Yes, but focusing on those factors gives you an incomplete understanding of the dog’s place on the farm. At the end of the, day the dog is helping the farmer extract value from the sheep. Indeed, the dog’s very specialized skills wouldn’t have much value outside the context of the farming enterprise. That means the dog’s interests are much more aligned with the farmer’s than the sheep.
Which, to me, reflects a huge gap in power and freedom.
One decides what the other does. One can decide how much the other will earn. One can decide wether or not the other will still have a job tomorrow. The other needs a job if they want to have a roof over their head and food on the table in six months.
Which is why I still don’t find your definition satisfactory. Sure alignment of interests matters, but to me it’s not enough.
It’s been an insightful discussion, and I’ve truly enjoyed it, but I’m afraid we won’t be able to reach a conclusion we can both agree on.
Precisely the analogy’s point. Glad I didn’t have to spell it out.
> A definition that excludes CEOs from the upper class isn’t a very workable one.
Absolutely. Hence the "Were we to push that to the extreme", followed by a ridiculous application of the definition.
> Another way to look at it is that there’s a large class of people whose jobs wouldn’t be nearly as well compensated without monopolistic capitalism.
And thus we can differentiate those of these people who are part of the upper class from those who aren’t by wether they get an actual share of the value they produce, or merely scraps. Wether they are compensated as equals, or as useful tools.
Interesting bit about Sweden and Norway. I didn’t know that.