this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
1759 points (97.2% liked)

Work Reform

9980 readers
159 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

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

I feel doubtful that a society being permanently stable is necessarily the most important objective.

That's exactly what I've said from the beginning. Society needs to be more flexible, and if our current models are to be effecitve they need to be "shaken up" so as to prevent extreme exploitation by those who gather power and influence over society.

Try to understand what people need and seek in their lives, and consider how certain organization may promote or impede their capacity to reach or to achieve such needs and wants.

Again, that's what I said near the beginning. Society should aim to meet the core needs of the people. After that, society should provide the opportunity for people to meet their desires - but this must be tempered so as not to meet the desires of some at the expense of other peoples' needs.

It's not about any asolute count of negative events or negative actors, rather that such things will inevitably happen. Structural resiliance against such things is exactly what I'm saying is lacking in most societies - all too often sociopaths are allowed to take the helm and steer society towards depravity, for their own personal gain. A perfect societal structure must account for this, and our current implementations across the globe do not.

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

Exploitation and autocracy are expressly encouraged by particular structure, though, whereas antagonized by other.

I encourage seeking to develop those structures protect the empowerment of everyone.

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

Exploitation and autocracy are expressly encouraged by particular structure, though, whereas antagonized by other.

Again, you're skirting around saying things. If you want to say that capitalism is bad and communism is good that's fine by me.

Personally, I see flaws in both systems. They're different, but both are susceptible to exploitation, albeit in slightly different forms. It's only through constant review and viligilance that the rot can be kept away.

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

Communism is not complacency or obedience.

It is simply the eradication of the systems of exploitation.

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

And yet, in many countries that have applied communism people still get exploited.

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

If worker exploitation has not been overcome, then communism has not been achieved.

As I say, I feel doubtful that you genuinely understand communism.

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

then communism has not been achieved.

I'd agree with that. Communism has not really ever been implemented successfully, for a number of reasons. One of those is incumbents from the old system trying to twist the new system into something else, all for their own benefit so they can stay on top. Another is influence from non-Communist nations eg the US.

As I say, I feel doubtful that you genuinely understand communism.

You keep saying that but offer no actual corrections to say where I'm wrong or what is right.

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

You keep saying that but offer no actual corrections to say where I’m wrong or what is right.

The reason is because of much of what you have written, for example...

in many countries that have applied communism people still get exploited.

Various examples occur throughout your comments appearing as reactionary or liberal obfuscations of communism, and its differences with capitalism, or that seem unaware of general criticisms of capital.

You may feel my characterizations are inaccurate, and you may be correct, but I feel that they are representative of your argumentation, by its heavy assimilation of various tropes common within bad faith engagement with leftism.

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

or liberal obfuscations

Now who's using terminology they don't really understand. Just because you're a member of a clique/cult with its own specific definitions for terminology does not make that terminology valid. The bad faith engagement is your own, as you assume your definitions are universal, rather than taking a common sense approach, or even establishing definitions before building an argument.