> 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.

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.

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?

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

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

Incorrect. It’s mostly just work.

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?

This is not a moral judgement. It doesn’t even matter from which pocket the money is coming from.