Steve Ballmer is set to make $1 billion a year for doing nothing | CNN Business
For most people, passive income is a bit of extra pocket change that requires minimal effort to earn to supplement a main source of income. For Steve Ballmer, it’s $1 billion.
You're viewing a single thread.
Shower thought: if everyone gives a % of their labour value to the government it's called taxes and is evil communism. If everyone gives a % of their labour value to an individual it's called capitalism and is glorious. How does that mental gymnastics work?
Propaganda is a strong and prosperous machine.
We are capitalist society working in feudalistic companies
No, we are workers exploited by capitalists.
Unless you are not selling your labour and instead living on the profit derived from the workers, you are not a capitalist.
It's a very simple system laid out in Das Kapital and still taught in economics today (at least in the UK):
Aristocrats - people with wealth by virtue of controlling land
Capitalists - people who have wealth by virtue of having wealth (i.e. they can invest/speculate)
Worker (or Proletariat) - people who have to sell their labour to capitalists or aristocrats to survive
Lumpenproletariat - an underclass that has fallen out of society and resort to the black or grey market to survive
To follow up, let's talk about the names of the system!
Absolute Monarchy: a system where an individual has absolute control of the means of production (often, though not always, via birth).
Feudalism: a system where the a wider, though still small, group of people, control the means of production based on land ownership (often, though not always, through an aristocratic class) (fun fact: the Magna Carta changed England from an absolute monarchy to a feudal state, it did not create any kind of democracy, as the myth often goes).
Capitalism: a system where those with money (i.e. capital) control the means of production. We are here.
Socialism: used interchangeably by both Marx and Lenin with communism (Lenin specifically states the "socialist" in USSR was aspirational, not literal). However, has now come to denote the "transition" period from Capitalism to communism where the workers control the means of production via what Lenin called a "vanguard party" or worker-controlled legislature
Communism: where the means of production are no longer controlled at all with no class divide, legislature, or private property (note: personal and private property are two different things; no one wants your toothbrush) based on the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
I just want to reach the dizzying heights of the proletariat.
Capitalists are the ruling class that own the means of production through private property and profit from workers' labour, or otherwise have the vast wealth needed to have decisive influence on production.
Workers are not capitalists.
There are no workers in capitalism. And no classes.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Here's a better shower thought: the government exists to govern you, not to serve you. When you pay taxes, you fund new mansions for the ruling class. When you invest into the business instead, you create new jobs, new tech and your future.
Workers have unelected bosses dictating the majority of their waking lives. Most companies literally tell you what you can and cannot wear (dress code policy), when you can and cannot eat (designated breaks), and what you can and cannot say online (social media policies). All so they can control you to extract wealth and buy super yachts.
Look at the list of wealthiest US politicians. I cannot find a single one that didn't make their money extracting it from workers or inheritance. Abuse of office happens; abuse of workers' surplus is the standard.
There are no workers or other classes in capitalism.
Can you explain how you've come to that conclusion? It flies in the face of pretty much every sociologist for the last 200 years. Even Adam Smith, distinguished people by gentleman, farmer, and merchant with clear class distinctions between each, even if the term hadn't entered into the mainstream use yet.
