NG

[Dale Eastman]

Labor creates wealth. Devaluing currency encourages labor. Capitalists can use this to maintain a loyal workforce.

capital and automation both come labor. Devaluing currency is a helpful technique capitalists use to keep workers hungry.

if you're saying "capital and automation create wealth," I disagree. Labor creates wealth. Capital is the accumulation of labor that can be reinvested to amplify labor. The capital itself doesn't produce wealth- labor does, and capital is the result, which in turn has an exponential effect.

It's an important distinction because it's a reminder that the capitalist does not contribute to production, and only subtracts from it. Workers create wealth and the capitalist extracts, accumulates, and reinvests the wealth they create in order to accumulate even more wealth. Workers could do this on their own, and more efficiently (without having to pay profits to capitalists who themselves do not contribute) if they were responsible for their own capital investments and retained ownership of their capital. The capitalist system is inefficient because of the parasitic nature of the capitalist.

You wrote that like a Marxist

Dale Eastman that's because I'm a Marxist.

I like your honesty. Care to explore and discuss our differing Ideologies?

I've read many failed attempts at discussion because both parties (anti-capitalists and capitalists) do NOT use words, terms, or definitions with agreement as to what those words, terms, and definitions mean. I recognize your intended information as being what Marx wrote about in his three volume essay "Capital". Full transparency: I only read volume one in its entirety, half of volume two, and skimmed Volume three.

Dale Eastman sure. Capital is one source I use, but not the only one- Marxian analysis has developed a lot in the better part of two centuries. Marx's framework of dialectical materialism is a helpful way to analyze power systems. Of course, we have to always be aware there are multiple dialectical relationships simultaneously affecting different groups with overlap (intersectionality).

The materialist aspect of Marx's approach is one that resonates a lot with me. The purpose of a system is what it does. Rather than worrying about ideological principles, we can start by looking at the real world and analyzing the material conditions people experience that affect their behavior and create conflicting relationships of exploitation.

[Dale Eastman]

Sorry for being so late in continuing our conversation. You caused me to think. That is commendable and gets you high praise.

You have given me more than a few things to think about, and sound-bite replies don't examine the concepts for your, mine, and any silent readers (Lurkers) edification. Also, real life is making demands on my attention and time, as well as the days I have been spending on this: https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1767.0

You claim to be a "Marxist". I claim to be a "Pedantic Asshole".

The definition under pedantic does not quite fit; It comes close. I am quite pedantic in regard to Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, define your terms. I have read discussions, (I use the word loosely), between Capitalists & Anti-capitalists. At present, I have not defined the terms Capitalists & Anti-capitalists, except that whatever Capitalists & Anti-capitalists are, they are diametrically opposed to each other... Yet both sides fail to present the details of their positions and beliefs.

You put the concept of "Marxian analysis" before me. As a result what I started as a reply to your post has turned into an essay as I research and discover points of "Marxian analysis".
Here: https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1764.0

Having read Volume One of Capital, I found Marx's logic to be "self-consistant"... Yet a Capitalist leaning person got pissed at me for presenting that factoid on his group page.

[JS, I am referring to you; I will send you a link to this essay/discussion as an FYI.]

Though Marx's logic is self-consistent, Marx failed in regard to his First Principals as compared to the environment that exists now. His First Principals started because he was observing the interactions between Capital & Labor during the rise of the industrial era.

A Christmas Carol written by Charles Dickens, published in 1843, Is in my opinion, a good starting point for painting the backdrop of the stage of that era. (In looking up dates I found Dickens' Tail of Two Cities. I do not recall ever reading the story, Yet I know the first sentence. Now I will need to read the story. [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/98/old/2city12p.pdf])

Marx's Das Kapital three volumes were published in 1867, 1885, & 1894.

Between Marx's story (his observations of the era) and Dickens' story (using the same era as a backdrop for his story), I am left with an imagined mental image of the era. I have another memory that supports this image where health workers discussed the squalid conditions that existed with open sewers and humans packed too close together in 'shelters'. This was an anti-immunization outlook claiming better living conditions helped discontinue the diseases running through the human population.

Those conditions of the beginning of the industrial age are not the conditions that presently exist. Some of the pressures still do though; Greedy, selfish MF's with no moral compass willing to screw their fellow humans. These are details I think are good discussion/discussing points.

➽ Labor creates wealth.

