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.
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.