this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
305 points (90.7% liked)

Socialism

5162 readers
26 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

if the masses begin resting easy the moment legislation is enacted, then no real victory has been achieved.

Then don't rest easy. I never said that, you just decided to add it on for something to complain about.