I mostly agree with this concept... But... The definition of wealth is assumed to be knowledge in common. So I will do a quick lookup of the Dicta-History (Dictionary is the common list of word meanings; As the meanings have become commonly agreed to).

www.wordnik.com wrote: ⇉ from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition wrote: ⇉
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
Goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.
A great amount; a profusion.

www.wordnik.com wrote: ⇉ from The Century Dictionary wrote: ⇉
Riches; valuable material possessions; that which serves, or the aggregate of those things which serve, a useful or desired purpose, and cannot be acquired without a sacrifice of labor, capital, or time; especially, large possessions; abundance of worldly estate; affluence; opulence.

The Century Dictionary supports your contention that: ➽ Labor creates wealth.

Absent a useful or desired purpose all the dog feces in my yard has no value (or a negative value since it must be gotten rid of; disposed). So I think of wealth as things others are willing to trade value for value. Who wants dog crap.

➽ Devaluing currency encourages labor.

I can see the logic behind that claim. I don't think Marx had that thought~~
Inflation did not exist in the U.S. money system until 1913 when the Federal Reserve System fraud was perpetrated on the U.S. people.

I will return to my thoughts on this later when the focus changes to Marx's observation (and self-consistent logic) of the Capital Class screwing (Scrooging) the Labor Class and the Labor Class' failure to know their cost of living.

➽ Capitalists can use this to maintain a loyal workforce.

Yes, but...failure to know their cost of living.

[C]apital and automation both come [from] labor.

I agree.

➽ Devaluing currency is a helpful technique capitalists use to keep workers hungry.

This technique did not exist in Marx's time. I did not create the technique of the horseless carriage or its improvements over time. I do use the technique of driving the modern horseless carriage in going about my affairs of life.

Devaluing currency is technique the Banksters (sic) and politicians created so they could steal value from humans.

➽ Labor creates wealth. Capital is the accumulation of labor that can be reinvested to amplify labor. The capital itself doesn't produce wealth- labor does, and capital is the result, which in turn has an exponential effect.

This is correct and aligns with what I read in Marx's Capital.

➽ It's an important distinction because it's a reminder that the capitalist does not contribute to production, and only subtracts from it.

I must disagree on this point. The Capitalist does contribute to production. After production and production is converted into capital, then the Capitalist does subtract from that wealth that Labor created as you presented in your next sentence.
Note to self: Return to the math.

➽ Workers create wealth and the capitalist extracts, accumulates, and reinvests the wealth they create in order to accumulate even more wealth.

No contention on this claim.

➽ Workers could do this on their own, and more efficiently (without having to pay profits to capitalists who themselves do not contribute) if they were responsible for their own capital investments and retained ownership of their capital.

I am not understanding what you are claiming is being done "more efficiently"

I personally borrowed $52,000 which became my capital that I invested in purchasing a Semi-truck tractor. I brought home more money as employed Labor than I did as a Capitalist owning my tractor. I paid off the loan and was just starting to get ahead when medical issues forced me out of that industry.

Capital investments require... Capital. There is a side topic here regarding the fraud called the Federal Reserve System. And there is a second side topic about the Government Indoctrination Centers (a.k.a Public Schooling), also a.k.a. in some minds as Day Jail for youths.

➽ The capitalist system is inefficient because of the parasitic nature of the capitalist.

You are painting with a very broad brush and brush strokes. They are not all parasites. This comes back to the games government uses in defining words. A human is a person; A corporation is a person. Is the capitalist a natural human or a corporate entity? Written law often makes the distinction.

1 U.S. Code § 1
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

1 USC Code § 8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

➽ Marxian analysis has developed a lot in the better part of two centuries.

Marxian analysis is a term I am not familiar with. A DuckDuckGo (DDG) search presented these links to me:
Did not have its linked article behind its paywall. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21598282.2023.2296167

ABSTRACT
The subject of economics, which was once famous for several views and schools of thought, has been limited to just one school neoclassical: where markets usually find equilibrium, meaning government intervention is not needed, and any such intervention could hinder the economic growth process and smooth functioning of the economy. The neoclassical theory focuses on the behaviour of individual agents, which are assumed to be economic decision-makers. There is an attempt to emphasise the importance of the Marxist approach to analysing capitalist crises logically and historically. The study of economics must stay close and keep unity between different social sciences, especially sociology, political science, and history, which classical economists had established but marginalist economists had tried to undermine. The study concludes that economics is embedded in society and politics, and the mainstream school of thought ignores this. They cannot effectively address the main economic issues of our times, which include combating rising inequality, economic and environmental crises, and biodiversity loss.

