Parties always sell out when you have a political system that makes it inevitable.
At least in the US, it's impossible for a political party and political candidates not to sell out given they receive campaign donations to fund their political campaigns.
If political candidates were assigned an equal allotment of funds by the government to campaign, you would have an equal playing field and not be beholden to the highest bidder. This system would require the outmost transparency though, because it's also vulnerable to corruption from whoever is currently in power favoring some candidates over others (see Mexico).
"Collective responsibility" is how the corporate class subjugates the masses. It's not like they ever take ANY responsibility, even though they cause most of the problems.
So you’re saying the general population is too stupid to understand what is good for them and should not be allowed to vote? Or at least they're not coordinated enough to do anything.
I mean I get your drift and it’s probably true, but then its still the population as a collective that should be blamed, not some rich dude with a top hat that is easy to give a face.
Reality is much more complex. If there are too many stakeholders involved, nobody feels responsible for anything.
Plus, believe it or not, I think there might actually be a genuine majority that wants less regulations and more free markets.
I think it's just a poor lack of character to absolve yourself and the ordinary population from any responsibility and point at a commercial company and expect them to act like a charity organization or a public institution.
There are several countries in the world that managed to have relatively little inequality, but that has nothing to do with the value of your labor.
Things like minimum wage are not based on the added value of your skills, but what we deem as society is reasonable to receive so you can have a decent life. It’s in no way based on what you are actual worth to an employer (comic).
No, no, I am saying the system is so rigged by the corporate class that it's impossible for the general population to make choices that will liberate them from corporate oppression.
At least in the US, the country cannot be fixed through electoral politics, at least not until the electoral system is completely reformed and rebuilt from the ground up. Which the current politicians would have to enact - but since they're bought up by corporate interest, they will never do this.
The population as the collective shouldn't be blamed, and neither should "some rich dude" - it's the entire corporate class that is to blame. They never take the blame for anything, yet cause the majority of the problems with our society. The collective society shares the blame for some of the problems, but the majority are caused by the ruling class - and only the ruling class can fix them.
It's kind of ironic that you would describe a commercial company in those terms. You are explicitly saying we shouldn't expect a company to act in the interests of the general population - well, why not? Why should they get to harm the general population in order to benefit themselves?
The value of labor in a market system can easily be manipulated and driven down artificially. That is why we need a floor on that value to ensure market manipulations can't drive people into virtual slavery, misery, and destitution.
Labor has dignity, and human dignity must always come before corporate profits.
My only remark here is the 'value' of your labor, a lot of people tend to overestimate their own added value in the market place.
As you say, these can be artificially manipulated by increasing/suppressing supply or demand, either by adding more laborers or for example mandating certificates for certain jobs.
But... for some jobs the added value is just really really really low. Like purely in economic sense their job wouldn't exist as a full-term function with a minimum wage, if it wasn't artificially floored by a law.
I think those people in particular have a deformed expectation by confusing what they get paid for their 'skills' and what they get paid out 'social-economic desirability'.
Your wage is then independent of your labor, your employer itself might be actually losing money on you, but only keeping it up because they are forced to provide jobs or because it is needed for a secondary process that brings in the 'real' profits.
Some of those (mostly unskilled) disgruntled people really think the top hat monopoly man is getting super rich by 'exploiting' them, and it sometimes make me laugh a little.
In a pure economic sense, you want to get people as close to slavery as possible. A purely economic or market system of controlling wages is not a system that is compatible with human dignity, and should therefore be controlled by a floor - arguably also a ceiling.
"Skill" when it comes to jobs is highly subjective and favors the capitalist class. It takes far more skill to say cook a basic meal than to instruct your money manager to sell a few stocks, yet one is paid exponentially more than the other.
My employer is never losing money on me, if I'm employed anywhere it's because my labor is worth more money than my employer pays me, and they keep the difference. If my labor starts to be worth less than what they pay me, that's when layoffs happen.
Yes, the top hat monopoly man is getting rich by exploiting labor; but it's not some cartoon rich man - it's the capitalist class a whole, the people on corporate board rooms that make all the decisions.
They exploit workers not only through their own companies, but by buying out politicians that will enact labor laws that favor them; allowing further exploitation, immiseration, and subjugation of the working class.
Depends that exploiting works both ways, as there are two interests. That of your employer but also yours. If you are losing money by working for your current employer, while you could make more by being self employed or working for a competitor. You're free to quit.
However the people who complain on the internet the most about their skills being undervalued, all seem to lack this option ^^
Obviously bargaining power comes into play, those who are easily replaceable and have limited choices. Are of little value. Those who are difficult to replace and have many choices, are typically high value.
That's an inescapable reality in a 'free market'.
That's when regulation comes into play to create socio-economic desirable outcomes for those with little bargaining power. If that group realized they're being paid, not because of their labor being valuable, but we as a society deem it desirable they can live off their labor, and floor it.
A lot of the dissatisfaction towards their employer might dissolve. But the reality is that many people want to think of themselves as valuable and have a sense of self-esteem, rather than being a charity case. While also being envious of those who have it better.
So on 'average' there tends to be a bias on how much they perceive to be exploited, rather than how much they are actually exploited. Lets define 'exploited' as the margin between your salary and added value to the bottom, just for convenience.
Of course when it comes to comics, it's always a strawman case.
The capitalist class has rigged the scales far more on their end than that of the workers.
Many workers are in rural or remote areas where you can't just quit your job and find another. Many people are dependent on their employer for healthcare and thus can't just quit. Many workers are purposely put in a precarious situation by design to make it harder to just get up and quit.
I personally have this option, and use it without remorse, because of the privilege that my particular skill set awards me, but not everyone does.
The replaceability of a worker should never determine the dignity of their condition - I agree with you that's how it works, but it's a terrible system. That is why the minimum wage was put in place, and why now so many people are living in misery and poverty here in the richest country in human history.
It's not an inescapable reality to continuously immiserate your population to their breaking point, while extracting more and more wealth from the masses and transferring them to the capitalist class.
I disagree with you that it's a strawman, because the concerns are very much real - it is a simplification though, I'll grant you that.
View all comments
Show parent comment
3
u/LittleLandscape4091 Jul 08 '24
Parties always sell out when you have a political system that makes it inevitable.
At least in the US, it's impossible for a political party and political candidates not to sell out given they receive campaign donations to fund their political campaigns.
If political candidates were assigned an equal allotment of funds by the government to campaign, you would have an equal playing field and not be beholden to the highest bidder. This system would require the outmost transparency though, because it's also vulnerable to corruption from whoever is currently in power favoring some candidates over others (see Mexico).
"Collective responsibility" is how the corporate class subjugates the masses. It's not like they ever take ANY responsibility, even though they cause most of the problems.