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

  • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is pessimistic to predict that worker advancement would reach some particular point at which the bosses could no further be forced into retreat.