if a worker loses money they risk becoming a poorer worker. is the worked paid? do they have money? what level of money makes one a capitalist? in your world. I had someone else come along with similar concerns but they seemed to just be talking about corporations which I kinda get then but commerce happens on all levels.
so workers do not own anything they make profit off of? Like a car they use to do uber rides? in this world. that is what you think? you think that is reality?
Uber drivers are gig workers, and firmly in the Proletariat. They ultimately use and depend on Uber’s infrastructure and Capital. Owning a car for personal use and also using it for your job you work for a wage for does not mean you profit off of ownership in the manner a Capitalist profits off the work of others.
Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?
Petite bourgeoisie. Capitalists that do not drive enough income to survive without working. It’s a bit muddier than this, with respect to their personal job their power dynamic is clearly Proletarian, but they are attempting to escape that dynamic and become full bourgeois via landlording.
ok. so if they did not rent the room and the would be tenant stays homeless then they are good workers or whatever foreign word you use for them. so bad if the one guy has a roof over his head but good if he does not?
I am not making a moral judgement on what happens within Capitalism, I am stating that Capitalism itself should be replaced with a collectively owned system. Microcosms do not represent the system as a whole, nor represent the average.
In a better scenario, landlording would not need to be a necessary evil to give this person a home, when public housing can be an option.
If a Capitalist loses money, they risk becoming a Worker like everyone else.
if a worker loses money they risk becoming a poorer worker. is the worked paid? do they have money? what level of money makes one a capitalist? in your world. I had someone else come along with similar concerns but they seemed to just be talking about corporations which I kinda get then but commerce happens on all levels.
Workers work for wages, Capitalists recieve profits off of ownership. This isn’t “my” world, this is the world.
so workers do not own anything they make profit off of? Like a car they use to do uber rides? in this world. that is what you think? you think that is reality?
Uber drivers are gig workers, and firmly in the Proletariat. They ultimately use and depend on Uber’s infrastructure and Capital. Owning a car for personal use and also using it for your job you work for a wage for does not mean you profit off of ownership in the manner a Capitalist profits off the work of others.
This is, in fact, reality.
Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?
Petite bourgeoisie. Capitalists that do not drive enough income to survive without working. It’s a bit muddier than this, with respect to their personal job their power dynamic is clearly Proletarian, but they are attempting to escape that dynamic and become full bourgeois via landlording.
ok. so if they did not rent the room and the would be tenant stays homeless then they are good workers or whatever foreign word you use for them. so bad if the one guy has a roof over his head but good if he does not?
I am not making a moral judgement on what happens within Capitalism, I am stating that Capitalism itself should be replaced with a collectively owned system. Microcosms do not represent the system as a whole, nor represent the average.
In a better scenario, landlording would not need to be a necessary evil to give this person a home, when public housing can be an option.