this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
941 points (97.4% liked)

Political Memes

9117 readers
3519 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Let's consider an analogy: the slave owner and the slave. The slave owner lives on the labor of his slaves. The slave owner takes the value of the slaves' labor and returns a fraction of that value to the slave in the form of food, clothing, and shelter. (Suppose it would be unprofitable to let the slave die.) To your point, the slave owner can also work with his slaves in the field if they so choose. And maybe the slave owner has a pleasant demeanor and treats the slaves (relatively) well. But no matter how he works in the fields and no matter how nice he is, the slave owner is still living off of the value of the slaves. Moreover, in a system of widespread slavery, he needs slave-labor in order to compete with other slave owners.

You may object that there are several disanalogies here. The modern-day worker can choose who gets the value of their labor. The experienced worker can negotiate higher wages based on higher earning potential. The successful worker may acquire enough money to go into business for themselves and hire others.

Perhaps these are fair objections but they do not touch on the point of the analogy. There is a fundamental distinction between the slave owner, who lives on the labor of slaves, and the slaves who labor for the slave owner. Similarly, there is a fundamental distinction between the capitalist, who lives on the labor of workers, and the workers who labor for the capitalist.

[–] Electricd@lemmybefree.net 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Using strong words is cool and all, but it doesn’t talk about the important part: is it really bad? If the workers are treated well, its a win win situation

No matter who you are, you are a slave of the economy. Companies with everyone being able to take decisions democratically exist, you’re not forced to take the traditional rule, it’s just the safest one

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

is it really bad? If the workers are treated well, its a win win situation

"If the slaves are treated well, it's a win-win"

I'm not just using strong words. I suspect you miss the point of the analogy (i.e., the owner vs the worker).

No matter who you are, you are a slave of the economy.

Because the economy is centered on capital and profit. If our economy was based on community need rather than shareholder profit, workers would always be working for themselves.