[achierius]

> The class conflict shouldn't be between workers and employers.

Then why don't employers, the ones with essentially all the power here, tend to choose actions that go against the interests of the working class? Simple: regardless of what you think "should" happen, a study of history tells us what actually tends to happen in reality, and that tendency is towards class war between the ruling and exploited classes.

Anyways, in what way is "ownership" not rent-extracting in general? If you own shares of a stock and you get paid a dividend, that is rent plain and simple. All the arguments you can make against that being the case -- eg that you deserve a premium for parking your capital in a risky asset -- apply to advertising conglomerates and even literally renting out land too, so either they're all renting or none are.

[servercobra]

Because employers don't tend to make choices about the "interests of the working class", they make choices about what benefits them specifically in the moment or near future. You need to get some sort of alignment on their interests and the interests of the working class to create change, whether that's via government intervention or otherwise.

And I hear you on ownership. It's "just" figuring out how to make that change.

[gruez]

>... so either they're all renting or none are.

The article in the parent comment specifically spells out why renting out land is different than say, "renting" out a car factory (or any other productive asset).