Marxian analysis does expand the focus I must examine; this focus is not the narrow focus I have had. Marxian analysis concludes that economics is embedded in society and politics; Unlike the neoclassical economic theories that ignore these other factors and consider the economy solely on the mathematics. As an admonition claims, Without math, it ain't science. I do wish to examine that math in the light of the thoughts triggered by my reading the linked article discussing Marxian analysis.

➽ to analyze power systems

"Government" is a power system. One that is provably corrupt and lies to people all the time. It is a system that has been used to create crony capitalism. The anti-Marxist position is that crony capitalism is not true capitalism... But capitalism has not been defined to my satisfaction. I do know that capitalism has something to do with Capital. I do agree with this definition: Capital - Is wealth available to make more wealth. That wealth can be an accumulation of money or currency.

Currency is not money since money has been defined as a measure and store of value. Currency, due to government school brainwashing, has been accepted as a measure and store of value. Currency shares this trait with money: Both are used as a medium of exchange, or “widely accepted as a method of payment.”

"Inflation" is not he cost of items increasing. Inflation is the value of the currency you own going down. A currency that loses value can not be a store of value. Trivia question: Why do dimes and quarters have ridged edges? (Government is not the only thief that debases metal money.)

Adam Smith's words from Wealth of Nations are by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884) case:

'the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.

I interpret that as claiming Labor is Capital; and I agree. One sells their labor for money or currency; thus converting the capital of labor into wealth that can be used to create more wealth by purchasing investment tools to create more capital by increasing your labor's value. E.g. If your employment is creating widgets by driving four nails into some wood, purchasing a pneumatic-nailer will increase the efficiency of your labor.

Saving one's labor capital that is converted to a widely accepted method of payment is hard to do when the banking system with and via government rules consistently devalues the worker's converted labor-capital (currency).

I do not accept Marx's logically self-consistent definitions of what "profit" is. What he saw during the beginning of the industrial age is what he correctly wrote about.

On page 133 Marx wrote:

We know that the value of each commodity is determined by the quantity of labour expended on and materialised in it, by the working-time necessary, under given social conditions, for its production.

On page 152 Marx wrote:

We have seen that the labourer, during one portion of the labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, that is, the value of his means of subsistence.

Marx was describing the actions of the Capital class taking advantage of the Labor class. I have no reason to doubt or deny what Marx observed and wrote about. Marx's math WAS correct. I find it is no longer correct. GIGO. (Garbage In, Garbage Out- A well known First Principle in the computer sciences industries.) In today's financial environment the cost of purchasing labor is not just the cost of the laborer's subsistence.

In the same paragraph Marx continues:

If the value of those necessaries represents on an average the expenditure of six hours' labour, the workman must on an average work for six hours to produce that value. If instead of working for the capitalist, he worked independently on his own account, he would, other things being equal, still be obliged to labour for the same number of hours, in order to produce the value of his labour-power, and thereby to gain the means of subsistence necessary for his conservation or continued reproduction.

"{O}ther things being equal." Minimum wage, or as I think of it, warm body pay, is $7.25 per hour -- $1,257 per month.  Two bedroom apartments near here average $1,300 per month. Skilled labor can make much more. Getting the wanted skill set requires learning. Absent the desired skill sets Marx does seem to have correctly assessed how unskilled warm body laborers were being taken advantage of. If the wage offered doesn't cover the costs of one's subsistence then one shouldn't take the job.

After the Norman Conquest in 1066, the pound was divided into twenty shillings or 240 pennies. It remained so until decimalization on 15 February 1971, when the pound was divided up as it is still done today.

£1 (one pound) equalled 20 shillings (20s or 20/-)

240 pennies ( 240d ) = £1

There were 240 pennies to a pound because originally 240 silver penny coins weighed 1 pound (1lb).


https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/orientation/marxist-political-economy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics

https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/965/Marx_0445-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
search term:
SECTION 2.—THE PRODUCTION OF SURPLUS-VALUE.
pdf pg: 133

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman I'll take a look at your essay. When I say I'm a Marxist, I mean that I use a materialist analysis as my main lens to understand political processes. I observe the power relations and interests of parties involved, the system as a whole with its superstructures, and I use those observations to make predictions and guide alternatives that prevent the same kind of systemic power concentration capitalism creates. This is opposed to an idealist analysis focused on conceptions of rights that exist only in a vacuum separate from the material conditions to which they're applied. Material analysis much-better incorporates the real political relations everyone experiences.

