>muh capital

explain

despairful.

I can't believe this is unironic.

...

Is this a "Marx was only talking about factory workers" argument? Because he clearly wasn't. He states several times that intellectual labor is still labor. A worker is anyone who is a wage laborer, a capitalist is someone who owns capital. It's not that hard.

The role of money in your local, direct elections will be decied by the people of that assembly. What do you people not understand? If a group of people do not want political ads, etc., they vote on it and ban them. If rich people are causing an issue in your small community, you take community action to prevent them from doing it in the future. They have more money but you have all the labor and numbers.

youtu.be/oCIo4MCO-_U

How the fuck do you expect this to happen without violence? We do not endorse revolution out of bloodthirst, we endorse it because it is inevitable. Violence is never desirable, but always justified, and sometimes necessary, even in a mostly nonviolent movement.
There is not some law of the universe preventing the ruling class or its state apparatus from using direct force against the proletariat. If necessary, it is more than willing to play defensively–this is the purpose of fascism.

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 41.21K)

No, I mean the fact that automation will be replacing millions of people and the fact that a huge proportion of "labor" today is non-productive. Doing middle-management paper-shuffling jobs. It's bullshit jobs designed to prop up bullshit jobs. There are millions of people who are poor and disenfranchized, with no or little job opportunities. Conversely, there are football players who make tens of millions of dollars a year, and these people are in the same exploited "workers" class. You just cannot build up an identity around "work" when the nature and manifestation of labor is headed for a radically different world than even the 20th century.

I didn't say I don't expect violence. Read the last part of my post.