“I don’t wanna lose these chains! They’re all that I have!”
The person who happily answers “yup” to the first two questions isn’t going to understand the meaning of “You’re a worker.”
The last thing I want to hear is how great capitalism is - as told by someone that capitalism refers to as capital.
Michael would definitely be the one to lack class consciousness, not Pam
Michael would be aware for everyone, but he would get it wrong constantly
“I DECLARE SOCIALISM!”
“…you can’t just declare socialism.”
If only socialism were like shenanigans
Moreover, I think he’d be a pawn for a pseudo-communist, totalitarian regime. Draped in party-supplied luxuries, he’d still imagine himself a member of the proletariat and a champion for its cause. That’s my take on a Stalinist version of the office anyway.
what’s wrong with being a worker? Who is this post making fun about?
This post is not making fun of workers. Too often we see workers identify with rich capitalists and see their own lack of capital as a personal failing. But once we recognize the difference between the two classes we can dispel ourselves of that notion.
Members of the working class sell their labor in order to gain money and buy the necessities of life. The ruling class buys labor in order to see a profit on the money they already have. Since capitalism compels the capitalist to make a profit, they must pay the worker a fraction of the value that the worker creates. (The business owner wants to stay in business and the shareholders demand every-increasing value.) Hence we should not consider ourselves capitalists: we are workers who are being exploited, as necessitated by the system.
In not sure this accurately portrays the message you want it to.
Does the post really come across as saying being a worker is bad and being a capitalist is good? If so, that might say something about the connotations we attach to these terms.
I think it’s more how the meme format is usually used.
Oh, I see what you mean. Wupps
Why can’t you be a worker and a capitalist?
Buying work also has some risk. Everyone gets their cut, you’re only exploited if the revenue is really unbalanced
Let’s consider an analogy: the slave owner and the slave. The slave owner lives on the labor of his slaves. The slave owner takes the value of the slaves’ labor and returns a fraction of that value to the slave in the form of food, clothing, and shelter. (Suppose it would be unprofitable to let the slave die.) To your point, the slave owner can also work with his slaves in the field if they so choose. And maybe the slave owner has a pleasant demeanor and treats the slaves (relatively) well. But no matter how he works in the fields and no matter how nice he is, the slave owner is still living off of the value of the slaves. Moreover, in a system of widespread slavery, he needs slave-labor in order to compete with other slave owners.
You may object that there are several disanalogies here. The modern-day worker can choose who gets the value of their labor. The experienced worker can negotiate higher wages based on higher earning potential. The successful worker may acquire enough money to go into business for themselves and hire others.
Perhaps these are fair objections but they do not touch on the point of the analogy. There is a fundamental distinction between the slave owner, who lives on the labor of slaves, and the slaves who labor for the slave owner. Similarly, there is a fundamental distinction between the capitalist, who lives on the labor of workers, and the workers who labor for the capitalist.
Using strong words is cool and all, but it doesn’t talk about the important part: is it really bad? If the workers are treated well, its a win win situation
No matter who you are, you are a slave of the economy. Companies with everyone being able to take decisions democratically exist, you’re not forced to take the traditional rule, it’s just the safest one
is it really bad? If the workers are treated well, its a win win situation
“If the slaves are treated well, it’s a win-win”
I’m not just using strong words. I suspect you miss the point of the analogy (i.e., the owner vs the worker).
No matter who you are, you are a slave of the economy.
Because the economy is centered on capital and profit. If our economy was based on community need rather than shareholder profit, workers would always be working for themselves.
People thinking they’re capitalists.
I mean, is “worker” considered a bad word?
By people who consider themselves upper class, yes
This makes more sense, thanks
So the post assumes only rich people are for capitalism?
No. It states that capitalist are the ones who own the means of production and just collect profits without any real input needed.
The worker therefore is someone who works for the capitalists and does not own these means thus they have to work for their money.
Doesn’t make sense anymore
The image clearly says “you have to work to life” and you’re saying the opposite
If you own a factory you don’t need to work to live. You just collect the profits and are a capitalist.
