A: Go to the next highest rank.
or
B: A company council would vote on the next CEO.

You arent proletariat if you extract surplus value

It's not as if an heirless CEO ends his business upon death, because a company is not reliant upon hereditary succession.

^

This is not feudalism.

Again does the CEO do all the work?

Again, how does one become CEO?

It doesnt matter

It sure does, you don't become a CEO for doing nothing.

If they do not do all the work

The CEO provides and without providing there would be no work.

They arent entitled to all the labour

The CEO works to provide

So if the CEO doesn't do 100% of all the work of the workers, it's capitalism doomed to fail?

But the poor have no option but to sell their labour

Interesting, considering a business ran by workers does not have 100% of the work done by 1 person.

By that logic, even communism is doomed to fail.

>surplus value

Which leads me to believe this logic is invalid.

The average CEO makes roughly 200 times the wage of an average employee, by adding 0 times the value. When you have a board of directors making decisions regarding executive pay, funded largely through options and amounting to a CEO-to-Worker pay ratio of something in the range of 347-to-1, you know there's a problem.

Just because some people become rich under capitalism does not mean they do not extract surplus value

Also hang on a second

How does one get rich?

The inheritance argument doesn't work either, as we previously established 7/10 families lose their inheritance money by the second generation.

Then we should get rid of government, as the government does nothing good for us, and it has been *undoubtably* proven that in government, no one can rise up and become president. Oh, but whats that? Once we get rid of government everything goes wrong? Who wouldve thought???

Karde is inconsistent in his argument about how one becomes a CEO.

He first answers that a future CEO climbed the corporate ladder, while he later says it's impossible to move up the ladder in capitalism.

Inconsistancy ruins your debate

^

^

^

But moving from say petite bourgeoise to say bourgeoisie is not the same as proleteriat to bourgeoisie

How does one become a CEO?

But what comes before petite bourgeoisie?

Your argument is inconsistent, I don't believe I have a straight answer yet.

>believeing capitalism has high social mobility

Doubt

Define social mobility.

Um

You don't know what that means?

Social mobility has been destroyed in capitalism by neoliberalism the rich are literally making it impossible for some to climb this ladder.