I’d like to differ. They are the ones selling you this slavery contract and probably don’t mention the impossible to deal with interest.
A bank worker who is not your enemy would suggest you to switch banks or give you a reasonable contract. Of course depending on bank they might lose their job over the last one.
No, it’s mean that the issue is not the workers, but the bankS. Or to be be even more concrete : the system that produce institutions with the function of bank.
Opposing to those workers would not make a change; maybe you could make them fired, and others could take the place, but our choice wouldn’t make much difference compare to those of the employers in the bank industries.
We could argue that opposing to one bank is the same; at most it could bankrupt (ironically), but other bank would take they function.
That why this is the whole industry we shall oppose to, to against one bank, but against all of then. This is why people in revolutionary union organize by industry, and not by firm or professions.
Helping workers in the bank industries getting less hour/day, less harassement and better stability would make the situation where they could diminish or abolish the predation of their employers against others (that are not only customers). We couldn’t expect solidarity from people we are not solidaire to.
This is not about right or wrong, this is about effectiveness.
That’s ironic, because enforcing your moral code on others was what allow slave trades.
But I will conform to you point of view for the sake of argument. Let say the problem of slave trade is “that’s unethical”
If giving “more comfortable working conditions for slave traders” would abolish slave trades, that would unethical to not giving their more comfortable conditions
I’d like to differ. They are the ones selling you this slavery contract and probably don’t mention the impossible to deal with interest.
A bank worker who is not your enemy would suggest you to switch banks or give you a reasonable contract. Of course depending on bank they might lose their job over the last one.
No, it’s mean that the issue is not the workers, but the bankS. Or to be be even more concrete : the system that produce institutions with the function of bank. Opposing to those workers would not make a change; maybe you could make them fired, and others could take the place, but our choice wouldn’t make much difference compare to those of the employers in the bank industries. We could argue that opposing to one bank is the same; at most it could bankrupt (ironically), but other bank would take they function.
That why this is the whole industry we shall oppose to, to against one bank, but against all of then. This is why people in revolutionary union organize by industry, and not by firm or professions. Helping workers in the bank industries getting less hour/day, less harassement and better stability would make the situation where they could diminish or abolish the predation of their employers against others (that are not only customers). We couldn’t expect solidarity from people we are not solidaire to.
This is not about right or wrong, this is about effectiveness.
Oh of course go against the banks! Those two are not exclusive. You can hate the salesman and his company.
More comfortable working conditions for slave traders! It’s not their fault! Blame the slave industry… \s
That’s ironic, because enforcing your moral code on others was what allow slave trades.
But I will conform to you point of view for the sake of argument. Let say the problem of slave trade is “that’s unethical” If giving “more comfortable working conditions for slave traders” would abolish slave trades, that would unethical to not giving their more comfortable conditions