versions of insurance companies, who morphed into that business when their firefighting responsibilities were taken away by local fire departments. The original fire brigades would definitely have been considered a socialist concept, if the word had existed at that point. Eventually, as governments evolved, they took over fire brigades, and became fire departments.
Just because the government is the vehicle for offering the service to the citizens, doesn’t mean it isn’t made possible by the support and cooperation of the citizens, which is the basic concept of socialism - the people supporting a concept that benefits all.
And MAGA recognizes this, which is why they want to destroy anything that has socialist roots, like all those things I mentioned - libraries, museums, parks, schools, etc. The entire reason that MAGA is constantly trying to kill those things is precisely because they consider them Socialist influences on their obsessive objective of a purely Capitalist society that benefits only the wealthy, rather than a successful one that benefits all of its citizens.
There is no reason that both Socialism and Capitalism can’t co-exist successfully, as the Scandinavian nations have been demonstrating for decades.
Again you don’t understand those words at all the Scandinavian countries are in no way socialist. Socialism isn’t just a public service it means workers ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is incompatible with this meaning private ownership of the means of production for profit, you can’t nationalize some industries then call that a mix of socialism and capitalism you either have one or the other.
A socialist and capitalist mixed system is what most countries already have. The social democracy serves people their rights and essential services and the capitalist market drives the “optional” part of the economy. You can, and should, argue that we leave too much up to the private sector, but don’t pretend that hybrid system is impossible. We already built it.
Why not?
Company ownership is already broken into shares. There’s no law of nature or logic that dictates how those shares are distributed. There are all sorts of ways to divide them between capital investors, labor investors, even outside stake holders like customers and suppliers. Any individual may be a labor investor in one company, and a capital investor in others. That one person would embody both your bourgeois and proletarian classes.Again large economies are too complex for simple, clean, universal solutions. Their complexity necessitates more complex thinking.
No form of universal selfishness will provide an equitable existence for all
True. The government is supposed to manage that. It’s one of the lies of neoliberalism, that “Greed is Good”.
CEOs should be personally liable for grave mistakes made by their company. Then a lot of this nonsense would end.
It really tells you that the nobility class never went away, it just rebranded itself.
Wealth hoarding, not to be mistaken with accumulation, should be grounds for investigation, and redistribution if necessary.
Don’t stop there, the CEOs just absorb blame for the owners.
That’s where I will disagree a bit. “Owners” usually have a CEO or something similar to run the company in their stead. Imagine you employ someone, he fucks up big time and you go to prison, despite having done nothing wrong. That’s horrendous. That’s like hiring a tax accountant, he fucks up and you go to prison for it … oh wait, that’s how it works in many countries, but anyways, that’s fucking shit and shouldn’t be a thing.
If the owner has had any influence on the company that have led to this decision, he should absolutely get punished aswell. But if he had nothing to do with it, nah. I feel like that would be cruel and unjust.
These guys are killing people. It’s like employing a psychopathic security guard who shoots people at best, or playing dumb about hiring a hit man at worst. Insulating owners from the consequences of their choices has been horrendous.
The pic above is criminal negligence, and the CEO was hired to do it.
and the CEO was hired to do it.
Yes, and the CEO is hired to keep an eye on everything that happens in the company. That’s his job. Not the owners at this point. The owner doesn’t tell the CEO to employ psychopathic people (unless he does excplicity, ofc). He tells the CEO: “Here’s your monthly salary, don’t fuck it up” and that’s it. Every further responsibility is with the CEO.
Insulating owners from the consequences of their choices
But hiring the wrong people isn’t the owners choice. The owner doesn’t make any choices anymore, otherwise he would be the CEO and not employ someone to run the business in their stead.
Hiring the CEO is the owners choice. They’re choosing to hire literal psychopaths. They have every resource to research this person first. It’s incredibly charitable to even call them criminally negligent because they are not sorry at all.
I see that you’re not trying to have a fair argument, you just want to hate. That’s fine, but there’s no point in having a genuine discussion with you about this topic. Have a nice day.
If we’re hurling insults, then it appears you’re simping for your own oppressors.
CEOs shouldn’t exist. Workplaces should be owned and managed by the workers.
What makes a workplace owned and managed by the workers incompatible with the role of a chief executive officer?
CEOs exist to siphon surplus value to shareholders instead of letting the people who produce it retain it. It’s more that the CEO role is unnecessary in worker owned businesses than incompatible.
CEOs exist to execute the decisions of the board. In a capitalist system the decisions can often be boiled down to “siphon surplus value to shareholders instead of letting the people who produce it to retain it.”
In a socialist system where the workers have a controlling majority of the board, you still need someone to execute the decisions of the board. Or are you suggesting that a worker owned company doesn’t need any top leader beyond the board?
Why should it? If the workers themselves are on the board, then they know what the board decides. No need for a middleman CEO.
Are you imagining that every single worker are on the board at every single company? Even the ones with hundreds or thousands of workers? It’s all direct democracy, and no representative democracy?
I mean, we have the technology to make direct democracy work, but even with representative democracy, there’s no need for a single leader. There are many examples of functioning anarchic organizations. I’m not really imagining one ideal way to organize enterprises, there are many ways to do it. Hell, you could even do it with a single elected leader, but it wouldn’t be functionally the same as a CEO. In a socialist workplace, the leader wouldn’t have absolute authority nor be payed an outrageously unequal wage. The workers would elect them and be able to recall them.
Finally real democracy!
For sure. Can’t have democracy without democracy in the workplace.
Cool in concept, not feasible in real life.
lol what? Even setting aside worker-owned socialist societies, worker-owned businesses exist and prosper in the United States today. It is obviously feasible.
Which would suggest workers owning the means of production is compatible with market capitalism. Just heavily incentive coops and other collective ownership schemes.
