Whole Foods' Co-Founder John Mackey: "Why Intellectuals Hate Capitalism"

[King Kreole]

So your original point implied college professors were overly compensated(even though compared to individuals of their education in the private sector, they make less) and that was a cause of student debt, but you don't actually think that. You think it's a combination of underfunding and poor management. Ok we agree.

If people making 80k are aristocrats, what does that make the business man making 100m? How is he of a lesser class because he doesn't read as a hobby?

Except in the great capitalistic period you're championing, little billy had been working in the coal mine for 3 years by the time his dad bought that tractor.

Just to lay this out for about the 7th time in this thread, I don't think everyone should be payed the same. I believe everyone owns the fruits of their labor. The tractor is in part the fruit of the inventors labor, but unless he built it himself, it's not solely his,

- Nah, I never meant to imply they were overcompensated, and definitely don't believe they're to blame for the student debt crisis.

- I guess that would make the 100m business man a king but seriously, the aristocratic association is more than just your annual salary, it's about the lifestyle you live and the beliefs you hold. But aristocracy, as we colloquially use the term, is an antiquated concept. The upward mobility of modern capitalism has more or less destroyed practical aristocracy. There is of course still generational wealth, but it is much less secure in this day and age. People can lose fortunes overnight, and people can gain fortunes overnight.

- I'm not championing an era, i'm championing a system. I believe the modern age is the greatest age there has ever been. The capitalist world of 70 years ago is not the same as the capitalist world of today, and I'm glad that many of the changes have taken place. The fact that Billy doesn't have to work in the coal mines and can go to school is great, and while capitalism set the stage for that change to take place, social movements have been necessary in making the transition.

- In a capitalist society, it's decided that the person who came up with the idea gets ownership because we value ideas. To posit that labour should be compensated with ownership is putting labour on an equal footing with inventiveness, which is a recipe for disaster. What makes capitalist societies great is the entrepreneurship and inventiveness that it promotes. This is the whole working smart vs working hard dichotomy. The Soviets and Chinese were working very hard, but they were outgained by the inventive West because the West worked smart and rewarded its citizens as such. I can spend 20 backbreaking hours a day mining into a mountain, or I can invent a mining drill that will reduce that time in half. The latter situation is far more likely to come about when I am being rewarded for my inventiveness. The labourer does own the fruits of his labour, which is his wage. The inventor is compensated for his efforts with ownership. The systems works well. You want to reap the benefits of ownership? Use your head and be inventive. We value that over labour.

 

[Tate]

- Nah, I never meant to imply they were overcompensated, and definitely don't believe they're to blame for the student debt crisis.

- I guess that would make the 100m business man a king but seriously, the aristocratic association is more than just your annual salary, it's about the lifestyle you live and the beliefs you hold. But aristocracy, as we colloquially use the term, is an antiquated concept. The upward mobility of modern capitalism has more or less destroyed practical aristocracy. There is of course still generational wealth, but it is much less secure in this day and age. People can lose fortunes overnight, and people can gain fortunes overnight.

- I'm not championing an era, i'm championing a system. I believe the modern age is the greatest age there has ever been. The capitalist world of 70 years ago is not the same as the capitalist world of today, and I'm glad that many of the changes have taken place. The fact that Billy doesn't have to work in the coal mines and can go to school is great, and while capitalism set the stage for that change to take place, social movements have been necessary in making the transition.

- In a capitalist society, it's decided that the person who came up with the idea gets ownership because we value ideas. To posit that labour should be compensated with ownership is putting labour on an equal footing with inventiveness, which is a recipe for disaster. What makes capitalist societies great is the entrepreneurship and inventiveness that it promotes. This is the whole working smart vs working hard dichotomy. The Soviets and Chinese were working very hard, but they were outgained by the inventive West because the West worked smart and rewarded its citizens as such. I can spend 20 backbreaking hours a day mining into a mountain, or I can invent a mining drill that will reduce that time in half. The latter situation is far more likely to come about when I am being rewarded for my inventiveness. The labourer does own the fruits of his labour, which is his wage. The inventor is compensated for his efforts with ownership. The systems works well. You want to reap the benefits of ownership? Use your head and be inventive. We value that over labour.

I would say capitalism values ownership, not ideas. But to each his own. Socialism happens when scarcity ends. Capitalism is better than Marxist-Leninism(leninism in general is whack)

 

[JahFocus CS]

I would say capitalism values ownership, not ideas.

This. Ideas are also intellectual labor, don't get it twisted. at this focus on ideas when workers have their ideas taken and considered as property of their employer all the time.

Capital exploits labor. The working class isn't limited to people building widgets

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

People basically aren't understanding the concept that human societies change over time in terms of how they are socially organized and how they produce goods

I don't see how it is difficult to grasp that class societies can be compared to each other, whether it is slavery, feudalism, or capitalism

Working at walmart isn't slavery. So yeah, you can make that comparison if you really want to, but you'll also be declared an out of touch a$$hole.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

- Nah, I never meant to imply they were overcompensated, and definitely don't believe they're to blame for the student debt crisis.

