Anarchism

1628 readers

32 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

Other anarchist comms

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

-4

How can one define the evil rich versus the hard working new rich? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For instance I know some lawyers and insurance CEOs who built the company themselves and run an ethical business model but because of innovation have made a ton of money. One lawyer has made a name for himself only defending those who have been hurt my big corporations and their life is ruined. The other made an insurance model that helps these hurt people invest their court winnings into annuities to guarantee they’re financially taken care of for life. These are not billionaires but both companies have won for their clients/work with hundreds of millions if not billions.

How can one clearly define someone like Musk or Bezos as bourgeois whereas these hard working individuals who came from nothing and build a huge business actually from nothing and help people?

Hoping for a non-black and white answer. My local MLM group declares everyone evil who isn’t their exact ideology. It doesn’t make sense to apply this thinking when someone whose become rich through helping people isn’t the same as someone whose has taken advantage of people for generations.

Edit: getting downvoted to hell when I am asking a question sure isn't welcoming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xj9@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The pay scale and the size of the organization doesn't actually matter here, the question is how the decision is made and by whom. This comes back to who ultimately owns / controls the company. Which is why I'm discussing class interests in my post above.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So fair ownership of the company is based on who controls it's direction and choices. Got it. How does this compare to companies that give employees stock or shareholders in general? Would one say a basic shareholder is not a worker therefore the same logic doesn't apply? But employees receiving stock would give them a vote in the companies decisions and leadership positions. Or does this capitalist method of dividing the company not apply at all?

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The problem with stocks is their disorganisation. Shareholder-workers are simultaneously self-exploiting and extracting value (ie profit) from others, without a social contract or remuneration scheme. Shareholder-workers who become shareholders, that is they stop working there, have unjust power. Stocks can be sold or inherited.

On the other hand, a critical threshold of organised shareholders could change the organisation of the company into a more democratic form.

[–] xj9@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Incidentally, that's why employee stock holdings are typically either non-voting shares or granted in quantities that can't practically become a majority voting bloc. But if you can manage it, this is a valid way to seize the means of production through a peaceful democratic process and it does happen on occasion.

[–] ComradeMiao@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Thanks! That makes sense