Message from @Perpetual Moral Imbalance

Discord ID: 452599846763757589


2018-06-02 22:25:05 UTC  

The CEO provides and without providing there would be no work.

They arent entitled to all the labour

2018-06-02 22:25:13 UTC  

The CEO works to provide

2018-06-02 22:25:16 UTC  

So if the CEO doesn't do 100% of all the work of the workers, it's capitalism doomed to fail?

But the poor have no option but to sell their labour

2018-06-02 22:25:29 UTC  

Interesting, considering a business ran by workers does not have 100% of the work done by 1 person.

2018-06-02 22:25:37 UTC  

By that logic, even communism is doomed to fail.

2018-06-02 22:25:39 UTC  

>surplus value

2018-06-02 22:25:43 UTC  

Which leads me to believe this logic is invalid.

2018-06-02 22:26:06 UTC  

The average CEO makes roughly 200 times the wage of an average employee, by adding 0 times the value. When you have a board of directors making decisions regarding executive pay, funded largely through options and amounting to a CEO-to-Worker pay ratio of something in the range of 347-to-1, you know there's a problem.

Just because some people become rich under capitalism does not mean they do not extract surplus value

Also hang on a second

2018-06-02 22:26:39 UTC  

How does one get rich?

2018-06-02 22:26:59 UTC  

The inheritance argument doesn't work either, as we previously established 7/10 families lose their inheritance money by the second generation.

2018-06-02 22:28:12 UTC  

Then we should get rid of government, as the government does nothing good for us, and it has been *undoubtably* proven that in government, no one can rise up and become president. Oh, but whats that? Once we get rid of government everything goes wrong? Who wouldve thought???

2018-06-02 22:28:41 UTC  

Karde is inconsistent in his argument about how one becomes a CEO.

2018-06-02 22:29:07 UTC  

He first answers that a future CEO climbed the corporate ladder, while he later says it's impossible to move up the ladder in capitalism.

2018-06-02 22:29:34 UTC  

Inconsistancy ruins your debate

2018-06-02 22:29:47 UTC  

^

2018-06-02 22:30:09 UTC  

^

2018-06-02 22:30:12 UTC  

^

But moving from say petite bourgeoise to say bourgeoisie is not the same as proleteriat to bourgeoisie

2018-06-02 22:30:23 UTC  

How does one become a CEO?

2018-06-02 22:30:39 UTC  

But what comes before petite bourgeoisie?

2018-06-02 22:30:45 UTC  

Your argument is inconsistent, I don't believe I have a straight answer yet.

2018-06-02 22:30:50 UTC  

>believeing capitalism has high social mobility

2018-06-02 22:30:51 UTC  

Doubt

2018-06-02 22:30:58 UTC  

Define social mobility.

2018-06-02 22:31:17 UTC  

Um

2018-06-02 22:31:24 UTC  

You don't know what that means?

Social mobility has been destroyed in capitalism by neoliberalism the rich are literally making it impossible for some to climb this ladder.

2018-06-02 22:31:33 UTC  

No, I am asking what your definition of social mobility is.

2018-06-02 22:31:36 UTC  

Define social mobility.

2018-06-02 22:31:37 UTC  

It's not really an ambigous word

2018-06-02 22:31:55 UTC  

tbh commies have dumb definitions for words so it's reasonable to ask

2018-06-02 22:32:00 UTC  

And just as before, Karde is inconsistent in his argument.

Tbh mitch doesnt science

2018-06-02 22:32:10 UTC  

SEVERAL PEOPLE ARE TYPING

2018-06-02 22:32:14 UTC  

Yes

2018-06-02 22:32:16 UTC  

He first states that one becomes a CEO by climbing a ladder, then later states that it's impossible to climb the ladder.

2018-06-02 22:32:17 UTC  

@🌼Kalina🌹🌸🌹Zay🌹🌸🌹Scott🌼 <:GWnanamiOkRetard:398860916273184772>