Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies for assuming bad faith on your part.
I must have been in a bad headspace yesterday because I immediately assumed sarcasm, but stepped back just far enough to consider the possibility of earnestness.
As far as I can tell, most of the "proletariat" would become bosses/the-wealthy in a heartbeat if they could.
I don't blame them, not when it so often seems like a binary choice between exploiter and exploited. There's a third option, rejection of the false dichotomy and refusal to be either a boss or a worker, but that's a *lot* harder.
> I don't blame them, not when it so often seems > like a binary choice between exploiter and > exploited. There's a third option, rejection of > the false dichotomy and refusal to be either a > boss or a worker, but that's a *lot* harder.
Are you talking about suicide?
<KIDDING>
I don't disagree. But the faux mathematician in me fears the "a *lot* harder part" suggests so few are - or (perhaps) even could be - sufficiently self(ishness)-denying to ever collectively make meaningful difference at the societal level. They would simply appear to be "kooks" to the vast sea of proletariat/bosses/wealthy they were barely treading water in.