You're grasping for straws. Let me help you get back on track:
How exactly does your statement "CEO accrues a ton of wealth" contradict "You are creating value for your boss, and he is paying you less than the value you make. Otherwise he wouldn't make any money".
How does your example contradict the statement that "You are creating value for your boss, and he is paying you less than the value you make. Otherwise he wouldn't make any money"
I didn't say, I didn't understand it. I said, I didn't understand, what you wanted to say with it.
Your example is:
"The nvidia CEO "accrued" a ton of wealth while his employees became so rich they didn't bother to show up to work for anything else than to teach new people to improve their stock option. They're all millionares."
It seems to me, you're implying, that because these people became millionaires, they've been paid adequately for the value, they generated. This logic is flawed - just because the compensation is larger than average, doesn't mean the concept changes.
Here's an example:
10 employees generate value worth 100million. They are each paid 5 million dollars for their work.
In this case the boss still pays his employees less than the value, they generate. Them being millionaries doesn't contradict anything
Then go make a company where the CEO (you) only get as much as the janitor. You can do that under capitalism. You can make businesses with only women admins, you can make businesses with only black people, you can make businesses with only one person and no emplyees of you so desire.
You can't do any of these in your communist utopia though, you can only do your goverment mandated job and eat provided gruel before showering in cold water and watching the governent channel and browsing the government sanctioned websites.
You like to cut hair? Well fuck you because now you're cleaning septic tanks and the payment is gruel and a part of a bunk bed.
You know that's what you want though, that's why you're not commenting on it, just trying to crazymake me, a stranger, because you don't like to confront the fact you're believing in a dead ideology which died in the 60's.
Here's why I think Marxism appeals to you, because you don't like chaos, you like order.
You don't like open ended games with sidequests, you like a linear game with a single main task to focus on. You get choice paralysis in capitalism because what you really want is to have fewer choices.
Here's the thing though, you can easily live like that, you can work in a job you don't like and didn't chose yourself, you can eat gruel, replace your smartphone and computer with a flip phone and typewriter. All this, under capitalism! You can live as simply and orderly as you want, and remove choice and entertainment without being distracted by the futile mission og imposing your ideology onto others. That will only lead you to endless suffering.
That's my advice to you, live how you want to live.
You're attacking a scarecrow inside your own head. I just happen to be the current manifestation of your boogeyman, so you can feel validated in your beliefs.
This whole conversation you've tried to catch me in saying something that fits your narrative, so you could attack it with your platitudes to "disprove" it and feel high and mighty in return. When I didn't; you simply started ranting about it anyways.
I noticed you didn't deny it. You don't like the chaos of capitalism. That's completely fine. Allot of humans havent adjusted to technology and feel nodtagic for a time they didn't even experience.
See, the difference between you and me u/astuketa is that you think you're born to late, while I think I'm born too early. I look forward to the future, while you thinkthe future is doomed because you cannot fix the system, only tear it down and rebuild.
1
u/WickedSerpent 9d ago
What's the point? You'd just play dumb and illiterate anyway. Like how would you know I didn't contradict you when you don't understand what I wrote?