I like to think that I'm a very knowledgeable organizer, so if folks want some advice ask me in the comments!
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
629 points (95.6% liked)
Socialism
5193 readers
10 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You disagree?
I'm not quite sure what it means for someone not to act as forced.
You seem to be negating the possibility of advancing beyond the status quo.
My view of their argument is, you can't have a 'fair' share while you have a boss that controls the productive forces, while you are forced to either work under their employ or starve. The arrangement itself is unfair. Though I definitely still would advocate for better worker's rights, wages and such right now.
Sure, but the post is simply asserting that any advances for workers would require force against bosses.
The way I understood the objection is that eliminating the bosses would never be achieved.
The objection that fairness for workers requires completely eliminating bosses is parsing the semantics, which is a confusing way to respond.
Maybe I am misunderstand this whole conversation haha, but it seemed you thought it was a pessimistic view that the bosses won't pay a fair share, so I was replying that it seemed like a realistic view because in the position that bosses have, there is little incentive for a proper fair share. Though on reflection their comment was doomer-y regardless of the underlying intention.
It is pessimistic to predict that worker advancement would reach some particular point at which the bosses could no further be forced into retreat.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Some things can be advanced beyond the status quo, for example degrees of exploitation. Some things can't be advance beyond the status quo, for example the existence of exploitation.
You are expressing doomerism.
You disagree?
Of course I disagree that deposing the oligarchs is impossible.
At any rate, everything ends eventually.
That's not what I said.
It's how your original comment and the clarification both read for me. Advancing past the status quo of oligarchs exploiting workers is what you have seemed to me as rejecting as impossible.
I didn't mention oligarchs. This is what I said:
"Some things can't be advance beyond the status quo, for example the existence of exploitation."
It may be possible to advance past oligarchs but it is not possible to advance past exploitation.
Oligarchs are the exploiters. Exploitation is the theft by oligarchs.
Oligarchs are not the only exploiters.
Exploitation isn't limited to oligarchs.
It seems like you're trying to redefine the term "exploitation".
The oligarchs is a common name for the exploiter class.
Exploitation is universal amongst humans. There are no divisions, such as class, that distinguish between humans who exploit others and humans who don't exploit others. There are no groups of humans without exploitation. There are no humans who don't exploit others.
Socialists understand exploitation as the relationship by which one societal class, called owners, claims as profit value generated by the labor provided by another class, called workers.
Such kind of relationship is particular to historical periods, and is not universal or inevitable within any human society generally.
Socialists have found class analysis to be the most broadly useful framework to understand social systems.
That's a limited understanding of exploitation.
Exploitation is simply a term chosen to describe a kind of relationship that has appeared on our current economic systems.
You are free to use the same word in other contexts, but your objection is not particularly meaningful in juxtaposition to your previous ones, and your complaints are obviously more directly motivated for obfuscation than by sincerity.
Thanks for your permission.
I disagree.
LOL
LOL