Dale Eastman for a brief response:
Like I said, Marxism has evolved a lot in the better part of two centuries. Many of your responses are related to events that occurred later than Marx's analysis. Marx's overall framework (dialectical materialism) and many of his specific observations (such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) are still very applicable today. But that doesn't mean we can't adapt his framework. Many Marxists have expanded on Capital and applied its principles to the time since. We can make observations today about the behavior of capitalists using Marxian analysis without limiting ourselves to the information available at the time of Marx. I agree that it's important to consider that the early industrial revolution was different, but the changes that followed since then have been largely a product of class struggle, and apply unevenly in the world. Most workers still face labor conditions more similar to those during the early industrial revolution than to those in countries where workers have won concessions through class struggle. This is all a process as workers and capitalists work against each other. New approaches have been developed by capitalists to maintain control in response to worker adaptations to resist control. We can't limit ourselves to only 19th-century data, even if that's all Marx had to go off of.

Dale Eastman you mentioned that the capitalist does contribute to production, but the contribution you mentioned is negative. This means that the capitalist extracts, but does not contribute. This creates inefficiency. If the capitalist is removed, the economy of the system is more efficient. This is why we say capitalists have a parasitic effect.

You used your personal experience as a truck driver, noting that you made more as an employee than as an owner-operator. I think your case can be attributed to economies of scale. You called yourself a capitalist when you mentioned you were an owner. I disagree. When you owned the truck, you began operating a socialist business- that is, a business wherein you, the worker, also owned your own capital. Unless you hired your own employees and made the majority of your income by extracting from them, you were not a capitalist. Unfortunately, you were operating a socialist business in a capitalist economy. Had you organized with fellow owner-operators and reached significant scale, it may have been possible to demand better compensation than you had when you were an employee. While you may have removed the contradiction between yourself and your employer, you effectively just became a freelance contractor for other capitalists, providing them services directly. This might even reduce your overall power, while also increasing your liabilities.

Dale Eastman it's hard to respond to the rest of what you wrote. There are a lot of points here that need addressing. I think it would be easier if you ask some questions or review more modern Marxian analysis.

You attribute the subsistence conditions of workers to monetary policy rather than to capitalists. While I agree monetary policy has an effect, it is not the bulk of exploitation. The bulk of exploitation is done directly by capitalists. When you say government is a power system, yes, it's part of a power system. Its purpose is to assist capitalists in consolidating power. Liberal governments live in the context of the power system that created them - one in which the primary contradiction is between labor and capital. You suggest that most workers earning subsistence wages are unskilled and require education. I'd encourage you to meet migrant workers. They are often university educated, but find that manual labor jobs in imperial core countries pay more than advanced jobs in their home countries. Further, consider why so many workers are uneducated. An educated proletariat is dangerous to capital, as Reagan's advisor warned. I'd encourage you to really observe the skill and efficiency of the so-called warm bodies you mention. Not in the US, but in the world where most production happens. The US is a sliver of global capitalism. Very little labor happens here compared to the rest of the world. You need to consider Bangladesh or the Philippines or Congo in your analysis.

NG when you say, "if they were responsible for their own capital investments and retained ownership of their capital"... they could do that right now, with a worker owned cooperative. Why doesn't it happen more often? I think it relates to JS Mill's second law- that today's wages are paid with a bet on yesterday's capital. A worker is paid a wage to provide a service and they get paid even if the service they provide is towards an enterprise that is risky and doesn't pan out. Workers typically have their tools/capital provided to perform their function- they don't have to bring their own machines and capital to the job. So your posit would only work if workers had to pay a deposit to join the cooperative. Most workers work from paycheck to paycheck so don't reinvest it, "richest man in Babylon" style. That's why allowing the separation of shareholders from workers as a function is important.

I don't mind your comments in that, Marxist thinking is generally flawed but I think you've given it more thought than most, and your arguments don't rely on semantic redefinition. For that I commend you.

RL worker-owned cooperatives within a capitalist system remain isolated. The simple reason we don't see more of them is that workers have very limited access to capital. Socialism requires a fundamental restructuring of institutions to optimize for worker ownership, just as capitalism required a restructuring of institutions when it emerged.

