BHA Charlestown/Bunker Hill Redevelopment | Charlestown

[TallIsGood]

Profit is return on capital vs wages as return on labor. I don’t agree it’s zero sum. Labor can be more productive and increase wages and profits. My point was you put something in (capital or labor) to get a return. It’s capitalism and it drives all of us.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Yeah but his point - and there was a point - was that the analogy wasn't clarifying because the terms used weren't properly understood by the people using them.

Don't want to speak for someone else, but I'd say he was also getting at another point: it's not only an inaccurate analogy, but a harmful one, because it obscures the structural disadvantages that the non-ownership class faces in the world.

So he had a real point, you just don't like it.

Not about not liking it. He misrepresents profits versus wages in a very Marxist way. It's also deflection as no one is arguing there are not class differences and everything isn't simple. But, the base point didn't need those depths or details. It doesn't mean many of the statements aren't true he/she made. They just were not relevant or necessary in the context. Always think king you are more socially conscious than others because you choose to be more wordy than necessary doesn't make it true.

If I say the sky is very blue today, and someone counters that it is in fact azure and goes on to explain the scientific reasons to support their deeper explanation doesn't change the fact that I am color blind or the basic fact that my simple statement was as true as it needed to be.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

You summarised the point well. That is exactly why I took issue with it. To use the same term for both collapses inequality by loose terminology and ignores meaningful differences in form, scale, and position in the relations of production.

The discussion was macro and you made it micro. You felt it needed to be micro, I disagree. I still do. Doesn't mean I don't agree with plenty you say. Doesn't change what I say in the broader scope of the discussion.

 

[coleslaw]

Profit is return on capital vs wages as return on labor. I don’t agree it’s zero sum. Labor can be more productive and increase wages and profits. My point was you put something in (capital or labor) to get a return. It’s capitalism and it drives all of us.

The scale of those returns though is vastly different and one relies upon the other while the other has much of its value extracted by the other. The return on labor is precisely limited by profits, aka no boss ever pays you what you are worth, that just isn't how this system works. You also should look into the tendency for the rate of profit to fall.

Not about not liking it. He misrepresents profits versus wages in a very Marxist way.

There is nothing wrong with using elements of marxist analysis and using it as a dirty smear word isn't going to scare me.

It's also deflection as no one is arguing there are not class differences and everything isn't simple.

What am i deflecting from exactly? I didnt bring this up I am correcting a problematic framing. You are arguing that there are not class differences if you think wages are analogous to profit though. They arent and to insist as such is an argument that tries to collapse the interest of the working class into that of the capitalist class, when in reality they are in contradiction.

But, the base point didn't need those depths or details. It doesn't mean many of the statements aren't true he/she made. They just were not relevant or necessary in the context. Always think king you are more socially conscious than others because you choose to be more wordy than necessary doesn't make it true.

If I say the sky is very blue today, and someone counters that it is in fact azure and goes on to explain the scientific reasons to support their deeper explanation doesn't change the fact that I am color blind or the basic fact that my simple statement was as true as it needed to be.

Now this brings up how the issue is you just not liking the point I am making because this is not semantics. What you are doing is actively propagandistic for capital. To act as if everyone is operating basically the same way under a class system in which some people are forced to sell their labor in order to survive while others by virtue of their wealth or property are able to buy the labor of others is capitalist apologism. It is relevant because when you frame it the way you did you are suggesting that the interests of developers in maximizing profit is functionally the same as workers wanting higher wages. However because of class, which again you are in fact ignoring, these are vastly different things. One comes from collective struggle to take back exploited surplus value the other comes from increasing that exploitation.

The discussion was macro and you made it micro. You felt it needed to be micro, I disagree. I still do. Doesn't mean I don't agree with plenty you say. Doesn't change what I say in the broader scope of the discussion.

This has nothing to do with the arbitrary marco/micro distinction. How exactly is class a micro discussion anyway? This is a systemic conversation about the meaningful differences in opportunity that exist because of the capitalist nature of our society.

 

[Justin7]

If I say the sky is very blue today, and someone counters that it is in fact azure and goes on to explain the scientific reasons to support their deeper explanation doesn't change the fact that I am color blind or the basic fact that my simple statement was as true as it needed to be.

This example is in no way analogous (hey, can someone look that word up and post the definition here?) to the argument. You're accusing him of being a pedant for pointing out the distinction between to terms that do in fact have important differences. You disagree with the importance. Fine. Move on.

 

[citylover94]

Profits versus wages matters a huge amount and even my economics professor has spent part of more than half of all our classes talking about winners and losers and why labor is often on the losing end even when things overall are going well economically. He certainly is not a Marxist but there are many instances where elements of that theory can be seen in macroeconomics.

Class is a macro question when being discussed in this context btw based on the fact that class and bosses/owners of the means of production versus labor is a focus of macroeconomics as I mentioned before.

 

[Rover]

I'm getting a kick out of this discussion. Seems in every class there's always one person who's really into economics, not realizing yet that it's all bullshit and theories with little practical application in the real world! I do like seeing the Marxist shit again though. Really takes me back.

But, at the end of the day, working needs to be worth your while (aka: profitable to you). If you are pulling down 1M a year, do you really care if your boss is making 2M? For the vast majority of us, the 1M makes working worth the time and effort we devote to it.

 

[odurandina]

^^awesome. These days, most high school teachers and college professors are filthy, Marxist, pond scum. That said, agreed; wages have sucked for too long. And no one has figured out how to keep enough decent paying jobs in America (the next aB fun times chat topic).

 

[citylover94]

I'm getting a kick out of this discussion. Seems in every class there's always one person who's really into economics, not realizing yet that it's all bullshit and theories with little practical application in the real world! I do like seeing the Marxist shit again though. Really takes me back.

But, at the end of the day, working needs to be worth your while (aka: profitable to you). If you are pulling down 1M a year, do you really care if your boss is making 2M? For the vast majority of us, the 1M makes working worth the time and effort we devote to it.

It is absolutely bullshit. I hate that class, but if we are going to have a discussion on it we might as well use the correct framework.

 

[datadyne007]

This thread is a cesspool. Mods needed.