[drewbug01]

If I wanted to make a marxist-style call for collective action, there’d be nothing “thinly veiled” about it.

What I was actually suggesting is that people should, in fact, decide for themselves; and that employers should reap the consequences of those decisions.

It sounds like you’ve mistaken me for someone you’ve been arguing with elsewhere. Maybe my comment vaguely resembles a fight you’ve been having before, but you’re reaching some conclusions that just aren’t supported by what I said.

[xk_id]

It was the tone you used. Your post had strong statements like

> employers need to feel the negative consequences of their behavior. Their business needs to suffer

This is not merely encouraging personal autonomy. It’s the prescription of political action. It’s dialectical materialism. Could be a strange coincidence.

[drewbug01]

Well, if all it takes to be a marxist is suggesting that people take individual action to change a socially undesirable situation, I guess I’m a marxist.

But I mean with definitions that broad, who wouldn’t be? I guess it’s useful for trying to shut down conversation, but I’m not sure what other utility it holds.

[xk_id]

But you didn’t suggest individual action. You set out objectives which can only succeed if enough ppl coordinate to do it. It’s the prototypical socialist revolution and it’s useful to know where that path can lead.

[drewbug01]

> But you didn’t suggest individual action. You set out objectives which can only succeed if enough ppl coordinate to do it.

I suggested individual action; you attached success criteria to it that support your weirdly strong desire to paint me as a marxist.

Now, I don’t know why you’re so adamant on it, but that’s your business I guess. I think it’s kinda weird honestly.