NG When you say, "that workers have very limited access to capital. " What do you say those limits are, and how are they any different from an owner/entrepreneur starting a new business?
BTW did you catch the debate between Gene Epstein and Jacobin's Bhaskar Sunkara re socialism vs capitalism? Gene was a former socialist and suggested that worker cooperatives are actually better placed to poach talent and conduct industrial espionage than the usual stockholder corporation. The reason I believe is that they probably don't succeed is that most workers want the security and blinders of a paycheck without having to take the risks of an owner, and that hierarchy in ownership/executive is a faster decision making process than voting in a worker led cooperative.

105 minutes:
https://soundcloud.com/reasonmag/socialism-vs-capitalism-jacobins-bhaskar-sunkara-and-economist-gene-epstein-debate

[Dale Eastman]

➽ I use a materialist analysis as my main lens to understand political processes. I observe the power relations and interests of parties involved, the system as a whole with its superstructures, and I use those observations to make predictions and guide alternatives that prevent the same kind of systemic power concentration capitalism creates.

I like what you are saying in regard to analyzing things.
I take issue with your assumption and claim that capitalism creates "systemic power concentration". My taking issue could be my own bias. That bias could be because I have been misinformed about things. If so, then I expect our dialogue to give me reason to re-evalute my bias position.

➽ conceptions of rights

I would like a near future discussion of "rights". With the understanding that "rights" are a human created thing with a purpose, unsaid Said purpose to be examined.

➽ Material analysis much-better incorporates the real political relations everyone experiences.

Material analysis much-better ANALYZES real political relations.

➽ Marxism has evolved a lot in the better part of two centuries. Many of your responses are related to events that occurred later than Marx's analysis.

Many of my responses are because of self-proclaimed Marxists that I have attempted to engage in discussion. They could not and would not present logical points for me to cogitate. As I wrote above, You caused me to think. You are the first Marxian leaning person to give me reason to do so.

➽ Marx's overall framework (dialectical materialism) and many of his specific observations [...] are still very applicable today.

Yes. But before I could affirm your claim I had to cure my nescience in regard to "dialectical materialism". I am relatively well read, yet I had to look this term up. So the failure to explain this is a flaw in the standard Marxian claims. from Greek dialektike (techne) "(art of) philosophical discussion or discourse," fem. of dialektikos "of conversation, discourse," from dialektos "discourse, conversation"

I suspected this from what the word dialectical  sounds/ looks like:
1570s, "language, speech, mode of speech," especially "form of speech of a region or group, idiom of a locality or class" as distinguished from the general accepted literary language, also "one of a number of related modes of speech regarded as descended from a common origin," from French dialecte, from Latin dialectus "local language, way of speaking, conversation," from Greek dialektos "talk, conversation, speech;" also "the language of a country, dialect," from dialegesthai "converse with each other, discuss, argue," from dia "across, between" (see dia-) + legein "speak" from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')").

Adding the second word: materialism (n.) 1748, "philosophy that nothing exists except matter" I interpret this as the science of discussing physical reality and not discussing concepts and ideas about physical reality.

➽ [...] his specific observations (such as the tendency of the rate of profit to fall) [...]

This is a claim that needs to be examined. I can not opine without more information... A discussion to get to the truth.

➽ [...] that doesn't mean we can't adapt his framework

His framework was an unknown to me until this discussion where you motivated me to learn more about this framework with these two words; "Marxian analysis". I am still analyzing my anti anti-capitalism bias and my new awareness of that bias.

➽ We can make observations today about the behavior of capitalists using Marxian analysis without limiting ourselves to the information available at the time of Marx.

I agree with making these observations today. I deny your implication that I am focused only on the past. In writing this I became aware that Marxian analysis is not what has been promoted in regard to Marx in the mainstream. Part of my bias. To be examined deeper.

The class identified and labeled capitalist has not been defined to my satisfaction. I do see some negative traits of some persons, human or corporate, that I find would fit in this undefined class of persons.

➽ the changes that followed since then have been largely a product of class struggle

I am not unaware of some instances of this struggle. The hours of what is considered a work day I find is a sub-topic worthy of discussion. Marx did focus on the reality of the working day length and the amount of labor needed to value for value trade labor for subsistence requirements.

In reviewing what I just wrote I'm thinking the class of capitalists may need a more nuanced, detailed definition. I have the same problem of Capital as a class being reified and analyzed as a sole entity as I do with Government also being reified into a sole entity. I use Santa Claus to highlight and show this reification. Santa is not real. It is a concept treated as a real entity. So which mall Santa is the real one?

➽ New approaches have been developed by capitalists to maintain control in response to worker adaptations to resist control.

This statement segues to examining these controls. Who is controlling what, and by what means? Is it fuck the workers because they aren't me? Is it folks with this control have no moral compass? Johnny Five need input.

