• Folstar@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    A great explanation of why the rugged individual mythology is perpetuated by the knights.

    • bstix@feddit.dkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m all for self-reliance, but only if it’s realistic.

      If your opponent in a negotiation is not self-reliant, then you shouldn’t be either.

      • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Humanity wouldn’t be where it is without MUTUAL AID. There is no such thing as rugged individualism in nature, it’s only in capitalism.

  • Sailor Anarres@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Unfortunately modern day some of the pawns are not so secretly working for the black team (class collaborationist union management) and the judge (government) is ready to interfere to smack down the pawns if they start winning.

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Keep in mind this is anecdotal but at the same time I don’t think it’s unique.

    I understand the value of unions and I think the world is better off with them than without them.

    But

    Having worked in them as a teen I will say the union leadership is to not be trusted as much as the business owners. Birds of a feather. The problem is power and hierarchies.

    What I also did not appreciate as a union member was being told by people who have been there longer “stop working so hard the quotas will go up and we will be expected to make more” like wtf?

    I love unions in theory. In practice they’re just as corrupt because they don’t address the underlying problem if anything they put lipstick on the underlying problem.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      “stop working so hard the quotas will go up and we will be expected to make more”

      They were right.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem is that the workers have allowed themselves to be attached to the labor, and be responsible for the output, without having any connection to the benefit of the additional output. If the labor force creates more product, and the company earns more as a result, the workers should also earn more as a result, but they don’t. They just work harder for the same pay, so those at the top benefit by their increased labor.

        Management should incentivize increased output. Otherwise, why bother?

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          That’s not how output is increased in a substantial manner though. Incentives can marginally increase productivity but that’s a one-time boost. Sustained substantial productivity growth is achieved via technology. E.g. calculate using computers instead of by hand. Use power tools instead of manual tools. That’s the kind of changes that have increased labour productivity in the US by over 400% since the 50s. The capitalist system never pays workers what they poduce. Anyone is only ever hired if they’ll produce more than they receive in wage.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They are corrupt and don’t address the problem because much of the union leadership are reactionaries opposed to people having real power. Unions used to literally fight the police and national guard, radical unions have been dismantled and co-opted continually for the last century. It’s not just about holding power, it’s about the underlying worldview of the groups in power as well, and any unions that meaningfully challenged the normal capitalist status quo have been crushed by the US security apparatus.

  • we are all@crazypeople.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    so the king just has to expend a few horses and the rest of us will block each other and never reach him.

    it’s hopeless. got it.

    • plutopos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Black can only take eight pawns before losing all their knights. After that it’s just a matter of laddering white pawns until they queen up

      • we are all@crazypeople.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        you guys alllll think that the only king on the board, protected by knights all around, is going to play by your poor people chess rules? well guess what, Not pictured all around the pawns… are McDonald’s, Starbucks, NASCAR, pop music stars, snipers, cameras, and a gun to all those pawns family members.

        where is your god now

        • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          That is scenario 1, where the single pawn can’t see all the other pawns, blinded by all the frivolous stuff.

          Scenario 2 is checkmate in one move, take a horse with any pawn and it’s smothered mate - the king dies, suffocated by the sycophants around him that are powerless to defend him from the pawn avalanche.

          A really good metaphor.

    • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      What I’ve learned is that some of us are gonna die, there’s no way around it.

      Good news is I’m an idiot and managed to do it losing two pawns.