I am deadly serious. There has been a successful multi-decade gaslighting initiative to make people think middle class and working class are different when in fact they are both just working to make the investment class rich. Time is your most valuable asset and unless you own it 100% then you are working class.
You're absolutely right in implicitly arguing that social class isn't exactly determined by the amount of money you have.
You're also correct that traditionally the proletariat (the working class) were those who sold their labour. By a very strict definition, anyone who earns a wage is working class and that would include CEOs (as you are doing explicitly). That definition is deficient and doesn't relate to reality.
Traditionally, the bourgeoisie were the class or classes who employed the workers. The capitalists own the capital and capital goods (means of production) that are used in industry. The petit bourgeoisie are those who own small businesses, such as shopkeepers or lawyers. They were middle class because they were neither working class nor part of the nobility.
Today many companies are publicly held. By this, I mean that stakes in the company are sold publicly. Many companies are also part-owned by the public in the sense of state ownership. This kind of relationship would falsely suppose that members of the working class are members of the bourgeoisie. You agree that ownership doesn't exactly determine class since your criterion is the selling of time or labour.
Those today who have power over the factors of production are very often employed when previously they employed themselves. You call these people working class. I find that very bizarre.
I believe that a managing director of an investment bank is a person who represents capital absolutely. Their job is to head an organisation whose aim is to manage capital and to generate or bring in capital in the process. To identify this person with a factory worker is confused.
I'm not concerned but there's at least a handful of those that aren't written by speakers. The Scots one was the notable example as it was almost entirely written by an American teenager who doesn't know the language
The person who suffers in this scenario is not the Scots speaking subject matter expert who chooses not to contribute their time for free, but the Scots speaking child who doesn’t have the resources to learn.
> Would we still have the problem of climate change?
Probably. The electricity needs to be generated somehow and it was within the same time that Arrhenius proposed the Greenhouse effect and suggested it could help crop yields for the rising population.
Not arguing any real point other than yes those words did. Have a couple of definitions I found in a rather harshly titled old book, Backward and feeble-minded children
> Idiots. — Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that of a normal child of about two years.
> Morons. — Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I'm sincerely astounded how bad it is and it gets worse the more I think about it.
To start, it shows a complete lack of respect for the right of ownership. Under this system you wouldn't own anything and would be subjected to compensated theft regularly. This system would simultaneously represent the worst ideas of what Socialist and capitalistic life can be.
To an anti-socialist, socialism represents theft. The problem is the forcible reappropriation of assets. The justification for this is twofold: property being theft in itself & it being immoral to deprive the in-need of assets you don't need. Private property represents theft since claims must begin somewhere and that somewhere is the state of nature, the commons. In our imagined socialist commonwealth, goods ought to be for the benefit of all. The problem with this is that some goods are exclusive by nature. Only I can wear the clothes on my back, it's more hygienic if we have a toothbrush each and frankly we should have enough goods that, in general, we don't need to argue over use. For this socialists make a distinction between private and personal property. This distinction diminishes possession but at least it comes from a place of wanting help for others. Mandatory sales mean your rights are trumped by capital, or more accurately those holding it.
If mandatory sales apply literally to all goods then go ahead and take the clothes off my back. There's little room for dignity when those richer than you can take even the most sentimental of belongings. Why don't we go a step further? Apply the concept the any service a person may provide, recognise that sex work is real work and you've just legalised rape.
This may seem a disproportionate response but I'm sick of people being so detached that they think reengineering society is something to be taken lightly. Reminds me of a sketch which had the line
> Have you tried 'raise VAT' and 'kill all the poor'?
> Apply the concept the any service a person may provide, recognise that sex work is real work and you've just legalised rape.
Yo I see your point but that simply logically doesn't work. You can't get taxed for a service that you don't provide, so just set your rate to infinity.
If you can set the price of everything to infinity then the entire concept is useless. The point is to make transactions mandatory otherwise all you've done is created a sales tax. That was my point about loopholes. (I'm not saying I like sales taxes either.)
There's a difference between taxing property and taxing the capability to do a service - and it's that nobody is interested in doing the latter, because it's nonsensical.
This would make sense in a world where skills themselves were commodities that could be straightforwardly bought and sold...? But I think such a world would have a very different take on prostitution.
