• mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I dont know where you got the 1% or 2% from, could you link it please? There were uprisings against the kulak class all over the country.

    Owning a company, if you’re rich enough actually does mean you just skim off the top. That’s why it’s called “passive income”. You pay others to manage the company and optimize it. It’s definitely not a 9-5 job you get to come and go as you please and often the company does worse when the owners get involved because they dont know what they’re talking about. See e.g. Elon Musk and Tesla or Twitter.

    • seeigel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I should have looked it up before. I don’t remember my original source.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

      The red army had 6 million out of 280 million citizens of the USSR. So it’s a bit more.

      and often the company does worse when the owners get involved

      How long do those companies exist? If owners just skim, I would expect most companies to dissolve sooner than later.

      • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        We were talking about people taking ownership over the means of production, that was more than the people in the red army. People all over russia confronted the kulaks and literally took ownership of the land. It was a very chaotic time, sometimes they dealt with the kulaks via mob justice, sometimes with help from the red army, a few private owners saw the tides turning and willingly ceded whatever they had and integrated into the collective. Also the revolution preceded the civil war. The civil war was a response of the capitalists to the people taking ownership.

        As for companies where the owners skim of the top, all the major ones. With stocks for instance the owners typically arent involved in the operation but just collect dividends and get together to vote a CEO, CFO etc. to operate the company for them. With others like Meta or Tesla you can see how good it is when the owners try to ram their passion projects through like with the Cybertruck or the metaverse. The whole point of “passive income” is exactly that, to make the most money from the smallest effort so you can do whatever you want.

        • seeigel@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Thanks for the insights. I thought it was only Stalin who decided to collectivice the farming.

          With stocks for instance the owners typically arent involved in the operation

          Those are not the real owners but people who rent money.

          There are always shareholders who control the board and who make the ultimate decisions. They decide when they want to meet but nevertheless I don’t think that they do much more than managing their companies which includes networking. So even when they don’t work, they will be ‘on’. No pity, they are rewarded more than enough.