Signatories have jurisdiction over their own territories though, and are broadly required to comply with requests for arrest and surrender of persons in those territories.

I do think obviously, in practice, if the US objected then most signatories would find a way out of complying.

I’m being pedantic about this because I came upon you being ludicrously rude and aggressive to someone for ‘misusing’ technical terms by acknowledging anything other than the Marxist definition, while implausibly claiming ‘executives’ is the word for people who own the means of production.

It isn’t name only - he is employed by the shareholders to run their business for them. That is the beginning and end of what it means to be an executive, at a hotel, Walmart, or anywhere else. Whether or not an executive also happens to be one of the shareholders is incidental.

I take for granted you don’t mean to say that anyone who owns a scrap of land or >1 penny stock is part of the capitalist class - a sensible boundary might be someone whose passive income alone puts them above the poverty line / median wage.

I’ve met the managing director of an independent hotel near me who does not own the hotel but is nevertheless its chief executive.

He probably owns his house (with a mortgage), and may or may not have some of his savings in shares, but I’m 99% sure not enough to survive off passive income.

*You* were, earlier, with someone else. I replied to a post you made implying that executives are definitionally not working class by the Marxist definition, which is just not the case, even if many or most will achieve the class transition.

Again, an exec does not necessarily own any shares. They are just mostly paid enough, as are e.g. most doctors, lawyers, engineers (stipulated: not teachers), to have a good prospect of buying enough shares to live off before they retire.

Right, but that’s my point, and the point above: there are many jobs, like professionals and executives, which entail exchanging labour for money, thus working class in the vulgar Marxist sense, which are paid well enough to afford (over time) a decent chunk of the means of production.

You may not be aware of this, but an executive is just someone shareholders hire to run a business for them. It’s a job, paid a salary.

In practice they often *also* own shares, in the same company or different ones, and founders often make themselves the executives early on, but it’s not inherent.

George III was not a dictator either lol. He had more power than kings today but governed by consent of Parliament, for fear of them cutting his head off like they did to the last king that got uppity.

The colonists’ grievance was just that Parliament didn’t represent them or their interests.

“Actually we should celebrate every reduction in poverty and reward the politicians responsible, even as we continue to demand more” - every sensible progressive with a democratic theory of change