1073
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2026
1073 points (98.6% liked)
Work Reform
17768 readers
1156 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I can't tell if this is pro or anti capitalist tbh
It's a wink and a nudge on the pro-capitalism ("I'm fine with the world as it is") side and a "Of course! This is what I'm trying to tell you is wrong with the economic system" response from the anti-capitalism ("things need to change") side.
Good.
it's almost like the economic model name we give it is irrelevant and we should instead be focused on processes and outcomes 🤔
“Processes and outcomes”
The title of the book you are describing is literally “Capital.”
Because it's presented in such a villainous manner.
I think it (maybe unintentionally) falls on the pro-capitalist side because it suggests that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism — that private ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to class-based unequal relationships to production — can be reformed. In reality, reforms are used by the capitalist class to placate workers and defuse revolutionary fervor, and are eroded almost immediately after passing. Only a complete revolution to collective worker ownership of the means of production can resolve the contradiction.
I meant because the trope of the poors being ignorant racists was a bit too hard to believe someone would want to admit to.
Yeah, that’s a bit anti-worker, but racism and bigotry is one way that capitalists stoke division in the ruling class, and it has been very effective so far.
it could. unfortunately the boss's dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won't be.
that's just delusional. if such thing happened, and every person in the world would get the same amount of money and means of production, it would only take time for those better at management/leadership to - again - have more than the others.
people are not equal. i am not taking position and claiming it is good/bad, but it is a fact, no matter how someone might not like it. and all this is not saying that the current system is not fucked up.
<it could. unfortunately the boss’s dad owns the politicians making the law, so it won’t be.>
So de facto, due to structural issues inherent to the system, it can't be.
Marxists never claim that people are equal. The motto is, after all, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
There's a lot more I could say to dispute your understanding of socialist theory and history, but I don't have all day, so suffice to say: collective ownership of the means of production does not have the same structural tendency towards class formation as private ownership does.
Even the best co-ops have traces of it
pretty obviously pro cap
in what way is describing how a system works pro anything?
The best systems are those that analyze the practical processes and outcomes and optimize for distributed prosperity regardless of the individual component processes' economic model.
Some systems make sense to be capital-driven because of the massive initial investment required to ship the first product for things that are luxury-only (movies, etc)
Other systems should NEVER be capital-driven because they are tied to basic human needs and rights (health-care, education, etc)
The first step towards reaching the best system for everyone to attain a minimum level of prosperity that scales upward based on their own desire for additional luxury is breaking down existing systems to identify the exact places where they fail, so we can be selective about how build systems going forward and intelligently implement safeguards when we choose one system vs another for a given vertical.
lol you know anything about rhetoric because this is really naieve
As with the other comments you've made, you're just saying words without understanding their meaning.
I understand rhetoric very well.
Stating an intentionally limited or cherry-picked set of facts with the intent to deceive can be a rhetorical ploy, but that's genuinely not what the OC did, by a long shot. They fairly honestly break down (one of) the actual problem(s) with capitalism and how we wound up where we are.
From my perspective, you are the naive one, looking for simple narratives to pin your arguments on, and denying attempts to engage with the nuance of human behavior and history.
Life is complicated and trying to fit everything into a tidy little "capitalism bad" box isn't going to produce the results you hope.
lmao words have meaning
and i don’t really care to read paragraphs from you
"Too many words" is the response of a disinterested child who views engaging in conversation like eating their vegetables.
Go back to your YouTube shorts I guess.
lmao
Worse yet, I think it is pro-government
just an accurate description of the hellhole we live in.
it is a fact. facts are not pro- or anti- something, they just are.
this is sane washing wealth inequality
the reality is usually those original rich family members did some real heinous shit to get that wealth
it is not sane washing of anything. it is a description of things.
stop, calm down, take a deep breath, and then answer the question:
not
because it seems you have trouble grasping that these two are completely different questions.
if you don’t understand how framing works thats on you
Do you think wealth inequality was achieved through the behaviors of the insane? These systems were purpose built to function a certain way for the benefit of certain people. It was incredibly sane, just selfish.
Generational wealth inherited from people who benefitted from immoral systems is a fundamentally problematic system. Breaking down the logic behind it is not "sane-washing" or whatever unless it comes with opinions on the merit or fairness of the problematic elements.