If you work in said factory to make enough money to live you are a worker.
This meme says you should not be for capitalism if you are a worker.
Both people in the meme are workers, but Michael is pointing out that Pam thinks she’s a benefactor of capitalism, but isn’t, by being a worker.
The lines in the meme aren’t exactly a match for the personalities from the show, and it sort of flips the meme format regarding who’s “in the know”, i.e. normally Pam is confounded by nonsense while Michael is just oblivious.
Edit: Interestingly, though, the format still kind of follows in that both workers, Michael (boss) and Pam (employee), are helplessly taking orders from corporate (capital).
Just like Capitalism
That’s not the point.
The question is what is it then
If you work for a living you are not a capitalist
Class differences.
People struggling financially acting like they got “fuck you” money being shitty to everyone like they’ll be billionaires some day. Being mean to people they perceive beneath themselves for not being white like the peach pedophile. Shit like that is the problem.
I think OP is operating under the idea that workers aren’t voting for their own interests (or alternatively not holding a revolution) because they don’t see themselves in one of two broad categories.
Elon Musk of course, dude works more hours than most of us. He even slept in tesla factory for quite some time
EDIT: Obvious /j, but at the same time not really. If you think CEOs don’t work, then that sounds a bit delusional
There are ideological capitalists and capital holders.
There are people who are capital holders who are ideologically left economically, some instances as far as full socialist.
There are people who hold little to no capital at all but believe capitalism is the best possible system.
As a percentage of their respective classes though, the later class traitor is unfortunately more common than the former class traitor.
lmao OP thinks this is some kind of eye opening epiphany or something. Workers know they’re workers, what they need is the realization who represents them and who is the enemy.
The number of “capitalists” with a negative net worth and assets that generate little or no profit is astounding. They’re just going through a hard time, though. They’re going to be one of the few that makes it.
I think we can be both. Most of our pensions depend on it for growth.
Might as well put it with the rich people money, because they rule everything and aren’t about to let that shit sink in the long term…
You guys have pensions?
*wage slave
It’s funny how corporations rebranded workers into collaborators and entrepreneurs, and ironic how many idiots fell for that. “No, I’m not a worker, I’m a COLLABORATOR!!”
I’m a mercenary, thank you.
There is no such thing as middle class, you’re either in the capitalist class or working class.
“There’s no such thing as a rectangle, you’re either a parallelogram or you’re not a parallelogram.”
The idea of a middle class has absolutely nothing to do with socialism analysis of class relations; it’s simply a measure of quality of life.
A measure of quality of life quite vague and incalculable because as humans we tend to manage money poorly sometimes in our lives.
The idea of a middle class is just capitalist propaganda to get 9-5 workers who earn significantly more than blue collar workers but look like 0 along with other lesser paid jobs when looking at wealth chart that has Billionaires
Yeah, this level of pedantry does no one any good, and just makes one come off as snotty and condescending.
The ‘dialogue’ in the OP is the same way. 99% of the people who’d say “I’m a capitalist” define it no more specifically as ‘I like capitalism’, which in turn is typically defined no more specifically than ‘supplying what the market wants = profit’ by the vast majority of people.
Talking down to people does the opposite of fostering solidarity.
I don’t think it’s at all pedantic to point out that supporting capitalism doesn’t make you a Capitalist. You can’t have class consciousness without realizing the distinction.
It would be pedantic if you were pointing out an insignificant distinction. This is not that.
Talking down to people does the opposite of fostering solidarity.
I think it’s much more condescending to allow people to remain ignorant than to simply give them the right answer just so you don’t offend them if they happen to have fragile ego’s. I for one appreciate being corrected about things I am wrong about.
