If you really want to compare working to a company you can freely choose and you can leave whenever you like, sure. In that case I would make the argument to a slave, that they absolutely should find a kind master who treats them more like a human being than all the other scumbag slavelords do. It’s just that the slaves were actual slaves, they didn’t have any freedom of choice unlike you and I have.

Yes, I’m comparing economic systems. Slavery is an economic system. While slavery allows you owning all aspects of a humans life, Capitalism and Wageslavery only allow you to own some aspects of a humans life (Mainly 8hrs lifetime/day on average).

Also congratulations for arguing on terms of slavery and not rejecting it altogether.

It depends. People from the poor countries are somehow moving without a dime.

Thank you for your analysis.

You are actually really privileged, if you already own so much crap that you think you need all that when you move somewhere. Realistically you only need yourself, your IDs and a one-way ticket to wherever you are going.

I agree. People living in global north countries are definitely privileged on a global scale. But even among those privileged so societies you have exploitation. It doesn’t help telling a single mom raising a child on her own and living paycheck to paycheck, to just move.

That’s a choice. It also tells more about your friends and family if they abandon you just for moving elsewhere nowadays when we are 24/7 connected to each other in multiple ways. New friends can also always be made in new locations - been there, done that. It is scary at first but loooots of people are doing exactly that all the time because otherwise they would have to work a shitty job for shitty wage and they would hate themselves and everyone else around them all the time for that.

This says more about you and your social life than anyone else’s. And you advocating on forcing this experiment of a lifestyle onto others.

There are alternatives, it’s just that maybe you wouldn’t REALLY want to live in that alternative economy? China is a slight alternative, there is this fake capitalism going on and it’s not looking too great. North Korea is a 100% different country and you can see how well they are doing. Pretty much all socialistic countries in the world are in a bad shape and people are fleeing into the capitalistic world people here in Lemmy so much loathe. I get it, there are lots and lots and lots and lots of really bad companies and bosses and co-workers around that only think of themselves, but in the meantime there are also lots of places that do care about their employees because they know they couldn’t exist without them and that people tend to work better if they enjoy what they do and where they work.

What no theory does to a mf.

China has been outperforming western countries on a variety of metrics. North Korea had more than 20% of their population decimated an forced into isolation. Cuba has higher life expectancy is way more progressive and the US, despite crippling embarings. There’s more than one interpretation, you know.

Your questions makes no sense to me, but assuming good faith on your part you seem to be asking:

How else can you earn money, apart from stealing from another person, if being an employee makes you subject to exploitation?

There are different ways to organize a workplace.

The crux of this question however is the (undemocratic) relation between employee and employer.

You’re only getting hired in any privately run company if you produce more value for the company than they pay you. (e.g. You earn X Dollar per month, but you make more than X Dollars per month for the company). This is true for every employee. While everyone contributes to the success of the company, noone has a say in how, when, how long, etc. the work can be done, and especially no say how profits (or “Surplus value” for marxists) are used and shared. It’s not necessarily a problem per say (any type of organization requires some form of authority), but it’s a problem when you entire or majority of the economy is organized in this way.

Other forms include

• worker coops: the management/bosses are elected by it’s employees, which decide how the firm is run; look into Richard Wolff; Mondragon; Huawei, etc. for examples of firms, and more macroeconomically: Emiglia-Romania which has a large portion of GDP created this way or JZD Sluzovice is another example

• state-owned firms: Examples are United States Postal Service (USPS) and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the_United_States best if you google it altogether.

And well, I don’t know what you mean by “refusing to participate in such system”. Usually people have a choice of working for a big corporation or choosing to work for smaller companies that tend to be more employee-friendly, at least in my experience.

It doesn’t matter where you work, as long as it’s privately owned you’re at the mercy of the firms owners. Be it big or be it small. Would you make the argument to a slave that one owner is better than the other based on the size? Or would you despise the entire economic system of slavery?

Relocation is not an entirely bad thing either if that helps you find a healthier workplace.

1. That’s really privileged to say. Moving is not affordable to everybody
2. Then there’s the social aspect. Not everyone is willing to leave their friends and family behind?

Now, if you refuse to work at all, well, that wouldn’t work even in socialism or in small African villages where everyone expects others to contribute to the village functioning.

No noone is saying that? Every society needs a method of procuring the means of life, which can only be done an economy? What I’ve been saying is that you’re forced to participate in capitalism, because the majority places where you can work are capitalist.

You just have to find the right “village” that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.

You just have to find the right “plantation” that you want to help keep on running and maybe grow it while at it if everyone so desires.

What do you mean? In what context are you asking the question?

The Chinese ship actively blocking a rescue operation until they fully understood the potential blowback.