Quite the contrary, the OC did not offer any opinion on whether these things were fair or "okay". They only fleshed out the specific logic used in the creation of these systems.
insanity is more sane washing
selfish greed is more honest
sometimes evil is more descriptive
You're just saying words without meaning at this point. I'm sure it feels good to put a label on something you don't like but you have done nothing to communicate what you actually intend in an effective way.
if it makes you feel better thinking that…
if you actually care about the subject pick some actual rich family names a do a little googling
keeping it contemporary, the less bad assholes are the zuckerfucks or bezshits
the actual evil families are like the musks or the trumps, they don’t get the silly titles, heious fuckers
and i have zero interest in convincing boot lickers of anything
The fact that you only called out the four surnames that are most visible on social media and the news says a lot about where you get your info, tbh.
No mention of the Waltons. Or the Kochs. None of the hedge fund managers, or Blackstone leadership. Or any of the dozens of other families and organizations that have been manipulating global politics for over a hundred years.
And the silly name-calling makes you look really immature btw. Say "fucking Zuckerberg" like an adult instead of sound-bite nicknames that put you on the same level as MAGA hate parrots.
you’re waisting your time
I'm not commenting for your benefit, but for the others who might stumble upon this thread
this is so sad
Whatever you say, chief
It's true that capitalists deserve to exploit workers?
where do you see such statement in the comment i reacted to? some red circles would help.
Does react mean reply? You replied to my comment which was
Maybe you replied to the wrong comment?
where did i say or agreed to that "workers deserve to be exploited", the sentence YOU put in my mouth so you have something to disagree with? i replied to right comment and you know very well what i meant, you manipulative asshole.
Where did I say you said anything?
i hope you are not going to play the game of "i did not say that, i was just asking", because that would be pathetically lame.
ignore the disingenuous troll. The "just a question" reframe is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. Shifting the argument to something they can easily attack instead of engaging with your actual argument is a tale as old as time.
I recommend you just restate the original point and reject their premise outright
What argument? They said the text was the truth and I asked if they understood it to mean the same thing I did.
There is no part of the OC that suggests a positive or negative moral or ethical assessment of the behaviors they described.
That is an easier argument to attack than what was actually described (a series of cause and effect), projected onto the scenario provided in the OC.
Acknowledging the motivations and logic of others, even those you disagree with, is not an endorsement of them. It is a fact that what OC described is how the history of capitalism played out in practice (with a large spoonful of corrupt lobbying to drive those wages down and profits for capital holders up).
I hope that clears things up. You weren't "just asking a question". You were presuming a specific answer and asking them to verify your presumption. If you were genuinely asking a question about how it was read, you could have easily said "I read the OC to imply that workers should be exploited. Is that the fact you're referring to? I ask because that seems too callous to be true."
I strongly disagree. Here are some examples of what I read as setting up what the capitalist was saying as positive:
I didn't attack it. I said I didn't know if it was positive or negative, because it presents the capitalist as reasonable while he says vile things about the workers.
I honestly don't know if we are talking about the same OC. Do you mean the top comment on the chain or the image in the post?
I certainly didn't frame it as "just asking questions." I was genuinely confused when I was asked:
When the comment the reacted to (replied to) was mine.
I finally figured it out that they meant "where in my reply did I say that".
As I have explained already, I was stating how I read it and asking if this is what they were referring to as true.
I think it's absurd to tell people how they should communicate online. I'm sure that wording would have been clearer to you, but it's not the intuitive wording to me. Not everyone speaks english the same way. That's why it's better to assume good intent and ask questions.
Every single line you quoted is an accurate representation of how capitalism works, independent of whether you think it's good/evil.
The only one you get partial credit for is the last quote, because modern capitalists are so divorced from everyday operations that even those things are farmed out to other employees.
You hold a large amount of responsibility for how your readers/listeners interpret your words. It is neither fair not effective communication to phrase things however you like and then wash your hands of the interpretation.
Your phrasing used an extremely common manipulation tactic, whether you meant to or not (asking a question with a premise that has not been established, e.g. "when did you start beating your wife?" when nobody has established I'm even married). That's on you, not the reader, to fix.
Though I don't fully believe you're being genuine here or your very first response when countered would have been "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend, what I meant was X".
Look, communication online is hard. If you want to be angry, I can't stop you.
You said
To which I replied:
Which is asking if you believe this to be true.
The text I couldn't tell was pro capitalism or not presents the idea that the capitalists deserve to alienate workers from their work (the exploitation), and that the worker is too stupid and prejudiced to understand his own interests. So when someone says it's the truth, I'm wondering if they agree with it or they view it as satire or something. Because I don't know, I ask.
Anyways, I hope capitalism helps you be less mad on the internet. It can't be good for you.