“Limited Liability” means what then? There are legal constructs that exist that have not been dismantled to even allow an idea like that to exist in legal doctrine.
It means limited, as in imposed limits. No doing wide spread economic or environmental damage is an existing limit?? Also no ones talking about LLC CEOs, we are talking about c corps lololol. Take your little libertarian ass back to school.
What the fuck is your problem? Jesus you think everything is a challenge to your identity. You are tilting at windmills you idiot. How many libertarians voted for Kamala and support the DSA, including donating and voting for DSA candidates? I have my copy of Capital on my kitchen table literally right now, right next to a giant collection of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon essays titled “Property is Theft!”, surely the mark of a libertarian. A libertarian who reads The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin… okay… Imagine being as wrong and stupid as you are.
I was literally just saying LLCs are a thing. They limit liability. You can’t make LLC CEOs suffer as much as you want because of what Limited Liability does. You have to change what Limited Liability means to achieve your goals. Sorry you have challenges. l
I guess that means I’m a libertarian? Maybe if you’re a fucking idiot you have that logic and consider that libertarian rhetoric.
Linited Liability makes it so the CEO of Activision faces no accountability from the government when he caused his employees to kill themselves. Or the CEO of BP suffering consequences after those oil spills. Or the CEOs of for profit private prisons being held responsible for all of the illegal activities done inside the prisons. But they arent. That’s not a libertarian opinion you fucking moron. That’s a fact of life. Get your shit together the next time you comment.
Linited Liability makes it so the CEO of Activision faces no accountability from the government when he caused his employees to kill themselves. Or the CEO of BP suffering consequences after those oil spills. Or the CEOs of for profit private prisons being held responsible for all of the illegal activities done inside the prisons. But they arent. That’s not a libertarian opinion you fucking moron. That’s a fact of life. Get your shit together the next time you comment.
After Deepwater Horizon, BP itself pleaded guilty to 14 criminal counts, including 11 felony manslaughter counts, obstruction of Congress, and environmental offenses, and received $4 billion in criminal fines and penalties. More importantly for the “LLC protects the humans” theory, federal prosecutors also personally charged two BP well-site supervisors with manslaughter and charged a former senior BP executive with obstruction of Congress and false statements.
Get your shit together kiddo use an AI if you want to argue with me.
TLDR big corporation doesnt need you defending it by making up weird corporate law in your head. We used to throw a CEO in jail before they owned the whole government
Okay, well let me help you understand what limited liability limits: Your personal assets. Thats it dude, it means your debtors cant go after your personal house. It doesn’t say your company can commit wage theft and no one’s legally responsible. I would be selling crack under an LLC to your mother if i could.
The reason why you’re confused and why i was attacking you is you vomited up a bunch of words that didnt make sense and it hurt my brain. The point we’re all making is wage theft is a crime, not a bad obligation. you’re protected from obligations not legal threat lol. You can absolutely be targeted and prosecuted for the company you oversee committing crimes. So what we’re all saying is we’d like to see more of that and much harsher penalties, to prevent companies from exploiting power imbalances and stealing large sums of money???
sorry bro unless you have read marx and hegel you have nothing new for me. not reading your comment. im sorry or i hope things go okay for you or whatever you said
Bro you’re not even old enough to remember a duke nukem game gtfoh with that use something from your own generation.
I played duke nukem 3d in like 1999 with some kind of joystick on my cousins computer. Nice try, though. The meme is hilarious so I use it whenever I find it useful. I like the younger generations and appreciate their humor.
“You see there are people who believe the function of the police is to fight crime, and that’s not true, the function of the police is social control and protection of property.”
Michael Parenti
There were millions in penalties. Saying nothing happens is ridiculous, strong regulations and penalties remove these issues. As seen here.
The company has billions
Yes yes I know. The point is to discourage this from happening again. No penalty means no risk to trying, hefty penalty means discouraged from happening. They didnt make billions from this action so they lost money on their risk.
Paying workers on time presents an opportunity cost. The penalties have to outweigh whatever they might make by investing the ill-retained funds. (I have no idea whether that’s the case with DoorDash here, but I’d hazard a guess that some executives still think it was worth it.)
They say this after they lost a court battle. They didn’t say shit while the issue was ongoing. They even spent $1.4 mill to avoid it by trying to keep mamdani from getting elected. Now they want to go “oh dear me! I’m so sorry!”
That has nothing to do with capitalism.
Unfortunately “capitalism” as a colloquial term has grown to encompass everything from Shell’s human rights abuses in Nigeria to WalMart’s continual underpaying of full time workers who need to be on food stamps to live.
What the market allows, persists absent regulations or interventions.
Food stamps has nothing to do with any employer. It’s just repeated so much that some tend to forget that.
Idiot.
I wouldn’t say capitalism itself is about that. However, it absolutely encourages behavior that ends up like that. It’s not like these systems always existed or always functioned the way they do now. They were created and corrupted over several decades.
I whole heartedly disagree. This is exactly what capitalism was designed to do. This is a prime example of late stage capitalism.
If this wasn’t how it was supposed to be then why have economists been predicting these inevitabilities FOR DECADES!
Capitalism has always relied on certain people having capital, and using the rest of society to produce said capital, or even better use the rest of society as their capital.
Don’t fool yourself into believing this isn’t exactly what capitalism has always been bud.
I think there is a nuance between being designed to do sobering and being so badly designed that it does something. I don’t think it was intentional for the system to hoard wealth among few people. I think the desire was to have open competition among many. However it’s so poorly designed, implemented, corrupted, etc… that wealth hoarding becomes the inevitable outcome.
You just pulled the most annoying mansplaining card… restate what I said but make it sound like you said it instead… well done.
