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
 

I like to think that I'm a very knowledgeable organizer, so if folks want some advice ask me in the comments!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not quite sure what it means for someone not to act as forced.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

You seem to be negating the possibility of advancing beyond the status quo

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.

[–] unfreeradical -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some things can’t be advance beyond the status quo, for example the existence of exploitation.

You are expressing doomerism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] unfreeradical -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course I disagree that deposing the oligarchs is impossible.

At any rate, everything ends eventually.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

deposing the oligarchs is impossible

That's not what I said.

[–] unfreeradical 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] unfreeradical 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oligarchs are the exploiters. Exploitation is the theft by oligarchs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oligarchs are the exploiters.

Oligarchs are not the only exploiters.

Exploitation is the theft by oligarchs.

Exploitation isn't limited to oligarchs.

It seems like you're trying to redefine the term "exploitation".

[–] unfreeradical 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The oligarchs is a common name for the exploiter class.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] unfreeradical 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

That's a limited understanding of exploitation.

[–] unfreeradical 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

You are free to use the same word in other contexts

Thanks for your permission.

your objection is not particularly meaningful

I disagree.

in juxtaposition to

LOL

your complaints are obviously more directly motivated by obfuscation than by sincerity

LOL