Luther, the transliteration of loser in English. Loser, loser, loser, loser, loser, loser. The loser in England and the United States, the working poor in Japan, the loser in China, were basically the same kind of people. Luther was relatively stable. Winner, the transliteration of winner. A winner, a winner, a winner. In terms of social status, Luther was at the bottom of society, and Winner was at the top of society. In terms of numbers, Luther was far more than Winner. Winner and Luther, in Marx's words, were the ruling class and the ruled class.
Ruthonomics was an economics book that observed the world through Ruthor's eyes. Ruthonomics was an evil economics book in the eyes of Jonah. It was an economics book that was banned in the world of Jonah's control. It was an economics book that went against Jonah's economics.
Winner's economics described the world in Winner's eyes: in this world, there was no relationship between ruling and being ruled, everyone was equal, everyone competed fairly, everyone had the opportunity to develop freely, individual differences were caused by differences in intelligence, anyone could enjoy Winner's life as long as they worked hard. The reason for Luther's failure was that they were stupid, lazy, unadventurous, did not receive enough education, had too many children, and so on. They deserved to lose, they should not blame society, they should blame themselves for not working hard, not being sincere, not being hardworking, not being smart, not being able to endure hardships, and so on.
Lutheronomics described the world in Luther's eyes: in this world, everyone was unequal, and the minority used violence and property to rule the majority. They were the rulers. They had built up their wealth through bloody and dirty primitive accumulation. They lived a life of luxury, and their descendants would inherit their noble status and comfortable way of life. Luther was different from Winner, he was a person who worked hard to contribute labor, running for food, shelter, and transportation. From the cradle to the grave, they were born for corvee labor, busy all their lives just to eat and wear. Every time they lived a little better, they had to bear a heavier burden. Their mission was to provide labor for Winner. They were free slaves, talking animals, eating machines, and batteries in the Matrix. In Luther's eyes, the reason for Luther's poverty was that Vinna monopolized the production factors and determined the trading method. Although Luther had a large number of people, they had nothing to trade except for labor. Therefore, in order to sell their physical strength in exchange for rations, Luther had to accept the increasingly unfavorable trading conditions proposed by Vinna and become a slave for life.
Was this world a paradise of harmony or a jungle of strife? Is human society a big, loving family or a hierarchical pyramid? What was the relationship between people? Was it an equal and mutually beneficial cooperation, or was it a group of people enslaving others? How would such a world develop? Would it exist peacefully, stably, and eternally, or would it spiral upwards in motion? Gunnar and Rutherford had a completely different interpretation. In Wenner's eyes, it was a peaceful, stable, and eternal family. In Luther's eyes, it was a pyramid that was constantly being rebuilt and destroyed in its spiral motion.
In Gunner's eyes, a group of people produced a certain number of products, and these products were fairly distributed according to the value provided by the factors provided by each person. Everyone's gains were equivalent to their contributions. The process was fair and reasonable. Gunnar took more, because the factors of production they provided, such as energy, land, and money, provided the majority of the value.
In Luther's eyes, a group of people produced a certain number of products, and these products were distributed according to their scarcity, and had nothing to do with the contributions made by each person. As long as the factors of production (such as land) were monopolized, people who contributed little, or even people who contributed nothing, not only might get a share that was not commensurate with their contributions, but they could even get the largest piece of the total product without sowing.
If the supply and demand of the market determined the price, then who would determine the market? To be precise, it was an invisible hand in the unseen world. Luther said that in most cases, the supply and demand relationship was inextricably linked to property rights. Therefore, the invisible hand was controlled by a few people, and this hand was a hand of robbery. Gunnar took control of the property rights of production and life factors, squeezed Luther, and then passed all the responsibility to the invisible hand. It was like a landlord who controlled the land, squeezed the peasants, and then passed all the responsibility to God.
In Luther's eyes, modern people lived in modern society and were inseparable from all kinds of transactions all the time. Modern people had to sell their labor to have a job. This was a transaction. To buy all kinds of daily necessities, this was also a transaction. A transaction was an invisible net. As long as there was a transaction, there would be an advantageous party that could raise the price of its own transaction and lower the price of the other party's transaction. This advantage would constantly exist and would continue to strengthen. Most people involved in the transaction would inevitably be at a disadvantage and would become Luther sooner or later. The party with the advantage would inevitably reduce the number of its own side. This reduction in number was precisely the process of strengthening the advantage.
In Luther's eyes, as long as all kinds of factors were traded in the market, how could there be distribution according to work? In the process of socialized mass production, all kinds of factors had to be sold in the market, and everyone had to sell the goods they had and buy the goods they needed. The market was never a one-to-one transaction, and most transactions were many to many. The comparison of the number of the two sides of the transaction directly determined the strength of the two sides in the game. Things were precious when they were rare, and those who had and only had labor would always be the majority. The degree of monopoly of labor was the lowest, and it was bound to be the most worthless. On the contrary, those who monopolized energy, land, finance, and power naturally had the ability to obtain the largest share.
