[claudiawerner]

Microsoft wouldn't exist without Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to any and all benefit derived therein to divide up between his employees. It's funny how justifications for the wealth of these people usually fall to unquantifiable metrics like "vision" rather than concrete labour, which is the sole standard ordinary workers are judged by.

To use a metaphor, a slave owner having the "vision" for a palaestra including all its designs does not mean that he does not exploit the slaves (who, remember, wouldn't have a job if it weren't for him, nor would the palaestra exist). In the philosophy of exploitation, exploitation can occur even in mutually beneficial relationships.

[dpark]

I don't think anyone proposes that Bezos is "entitled to any and all benefit" that Amazon produces, either. Indeed his wealth is tied merely to his initial ownership with almost no additional wealth flowing to him in terms of cash or stock from Amazon. Whether or not warehouse workers should get paid more seems to be a very different issue than whether Bezos deserves to continue to own the stock he literally created.

Also your metaphor sucks. If you think that wage workers are on par with slaves, I suggest you look a bit more into what slavery actually is.

[claudiawerner]

The metaphor is not formally equating wage labourers to slaves, it's an illustration of the principle of exploitation in relationships where, in a technical sense, both parties benefit. That's why it's a metaphor, not a simile.

[dpark]

You’re defending your absurd metaphor by turning to pedantry about definitions.

You metaphor still sucks because it doesn’t say anything useful. It’s purely an emotional appeal. You could apply your metaphor to literally any employment relationship and it’s no different. The CEO is (over)compensated for vision and so everyone else is exploited, from the Executive Vice Presidents down to the receptionists.

[claudiawerner]

>The CEO is (over)compensated for vision and so everyone else is exploited, from the Executive Vice Presidents down to the receptionists.

The argument is not that employees are exploited because the CEO is over-compensated for vision, but rather that it follows naturally for such relationships to work at scale. Nevertheless, it's useful as a thought experiment, since it ought to make people consider the nature of modern work and life in capitalism. Indeed, some philosophers do apply this to all employment relationships[0], the most extreme argue that they are exploitative, the less extreme only inquire to the nature of our desires in the employment relationship[1].

If that's where the argument leads then that's where it goes.

[0] John Roemer, Yoshihara and Veneziani, Marx

[1] Frederic Lordon's Spinozist anthropology

[dpark]

The argument doesn't lead there. You started it there. Your initial premise is that wage work is akin to slavery. I disagree, and your response is "well, that's where the argument leads". No, not at all.

I'm a bit confused by your statement that "it [exploitation] follows naturally for such relationships to work at scale". If this is how it naturally works, then is there a viable alternative? I also don't agree that this is (necessarily) exploitative. Perhaps we have differing opinions of what "exploitation" means. If we have a business partnership that is mutually beneficial, but you profit from it more than me, is that exploitative?

[claudiawerner]

I'd argue this is how it "naturally" works for the current epoch with the current division of productive resources, that is to say, it is a historically conditioned state of affairs, and like any historical period it is overcome. As in, the current distribution of property is to blame, but it's not clear that simply switching to a different model of distribution would overcome exploitation at large.

I think that exploitation can, in general, be defined as when A exploits B, A takes "unfair" advantage of B. In order for this to be the case, there must be some mechanism by which A has the ability to exploit B, which I see as defined by the distribution of productive assets necessary to live. It gets more complex speaking of how we define productive assets, and whether exploitation exists as a matter of class (neo-Marxian sense) or as a matter of profit (the Marxian sense).

[AnimalMuppet]

> Microsoft wouldn't exist without Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to any and all benefit derived therein to divide up between his employees.

More people have become millionaires by being Microsoft employees than by any other mechanism. Via stock options, Microsoft very much shared the gains with their employees.