en la sombra de un bolillo
“death to america” doesn’t mean “burn it all down” because america isn’t you or me or the roads or supply lines. america is prisons and wage slavery and a commons eviscerated by greed; it is the spirit driving that immiseration and privation.
Incidentally, that’s why employee stock holdings are typically either non-voting shares or granted in quantities that can’t practically become a majority voting bloc. But if you can manage it, this is a valid way to seize the means of production through a peaceful democratic process and it does happen on occasion.
The pay scale and the size of the organization doesn’t actually matter here, the question is how the decision is made and by whom. This comes back to who ultimately owns / controls the company. Which is why I’m discussing class interests in my post above.
To start with, you aren’t going to get very far with a moralistic lens and I think that’s the source of your confusion and probably why folks are being dismissive of your question (which I’m going to assume for now is in good faith).
The issue with rich people “the bourgeois” is that they place themselves in a position of power and organize productive forces to reward themselves first. All rich people have something in common with each other and not with us, they own the company, the land, &c. We just work there or rent. Even if they are providing some benefit or treat that we like, unless they are dismantling that structure and sharing they are working against our interests. No matter how hard you worked to become an owner or what your intentions are, your interests as an owner are diametrically opposed to the working class. There’s no “good” way to do it. This is separate from success, which isn’t a “bad” thing in itself.
A large cooperative that makes millions or billions of dollars that are collectively managed by the workers is a “good” thing. The difference is who owns the stuff and how it is managed. There is also nothing “wrong” with a high standard of living, but again, it depends on how things are organized. Which is the real root of the analysis here: Who’s interests are ultimately being served? Who holds the power? Who owns the means of production?
I hope that helps.
As long as there are white people, we have to keep having this talk. At some point they’ll realize that white is a caste and hopefully give it up.
I don’t think capital can sustain projects of this magnitude. Space is too harsh of an environment for delulu. We can hardly grapple with the idea that our actions on earth have consequences because of our condition. I like space stuff and I even like to create designs of starships, but I don’t think we’re in a position to reach for the stars just yet. Even if I’m wrong, we can’t allow space fascism get started either. There is probably life out there and if space capitalism finds them, they’ll try to pull another indigenous genocide and invent new forms of xenophobia to justify it.
None of our problems are technological. We have massive people problems. Building a new billions of dollar machine or trillions of dollar space station isn’t going to disrupt the imperial core. The Gray Techno Fash won’t suddenly become humanists because space.
Space life can be fun to think about, but techno futurism is a liberal fetish and tends to result in liberal fantasies if you don’t decolonize your mind.
if you have the means to operate them (tens to hundreds thousands of dollars worth of computer parts) plus maintenance you could probably do a lot even if you didn’t run AI models on your fancy gear.