unfreeradical

@unfreeradical@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  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 emerge from your argumentation, by its heavy assimilation of various tropes common within bad faith engagement with leftism.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I am not rejecting the sensibility or agreeability of the principle on its merits as a moral principle, but I do reject your characterization of any representation of responsibility as being a “descriptive fact”.

  I feel, unfortunately, that such conflations represent a thematic flaw latent throughout the argument.

  Simply because we approve of particular facets of social relationship and social structure, we may not assert them as facts, transcending our preferences, whether individual or shared, except as that they are facts of our preferences.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  No one is rejecting human rights in the sense you are suggesting, but some may object to human rights in the sense of its being merely a packaging for norms and values that are generally shared, as would be the same sense of an objection against moral theories.

  Ellerman appears to be rejecting private property by replacing it with a construct designated as inalienable responsibility. He assumes we will accept the construct, but ultimately, he gives us no reason more convincing than that it affirms the conclusion he wishes to uphold, and that he assumes we will want him to reach, of equitable relations of production.

  Ultimately, there is little to be remarked about one or the other, except whose interests they serve, or which consequences they produce.

  The rulers’ function has been to repress workers.

  The workers’ struggle has been to protect each other while seeking to overcome the conditions of oppression. In that, I see no need for us of either particular construct, private property or inalienable responsibility.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, money generally has been used for exchange of material items and ordering specialized services.

  Above the availability of such, relations in community have represented the difference between living decently and living meaningfully.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I see. I think the particular case is just one event revealing a problem that is much older and deeper.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

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

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

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Private property is a construct.

  Natural rights is a construct.

  Neither represents a transcendent truth.

  The best account for natural rights is that it provides elegant packaging for values and norms already shared. The danger emerges because whoever controls the packaging also controls what becomes elegantly packaged.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Simply, owners demand for themselves more than they pretend to allow for workers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Since workers were born into a world that affirms private property, they obviously never gave it their consent.

  It is just a fiction that developed its own life by the whip, blade, and gun, and also by the pen and press.

  Most of the work of leftist criticisms has simply been deconstructing entrenched doctrine, to help develop consciousness, and to build capacity for liberation.

  Ellerman seems to prefer instead constructing his own layer of obfuscation.

  It is worth becoming familiar with leftist criticisms of natural rights.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Mostly, Ellerman’s approach is weighty and unwieldy, by capturing or complicating constructs that leftists have identified as unnecessary, unrobust, and outright fictitious.

  Most leftists have no need for recovering natural rights, nor even have need of natural rights.

  Workers might simply rebel against the exploiters, because workers have no wish and no need for being exploited.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  My understanding of Ellerman is that he has tended to attach to leftist criticisms of liberalism abstractions that produce no particular further clarity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Since money of course is just the means of exchange, having it prevents the suffering resulting from deprivation being imposed.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Communism is not complacency or obedience.

  It is the eradication of the systems of exploitation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  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.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

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

  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.

  Try not to worry about the absolute count of negative events or negative actors. Most important is the structural resilience against such stress.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I return to my original observation, that you are viewing human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, rather than being shaped by personal experience and social context.

  In your view, every society is a failure in its essence, because humans are in their essence incapable of forming any society that is not a failure.

  I encourage you to think about how societies may differ, one from another.

  It is the only meaningful path.

  Dwelling on the presumed intransigent darkness of humanity leads to nowhere. It is neither constructive nor particularly accurate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I think the HoN is useful as a rough guide for how people often feel, think, and act in various conditions.

  I doubt it may be useful for a making any firm predictions, or for asserting any unalterable quality of humanity.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  The problem I’ve presented isn’t just “people”,

  You repeated the particular language several times, though it has no value to anyone except you and someone who may read your mind.

  though, it’s more “people will find a way to be unpredictable”.

  What do you mean? Do you mean that inconsistency is an intransigent trait of humanity? Do you mean people become restless? Do you mean people try to preserve order, but fail?

  Your language continues to be nebulous and imprecise.

  Any system you throw at people,

  Who would “throw at people” a system? Are you describing an autocracy, or a foreign occupation?

  Can people identify a system, or simply organization and practices under which they prefer to live and by which they feel empowered?

  Do people seek change that they identify as valuable?

  I am not understanding how you are deriving your understanding about how societies occur and evolve.

  they will analyse it and try to find a way to defeat it.

  Do you sincerely think that most in every society are revolutionaries?

  Why do systems last so long, if everyone is constantly trying to depose the current one?

  there will always be outliers who try to go against the grain and pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of others.

  In every society, some will conform better than others. Every society has systems of accountability, to discourage and to repair harm.

  Are you suggesting that no society is stable, because not everyone is always content with the status quo?

  Rather than trying to idealise everything and everyone,

  Who has done so? Are you referring to a particular antagonistic? Are you generalizing about everyone?

  Capitalism requires people to give a fair and honest value to things. Communism requires ultimately the same, but as defined by fewer people.

  Systems express a set of structures, relationships, and values.

  I am not sure you understand the meaning of capitalism and communism.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  What are you suggesting?

  Should we try to accelerate the end of capitalism by pursuing unnecessary suffering and death?

  Do you think seeking to end poverty is the same as seeking to live wastefully?

  I am genuinely not understanding what conflict you are identifying, or objection you are raising.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  In other words, having money solves specifically the problems created by money, but none other.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨70 hours/week with 1 day off must become norm: Congress MP backs Narayana Murthy⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Since I have a short memory, would someone please remind me why it is harmful for the working class to continue allowing production to be under the consolidated control of oligarchs?

  I know there must be some reason, but I seem to keep forgetting.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Again, though, a problem that can be solved is not simply a problem simply described as “people”, unless you are making a suggestion that mostly everyone finds disagreeable, such as denying the existence of others, or advocating a collective suicide pact.

  Is it not more coherent to frame as an objective how people may live together, as people in society, pursuing their shared interests as people?

  Considere an analogy. Suppose a bicycle breaks. Would it not be sensible to try to find the flaws in the structure, and to replace or to reconfigure the broken parts?

  Would you take the bicycle to a repair shop, expecting the proprietor to explain simply that the problem is bicycles?

  Do you see the problem, with framing as a problem, that which is already given as unalterable?

  Again, the questions people face is not people, butbof how we may live as people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Listen. I am simply observing that your framing of society provides to no one any value.

  The concern for people is how to configure people in a society that supports people achieving their shared interests as people.

  It is no value to anyone simply to assert as the problem having no solution simply than there are people.

  I am encouraging you to consider, even just to imagine, the different possibilities for the world in which we could share.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, silly. The unifying feature of all human society is that it is made up of people.

  Do you have any values or aspirations for the kind of world in which you want to live, or it just nuke 'em all?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  You seem to be framing argument around the premise that the driving force behind human behavior is seeking to harm others for fulfilling selfish ends, transcending personal experience and social environment.

  I am challenging your underlying premise, as collapsing harmful outcomes into a singular cause, not strongly substantiated or thoughtfully conceived.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  The wealthy make charity necessary. Never praise them for appearing to make it possible.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Systems function vastly differently. Social structure directs values, opportunities, and relationships. Denying the differences of systems, and asserting human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, is simply obstructing meaningful possibilities for change.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Helping others who are less fortune certainly seems more supportive of fulfillment than unbounded hoarding.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  They buy sweatshops and meat packing plants.

  Try not to overplay the difference. Mostly they are just like everyone else.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm not asking to be rich.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  To some degree money is creating problems and obstructing solutions, but as long as ut is use, it s necessary to antagonize wealth consolidation and to support universal income.