I am in complete agreement with you. I only differ in that legislation can be used in our present liberal democracy to help us, but I definitely don’t think they’ll be convinced easily.
Sorry that I wasn’t clearer earlier. Tbh I don’t say commie shit upfront most of the time because I never know if I’m dealing with a lib.
I think the point of disagreement is the actual meaning of legislation.
Laws create no magic force on anyone. They are rather merely occurrences within the same overall system in which we all interact. The resistance by the powerful for some law to be created derives from the same source that informs their behavior once its creation is completed.
Power from the masses is required to make a law meaningful, which to my mind, is good enough reason to consider laws almost meaningless.
So, are you arguing that workers shouldn’t push for regulation and legislation that secures their rights? Like, I never suggested they were magic. Or that they were perfect and made everyone behave perfectly. Don’t put words in my mouth. But they can secure a level of safety for workers that is necessary for us to survive if we’re gonna continue to live in a capitalist hellhole. Legislation is how we got 40 hour work weeks and safety measures.
I am arguing that the security and value of the legislation is only assured by the power on the ground, by the organization of workers, to press for their enforcement and their preservation, in the same interests by which such legislation originally was demanded.
I specifically object to your earlier language, that the laws, or regulations, are “written in blood”. I think the metaphor is misleading.
If the masses begin resting easy the moment legislation is enacted, then no real victory has been achieved.
The same power from the ground must be maintained, and if possible, expanded, in order for the working class to have meaningfully advanced
For example, I would rather have strong unions and no legal rights for workers, compared to the inverse scenario, because unions can assert power in an absence of legal rights for workers, but legal rights simply may be retracted or ignored the moment the working class loses real power.
I am not arguing necessarily that no one should push for legal rights, only to avoid making them the locus of emphasis, and to avoid ascribing to them some special status.
I may have misunderstood your view. Mine is that legislation is mostly symbolic. The real work is on the ground.
I’m sorry if it seemed I was picking fights.
I am in complete agreement with you. I only differ in that legislation can be used in our present liberal democracy to help us, but I definitely don’t think they’ll be convinced easily.
Sorry that I wasn’t clearer earlier. Tbh I don’t say commie shit upfront most of the time because I never know if I’m dealing with a lib.
I think the point of disagreement is the actual meaning of legislation.
Laws create no magic force on anyone. They are rather merely occurrences within the same overall system in which we all interact. The resistance by the powerful for some law to be created derives from the same source that informs their behavior once its creation is completed.
Power from the masses is required to make a law meaningful, which to my mind, is good enough reason to consider laws almost meaningless.
So, are you arguing that workers shouldn’t push for regulation and legislation that secures their rights? Like, I never suggested they were magic. Or that they were perfect and made everyone behave perfectly. Don’t put words in my mouth. But they can secure a level of safety for workers that is necessary for us to survive if we’re gonna continue to live in a capitalist hellhole. Legislation is how we got 40 hour work weeks and safety measures.
I am arguing that the security and value of the legislation is only assured by the power on the ground, by the organization of workers, to press for their enforcement and their preservation, in the same interests by which such legislation originally was demanded.
I specifically object to your earlier language, that the laws, or regulations, are “written in blood”. I think the metaphor is misleading.
If the masses begin resting easy the moment legislation is enacted, then no real victory has been achieved.
The same power from the ground must be maintained, and if possible, expanded, in order for the working class to have meaningfully advanced
For example, I would rather have strong unions and no legal rights for workers, compared to the inverse scenario, because unions can assert power in an absence of legal rights for workers, but legal rights simply may be retracted or ignored the moment the working class loses real power.
I am not arguing necessarily that no one should push for legal rights, only to avoid making them the locus of emphasis, and to avoid ascribing to them some special status.
Then don’t rest easy. I never said that, you just decided to add it on for something to complain about.