Slop.

Or the 1990's even

there was a bit more context to be fair, they were saying that because robots will "do everything" in the near future ("if not already today"), and somehow (through the power of friendship and liberalism?) everyone would have their own robot that works for them, thus everyone would be owning class

Great Leap Foward

Sure I steal the value of your labor and my vast wealth has doubled over the pandemic to be the equivalent to hundreds of thousands of you, but have you considered no more coffee in the morning? Stoping one of your few simple pleasures in this hell-world that you manage to enjoy before walking into the place you despise to do work you're alienated from for people you hate? I promise it'll solve all your money problems. And if you can't manage that, then clearly all of your problems are your fault and not mine.

By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.

Marx obviously didn't forsee the block chain and everyone owning Bitcoin

fun fact, he finished it (The Phenomenology of Spirit) the day that the french entered and looted his Town (Jena) right before the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt that would happend the next morning and then send his only manuscript in the middle of this Mayham , where he also saw napoleon riding around.

"I saw the Emperor – this world-soul [Weltseele] – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it."

based on the reply chain, he's some kind of libertarian - pro-elon/bezos (ethical billionaires), but anti-kings/warlords/dictators (unethical billionaires). super heavy on the "great men with great ideas", and capitalism/workers being the enabler for making their ideas happen. he was also posting this in r/neoliberal, if that helps (it doesn't)

bonus round:

Considering that other bit of context, my guess would be privileged tech person, someone who only sees that things are good for them and assumes that this can work for everyone in the world

no liberalism was created when this guy was born, along with the rest of the universe

No sweaty Clinton invented it in the 1990s

I'm guessing OOP is America-brained enough to think "liberalism" means neoliberal with characteristics

What if we all own our own means of production and also exploit value from each other

Imbiber trading

thx! i like your extra wide vaporeon. i'm a bit of a poser when it comes to pokemon tho. it took me a couple searches and way too long to remember yours' name just now - mudkip came to mind first lol. i've always rly liked snorlax and poliwhirl though (and more recently, azumarill )

Yeah, Marx has a whole section dedicated to them in the Manifesto

...this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

A, somewhat, recent article from Red Sails, The Case for Socialized Ownership explains this critique of petit bourgeoisie socialism. As production under capitalism is already becoming more and more socialized, the answer is to fully socialize the means of production through collective ownership, instead of making everyone 'business owners'. Quoting Engels,

With social production conditioned by modern large-scale industry, it is possible to assure each person “the full proceeds of his labour,” so far as this phrase has any meaning at all. And it has a meaning only if it is extended to mean not that each individual worker becomes the possessor of “the full proceeds of his labour,” but that the whole of society, consisting entirely of workers, becomes the possessor of the total proceeds of its labour, which it partly distributes among its members for consumption, partly uses for replacing and increasing the means of production, and partly stores up as a reserve fund for production and consumption