Capital can come from a lot of places, including saving up money one earns from labor. Since when has "starting on an even playing field" been an objective? There is no way to do that 100%.
It should be as close to 100% as possible is what I'm saying. It's nowhere near that.
You seem to have this idea that the only thing of value is labor. Capital is equally valuable, no matter how much you claim otherwise to demonize those who hold/use it.
When you look at past and current systems of human existence without capital, labor is still present. Labor is a means to survive, even when there is no capital. Do you understand that human existence is nearly 200,000-300,000 years long? Do you understand there are cultures in the world that don't use capital yet survive? Labor will always be more valuable than capital or currency. Always. We just get pushed into our brains that it's not or they are equal but the truth is that is only true in a certain frame of reference. Do you understand?
Fine, but that's different from demanding that companies be 100% worker owned.
It should be as close to it as possible.
People with more resources/capital will always have more control/influence/wealth. Looking to equalize things for everybody is a fool's errand.
Why is it a fool's errand?
But I do think workers don't have a big enough seat at the negotiating table, and in general the American system is too biased towards capital holders and owners. But demonizing owners for being self interested and utilizing their resources when workers are just as self-interested & would use those same resources in the same way is silly. When you have to dehumanize and demonize people you disagree with to make your points stronger it undermines your credibility. No need for it. Make a case with the problems in the system, not whatever character flaws you incorrectly attribute to everyone who has an ownership stake in a business or utilizes capital. I agree with your POV but not how you argue for it or have arrived at it.
You can feel anyway you wish, whether you agree with me or not. You have to understand that I sometimes look at economics from the entire perspective of human existence, not just confined to economics. Even things I argue for are primitive. These systems of economics are ultimately primitive, yet because of their relative complexity to systems of the past, and because of how engrained it is in the course of human affairs, we believe in the illusion that it's the objective way to coexist. It isn't.
Let me put this question to you this way: If in some small chance human beings came in contact with other intelligent life forms, more advanced than us, and you came to learn that these beings didn't rely on classism, capital, currency and so on, would it really surprise you? Would it surprise you that an advanced species has learned to use their resources and labor in a fair manner so that all of the inhabitants were truly given the same opportunity and equal footing in survival? That they got shun economic principles and still build advance societies and technology. It's just a thought experiment and question.
Why is it OK for workers to be self-interested but not owners?
)
