1. Even so, a sole trader selling stuff by means of the internet is still a one man band - and many are not making much out of it.

2. Victorian homeworking seamstresses didn't need access to large funds either.

3. I think the thing is paul the word exploited is used both in the emotional and in the strict Marxist economics sense.

I myself use it both ways - the Morecambe Bay cocklers (as you say) are obvious examples of terrible exploitation, but even workers paid a decent wage by employers are the victims of exploitation too. (You know the theory of surplus value).

It was a hopelessly inadequate answer, demonstrating that Marxism is even more redundant in the 21st century as you are reduced to using the word "exploited" interhangably betweek the emotive and Marxist definiition when the latter no longer applies.

What the above also demonstrates is that you have never worked in a profit-making company as the attribution of profit to an individual is almost impossible to quantify.


Because you can't answer the question!

And what are the 'means of production' to own in Banking such that I could be a capitalist rather than an exploited employee? Can you answer the question or not?

1. On what is your salary (and bonus) based on but your estimated worth to the company?

2. So you don't work in a building then? You don't have the infrastructure and tools provided for you to do your job?

So you don't challenge that "you are reduced to using the word "exploited" interchangeably between the emotive and Marxist definition when the latter no longer applies." (despite the lack of spell checking)

Yes, generally an employee of particular value is paid based on the the need to retain the employee. But in this instance Banking is not typical and indeed not a basic 19th century manufacturing industry which is where Marxism appears to fail in its applicability to the modern world.


LOL really? You think if I paid the lease on our building or paid for the technology infrastructure that would make me the capitalist in this equation rather than the poor exploited worker? The fact that your arguments don't really resonate no matter how hard you try must surely mean something to you - that people are not buying what you are selling....!

1. I am merely pointing out how the term is used today.

2.Sorry, I don't see how Marxism is only applicable to manufacturing. Banks existed in his day you know, as did the professions.

3. If you could afford to pay the lease on your bank and and supply its "innards" you would most definitely be the capitalist in this instance, just as the capitalist buys/rents a factory and equips it. No difference.

Well considering I don't feel exploited then I suggest you are on to a loser. Do you know how many posters you've converted to your way of thinking in all these years?


And I would suggest those in Banking and other professions were equally baffled as to what the old man was going on about!


So I am not a capitalist then?

How about if I own options that would vest if the company increases profits to a certain level?

Do you see how the simplistic Marxist ideology doesn't really apply to me and probably many others?

I do think that we are going to have to move away from the current system which is geared towards individual wealth to a more collective wealth.

If capitalism doesn't evolve then it will collapse. We have seen it with growth being increasingly funded with credit, home ownership on the decline, wages being suppressed and jobs being shipped overseas and automated. We have seen both major political parties offering tax cuts to win votes. We are seeing an ageing population and strains on essential services.

This is not sustainable in the long term.

No. Socialism is clearly the past.

Will robots get the vote ?

Will they be programmed to vote Labour ?