[Angostura]

> The truth is just that there’s no profit extraction without charity work.

I'm not actually sure what you mean by this, so I can't really assess its truthiness

> not only there isn’t a just salary for those who bear the weight of the machine, but also there’s isn’t even a salary per se.

Or this - what do you mean?

>If for you humanity is just doing seemingly nice guy work without question, call me a monster.

Not even clear what you mean by this either.

[AreShoesFeet000]

My adversary has accused me of sophistry. As if I’m just a crafter of kaleidoscopes. I’m just giving back the compliment by calling out their romanticism.

Charity work can bring momentary fulfillment to a person. I’m not reducing humanity by situating it within the machine. You even have the right to reject the material proposition that charity work is a piece that composes the totality of the machine. But eventually all truth will be self evident, so let’s leave it to the reader.

[Angostura]

I’m not your adversary, I’m just trying to understand your point.

Your original assertion was that ‘ you’re only there as long as the use values you create can be exchanged in the market for a profit.’

When I suggested that non-profit or public sector jobs could certainly have soul, your responses were pretty incomprehensible.

Can you explain your point clearly and succinctly?

[AreShoesFeet000]

Because you’re aiding exploitation either way. It’s the same machine, just another part of it.

[Angostura]

Right. So it's not just work - any good or altruistic act, will by definition only act to stoke the machine.

It's certainly a way of thinking, I suppose

[AreShoesFeet000]

Incorrect. It’s mostly just work.

[Angostura]

So if I carry out hip replacement surgery, at my own cost its good?

But if the NHS pays me to carry out hip replacement surgery - funded from tax revenue, but free to the patient, it's bad?