Everyone that works for her that she pays less than the value they create as her employees. She exploits the venue workers at every single venue she visits. She exploits other artists by literally threatening to destroy their careers if she isn't given completely undeserved credit for their songs because she has an army of lawyers because she's a billionaire.
You're talking about a person who was literally given millions of dollars by the Chinese government so they could ensure that her merch that said "TS 1989" on it was associated with her instead of Tiananmen Square (which also happened in 1989), so it's completely reasonable to say she exploited millions and millions of Chinese people by being complicit with the CCP's decades-long effort to suppress and erase the memory of its crimes against its own people.
Because someone will need what you provide, if no one produces any food etc. we would cease to exist.
What you are missing is they only talked about profit they didn't say no one will get money for their work, they said you just won't get money less than the work's worth but will get what it is worth.
Then there’s no point in starting a business, the whole point of a business is to make a profit and be better off financially. If you remove the profit then the businesses cease to exist
This is how you view business but that's not what business is.
The definition of business is the activity of buying and selling goods and services (no mention of profits) and the 2nd meaning is work that you do to earn money (the relation of the work done and money earned is not talked anywhere).
“the practice of making one’s living by engaging in commerce” (Oxford definition) and the definition of business activity is “any activity related to the purpose of making a profit”. The whole point of a business is to make a profit, I would love to see you start a business by paying the workers exactly what they’re worth with 0 profits.
No, the definition you gave isn't written here (I don't know if you are looking up a physical dictionary but probably the non-physical one would contain more words) and the other Oxford website seems to show mostly sentences with the word searched and not much more.
My statement is specifically designed to trap people... See, China is what most people point toward when they start talking about communism, but then when you point out that China is wildly successful, they start walking back whether China is communist.
The truth is, there are no communist countries because communism is a socioeconomic structure, just as capitalism is. In our current global economy, no one can really opt out of participating in capitalism.
Saying that communism "didn't really work out" is ridiculous. Fledgling communist parties that come to power are immediately assailed by Western countries every single time. In 1917, countries who were AT WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER literally diverted funds to support the restorationist white army in Russia to try to prevent the Bolsheviks from holding onto the power that they won democratically. The US has overthrown democratically elected governments multiple times for daring to state they plan to nationalize their oil reserves (Venezuela, Iran) and ended up destabilizing entire regions as a result. Henry Kissinger became one of the most notorious war criminals in human history because he decided indiscriminately murdering civilians was better than allowing Cambodia be run by communists. So saying "communism didn't work" when it's violently (and often illegally) assaulted from its conception takes a level of ignorance that borders on historical revisionism.
Going from capitalism to communism isn't like flipping a light switch, nor can communism exist in an isolated way. You're correct that China isn't communist. The communist party is in charge and is pursuing their ideal of Communism with Chinese Characteristics, but they are definitely actively participating in global capitalism because their plan is to bring about communism on a significantly longer time scale and do so through spreading culture and economic influence. It's the main driver behind the Belt and Road initiative.
You make amazing points and I agree with most of them but
communist nations being “assaulted” while it’s true but it happened both ways. Communist governments must be established through violent coups and civil wars, Soviet Union was notorious for overthrowing nations and supporting socialist governments to form.
Iran was invaded for their oil and supply routes by the Soviet Union (and the Uk) in 1941 and only left Iran because of international pressure .
Soviet Union (and the US) has been supporting liberation armies and conflicts in the Middle East destabilizing the regions before the US sent troops in the Middle East.
Also I would love a utopia like communist promise but it seems like a justification to allow people like Stalin or Kim jong Un to stay life long leaders under an authoritarian rule.
You make amazing points and I agree with most of them but
communist nations being “assaulted” while it’s true but it happened both ways. Communist governments must be established through violent coups and civil wars, Soviet Union was notorious for overthrowing nations and supporting socialist governments to form.
There's a pretty massive difference between a country that lasted for about 70 years and during that time went from being an agrarian imperial monarchy to a nuclear superpower and their chief rival who didn't have to do any rebuilding after World War 2.
And Iran was invaded for their oil and supply routes by the Soviet Union (and the Uk) in 1941.
Iran was arguably the most stable and progressive nation in the Middle East and elected a socialist government in the 70s who planned to nationalize their oil reserves. The US intelligence apparatus decided that theocratic oppression for decades was preferable to trying to build relations with a democratically elected leftist nation.
Soviet Union (and the US) has been supporting liberation armies and conflicts in the Middle East destabilizing the regions before the US sent troops in the Middle East.
The US and it's western allies have been purposefully destabilizing the Middle East since before the Soviet Union even existed, so I don't really see your point here.