When the sandpiper and the clam fight, the fisherman benefits. When A and B compete, a certain C benefits. When capitalists promoted the benefits of competition, they didn't explicitly say that they were the biggest beneficiaries of the competition of labor. When workers fantasized about obtaining more wages through competition, they didn't know that the competition of the working class could only drive down the wage level within the class. When workers hoped that businesses would compete to obtain good quality and cheap products, they didn't know that they would have no money to buy these products. Competition promoted the increase of productivity, but it also drove down the wages of workers. In order to survive, workers had to work hard — — the productivity per unit of labor would inevitably increase substantially.
Why did wine and meat stink behind the door, and frozen bones on the road? What was the key factor in distribution? Steady control had always been promoted as individual quality, individual courage to take risks, outstanding ability, and at most information asymmetry. Luther said that steady control of the advantageous position in the game. Compared to the steady control of production and living factors, Luther, who had nothing except labor, could only be at a disadvantage. Individual quality was not easy to monopolize, and it was always in fierce competition. In contrast, production and living factors could be stably monopolized and passed down. If it was admitted that in the distribution process, the fierce competition side would be at a disadvantage compared to the monopolized side, then the role of individual quality in the distribution would have to give way to production and living factors. In such a game, Luther, who was destined to be in a disadvantageous position from the beginning, lost completely.
If one were to take a step backward, one could see how steady control of the game established an advantage. The fashionable saying was "original sin," Marx's saying was "primitive accumulation," the folk saying was "stealing, robbing, abducting, cheating," the folk saying was "no one can be rich without external wealth," the newspaper saying was "corruption, corruption, violation of the law, disorder, counterfeiting, smuggling, bribery, collusion between officials and businessmen, loss of state assets, underworld," the Lutheran economics saying was violence, and the most naked saying was "robbing money! Robbing food! Snatching territory! " Of course, the words of Viner and their domesticated economists were smart, hardworking, kind, thrifty, and brave to take risks.
In Luther's eyes, this was a cruel world, a world of life and death. The starting point of this world was not a beautiful pastoral like getting rich through hard work, but "burning, killing, and looting." It was to separate the labor from the means of production. This was the process of the majority being deprived, and the minority completing the primitive accumulation. Then the pressure to make a living drove the laborers into the factories of the capitalists. The able-bodied laborers who could provide surplus value to the capital were hired, and the old, the weak, the sick, the disabled, or the less skilled formed a huge unemployed army, ready to replace the able-bodied laborers who were not very obedient.
In Luther's eyes, the economic behavior of the class society originated from looting, and it evolved from looting. The reason for the evolution, for Viner, was that it was more efficient to use private property rights to occupy other people's material interests. There was no such thing as a Fey villain in the world, and Luther was bound to lose, because they were the ruled class. If Luther and Viner could easily exchange positions, then Viner would not let violence hide behind property rights. For most Luther, they were tools. Their efforts could change the fate of individuals to a certain extent, but they could not change the fate of the entire class. They were living tools that provided cheap or even free labor for Viner.
In Luther's eyes, the so-called voluntary fair trade between the two sides was not good for you and me, but for the strong to take advantage of the weak. In order not to starve to death, the weak had to work hard in exchange for a limited amount of food. "The use of the law to compel labour would give rise to too much trouble, violence, and clamour, while hunger is not only a peaceful, silent, and constant pressure, but also the most natural stimulus to industry and labour, and arouses the greatest drive."
The world was full of games. The members of society were constantly playing games in order to obtain as large a share of the product as possible. People who controlled the same factors of production were in the same position in the game, belonged to the same class, they had common class interests, and their internal competition benefited other classes. Some people wanted to get rich, others wanted to defend themselves, so the world was naturally full of class oppression, resistance, and intra-class competition.
The words fairness, justice, equality, and freedom were difficult to define. Everyone liked them, but they had their own interpretation. Everyone believed in God, but everyone's interpretation was different. Especially when it came to class interests, the fairness that A asked for was often seen as unfair by B. The landlord asked for rent, for fair trade, and for the farmer to pay. The farmer asked for no work and no food for a day. Both seemed reasonable, but in fact, they were in conflict. The root of the conflict was that the landlord and the farmer were at the two ends of the tug-of-war for the total product distribution of society, fiercely competing for agricultural products. The landlord's request was to reduce the farmer's food rations, and the farmer's request was to reduce the landlord's rent. The interests of the two were sharply opposed to each other and conflicted with each other. Therefore, the so-called fairness, justice, equality, and freedom in a class society were nothing more than fairness, justice, equality, and freedom for who. Therefore, as long as there was class, there was no universal value. If you wanted to have a classless fairness, justice, equality, and freedom, you had to eliminate the class society first. Looking at the problem from Luther's point of view, it was necessary to worship Luther's values. For example, no work and no food for a day.
Since the world was explained in Luther's way, it must be completely different from the stable economics. The theoretical system of Luther's Economics was based on the labor theory of value; the way of movement was a multi-party game; the law was that the strong were always strong; the final result was the collapse of the system; the specific application was the interpretation of historical events. This was the only way to decipher the real world, where everyone was fighting each other.
You've already exceeded your reading limit for today. If you want to read more, please log in.
Login
Select text and click 'Report' to let us know about any bad translation.
