carl_marks_1312

I believe the US has significant deposits as well. But its one thing having deposits and another to have the manufacturing capacity to refine it. Because the cost of labour is cheaper in china the "west" decided to import it from there. It also has the added benefit for the west of exporting environmental concern and to have a boggey man to point to when it comes to implementing green energy. ("Look we can implent what we can, but as long China is being a polluter, it doesn't matter anyway)

There are some services in the economy you never would want to be privately owned. e.g. Firedepartment, healthcare providers, etc. These type of business are better run as a service for society, instead of these being subject to the profit motive. Look up what a privatized fire department looked like in New York. If you can't understand that, then you havent been engaging with political theory enough..

even vox

Lol

The guy that floated here was due to wanting freedom and the ability to not be owned by the state

Castro brought freedom to Cuba. Looks like your friends understanding of freedom is the same as the average Americans: Being a wageslave for 8hrs a day on average lol

state owned firms just suck

If you say so chief. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

I think you are wanting the cuban model which is really really really bad, and there is a reason

Strawmaning much here I see. Putting cuba in it's context means obviously I want the model apply everywhere, because history taught us that context doesn't matter obviously.

I knew a guy that floated here on an inner tube to get away from it.

What was his family business and his function in the batista regime?

Could you open this a bit more because I’m not sure I understand your perspective currently?

Reading Marxist theory helps. Here's a pretty good lecture of comparing the systems which gives a pretty good overview:

The History of Capitalism, Slavery, Feudalism and Marxism Richard Wolff

a weird perspective to things that at least I don’t know of

Thank you for acknowledging that you might have a perspective missing (This is by design). Considering this, you could benefit exploring terms like "hegemony" and "ideology".

what else should they do?

To me it seems that you think you're asking a rethorical questions with no answer. If you engage with Marxist theory, play with the thought, you don't have to adopt it. Doing so you might realize that there are answers to this.

If, and only if, the mother could get a higher paying job in a different location which would raise the entire family’s life quality, they absolutely should move even if it would feel difficult at first. Some (capitalistic) countries even offer support for that (if they were unemployed at first).

Again, you're advocating for people relocating and adapting to the market. Meaning, people serving the economy and not the other way around. This doesn't fix the systemic problem.

Of course it does. I’ve done it, multiple times, and I can’t understand why someone would rather be stuck in a shitty situation instead of moving into a new location where they have opportunities to build a better life.

How is someone who lives paycheck to paycheck to just move? Who rents to someone like that? Moving costs money. What if someone doesn't have the social support for moving? You're saying this form a very priviledged position. It's not a free choice. It's being forced on you, because bourgois politics doesn't tackle the problem at it's roots.

Sure, cherry pick some numbers here

You're saying it like you don't do it.

China has made numbers out of thin air for a long time and it starts to show now that their real estate industry is in shambles

With a liberal perspective it sure looks like that. This is not cherry picking, right? lol Most of your treats come from China..

Cuba vs. US, well, given the list, cherry picking is cherry picking.

Well considering one is the hegemon, the other being an embargoed island with restricted access to the global economy it's impressive I would say. Show me another country with this many sanctions and that high of a life expectancy.. Libs ignoring context, a classic duo...

If you really want to compare working to a company you can freely choose and you can leave whenever you like, sure. In that case I would make the argument to a slave, that they absolutely should find a kind master who treats them more like a human being than all the other scumbag slavelords do. It’s just that the slaves were actual slaves, they didn’t have any freedom of choice unlike you and I have.

Yes, I'm comparing economic systems. Slavery is an economic system. While slavery allows you owning all aspects of a humans life, Capitalism and Wageslavery only allow you to own some aspects of a humans life (Mainly 8hrs lifetime/day on average).

Also congratulations for arguing on terms of slavery and not rejecting it altogether.

It depends. People from the poor countries are somehow moving without a dime.

Thank you for your analysis.

You are actually really privileged, if you already own so much crap that you think you need all that when you move somewhere. Realistically you only need yourself, your IDs and a one-way ticket to wherever you are going.

I agree. People living in global north countries are definitely privileged on a global scale. But even among those privileged so societies you have exploitation. It doesn't help telling a single mom raising a child on her own and living paycheck to paycheck, to just move.

That’s a choice. It also tells more about your friends and family if they abandon you just for moving elsewhere nowadays when we are 24/7 connected to each other in multiple ways. New friends can also always be made in new locations - been there, done that. It is scary at first but loooots of people are doing exactly that all the time because otherwise they would have to work a shitty job for shitty wage and they would hate themselves and everyone else around them all the time for that.

