You can’t simply give people money without causing a devaluation in said money.

The government surely can.

The government has the power to levy taxes.

The government has comprehensive powers for regulating the value of currency, through control over the money supply.

At any rate, the government printing money for workers cannot possibility be worse for workers than the government printing money for businesses, as it is doing now.

I suppose, though, you might take comfort in how inflation now is being so effectively prevented, instead of causing needless human suffering.

Jeff definitely believes he is invincible, but he still feels threatened by unions.

There is no reason for companies to bother busting unions. Unions have never really helped workers anyway.

The question may be essentially a red herring of whether help is given by the government.

Governments help workers not by their own accord, but because workers struggle to develop power against the state-capital power duopoly that structures our society.

Unions develop such power for workers.

Labor advances not by being helped by government, but by developing power separate from government, for workers.

Based on your own thinking, what would you understand as the attributes of a relationship or agreement that may be considered fair?

Every community has different expectations for participation.

Each should offer a cogent explanation for everyone to understand.

I am not personally interested in sophistry.

If he owns vehicles, then he is entitled to exploit people to drive them.

The system has conditioned him to find a way to rationalize that he is victim.

Honestly, if you are establishing the community as anti-tankie, then the rule against sectarianism would seem meaningless, indeed misleading, and almost sophistic.

I suggest simply declaring outright the sectarian commitments of the community, as long as your enforcement will lead to such an effect in practice.

It will be interesting to watch their business model working without any workers working.

Bad behavior will result in comment/post removal, and repeated or egregious behavior will result in a ban.

Such a kind of enforcement is quite different from what I have observed.

Every party is different, and every has a power structure that at various times will attract controversy and antagonism.

Most of the work in advancing workers interest and building socialist organization occurs on the ground through direct action.

You might consider participating in a mutual aid group or contributing to labor mobilization efforts operating near wherever you are located.

As you learn about various groups and their differences, you might find that you have a perspective more deeply compatible with some groups than with to others.

So leading with “the argument is sloppy” is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?

I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text you quoted.

Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.

You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

There is nothing communist about that.

Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.

He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.

Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.

Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.

The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.

You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.

Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.

Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.

This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.

The argument is sloppy.

The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.