There are two ways we can analyze production:

Explain please.

Is it, as a rule, possible to escape being an employee?

There are exceptions, of course, say if you were born into money or got lucky founding a business. But is it possible for everyone to have the ability to make that choice? Say tomorrow everyone decided they no longer wanted to be employees. Capitalism would immediately collapse.

In fact that's literally what a strike is.

Yes, just like in Communism, no one is truly holding a gun to your head. You can go work for yourself, although that is insanely hard.
Smaller businesses did get fucked because of Crony Capitalism, I'll give ya that. Business start up is pretty hard now days.
Yes, it would collapse, just like Communism and Socialism would if everyone through their hands up and went their own way nothing would get down because humans require other humans - but in each system, it would then adjust over time to an economy that is 1 man: 1 production line (which is insufficient).

But I don't understand how it is involuntarily, today nobody forces you to be the employee, they do not force you into any line of work.

I feel a distinction needs to be made between "refusing to work" and "refusing to be an employee".

The need to work is unfortunately inevitable until full automation hits us but work must not necessarily be done as employees. Heck, the Soviet Union would have collapsed as well if the workers decided to refuse to work for wages and reposessed all the products of their labor.

Because
is objectively and observably wrong.

In capitalism, labor power takes on a commodity form, and its thus wages are based on the price of that labor as a commodity on the market.

The workers in Asia and South America who produce all goods for the globe aren't paid the meager pittance they're given because their work isn't valuable, they're so poorly paid because the type of their labor is common and the market is saturated with it, so it's value as a commodity is next to nothing.

Okay. So are you saying that people can not choose whether they are the employer or employee?…or?

Yup - supple and demand of the worker.
Correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't it then make sense for these countries to simple cut ties from other countries? What you'll notice about these countries is that they do a lot of manufacturing, but they lack doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. Wouldn't it make for them to close themselves in, push their own citizens into other domestic fields of work to make the labor supply meet the country's domestic demand - increasing wages for not only their working class due lower supply of labor, but making others richer due to high demand from education and service?

Yes. or choosing to work without being either, and just owning the product of your labor.

First, these nations tend to be export economies, so shutting down their borders hurts their economy, since there's little in the way of domestic demand.

Second, any nation that attempts this is going to find themselves in some critical violation of "freedom" and have American marines knocking on their door, or be confronted with a suddenly and inexplicably well armed and supplied pro-American rebel group.

Personally, I would argue that they have a chose. Now I admit they benefit more as being the employer, than being the employee, than doing neither and going your own way. Being the employee allows you to buy goods easier than going by yourself and making your own goods. But, the line is thining between the options, quickly it will become employee unless you're the inherited employer.

And they can switch to a domestic ecomomy, it has been done before, but doing it all at once would be economic suicide. They would need to gradually bring themselves over to a domestic economy by training their own people into the fields they lack (e.g. doctors, engineers, mechanics, lawyers, etc, etc) and slowly cut off said field being dominated by foreign markets, knocking field by field down until having a domestic economy.

This I agree with.

One can produce goods to sell without being an employee and then use that money to buy other goods. It's not necessary to abstain from the economy entirely.

Of course, I'm just stating that it is harder to produce multiple of one good by yourself than it is to be an employee. There's a reason why we went to specialisation, it's easier to do one section repeatedly than it is forfill the fill task, hence why many people chose to be employees over self producers. Just like how people will chose to be an employee over an employer because the employer deals with many tasks that he has to fully complete (e.g. business deals, accounting for material cost, employee reliability, etc, etc [unless you're the employer who hires everyone to do your job for you]) while the employee forfills set tasks.

I said middle manager capitalist, not as in the guy who helps manage the factory or the guy who disturbes the goods. I mean the guy who reaps the benefits for doing a lot less work

Yeah, we cleared that up already.

Because unless you like being ripped off, the Marxist way says you're getting screwed as an employee by your employer.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂👌😂😂😂😂👌👌👌👌👌👌😂
😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌👌😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂👌😂😂😂😂👌😂
😂👌👌👌👌👌👌😂😂😂😂👌😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

There are two ways we can analyze the universe:

-The scientific way: The scientific method is used to observe and describe the universe in progressively more accurate ways.

-The Religious way: The theocratic hierarchies dictate reality as the unfathomable(except by them) will of an
omnipotent entity.

First and foremost your post s a false dichotomy.

And secondly you are full of shit, since the capitalist way is very much debunked by the Marxist one.

this is what normies might understand

what the fuck is that supposed to mean? You just can make circle graphs like that without telling us what the fuck they represent.

...

Raising unproductive labor to create a shortage in productive labor in order to raise wages is a risky move not in any way guaranteed to work. In fact, it only really worked that way in the United States and only for a period of time (roughly between 1820 and 1970).

It also ignores the fact that this whole problem is the result of a parasitic owning class that takes in far more than it contributes. That same class will attempt to corrupt, get around or transcend anything you do that might hurt their profits. If you can shut down your nation's borders in order to trying and create a domestic market, you've already won. You might as well actually solve the problem instead of finding some half-way solution that will just fall a part in the long run.

Society doesn't progress if theres no extra resources. Imagine doing this a couple hundred years ago. No extra surplus to put into science because scientists cant get support. If everyone just makes what they make and don't actually push society then it'll become stagnant.

Yes, they are. To stop being an employee is to lose one's home, food, and access to medical care. You will die cold and hungry. Employmrnt is not a choice so much as unemployment is a threat.

It is impossible without capital, training, access to resources, a viable market and the means to produce your product or service. "HURRstart a business!" is not a viable alternative to employment for most every worker.

Yes, they do, because there is no realistic alternative. The right to do a thing is useless without the ability to do that thing. Having the right to leave but being unable to do so means that a person in reality has no choice but to stay.

Ask yourself; if the wage-worker is truly fully compensated for that which he hadds to the production, from whence does profit come? Is profit "extra" value added as the good is sold? Then how are we supposed to calculate the value of the product before it is sold, which we must be able to do if we are to determine that the worker is indeed being fully compensated for the value of their labour.

Marxism isn't a fucking political system…

Doesn't the capitalist add value to production by stringing it all together? I mean yeah I guess hypothetically the workers could cut him/her out of the picture completely, but like……………. who cares lol

No.

The capitalist can organize it all himself, or he can hire someone else to do it. He gets the full product regardless. The relation the capitalist has to the productive process isn't a work relation, but a property relation. He will receive the surplus value produced by his workers regardless of if he does an ounce of work ever.

Normies dont even think in the way you posted. Its more like they dont even think about the nature of the relationship between themselves and the owners.

Its more like "ok cool i got a job i work and make money cool"

Because the arrangement isnt mutual beneficial, one party earns wayyy more than what they put in.

The answer is pretty obvious OP. If you do agree to the conclusion in the first part I dont understand how you didnt realize it falsifies the second part and its "mutually beneficial" bullshit

well, one can make a profit without labor of other people. If I make a sweet website and have ads on the side of it, I'm making a profit. No exploitation necessary.