➽ you mentioned that the capitalist does contribute to production, but the contribution you mentioned is negative. This means that the capitalist extracts, but does not contribute.

Value must be created before it can be extracted.
No means of production, no production. No jobs for the laborer. No value paid to laborers for their labor. No products manufactured for sale to those who need or want what is being created. No value created.

This raises the question for me, What does the math say? Note to self: Do the math: examine in light of above.

➽ This creates inefficiency. If the capitalist is removed, the economy of the system is more efficient. This is why we say capitalists have a parasitic effect.

Please define the inefficiency created. What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of the capitalist parasites? I ask this with the assumption that not all humans with capital to invest are in the parasite sub-class.

➽ You called yourself a capitalist when you mentioned you were an owner. I disagree. When you owned the truck, you began operating a socialist business- that is, a business wherein you, the worker, also owned your own capital. Unless you hired your own employees and made the majority of your income by extracting from them, you were not a capitalist.

I will agree that I was not a parasite capitalist.
Socialist leaning folks are really focused on the issue of owning the means of production. I owned my own means of my own production. For this reason "Socialist business" does not align with my understanding of business, nor with my biases. Again I see subtleties and nuances need exploring in the definitions used; which will also explore my biases for a reality check.

➽ Unfortunately, you were operating a socialist business in a capitalist economy.

This comes back to the conundrum of definitions not being precise. As I recall since I'm composing this over several days or weeks, Marxian analysis is about determining the truth of reality.

➽ Had you organized with fellow owner-operators and reached significant scale, it may have been possible to demand better compensation than you had when you were an employee.

If five people demand 25% of a pie, there will not be enough pie for everyone to get 25%. How big is the pie? How to divvy up the pie is at the crux of the Labor - Capital class struggle.

➽ While you may have removed the contradiction between yourself and your employer, you effectively just became a freelance contractor for other capitalists, providing them services directly.

Freelance contractor - Yes. An accurate description that I agree with.

What is the contradiction you are hinting at?

The terms of my first contract were onerous. I was required to remain contracted for a year or get charged $500 for the safety device that they required on my tractor. A safety device that prevented the safety issue called "high-hooking". Explanation upon request.

➽ This might even reduce your overall power, while also increasing your liabilities.

Take something as big as a small home, put it on wheels, and roll it down the road. The issue is Who pays the insurance? Me as the contractor owning my truck, or the employer owning their truck?

The mind sets of employed drivers and lease drivers owning their own tractors are not the same. Having done both for the same big company, Employed drivers are focused on, When am I going to get home, as the tractor owner, Don't send be home - I have tractor payments to pay. I'll tell you when I need to go home.

For another carrier I had a Canadian load coming back to near where I lived. Cross border, tarped load. I said I'll wave at the delivery point as I drive by empty. And I did. I'm not out here to make back-haul fuel.

Money is?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0 ep 4 30,min.

[Dale Eastman]

You attribute the subsistence conditions of workers to monetary policy rather than to capitalists. While I agree monetary policy has an effect, it is not the bulk of exploitation. The bulk of exploitation is done directly by capitalists. When you say government is a power system, yes, it's part of a power system. Its purpose is to assist capitalists in consolidating power. Liberal governments live in the context of the power system that created them - one in which the primary contradiction is between labor and capital. You suggest that most workers earning subsistence wages are unskilled and require education. I'd encourage you to meet migrant workers. They are often university educated, but find that manual labor jobs in imperial core countries pay more than advanced jobs in their home countries. Further, consider why so many workers are uneducated. An educated proletariat is dangerous to capital, as Reagan's advisor warned. I'd encourage you to really observe the skill and efficiency of the so-called warm bodies you mention. Not in the US, but in the world where most production happens. The US is a sliver of global capitalism. Very little labor happens here compared to the rest of the world. You need to consider Bangladesh or the Philippines or Congo in your analysis.

[Dale Eastman]

Research links

Money is?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0 ep 4 30,min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iipyP_v6210
Sowell No free lunch- unions.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectical-materialism

https://www.marxist.com/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

Capitalism feeds many:
https://www.facebook.com/dave.champion.3/posts/pfbid06ps5U7UyLtJ6DtdDm87hPzz7gBK4X4ppke95zg8uYYAiKYgbujewjMJy5HWHBjD4l

https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialectic

https://philosophy.institute/research-methodology/understanding-dialectical-method-introduction-survey/