I read Thomas Pikettys Capital in the 21st Century recently, and it informed me on this topic. I still agree with you that those are the two most important class distinctions, but if I’m speaking with someone who is capable of nuance in the realm of socioeconomics I would give this statistic from that book: The top 1% own 30% of the wealth, the top 10% (which includes the 1%) owns 50% of the wealth, the next 40% (so not including those two prior categories) owns the rest, and the bottom 50% owns nothing. So there is now a patrimonial middle class that serves as a buffer between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’, but this statistical analysis doesn’t really help with getting people aware of the fact that they are the poor and that they are poor BECAUSE a select few are outrageously wealthy.
Yes there is … middle class are the people that believe there is a middle class, without knowing that they are actually working class
There is, but it isn’t the liberal middle class that’s some arbitrary amount of money you earn as a salary, but petty bourgeois or in other words small business owners.
They’re in an unique position where they both own a business and live off of that income but are also forced to work in these businesses alongside their employees due to them not being wealthy enough to fully offload everything about it to the working class.
It’s not either or. If you have a retirement fund then you are also a capitalist.
You bought one of the many lies capitalists sold you
If you own equity in any company then you are part of the owner class. Simple.
You don’t get to vote, but you can move your money to funds that do invest.and vote ethically on your behalf.
If that makes you feel better, whatever man. I own a house and don’t consider myself part of the “ownership class”. I work hourly and my 403b is a joke, I am closer to homeless than wealthy by factors of magnitude.
I don’t consider myself part of the “ownership class”.
My main point is that the ownership/worker distinction is not binary. Most people are both (in very different proportions).
But my secondary point is that even the small investor has some (slight) power to influence which is usually not exercised.
Stakeholding is a long way from ownership in any meaningful sense. The “varying proportions” here are all on the coattails of capital from whichever angle you look.
It’s only a long way from control of the company.
It’s full ownership in terms of receiving a proportional share of the profits of the workers. That part is very meaningful.
Idiot.
I know you are but what am I.
(Seriously, at least give some reasoning otherwise even your typing effort is wasted)
deleted by creator
No I do not work. I use to work so guess I graduated to Capitalist?
Devils in the details
Not using any social programs so not a socialist.
The VA provides socialized healthcare. I’m from a family of veterans and I can tell you firsthand that the socialized healthcare the VA provides is eons better than dealing with predatory insurance companies.
You earn the VA Healthcare benefit. It isn’t given to anyone. You serve then you qualify.
Sure but most of the working class earn their benefits from hard work yet they can’t access those benefits because of predatory insurance companies. I’ve seen the stark contrast as I have taken care of aging family. The point is socialized healthcare is much better and the VA provides that for now.
do you have a business that is incorporated? You enjoy socialist policies favorable to business.
Not owner of a business.
then you’re simply retired.
The only thing I know you work at right now is being full of shit so quit being so fucking cryptic
Earned benefits from military service. I only live off my earned benefits.
Per definition, a capitalist is a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.
If you are, congratulations, you’re rich.
Negative not living on investments. Not inheritance, not lottery money, not criminal money. No I didn’t marry someone with money. No I am not a influencer or make money from any social media.
Then you’re not a capitalist, as per definition. Even though being an influencer or making money from social media wouldn’t make you a capitalist per se as well.
Best I can offer is proletarian defending the capitalists.
I don’t agree that capitalism is a good system, but I also agree that those who can work should work, because that’s the only way society can function and get better.
If we were a hunter gatherer tribe and no one hunted or gathers we would die.
Just because we have cars and computers doesn’t mean no one has to grow food or sell food or clean the water and build the houses.
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.
I agree with the “to their ability” but not so much with “to their need”
If everyone worked to just sustain themselves, those left in the fringes suffer and die. We need people who are willing to work more than what they need to in order to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.
That’s literally what that means.
Get out of here with your
ChristianMarxist propaganda! /sspoiler
“When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.” - Jesus
Through technology we have become way more productive though. Every increase in productivity can either be used to better the standard of living (assuming that requires more work) or be used to lower the amount of time people have to work. I think the people that want to work just because they like it are a big enough portion of the world population to feed and house every single person on the planet. But instead, the increase in productivity is being gobbled up by a few people at the top. (see productivity / pay gap)
You can work without furthering capitalism. Not everything is for-profit.