This says more about you and your social life than anyone else's. And you advocating on forcing this experiment of a lifestyle onto others.

There are alternatives, it’s just that maybe you wouldn’t REALLY want to live in that alternative economy? China is a slight alternative, there is this fake capitalism going on and it’s not looking too great. North Korea is a 100% different country and you can see how well they are doing. Pretty much all socialistic countries in the world are in a bad shape and people are fleeing into the capitalistic world people here in Lemmy so much loathe. I get it, there are lots and lots and lots and lots of really bad companies and bosses and co-workers around that only think of themselves, but in the meantime there are also lots of places that do care about their employees because they know they couldn’t exist without them and that people tend to work better if they enjoy what they do and where they work.

What no theory does to a mf.

China has been outperforming western countries on a variety of metrics. North Korea had more than 20% of their population decimated an forced into isolation. Cuba has higher life expectancy is way more progressive and the US, despite crippling embarings. There's more than one interpretation, you know.

Your questions makes no sense to me, but assuming good faith on your part you seem to be asking:

How else can you earn money, apart from stealing from another person, if being an employee makes you subject to exploitation?

There are different ways to organize a workplace.

The crux of this question however is the (undemocratic) relation between employee and employer.

You're only getting hired in any privately run company if you produce more value for the company than they pay you. (e.g. You earn X Dollar per month, but you make more than X Dollars per month for the company). This is true for every employee. While everyone contributes to the success of the company, noone has a say in how, when, how long, etc. the work can be done, and especially no say how profits (or "Surplus value" for marxists) are used and shared. It's not necessarily a problem per say (any type of organization requires some form of authority), but it's a problem when you entire or majority of the economy is organized in this way.

Other forms include

• worker coops: the management/bosses are elected by it's employees, which decide how the firm is run; look into Richard Wolff; Mondragon; Huawei, etc. for examples of firms, and more macroeconomically: Emiglia-Romania which has a large portion of GDP created this way or JZD Sluzovice is another example

• state-owned firms: Examples are United States Postal Service (USPS) and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States best if you google it altogether.

And well, I don’t know what you mean by “refusing to participate in such system”. Usually people have a choice of working for a big corporation or choosing to work for smaller companies that tend to be more employee-friendly, at least in my experience.

It doesn't matter where you work, as long as it's privately owned you're at the mercy of the firms owners. Be it big or be it small. Would you make the argument to a slave that one owner is better than the other based on the size? Or would you despise the entire economic system of slavery?

Relocation is not an entirely bad thing either if that helps you find a healthier workplace.

1. That's really privileged to say. Moving is not affordable to everybody
2. Then there's the social aspect. Not everyone is willing to leave their friends and family behind?

Now, if you refuse to work at all, well, that wouldn’t work even in socialism or in small African villages where everyone expects others to contribute to the village functioning.

No noone is saying that? Every society needs a method of procuring the means of life, which can only be done an economy? What I've been saying is that you're forced to participate in capitalism, because the majority places where you can work are capitalist.

You just have to find the right “village” that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.

You just have to find the right “plantation” that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.

What do you mean? In what context are you asking the question?

The Chinese ship actively blocking a rescue operation until they fully understood the potential blowback.

That's your bad faith interpretation based on what one party is saying about the incident. (Especially the "potential blowback").

Whereas Singaporean state media states more neutrally:

The Chinese ships ceased these actions and offered to help after being informed about the “humanitarian mission”, it [Philippine Coast Guard] added.

Which is reasonable, because China was operating on previous experiences. The Chinese adapted once they got more information about the situation (which they were under no obligation to and wouldn't do if they wouldn't have taken the Philippine Coast Guard in good faith). What did you want them to do? nOt bE tHeRE iN tHe FirsTplAce", amirite?

If they were found not helping, it was proof of their malevolence.

On the other hand, If they were found helping, it was merely because it was a cheap propaganda win and because they didn't want to get caught with proof killing Filipinos in Filipino claimed waters.

And think about how that tax revenue gets spent on weapons and not healthcare.

(Given those millionaires were able to circumvent China's strict capital controls. Even if some of them did I'm sure they'd find a way of circumventing taxes in their new host country also)

Where do people that dont want to (or cant) be an owner get their income from?

From selling their labour aka wageslavery. Usually.

And also most millionaires do it via things like a 401k and just boring saving over decades.

401k and savings usually have investments, where appropriation of labour surplus happens.