filter: 💡 🐘 🏟 👽🕒🐦 📺 ➿ 💰

👽

6/12/2022 04:37:00 AM
If we're going to discuss further you have to think critically about the points raised. Your answers here are not even attempting to understand the point because you are clearly approaching each item from the perspective of how can I disprove this. I get that you're trying to hold onto this ideology, but that isn't the right place to start. Ask yourself, is there anything that could convince me I'm wrong? If there isn't anything that could convince you, then you must assume that your beliefs aren't derived rationally. 1) It doesn't matter the intention of the butcher etc or who they are employed by. It is their work that provides the food etc. I don't care who you are employed by. The work of a working person provides the food. I don't care if you have a caregiver, the point is that a working person is providing the food. (Have I made the point clear? I'm trying to say that working people provide the goods for other people. This should be an obvious fact as goods can come into existence without capital as they did before capitalism, but they cannot come into existence without workers.) 2) If a capitalist does work in regards to planning or management that is work, and they should be compensated for that work of course. But you are conflating who is the capitalist (the stockholder) and who is the employer (CEO, manager etc). A capitalist by definition does not do that work. They take a share of profits through the act of ownership regardless of work. That's what capitalism is: uninvolved stockholders taking dividends. 3) > The working class don’t take the fruits of their failure. Please explain why the business has extra revenue to cover the failure of this employee? That's right. Because the business has held onto to excess revenue by paying workers less than their worth. 4) > A working person has a completely realistic choice whether... This is a key clue to me that you are thinking in the abstract on this, and not looking at the reality of working people. Being an independent contractor doesn't matter if you are still beholden to a corporation to get contracts to survive. It's just being an employee with extra steps. And sure, you can pick and choose a few careers where it's _possible_ to save up the capital to go independent, but it should be obvious that doesn't generalize. What would happen if a neurosurgeon went independent, or lab researcher, office worker, cafe worker, delivery driver? Not only that, imagine if every person tried going into the handful of careers where you could go independent? 5) Not sure what Marxist exploitation is, I'm just taking common sense. Long story short, having workers who are dependent on work to survive, using that leverage to pay them less than the value they generate, and taking the difference as your profit based on imaginary property rights is exploitation.