Turbofolkia wrote:Torrocca wrote:
If you've voluntarily entered into an agreement with both of these workers (as a worker yourself, because that's how things would be under Socialism), where you agree to have equal ownership over the means of production of your business and thus total ownership of the fruits of your collective labor, then yes, you three would earn the same from any profits that business makes. That's how Socialism works. And, hell, there's no reason to assume that the business's labor would be divided up so one person professionally surveys land and the other just staples papers together while you do... whatever role you're taking on in this model. Your paper stapler duder could easily take on multiple roles, and most likely would be, since regulating a single person to just the singular task of stapling papers together would be something pretty damn stupid that I'm sure even the paper stapler would agree with.
Workplace equality isn't going to be a one-way street under Socialism, and it shouldn't be seen as such.
Have you ever worked at a law firm or in any office setting? This will never happen for the simple reason that administrative assistants and the like do not make anywhere near as much money for a firm as solicitors do. Even if a lower-tier employee took on multiple roles they would never generate as much money from their labour as a solicitor would, let alone a barrister.
Naturally I think that administrative assistants are vital to a firm's success but no reasonable solicitor or barrister would ever enter into such an agreement.
And they do that under Capitalism. I'm talking about a hypothetical scenario occurring under Socialism.