That’s your bad faith interpretation based on what one party is saying about the incident. (Especially the “potential blowback”).

Whereas Singaporean state media states more neutrally:

The Chinese ships ceased these actions and offered to help after being informed about the “humanitarian mission”, it [Philippine Coast Guard] added.

Which is reasonable, because China was operating on previous experiences. The Chinese adapted once they got more information about the situation (which they were under no obligation to and wouldn’t do if they wouldn’t have taken the Philippine Coast Guard in good faith). What did you want them to do? nOt bE tHeRE iN tHe FirsTplAce", amirite?

If they were found not helping, it was proof of their malevolence.

On the other hand, If they were found helping, it was merely because it was a cheap propaganda win and because they didn’t want to get caught with proof killing Filipinos in Filipino claimed waters.

And think about how that tax revenue gets spent on weapons and not healthcare.

(Given those millionaires were able to circumvent China’s strict capital controls. Even if some of them did I’m sure they’d find a way of circumventing taxes in their new host country also)

Where do people that dont want to (or cant) be an owner get their income from?

From selling their labour aka wageslavery. Usually.

And also most millionaires do it via things like a 401k and just boring saving over decades.

401k and savings usually have investments, where appropriation of labour surplus happens.

I mean, given enough time, just a mere salary man can become a millionaire (and with more time, a multi-millionaire) only by keeping their spending low

Technically true, if they are a highly skilled worker that’s in low supply

stashing the rest of their net salary into index funds

Index funds usually invest in other firms, where profits (read: appropriated surplus value of workers) is distributed among stakeholders.

Billionaires (and “multihundredmillionaires”) are a completely different group of people though, and no normal person is able to amass such wealth without a shit-ton of luck and most probably some abuse as well an economy that is organized in such a way, where no matter you work you’re at the mercy of the firms owners and their managment, where your surplus value gets appropriated and where refusing to participate in such system lands you on the street because you can’t pay rent.

ftfy. please consider reading theory

So a surgeon doesnt earn their wealth off their own labor & value?

Sure they do. The question that I answered was in regards to commerce/investing. (Rereading the question, it included also saving where highly skilled workers operating where there’s a low supply comes to play - assuming that’s why you mentioned surgeons)

The surgeon provides some amount of value, their staff makes them more efficient, so theres an equilibrium where theyre being fairly compensated. The hospital owners and investors are the leeches.

If the surgeon employs the their staff they’re engaging in capitalism, but I’m assuming you meant that they are also an employee of the hospital in your example.

Unless you re part of a coop (based) or run your business as a one man show, you’re reliant on the labour and appropriation of surplus value of others to amas such wealth (aka committing capitalism).

So, while I recognize the last one was US-backed, do we have any evidence at this point to believe this one was also?

"Zuniga, for his part, said in televised comments that he expected the government to change and that he also intended to release “political prisoners,” including the former interim president, Jeanine Anez.” https://www.dw.com/en/bolivia-top-general-arrested-after-coup-attempt-fails/a-69486191

Is that evidence enough?

They do not touch on the real reasons for these amendments. One is to look tough and nationalistic to their domestic audience. Another is to inflict psychological fear in Taiwanese and those who support Taiwan internationally that the CCP could potentially be coming for us, not only in China, Hong Kong and Macau, but in 45 other countries as well.

Hey guys did you know the real reason is to look tough and nationalistic and not (among other reasons) the US attempt to have an unsinkable air craft carrier to project power

According to human rights NGO Safeguard Defender

Lel

Taiwans ADIZ

I wonder why this extends into the mainland. Could there be historical context?

When the CCP is planning another dramatic change of the status quo, they go out of their way to also pick a date when it will send a message.

For example, often when countries switch diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China, the announcement will be timed to pack a punch, such as Nauru making their announcement right after William Lai (賴清德) won the election. Similarly, there was no way the enormously complex live fire training exercises China launched to upend the status quo could have been planned in the tiny window of time from the-then US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement she was to visit Taiwan and her arrival. They had planned it long in advance, — her trip was merely an excuse. To this day, it is common to see the Chinese military gray zone menacing behavior that continues being traced to Pelosi’s visit, almost as if she were somehow to blame.

Hey trust me they’ve been planing this for a long time. And these misogynists of course blame girl queen Pelosi. Not like China denounced the visit in advance. Classic reversal of cause and effect.

You’re right it actually is “dronie”.

Thank you for your encouragement, dronie…

I mean sure it is, but you’re also implying "The more your media landscape criticizes it’s own government the less critically you can consume it”

Sure. That’s a way to interpret your comment to @bilb@lem.monster also

With a little self awareness you’d know that the context is the comment chain above and that it’s basically what youre saying llmao