The professional class already can negotiate for pay and working conditions because they're hard to replace. For example, I negotiated my salary up by 5k at the start and receive good annual raises because my skillset/expertise is hard to replace.

We also saw during the great resignation how employers were forced to pay better because they were having trouble finding people.

If employers have a credible threat of not being able to find people, they will have no choice but to offer better pay and better working conditions. As for how we achieve that, I'm personally in favor of a few policies:

• YIMBYism and land value taxes to solve the housing crisis, so that average folks aren't so squeezed on cost of housing
• Universal basic income to decouple paying rent and putting food on that table from jobs
• Public works/employment programs for activities that produce positive externalities, e.g., subsidies for FOSS software, more public research grants, subsidies for rewilding efforts, etc.

The general idea being that if you don't desperately need your employer to maintain a basic level of existence, they will have much less leverage over you. If you can credibly threaten to leave and go plant trees or write FOSS software or pursue higher education, your boss will need to offer you more.

Bonus point as, once housing is cheaper and once jobs pay better, people can have more in their savings accounts. This alone makes them less dependent as well, because they can survive longer and more comfortably without a job. For instance, if my boss mistreated me today, I could quit and coast on savings for a while until I found a new job. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck are living in a constant state of exploitation that is extremely ripe for exploitation. Destroy the desperation and you destroy the exploitability.

Even in a right to work for less state, it's easier to negotiate with employers for fair pay than it is to do so in a communist society. Communist societies may generally be more equal, but they're equal at a far lower level of income, and in reality it just means trapping everyone at the subsistence level of work drudgery instead of offering many a way to gain greater affluence.

Yes, but that wish for Marx's vision fails when it hits reality, where in reality, institution of communism or socialism essentially requires a totalitarian form of government

No, communism is a problem. There is an inherent flaw in the entire concept, which is entrusting the peoples needs to a select, “temporarily” empowered few. History has proven, over and over again that hierarchy is the problem. People don’t obtain obscene amounts of power and then…use it for good and then give it up. They use the power to be powerful. And the people surrounding the powerful start catering to the whims of that powerful person in the hopes that they can benefit from that power, which encourages unjust thinking and behavior. Look at any billionaire and see how people treat them. People come out of the woodwork to tell them they’re geniuses, pretend they’re right all the time, and indulge their every whim. It warps their brains. Communism relies on this incredibly flawed concept to…benefit the people?

It’s the problem in politics, it’s the problem in policing, it’s the problem in capitalism, it’s the problem in people. Any system based and reliant on hierarchy is doomed to fail, especially when that hierarchy is “temporary” and meant to establish “the people’s” will and best suit their needs. There is no top down solution, the only solution is bottom up.

🤡