• MxM111@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s the issue, not if someone else makes profit or not. If nobody makes profit from your work, but you still work job you really do not like just to keep roof above your head, then what’s the difference?

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would someone need to work a degrading job simply to remain housed, other than because such impositions support the profit motive for landlords, lenders, and employers?

      • MxM111@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why do you think it is because of that? Do you think the temp agriculture jobs, for example, would suddenly become having huge payments if farmers, who hires temp workers, have no profit? Please consider that farming is subsidized in US, because it is difficult to make profits there. Or do you think that cleaners who work in non-profit organizations have huge salaries and interesting job?

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I doubt there could be much meaning found in the possibility that corporate farms “suddenly” would have no profits.

          Corporate farms are structured around the profit motive, which is supported by the claim they assert for exclusive control over certain plots of the land, and for exclusive ownership of the products from using such land. For farm workers not to be exploited, they must stop upholding respect for such claims. Plainly, their lives would be vastly better in consequence, as the full value of their products would be distributed among themselves, with no share being taken from them by anyone else simply from a claim to private ownership.