Search Results
7/13/2025, 11:02:08 PM
>>510299391
>you'll say "because the capitalist has the equipment they need" ok then capital is literally helping
That's the critical point though. It's not that the capitalist created the equipment, he simply purchases it from other workers and then gives it to different workers to use to create wealth, then takes a cut of the production. If the capitalist did not make the equipment the workers needed and does not use the equipment, what does he do?
He supplies permission.
The money isn't capital, the money is permission. In order to do anything in the modern world, you must have the permission of the capital-holding class, i.e. the capitalists. When Warren Buffett invests in a company, he's giving it permission to go make wealth. If that permission (denominated in dollars) comes back, Buffett has more permission to give to other people to go make wealth, ad infinitum. The point is that you can't do anything without the capitalist having his say-so. You need the money invested to pay your bills and feed yourself while you work on your start-up, so the investor/shareholder/hedge fund manager/etc functions as a gate you must pass through before you are allowed to work. This is "capitalism." Not the free market, but a system which puts capital at the apex of economics, which makes the merchant the lord of nations.
What if the labor were to simply dispense with the ghost of capital that comes in the form of dollar signs and fixed their eyes on real assets as "their own," rather than subject to someone else's "right?" What if the labor were to work and then see the product of their labor as wholly their own, their property, instead of obeying the ghost of capital and paying some part of it to a man who only demanded that he be asked first before the laborers be allowed to labor?
>you'll say "because the capitalist has the equipment they need" ok then capital is literally helping
That's the critical point though. It's not that the capitalist created the equipment, he simply purchases it from other workers and then gives it to different workers to use to create wealth, then takes a cut of the production. If the capitalist did not make the equipment the workers needed and does not use the equipment, what does he do?
He supplies permission.
The money isn't capital, the money is permission. In order to do anything in the modern world, you must have the permission of the capital-holding class, i.e. the capitalists. When Warren Buffett invests in a company, he's giving it permission to go make wealth. If that permission (denominated in dollars) comes back, Buffett has more permission to give to other people to go make wealth, ad infinitum. The point is that you can't do anything without the capitalist having his say-so. You need the money invested to pay your bills and feed yourself while you work on your start-up, so the investor/shareholder/hedge fund manager/etc functions as a gate you must pass through before you are allowed to work. This is "capitalism." Not the free market, but a system which puts capital at the apex of economics, which makes the merchant the lord of nations.
What if the labor were to simply dispense with the ghost of capital that comes in the form of dollar signs and fixed their eyes on real assets as "their own," rather than subject to someone else's "right?" What if the labor were to work and then see the product of their labor as wholly their own, their property, instead of obeying the ghost of capital and paying some part of it to a man who only demanded that he be asked first before the laborers be allowed to labor?
Page 1