The post is not intending to criticize an irregular work schedule on its merits. Indeed, some occupations require an irregular schedule.

The criticism directs at platforms manipulating workers by obfuscating the structure of exploitation through participation in the gig economy.

Note the text, “Working excessive hours isn’t… [just] flex…”

Enthusiastically providing your own labor increases the total supply of labor, leading to wage depression for you and every other worker.

Make business owners pay more for your labor, by making your time valuable to you, for your own life and for improving the lives of others, in family and community, about whom you genuinely care.

Based on your own thinking, what would you understand as the attributes of a relationship or agreement that may be considered fair?

I think when one small group holds power, the effects for everyone else are usually shitty.

The issue may be more related to power itself, rather than to those who hold it.

So leading with “the argument is sloppy” is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?

I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text you quoted.

Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.

You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

There is nothing communist about that.

Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.

He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.

Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.

Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.

The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.

You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.

Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.

Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.

This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.

The argument is sloppy.

The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.