- I guess that would make the 100m business man a king but seriously, the aristocratic association is more than just your annual salary, it's about the lifestyle you live and the beliefs you hold. But aristocracy, as we colloquially use the term, is an antiquated concept. The upward mobility of modern capitalism has more or less destroyed practical aristocracy. There is of course still generational wealth, but it is much less secure in this day and age. People can lose fortunes overnight, and people can gain fortunes overnight.

- I'm not championing an era, i'm championing a system. I believe the modern age is the greatest age there has ever been. The capitalist world of 70 years ago is not the same as the capitalist world of today, and I'm glad that many of the changes have taken place. The fact that Billy doesn't have to work in the coal mines and can go to school is great, and while capitalism set the stage for that change to take place, social movements have been necessary in making the transition.

- In a capitalist society, it's decided that the person who came up with the idea gets ownership because we value ideas. To posit that labour should be compensated with ownership is putting labour on an equal footing with inventiveness, which is a recipe for disaster. What makes capitalist societies great is the entrepreneurship and inventiveness that it promotes. This is the whole working smart vs working hard dichotomy. The Soviets and Chinese were working very hard, but they were outgained by the inventive West because the West worked smart and rewarded its citizens as such. I can spend 20 backbreaking hours a day mining into a mountain, or I can invent a mining drill that will reduce that time in half. The latter situation is far more likely to come about when I am being rewarded for my inventiveness. The labourer does own the fruits of his labour, which is his wage. The inventor is compensated for his efforts with ownership. The systems works well. You want to reap the benefits of ownership? Use your head and be inventive. We value that over labour.

Don't be too kind to @Swavy Karl Marx ...he's declared that he doesn't believe in private property for businesses

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I would say capitalism values ownership, not ideas. But to each his own. Socialism happens when scarcity ends. Capitalism is better than Marxist-Leninism(leninism in general is whack)

Ideas are useless employed. What are you talking about?

 

[Tate]

Don't be too kind to @Swavy Karl Marx ...he's declared that he doesn't believe in private property for businesses

You didn't even know what private property meant until yesterday. Judging by your statement here you still don't.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Working at walmart isn't slavery. So yeah, you can make that comparison if you really want to, but you'll also be declared an out of touch a$$hole.

People who work there know what's what. You're an out of touch a$$hole. Peace out kid

 

[King Kreole]

This. Ideas are also intellectual labor, don't get it twisted. at this focus on ideas when workers have their ideas taken and considered as property of their employer all the time.

Capital exploits labor. The working class isn't limited to people building widgets

Patent infringement is a crime, so anyone who has had their ideas stolen from them can sue and remedy the theft. What you're describing is an employee willingly signing a contract that pays them for their intellectual labour in exchange for giving up portions of ownership. The worker doesn't absorb the total risk he would if he underwent the venture on his own (he gets paid), and in exchange for taking on some of that risk, the employer reaps the benefits of ownership. There is nothing immoral or illegal about that. It's risk mitigation, and I trust the workers to know how to best apportion their talents and labours more than I trust the government to. This again is a scheme that promotes inventiveness, and it's not mandatory. Many people decide to gamble on themselves and go it alone, for better or worse.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You didn't even know what private property meant until yesterday. Judging by your statement here you still don't.

Considering that you keep changing the definition when pressed, i'd say you have more clarification to resolve in your camp

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

People who work there know what's what. You're an out of to a$$hole. Peace out kid

Keep using the world slavery like its a toy though.

You're not going to win this with that type of language.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Patent infringement is a crime, so anyone who has had their ideas stolen from them can sue and remedy the theft. What you're describing is an employee willingly signing a contract that pays them for their intellectual labour in exchange for giving up portions of ownership. The worker doesn't absorb the total risk he would if he underwent the venture on his own (he gets paid), and in exchange for taking on some of that risk, the employer reaps the benefits of ownership. There is nothing immoral or illegal about that. It's risk mitigation, and I trust the workers to know how to best apportion their talents and labours more than I trust the government to. This again is a scheme that promotes inventiveness, and it's not mandatory. Many people decide to gamble on themselves and go it alone, for better or worse.

 

[Madvillain]

Capitalism is better than Marxist-Leninism(leninism in general is whack)

Nah, Libcom wouldn't even c/s this
There's some nuances as to why a statement like this kinda doesn't work, but I don't feel like it esp. here

 

[Tate]

Considering that you keep changing the definition when pressed, i'd say you have more clarification to resolve in your camp

Where?

 

[JahFocus CS]

Patent infringement is a crime, so anyone who has had their ideas stolen from them can sue and remedy the theft. What you're describing is an employee willingly signing a contract that pays them for their intellectual labour in exchange for giving up portions of ownership. The worker doesn't absorb the total risk he would if he underwent the venture on his own (he gets paid), and in exchange for taking on some of that risk, the employer reaps the benefits of ownership. There is nothing immoral or illegal about that. It's risk mitigation, and I trust the workers to know how to best apportion their talents and labours more than I trust the government to. This again is a scheme that promotes inventiveness, and it's not mandatory. Many people decide to gamble on themselves and go it alone, for better or worse.

"Willingly..." when the alternative is possibly unemployment and the threat of homelessness, hunger/starvation, etc. that goes along with that.

Of course it isn't illegal. That kind of exploitation and value extraction is what capitalism is predicated upon.