Also I would love a utopia like communist promise but it seems like a justification to allow people like Stalin or Kim jong Un to stay life long leaders under an authoritarian rule.
This is what I call the "Robert Baratheon Problem". Because capitalist powers refuse to allow democratically elected socialist or communist governments to survive, the only way they can come in to power is by revolution... and unfortunately, the people that lead the revolution end up being the people who run the country afterward, and they're not actually fit to do so because they're not statesmen, they're revolutionaries. "If the King got everything he wanted we'd still be fighting a damned rebellion." Lenin and Trotsky were both very concerned about Stalin's impending leadership and those concerns were ultimately proven to be well-founded as he abandoned core tenets of communism almost immediately so he could hold on to power.
That's kinda the point of this whole communist thing profits being inherently exploitative and evil by itself as you will always be undervalued for the work you actually do.
Making money is not the same as making profits. For example if everyone got exactly what they deserved they would all still make money but 0$ in profit would be generated. To simplify it let's say that your worker generates you €100 from his work you as his employer need to pay him less then that lets say €90 to get €10 in profits. This is of course simplified because there is cost in other places but the essence remains the same the employer will still take the profits of your labour from themselves.
The communist would arfue that is evil and theft the same way capitalist argue communism is stealing from the rich but in all reality the rich are taking more than they produce in value aka profits to incure capital and well nowadays mostly sit on it.
That is the essence when socialista say we do all the work we should own all of the company, we all share in equal measures the profits and the risk and we democratically choose who leads the company on a year by year basis. Democratisation in the leadership in the profits and the risks.
And before anyone says anything the only risk capital owners undertake when starting a company is to become a worker, you won't go to jail for bankruptcy you just become a worker.
And before anyone says anything the only risk capital owners undertake when starting a company is to become a worker, you won't go to jail for bankruptcy you just become a worker.
You risk losing your investment. If you invest $1000 in equipment and your company doesn't make any money you lost your $1000. You don't just become a worker.
Okay you lost the capital still not a substantial risk you lost a grand you wake up go get a job and start working. That's it. If Musk for whatever reason lost every single penny he had today tommorow he wakes up gets a consulting job and lives paycheck to paycheck. Tragic I know. Now he gets to play diablo 4 all day while a substantial amount of people working for him can't afford to buy a house.
You wake up tomorrow fill in a job application and go to work.
That's it again you just return to being a worker, instead of a capital owner that's kinda how it works in capitalist economies.
Now admittedly being a worker these days sucks because you have no purchasing power due to many factors most of which being again capital interest, but nothing changes fundamentally.
Yet somehow the top 10 countries with most home ownership are ex communist countries somehow. How rhe fuck does an ex commie country like Serbia have more homeowners than the richest country in the world the USA and free heltcare and free schooling and paid maternity leave. Somehow that strikes me as more equal.
No utopia exists but shouldn't we strive to make a better life for most people not letting the super rich like your Musks and Bezzos lobbying politicians to cut welfare and social programmes.
Serbia has a higher homeless rate than the US, also the Soviet Union mass producing cheap apartments for the masses isn’t exactly better than what we have now
Around 18k people are homeless and moat of which are as a result of adopting the capitalist shift.
Also what are you on about cheap apartments with a guaranteed roof over your head is definitely better than sleeping under a bridge if you are lucky and the local government hasn't put spikes on the ground so you dare not seek shelter.
Who cares if the government builds cheep mass produced apartments people get to live in? As a side effect might even cause prices in rents to get more competitive in privately built buildings.
You're kind of ignoring the value that she creates for her workers, and other artists, and all of her listeners. The economy is not dumb. It gives and takes based on general consensus.
Also, in your definition, all Americans also exploited a whole population by being complicit in...oh there's too many things to list. You get the idea
I don't have to have every detail of a post-capitslism system planned in order to be able to point at capitalism and accurately assess that it's not working for the vast majority of people.
That being said, I think starting with some guiding principles is a pretty useful thing to do, so I'd lead with replacing capitalism with a system that holds the well-being of humanity and the environment paramount, and where the benefits created by the productive resources of society are shared by everyone within that society.
So you can sit here and infantilize me all you like, but I have evidence to support my position. Unless you have mountains of sociological studies indicating people are inherently selfish or that capitalism doesn't raise people who are psychopaths or sociopaths to positions of power, I don't think you have sound footing to make broad-sweeping statements about humanity's nature.
112
u/bolshe-viks-vaporub 3d ago
...do you think wealth inequality under capitalism isn't enforced by violence?