Income inequality

[Milk Sheikh]

Leftists are obsessed with MoP but don't seem to realize that income inequality is a more immediate problem. A kid earns next to nothing in a sweatshop making shoes, whereas a movie star earns millions in minutes posing with those shoes.

The leftist obsession with (control of) MoP as the sole objective of their struggle makes little sense; it may be the ultimate goal, yes, but for the time being one must alleviate workers' problems by fighting against income inequality.

Point is, leftists are too abstract with zero practicality. Repeat platitudes, quote Marx, and go on and on about how workers should be in charge, bla bla bla. But until this fairy tale becomes a reality, millions of toiling masses make nothing while a stupid movie star makes millions. And yet the movie star is a worker because he doesn't own MoP.:rolleyes:

Using MoP as the basis of understanding the economic structure is outdated; income is a more reliable source.

Milk

[Dimentio]

Actually, what you are saying is (unfortunately) what workers (and most people) mostly care for. People do not want control, they want the fruits of control.

Most "Socialist" states were more about income equality than control of the means of production.

Pharaonic Egypt had a redistributionist planned economy for 1500 years.

[pranabjyoti]

TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU IN THIS REGARD. A persons is defined by how he/she is related to the MOP, that's an objective reality, NOT A 19TH CENTURY OBSOLETE NONSENSE.
How much one person can earn by labor depends on its his/her level of skill and how productive machinery he/she is using. A filmstar is paid in millions NOT FOR WEARING THE SHOES MADE IN SWEATSHOP. But rather for entertaining millions of people. This is a combination of his/her personal skill and the advantage of films to shown to millions at a time. The filmstar's individual skill is a key factor and "this isn't simple labor because this can not be repeated by any other person". Each actors way of expression is different and everyone will tell the same dialogues in different tone and expression. So a film actor/actress isn't comparable to common labor. One of the key factor of his "labor" is this can not be replaced by machines, while that of the shoe worker can.
On another point, what you want to say is reactionary. A small businessman can earn less than a worker working in the organized sector and this is very much observed fact. But, that doesn't include the businessman to the working class. My personal experience told me that such people are very much reactionary minded and are almost always ready to stand beside the capitalists against workers. But as per your terminology, he/she must be a part of the "working class".
If what you have said is true, then the petty-bourgeoisie class would be the motive force of history, not the working class. While we observing just the opposite.

[ZeroNowhere]

One must wonder where this 'income' comes from.

[pranabjyoti]

My point is, a worker just can not become reactionary by becoming skilled and having more advanced means of production/service. All the production/service sector in the world don't have same level of productivity and therefore can not have same level of wage.
Our duty is bringing the lower productive level upwards not the pressing the wage of more productive labor downwards in the name of "income equality" of labor. In a capitalist society, that will just help the capitalists and they can stop every move by labors by saying "someone have lower wage than you".

[RGacky3]

wage levels come from control, if you want to lessen income inequality you MUST change the power dynamic, unions are the best way to do this.

[pranabjyoti]

wage levels come from control, if you want to lessen income inequality you MUST change the power dynamic, unions are the best way to do this.
I disagree, though control is certainly a factor, but productivity is a more powerful factor in this regard. You can not increase the income of a weaver (if he/she doesn't possess extraordinary designing skill) over a cloth mill worker.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually, what you are saying is (unfortunately) what workers (and most people) mostly care for. People do not want control, they want the fruits of control.


Truer words were never spoken. That is the basis of Capitalism and the stock and bond system.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya.. it's OUR fault most of the world is in deplorable conditions :rolleyes:

Here's why making income equality the top priority is insufficient and a failing method:
We could all be equally poor

[T-Paine]

Leftists are obsessed with MoP but don't seem to realize that income inequality is a more immediate problem. A kid earns next to nothing in a sweatshop making shoes, whereas a movie star earns millions in minutes posing with those shoes.

And yet the movie star is a worker because he doesn't own MoP.:rolleyes:


I think you bring up some interesting points. NFL players are "workers" in a sense, and even though their salaries are what people dream of, by leftist definition (which I do not claim to be an expert on) they are "exploited" because they do not receive all of the profits for their labor.

[#FF0000]

I think you bring up some interesting points. NFL players are "workers" in a sense, and even though their salaries are what people dream of, by leftist definition (which I do not claim to be an expert on) they are "exploited" because they do not receive all of the profits for their labor.

I think, though I'm not sure, that it was Jimmie Higgins who explained awhile back in a post that they're really not proletarians. I think it's more accurate to call them "petit-bourgeois" because they're independent contractors.

Jimmie's post was more in-depth, though.

[pranabjyoti]

I think you bring up some interesting points. NFL players are "workers" in a sense, and even though their salaries are what people dream of, by leftist definition (which I do not claim to be an expert on) they are "exploited" because they do not receive all of the profits for their labor.
Labor generally means some kind of work, that can be done and repeated by anybody. But actors, NBA players are skilled and their performance can not be repeated. So, the general term of "labor" can not be applicable to them.

[#FF0000]

And theeen there's that aspect to it.