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.
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.
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.
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.
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.