@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

unfreeradical

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Fortunately greater numbers are coming to realize that the Gates Foundation’s function was never much more than reputation laundering.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

These tactics are precisely intended to placate critics.

It is not good news when Bezos commits funds to charity and fighting climate change.

Good news would be the mass of society rising to end the conditions that cause climate change and that make charity necessary.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Applauding this without critical analysis is how Democrats diffuse political energy… The working class cannot sit back…

Exactly what needs to be understood more broadly.

We have been conditioned to believe that power is exercised only from the top down.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

I disagree with your characterizations, especially about Nordic states. There was an entire episode criticizing the shortcomings of the Nordic model.

Most of the criticisms of capital are simply explanations of books that have gained attention and acclaim, and none conflates systemic criticism with conspiratorial intention.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

The argument is sloppy.

The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

There is nothing communist about that.

Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.

He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.

Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.

Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.

The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.

You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.

Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.

Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.

This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

I am sorry you missed the theme. Please let me help.

The objective is to build an economy that supports everyone being well fed and well housed, instead of the very few hoarding rockets, jets, yachts, and multiple homes, while many more remain unfed and unhoused.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

how can illegal immigrants send money home but regular workers live paycheck to paycheck?

Migrants are not sending money to strangers in their home countries. They are supporting families, just the same as those who are not migrants and live with their families.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Perhaps the “well meaning idiots” are wise enough to realize how much they will suffer unless “this happens”.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

So leading with “the argument is sloppy” is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?

I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text your quoted.

Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

In many cases someone will settle for a very low standard of living, and set aside a small amount to support family living in a country with a much lower cost of living.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

In objective terms the lifestyle framed as the American ideal is unsustainable and inequitable, but much of the material value of the lifestyle carries little value in relative terms for genuine well being. Planning the built environment, cooperating in the community and workplace, and sharing the benefits and burdens across our lives, would allow us to achieve a very high standard of living for everyone at a much more reasonable material cost.

I am not understanding the general theme of your various comments in relation to one another.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Fighting among ourselves for the crumbs left for us by those who pillage and hoard hardly seems the same as seizing the best opportunities.

Billionaires are the problem.

They hold all the power, but make no contribution. They shape society against the common interests of most of the population.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Who claimed “only billionaires can create change?”

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

if they shape society, is that no contribution?

Billionaires shape society in their own interests, for unbounded accumulation of private wealth, generated from the labor of others, despite their not contributing any labor of their own, nor making any other contribution.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Billionaires are the problem.

They should not exist.

They are not able to create change, only to maintain the status quo in which they continue to cause problems for everyone else.

Bernie Sanders Champions 32-Hour Work Week With No Loss in Pay ( www.commondreams.org )

As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is “not radical” given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for...

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

It will not happen if we just sit and wait, nor if we just vote, but if we build communities and unions, if we act each day to move our relationships with one another more deeply toward a real transformation, then we can build a society not for bosses but for everyone.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

We make gains by organization not legislation.

Read the excerpts of the speech quoted in the article. All is plainly said.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Are you rejecting a call to build organized labor across the country because you have a grudge against one man for endorsing another man?

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

He can’t, but workers can.

Our fate rises or falls by our capacity to join in solidarity.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

No.

You have to join a union or form a union.

If your workplace is already organized, then build further strength through solidarity, help other workers around you, and at every turn find ways to erode the power of the bosses.

unfreeradical , (edited )
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

The call is to build organized labor across the country, giving workers the power to shape society toward our interests, not to expect the ruling class to offer voluntary concessions that have no benefit to them.

unfreeradical ,
@unfreeradical@lemmy.world avatar

Again, I think you are misunderstanding the message.

The speech is not giving a promise that Bernie Sanders will make gains on behalf of workers.

Rather, it is giving encouragement to workers to make gains for ourselves, by building our own power against the oligarchs.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • All magazines