An actual Capitalist is intending to make their life easier by making their money (i.e. others/workers) do the work for them, but yes what you say is often true of advocates of Capitalism who arenât actually capitalists but work for capitalists - often you do see them powering through the workload making their Capitalist employer(s) very rich and remaining relatively poor themselves like good obedient slaves. The former doesnât have to be an engineer to start an engineering company or to start a company that requires engineering - this is when you simply hire in the latter to be paid less than they earn you. Entrepreneurialism is a different skill to Management is a different skill to Operations: the first is knowing how things work inter-business, the second is knowing how things work intra-business, the third is knowing the work. The first is something of a creative skill, which even Conservative anti-Socialists like Jordan Peterson admit are the liberals - that is to say, like Bill Gates and Elon Musk, their personal sympathies are socialist even if their professional practices are capitalist - they have a clear love of what they do for its own sake and would have created regardless the economic model. Even people who got rich by moving money around and not actually creating anything themselves, like Warren Buffet, can have personal socialist sympathies. Most of the richest names arenât actually creators at all, just money-movers who only make their life hard by competing so hard to to win the gambling game. Thereâs even a type of personality that supports Capitalism despite not being a capitalist, because they envy them and dream of the spoils that they enjoy but without a creative impulse in their body and often without work ethic. They neither want life to be hard, or to do or die - they want most of all for others to be less rich than they are even if they are not âyetâ rich: the capitalist in their personal sympathies, but you might say socialist in professional practice - though I would disagree with that latter part.
In short, this forced dichotomy of yours breaks down as soon as you apply it to real people. It seems very much to me as though you are trying to force practice to fit your theory rather than fitting your theory around the practice. The former is the kind of thing religious apologists do, which fits your non-question-asking preaching, where the latter is the kind of thing scientists do, which is what I as a Socialist sympathiser am recommending to you. So ironically, the realm of those who you are praising as bastions of Capitalism: the engineers and scientists who create new technologies are not dogmatic like your argument here. Basically youâre telling a Socialist to be more like they are, but with the label of what they are not. And you advocate using the means of the kind of person you are against - itâs all backwards and doubly ironic that you support having no illusions. I am trying to help you here, but I think you would rather reinforce your understanding to yourself than discuss reality.
Unfortunately for your argument, I went to university to study mechanical engineering. I can tell you that there was not a hint of politics or economics amongst my contemporaries, we were all just kids - some of them simply with a love for machines. I had no idea what I was doing, I was just following my strong mathematical and scientific prior trajectory - and you might think it supports your argument that I actually switched courses, but I switched to business studies i.e. the study of how the whole system works under Capitalism - that was much more full of people wanting to get rich than engineering was. There were economics modules in there and even optional ones that I spent on philosophy - the whole thing was just me figuring myself out, because like I said - everyone was just a kid back then: nobody was some kind of capitalist hero like youâre trying to make out, least of all the engineers.
The history department at my uni were lefties - isnât this what capitalists are supposed to be complaining about: that education has been too dominated by the left (an argument for equality of outcome if I ever heard one!)? And here you are saying socialists arenât students of history or appreciators of human nature⌠the truth is basically the exact opposite. Pretty much everything youâre saying is backwards when compared to a concrete look at what is actually going onâŚ
So what will debating on this level do? It will allow you to repeat your indoctrinated ideology over and over, and enable me to correct it in light of reality - the tennis game will continue until we get frustrated and angry, and we will get nowhereâŚ
This is why I offered to leave you to it if you were just here to preach your religion.