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

  • 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.