1 - I'm not going to get into an argument about whether or not I take a global perspective when talking about capitalism, just because you have an inkling of suspicion
Characterizing my argument as based on an "inkling of suspicion" is dishonest, as I have explained with examples and evidence how your position fails to acknowledge a global perspective. Since I have presented this evidence, and you have not refuted it, and lied about the nature of my argument, I will read this as your ceding the point.
2 - yes, i think upper management positions, including ceo types, work much harder jobs, longer work days and actually move the needle a lot more so than the average worker they employee. there are always exceptions of course. you disagree with this. Great?
I backed up my argument for why they do not, bringing up the material difference between the two classes with regards to their relationship to the means of production and the implications this has on their labor and lifestyles. You did not address any of these arguments, rather, you reframe this materialist, scientific argument as simply a subjective difference in opinion, while not addressing the details of my argument whatsoever. I will read this as you conceding that point as well.
Further, I even acknowledged in my post is that if all you're saying is "CEO's have to work too, and sometimes work long hours," I already agreed with you that that was true. I asked what your point is in making this argument, particularly relative to the working class, if not to apologize for and generate pity and empathy for the wealthy, and you have not responded to that.
3 - You twisted my argument exactly in the way I predicted you would in my post prior i said "i'm sure you'll assume something or twist my argument in some way, as you always do - perhaps this time you'll take the angle of 'oh swift's trying to create a pity party for the blood sucking capitalists' which i am not." ---- obviously i am not suggesting a pity party for these folk, they have lovely working conditions, way to much fucking money, the liberty to do whatever they want from day to day (as you mentioned), and so forth.
I explained how this was what your argument amounted to and you have not addressed that to say why I am wrong. To make an example, if I said "I am not saying Nazi Germany was good, but..." and then proceed to make an argument for why Nazi Germany was good, the fact that I preceded the argument with a statement calling it something else does not actually change the nature of the argument. The fact that you made an argument and "predicted" I would "twist it" into being about the substance of the argument rather than the non-sequitur disclaimer you preceded it with does not impress me.
4 - You proceed to suggest I don't know some of the fundamental mechanics behind capitalism like "You do not understand the difference between owning the means of production and laboring under those owners for survival. " LOL, i would struggle more with doing basic division than failing to understand this shit. you're ridiculous and out of touch with reality. you're the only person i've met who thinks you have access to a certain type of knowledge that the only special among us, such as yourself, are capable of comprehending simply because you read a few of k. marx's books/pamphlets. the guy has come up with some interesting and thought provoking stuff, that much is true, but none of which is the stuff that you regularly refer to.
If you do understand these things (I do not think you do), they are nonetheless not acknowledged in your argument. Is it possible that you do understand these things but just do not incorporate them into your rich people apologia here for some reason? Yes, it is possible, but 1) I doubt it is the case, and 2) even if true, your argument is still missing these pieces, and is therefore fundamentally flawed.
As for your personal attack, I think you are confusing my acknowledgement of the obvious fact that I am smarter, more knowledgeable on this subject, and more well-read than you with a general sense of thinking I am smarter, have a greater understanding of this subject, and am more well-read than everyone, which is not the case. There are certainly people with a greater understanding of these topics than myself, but you are most definitely not one of them.
5 - recognizing that ceo's don't deserve what they're paid greatly changes my argument. you took the liberty of adding it back into my argument in order to try to make my point look bad.
So I will ask again: What is
your argument? If it's "executives work long hours and often work 'hard' (at least in a subjective sense) at their jobs" I've already acknowledged that this is true. If it's something else, please state clearly what it is.
7 - uh of course i think you're strawmanning me. that's all you ever do always? refer to #1, #3, #5 and almost every other arguing post you've written in reply to me.
Nah. I'm not fooled by this tactic of dismissing my arguments wholesale on the basis of "strawmanning." I made substantive arguments and backed up my views, you didn't respond directly to my arguments.
oh, and everything's always so black and white with you. i don't think it's either a meritocracy or nepotism system.
Again, here is what you said:
but this "hey lets just hire billy because we like billy and then we'll just fucking pay him a high 6 or even 7 figure salary with amazing benefits so that he can fuck around and be a rich bastard while not attending to our multi-million/billion dollar company" is absurd. these mother fuckers all want a quality ceo who works both hard and smart because his/her direction/risks will reflect on the board of directors greatly who ultimately are always out of a job if the shareholders want it so.
You call the idea that a board would hire someone on the basis of neptoism ("we like billy") is "absurd." This certainly sounds like you are dismissing nepotism as a significant factor in career advancement. Now you say it is "a mix of both." Where did those goalposts go? I could have sworn they were right here...
but honestly gn, i'm less interested in how you misinterpret, add your petty assumptions and twist all of my arguments and more interested in why you seem like such an angry arrogant person. you're so full of yourself, and so angry. you should take model after your buddy's jon and blid. jon's distaste for capitalists seems much more sincere than your own, and blid who seemingly agrees with you on every little detail and idolizes you, is much more well grounded and rational than yourself.
lol again at this pathetic flailing. Get owned bitch.