They are still buying and selling commodities produced with the exploitation of the workers, and even if they have let’s sya 1 employee, According to the labor theory of value, that’s an employee exploited (paid less than what he produces) AND EVEN if they don’t have external employees, F- . Engels in the origin of family says that capitalistic behaviors can be found in the family (ex: parents, partners and children coerced to work for basically pennies)
Worker coops can and do exist under the larger umbrella off capitalism, and within that company, you’re paid reasonably. If capitalism stop existing what difference would that make to Worker coops?
Pasted:
They are still buying and selling commodities produced with the exploitation of the workers, and even if they have let’s sya 1 employee, According to the labor theory of value, that’s an employee exploited (paid less than what he produces) AND EVEN if they don’t have external employees, F- . Engels in the origin of family says that capitalistic behaviors can be found in the family (ex: parents, partners and children coerced to work for basically pennies)
Not for ethical reasons tho, both exploit people
Not that I’m a scholar, but iirc petite bourgeois aren’t considered nearly as problematic in commie literature as regular bourgeois.
Considering I’m on Lemmy, someone will correct me if I’m wrong
They are still buying and selling commodities produced with the exploitation of the workers, and even if they have let’s sya 1 employee, According to the labor theory of value, that’s an employee exploited (paid less than what he produces) AND EVEN if they don’t have external employees, F- . Engels in the origin of family says that capitalistic behaviors can be found in the family (ex: parents, partners and children coerced to work for basically pennies)
In hydrarchy, the captain is paid x2 of regular crew (iirc). In worker co-ops it varies, but the highest pay worker is paid x5.
In like amazon i heard jeff bezos makes x364 ish of the lowest paid worker.
If captain pay = regular crew pay, then no exploitation?
come on not all small shops are coops
I’ve worked for a few small shops, and yeah I agree they’re non optimal.
If captain pay = regular crew pay, then no exploitation?
No exploitation = you’re paid the value of your work, impossible in capitalism
Worker coops can and do exist under the larger umbrella off capitalism, and within that company, you’re paid reasonably. If capitalism stop existing what difference would that make to Worker coops?
I’m just saying that not all small shops are coops and that not all coops are small, ergo. Shoplifting from small stores ≠ shoplifting from coops
Can we establish a hierarchy of targets to shoplift from?
Tesla, anything Elon owns
Amazon fraud, anything Bezos owns
Basically write out all the billionaires in order of richest to poorest and that should be the lift list
Haha based
Sure but one has far more means to exploit far more people, whose employees I would assume are far less motivated to catch shoplifters.
Pasted: They are still buying and selling commodities produced with the exploitation of the workers, and even if they have let’s sya 1 employee, According to the labor theory of value, that’s an employee exploited (paid less than what he produces) AND EVEN if they don’t have external employees, F- . Engels in the origin of family says that capitalistic behaviors can be found in the family (ex: parents, partners and children coerced to work for basically pennies)