While I think there are limits to how much money anybody can reasonably spend, if someone works hard and makes money legally and ethically by virtue of their efforts then that’s their own business. It’s different of course if they made their money through crime or exploitation, and it’s easy to think of examples, but that isn’t the case for most people.
Also, if people perceive inequity then the answer is progressive taxation and other forms of financial remuneration to the state which can be dispersed as they see fit. If billionaires were hit with super taxes then they’d still be billionaires but it would pay for services that would raise the quality of life for everyone else.
There are a few big issues with that statement. First, Capitalism itself is exploitative, as ownership creates no Value yet entitles the Capitalist to all of the power. It is the case for all bourgeoisie.
Secondly, progressive taxation is a fantastic first start, but is absolutely not the solution, even with state reimbursement. The state is owned and run by the bourgeoisie, and as such they will pay as little as they can. It is only through revolutionary pressure, such as via vast grassroots movements like Unionization, that the bourgeoisie gives up any amount of power. Worse still, the exploitation of Capitalism remains!
The actual solution is replacing Capitalism with collective ownership of the Means of Production. True, Democratic control. This eliminates exploitation and creates more equitable outcomes, levels the playing field, and results in true liberation of the Proletariat.
Thanks for the Marxism 101 lesson which has never been demonstrated once in practice. Capitalism can and does work. Plenty of countries have capitalism, democracy and social services.
Are you saying workers have never successfully shared ownership of the Means of Production? That’s false, there are numerous examples, even Worker Co-operatives are more stable with higher employee satisfaction than Capitalist companies. You could take that same exact argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France and it would make just as much sense then as it does now.
Capitalism itself “works,” but it has numerous flaws that result in increasing disparity, enshittification, and exploitation. From the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, to the Boom/Bust cycle by which Capitalists acquire vast amounts of cheaper Capital, it certainly isn’t a good system.
No one can do a billion dollars worth of labor in a human lifetime. The only way to get a billion dollars is to exploit the labor of many, many others.
Define “exploit”. If I give you a job at a competitive rate and you do the thing and you are financially compensated and enjoy a decent standard of living then where is the exploitation?
I would argue that it’s difficult to attain that level of wealth ( hundreds of millions and/or billions) without someone being exploited.
Most commonly this is in the form of underpaying workers, essentially stealing their wages to bolster your own. This is incredibly common for any business owner, majority shareholder or CEO.
I would also remark that it’s especially common in tech. Where the only way to get any reasonable increase in salary is to change to a new job. Raises are basically non-existent in tech. They happen, but are frequently far below what should be given. The only “reasonable” raises I’ve ever seen were from Union positions, and tech jobs are notoriously non-Union.
While I think there are limits to how much money anybody can reasonably spend, if someone works hard and makes money legally and ethically by virtue of their efforts then that’s their own business. It’s different of course if they made their money through crime or exploitation, and it’s easy to think of examples, but that isn’t the case for most people.
Also, if people perceive inequity then the answer is progressive taxation and other forms of financial remuneration to the state which can be dispersed as they see fit. If billionaires were hit with super taxes then they’d still be billionaires but it would pay for services that would raise the quality of life for everyone else.
There are a few big issues with that statement. First, Capitalism itself is exploitative, as ownership creates no Value yet entitles the Capitalist to all of the power. It is the case for all bourgeoisie.
Secondly, progressive taxation is a fantastic first start, but is absolutely not the solution, even with state reimbursement. The state is owned and run by the bourgeoisie, and as such they will pay as little as they can. It is only through revolutionary pressure, such as via vast grassroots movements like Unionization, that the bourgeoisie gives up any amount of power. Worse still, the exploitation of Capitalism remains!
The actual solution is replacing Capitalism with collective ownership of the Means of Production. True, Democratic control. This eliminates exploitation and creates more equitable outcomes, levels the playing field, and results in true liberation of the Proletariat.
Thanks for the Marxism 101 lesson which has never been demonstrated once in practice. Capitalism can and does work. Plenty of countries have capitalism, democracy and social services.
Are you saying workers have never successfully shared ownership of the Means of Production? That’s false, there are numerous examples, even Worker Co-operatives are more stable with higher employee satisfaction than Capitalist companies. You could take that same exact argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France and it would make just as much sense then as it does now.
Capitalism itself “works,” but it has numerous flaws that result in increasing disparity, enshittification, and exploitation. From the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, to the Boom/Bust cycle by which Capitalists acquire vast amounts of cheaper Capital, it certainly isn’t a good system.
No one can do a billion dollars worth of labor in a human lifetime. The only way to get a billion dollars is to exploit the labor of many, many others.
Define “exploit”. If I give you a job at a competitive rate and you do the thing and you are financially compensated and enjoy a decent standard of living then where is the exploitation?
The exploitation comes from justifying taking the value created by another person’s labor through ownership of the tools they used.
I would argue that it’s difficult to attain that level of wealth ( hundreds of millions and/or billions) without someone being exploited.
Most commonly this is in the form of underpaying workers, essentially stealing their wages to bolster your own. This is incredibly common for any business owner, majority shareholder or CEO.
I would also remark that it’s especially common in tech. Where the only way to get any reasonable increase in salary is to change to a new job. Raises are basically non-existent in tech. They happen, but are frequently far below what should be given. The only “reasonable” raises I’ve ever seen were from Union positions, and tech jobs are notoriously non-Union.