this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
830 points (95.9% liked)

Political Memes

5507 readers
2586 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Your plumber doesn't own a share of your toilet because you actually paid them what they are worth, because they can demand it from you. They have all the power in that relationship.

No employee is ever paid what they are worth. They can't be, if they were then the company could never make a profit. That's literally where profit comes from - it's all surplus value created by the workers. Hence, they should get a share of the company.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Funny you mention that! Broadcast.com was in fact not profitable. It lost millions the year it was sold to Yahoo.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And who got the profit from that sale?

So the company never operated at a profit - it was profitable in the end, was it not? And who created all of that profit? Who sacrificed for the company and were never paid what they were worth to make it good enough to sell in the first place?

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So if I sell my house at a loss because I'm inept, the plumber should get an even bigger share of the sale money?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The plumber was already paid the full value he was worth because the power dynamics are entirely different.

A company that can't turn a profit isn't doing so because it's paying the workers the full value of their labor. That's absurd. Is that what you think happened? Do you think the workers were being paid such extravagant wages that the company couldn't profit?

Obviously not. Why do you think the company became valueable enough to buy in the first place? It took the stolen surplus value created by the workers and reinvested into itself over-and-over, becoming a valuable company even if it couldn't turn a profit. No one would buy a company because it's worthless. They do it because it's valuable, and all the value comes from the workers.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You should familiarise yourself with the details of this particular transaction, because your idealised description bears very little resemblance to what actually happened. There's a reason this is known as one of the worst business deals of all time.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so he was an inept dipshit?

Sounds like he didn't deserve any of the money, actually.

In fact, the company clearly would have been better off if he wasn't involved at all and it was a worker co-op instead.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

lol alright I'm done, you're clearly too busy fighting strawmen because your arguments don't make any sense regarding the topic at hand.