What did she mean by this?

Unironically asking

Attached: Screenshot_20190510-162542.jpg (1435x968, 268K)

Undertaking work on terms agreed upon by you and your employer is slavery somehow. Btw give me welfare money.

>the company who makes billions selling toilet paper are slaves

so.... ayn rand was an idiot, right?

>the man who shits is a slave

We are all slaves

I am a king who produced a turd that my subjects will dispose of. Am I a slave?

She's clearly supporting Marx's theory of conflict by suggesting that a man who produces should have the right to dispose of his own product.

this is your diabolical plan to convince people to be braindead commies huh, a twitter post claiming that I'm a slave?

Attached: 09342.jpg (290x290, 42K)

Ummmm.....

All that produce are reliant on those that consume for their products to have any merit. They are slaves to the others. This can be seen as just man being a slave to his natural form and that no man can dominate all without some cost to their will.

she couldn't write prose for shit. the fountainhead is unreadable

Don't marry a woman who won't swallow your nut. I'm sure the slavery part has something to do with chastity cages, astroglide and a giant black dildo.

I would've thought not wanting to be an emaciated, starving wreck would change your mind.

Even Adam Smith thinks this is bullshit, the person looking for work has to pick between work or unsustainable life, the employer doesn't, the government should step in to assist the wage laborer where it can. Foundational capitalism agrees with this.

She's read her Bataille I see. Nice

no his economical work got translated pretty recently, his general economy theory is more than that. While consumption is a luxury a soldier or addict is also a consumer. When the societies elites can't grow enough to deplete the energy they will need slaves to be solely for the act of disposing energy, examples would be artificial fattening or a sex addict getting castrated, etc. But those who create solely for others to consume their creation are slaves.

It means to consume only what you produce.
So get off that computer, slave driver

I guess you could make this argument for large firms, but for the vast majority of businesses with under 30 employees this is really not the case. This is especially true in certain kinds of customer facing industries where there is specific and expensive equipment and knowledge required in order to perform the job but you are still servicing the general consumer base rather than other businesses. Often times smaller employers in even successful conditions barely are able to afford to keep enough employees to cover the work they need done, which is one of the many reasons why there is such a large amount of customer facing trade positions (eg. Appliance service technicians, residential plumbers/electricians etc.) unfilled. Many times employers in these trades are only able to charge ~$80-100 an hour for these employees that they are then paying $18-20 in wages, $30-40 in total insurance and benefits, and somewhere between $10-15 in equipment maintenance depending on the specific industry.

This may sound anecdotal but I had a very similar sort of feeling when I was making around $15 an hour being a service technician for a lighting company and I found out that my boss was charging $75 an hour for my labor. When I asked him about it trying to get a raise (we were on much friendlier terms than most employee/employer relationships, I don't know if I generally recommend directly confronting your manager in this way) he actually broke down how his expenses per labor hour broke down in terms of insurance costs (for both liability/workers comp/disability in terms of medical but also in terms of insuring the work I do and the equipment I used), taxes per labor hour worked, and maintenance costs of company equipment I was using, he was only keeping about $19 an hour net which he could then use for unrelated overhead/profit, while also doing significantly more logistical work than I was ever aware of while directly being a technician.

This is not to say that giant corporations/firms get a free pass for suppressing wages, it's just more or less saying that it is not always so simple to just say "raise wages" proportionally in a unilateral fashion. Amazon/Walmart etc certainly can afford to pay the larger wage, but many small businesses (and that's including some fairly large companies under small businesses like local grocery stores etc) probably would have a significantly harder time staying open if there were to be some proportional wage increases mandated by law. If you want to see even more of the market share in the macro-economy go to large corporations rather than localized businesses, raising wages proportionally would be a great way to do that.

>Thinking any of us are truly free
This is just what the demiruge wants. Only in death will you find freedom.

based

specifically 'dispose'. what about using a product?

she means art is for nerds and you need to buy a new iPhone if you want to be a real alpha

Love how these imbeciles never ask to lower taxes