• theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Am I having a stroke or does the first sentence make no sense? Shouldn’t it be more instead of less? If a company always sells for less than the cost to produce, it’ll go out of business rather quickly I’d think. Obviously there are temporary strategies like this that are used to beat competitors, but that’s not what this is talking about.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you just have it misunderstood. The comic assumes that you are the laborer, not the capitalist. As the image at this part of the infographic shows, from the perspective of the laborer, you are paid $5 for an item that is sold on the market for $50

      • Robert7301201@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, the image is correct, but I think theUnlikely was refering to the text “Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”

        It’s backwards, it should be the value you (the laborer) produce is sold for more than than your labor costs.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          ok, yea now I can understand how that sentence could be confusing. It’s technically correct, but written kinda backwards as people would normally understand it

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s not correct in any way:

            “Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs.”

            • you produce the value
            • capitalism pays your labor costs for the value
            • capitalism sells the value for… more, never less
            • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks, I thought I was losing my mind. I spent way too long rereading that sentence and wondering why no one had commented on it yet.

            • Maeve@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs ==> Capitalism exists by selling the value you produce for less than your labor costs [the capitalist/employer].

              It’s technically correct, but unclear.

                • Maeve@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Say you produce a $thousand fmv worth of x. Your capitalist employer sells x for $2000. They sold x for less than what they pay you, $500 worth of x.

                  • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m trying really hard to understand since you seem so sure. But $2000 is more than both $1000 and $500. I’m unable to see how it could be considered less.

              • hikaru755@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If the sentence were correct, your employer would sell whatever you produce for less than what they are paying you for it. E.g. they pay you 20 for one hour of work, in which you produce one product, which they then sell for 15. Obviously they would be making a loss in that situation on every single product sold, so no business would ever do that (except in special cases like loss leaders or limited promotions, of course, but we’re talking about the general case here)

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Just explained it, step by step.

                If you still don’t see it, then no offense, but we’re coming into “what weights more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers” territory, which I don’t think I can explain through here.

      • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the labor costs (wages) are $5 and the value produced by the laborer is sold for $50? Yes this makes sense of course, but I can’t wrap my head around why it says it’s sold for less when $50 is more than $5. GPT4 can’t seem to make sense of it either.

      • yuriy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The comic assumes that you could ONLY be the laborer. It’s ignoring the fact that no one is stopping you from making/buying something and selling it for a profit.

        I’m a bench jeweler and I know plenty of other craftspeople who make a whole-ass living off selling shit they made for more than labor/materials cost. The fact that an employer will take advantage of you isn’t a failing of capitalism, it’s a facet of human greed that will permeate any economic/political system.

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Making things or selling things is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production; things like factories, tools, intellectual property, etc.

          On the point of greed, I disagree that it’s just simply “human nature”. However, even if it was, why should we have an economic system that prioritizes greed?

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Capitalism is the ideology that defends capital as the main desirable quality in society.

            Greed is a consequence of the desire for ownership, which is part of human nature.

            Capitalism is the exaltation of that greed… and no, we should not have any system that blindly defends a single aspect of life.

            Life is full of nuance, no single aspect should rule it all; sometimes ownership is good (like my pants), sometimes sharing is good (like riding on a bus), sometimes defending a life is good (like preventing a murder), sometimes ending a life is good (like euthanasia)… and so on.

            • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just a bit of pendantry as a treat, I think that greed is a consequence of people seeking to meet their needs. In a system that requires obtaining money to obtain needs that are not simply provided, it causes precarity. This precarious position is a threat to existence. Our instincts fear of this precarity, and this instinctual fear manifests as greed to make sure our needs will always be met. This isn’t to say that greed is imaginary or a product of capitalism, it is human nature. But I think that nature is influenced by nurture, and vice versa.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Agreed. I’d only add that until we switch to a full post-scarcity world, a system that does the opposite, that tries to eliminate all private ownership, also causes that same fear of precarity, which also leads to greed.

                As long as scarcity exists, a system trying to minimize greed requires a tough balance between providing enough to meet basic needs, but at the same time not stifling people’s sense of safety derived from ownership.

            • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              sometimes ownership is good (like my pants)

              Anticapitalist critique of private ownership isn’t about private ownership of pants it’s about private/centralized ownership of the means of production. This is a critical distinction, as many models still want a free market which doesn’t work without private property.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re actually “fucked” at everyone’s (my own included) inability to draw inferences from context, and! Often disingenuous character of a lot of people using this unclear manner of speaking. The cartoon isn’t presenting this ambiguous statement ini bad faith, probably just oversight or perhaps that’s not the author’s/translator’s native language.