• PixeIOrange@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    Labour is fine. Just not 40, 50 or 60 hours a week. 10-15, maybe 20 hours should be way enough to live a worryfree life. Change my mind.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      As long as we’re shooting for the moon what say you and me and the mates at work all decide together how much, and how often, and even what we produce?

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          shows us that these are not the pipe dreams that capitalists want you to believe they are.

          Could you elaborate?

          Also, it was interesting going through those two links and checking out the sections of different countries in the world that have them, and noticing that the United States has almost none of that. Seems like such an outlier, compared to Europe and South America.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            What I mean is that the existence, and thriving of these models proves that they’re not only viable, but can provide much better economic outcomes… There is a group of people in the US who work very hard to make sure nothing like that ever gets codified here. At least at the federal level.

            Indoctrinating kids into “American exceptionalism” has left us with one and a half generations of “rugged individualists” who think they “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,” when in reality they’re no different than anyone else. But now they’ve got this warped worldview ingrained in them that makes them believe that everyone who’s ever been successful got there entirely on their own. When in reality, none of them did.

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              A well-written reply, thank you for that.

              “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,”

              When in reality, none of them did.

              Granted, your painting with a broad brush, to offer a quick summarization, but I don’t think you’re completely correct.

              I’m actually someone who figuratively did pulled himself up by his bootstraps (broken home, high school dropout, etc.), and at the end of my career I do have a small amount of wealth, which I earned all on my own, and was able to retire early.

              I don’t want to say too much because I don’t want to dox myself accidentally, but there are those, even if it’s just a minority, who do literally work the system to success, the way it currently is.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Shit man, I had this whole thoughtful response typed out, and then my palm must have hit the touchpad on my laptop and I guess clicked a link. When I went back, it was all gone.

                I guess I will try to hit the main points… I think I started like:

                First, the saying to, “pull one up by their own bootstraps,” itself has actually had its meaning altered over the years into something nearly opposite the original. You see, what they’ve described is an impossible task. It is physically impossible to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The saying was being sardonic. A witticism. They were basically saying you were doing something absurd/impossible. So the irony there is always fun to point out (would normally get a source for this kind of thing, but literally just google the phrase).

                Then I think I said something like…

                With all due respect, you didn’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It seems as though you’ve worked very hard to get where you are, and that’s great and some may call it commendable. Others work harder for much less, and others do nothing for far more. That’s inequality at work… Regardless, even if you did literally every piece of business yourself, you still cannot claim to have (at least by the current definition) pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, there were many (literally countless) others involved in the events that led you to where you are today.

                I’m going to assume you are in the US, but correct me if I’m wrong.

                Surely you’ve used township/county/state/interstate roads and highways? Ever cross a bridge and not die? You make use of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure that you don’t even think about the existence of 98% of the time. The countless medications, devices, technologies, etc., that you interact with on a continuous basis, that would not exist if not for government funding. Which ultimately means paid by tax revenue.

                Literally being lifted up by everyone who pays taxes in your community, state, and country.

                I am glad that you find working that way fulfilling. And that you’ve been able to make something out of it is great. But maybe that’s a similar feeling of fulfillment to what a guitarist might feel when they write a sick riff? Or when a graffiti artist makes a particularly amazing tag (and admires it for a moment before bailing)?

                It sucks we live in a system where, in nearly every situation, those people are forced to do the thing that fulfills you (as in you specifically), while leaving themselves no time and/or energy to do the thing that actually fulfills them.

                Ideally, in a post-rarity society where there are plenty of food and resources for everyone on the planet many times over, we should be able to do the thing that gives us that feeling; that fulfills us.

                Instead, we’re born shackled to this broken system that breeds hate, bitterness, where maybe single-digit percent of people actually get to do the thing that fulfills them, while the rest of us suffer until we die.

                Fun stuff. Sorry, lately the brain’s been in the mood for writing I guess.

      • AllOutOfBubbleGum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        You mean we’d be in control of the means of production? That’s an interesting idea. We should come up with a recognizable symbol for this new concept. Something simple, like two silhouettes of tools, maybe crossed.

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          now just wait a goldarn minnit mister, im not talkin godless unamerican commie shit, i’m talking about returning pride to the workin man. self-determination and democracy at work! dont get it twisted now

            • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              i don’t know much about it either, friend, I’ve just read a certain manifesto, made a brief foray into das kapital, and read a long question about “what is to be done”.

              All jokes aside I started reading some theory out of spite (no lie, its sadly why i do most things lol). It just seemed so clearly and thoroughly detested by established economic thinkers, politicians, and pundits that I just had to know what the big effin deal was.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Might I suggest the warm embrace of the 80 different social democratic and economic theories stuffed in a single trenchcoat made of forms signed in triplicate as an alternative? No fancy symbol perhaps but we serve cookies at the meetings.

      • kd45@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        and even what we produce?

        We can’t even get 4 programmers to agree on how to produce something, if you really think you can get more people than that to agree on what to produce, you are really naive.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s incredible what a huge difference it make to one’s health/mood/etc., having a healthy work/life balance. I think the world would overall be a less angry, spiteful place, if we all worked 4-day, 35-hour work weeks.

      Humans were never meant to work 60, 70 hours per week, that’s just insane and stupid. What’s worse are the people who will brag to you about it. That’s how ingrained it is into our culture.

      Maybe it’s just because I don’t loathe the thought of going home to my family? It seems like a lot of those toxic work culture people are doing it for reasons like that?

      • VieuxQueb
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I also find that most of those who are overworking have a bad relationship at home they actively avoid by working as much as possible and get home to eat and sleep nothing more, sure won’t spend time with their kids or wife.

      • PixeIOrange@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Im with you, but 35h a week are way too much also. At least you should get a really good wage for that much time.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It seems like a lot of those toxic work culture people are doing it for reasons like that?

        Some might have ‘drank the kool-aid’, but for others it’s just that they have a strong work ethic, and they enjoy the feeling of hard work completed well, never really stopping to think that their effort is really going more towards the company instead of towards themselves, but still.

        I do agree with you though, a strong work-life balance is most important. Especially when you get elderly, you really feel the mileage of all the hard work you put in overly so earlier in your life.

    • olivebranch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is not about how long you work, but is the work needed shared equally. I want to work how much it is needed to work and do my fair share. Not that someone in power should dictate how much I should work, regardless on how much work is needed.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Don’t het me wrong. I get your point and it makes perfect sense. But I like my job and the things I do and 40 hours sometimes isn’t enough to finish all the things I want to do in a week. A 20 hour workweek would mean that i would barely be able to do ànything meaninful.

      • PixeIOrange@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think that should be your choice. I just think 20h should be enough to make a living wage.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    5 months ago

    I just don’t think this argument really tracks. If we were hunter/gatherers, we would have no choice but to hunt and gather for food. No it’s not consensual, you have to do it, but would we really say we were being coerced? By who? Nature?

    You can say there is bad stuff about Capitalism, and better ideas or systems we should do instead, without this coercion claim.

    • spacedout@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      In the case of capitalism, we are actually speaking about coercion, though. The concept of “primitive accumulation” (or “primary accumulation”), as introduced by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy, refers to the historical process that led to the formation of capitalism by separating the producer from the means of production. This separation is what ultimately pushed people into the capitalist labor market, making them dependent on selling their labor to survive. The coercive forces that pressured people into capitalism and the labor market can be understood through several key mechanisms:

      1. Enclosure of the Commons: In England and elsewhere in Europe, land that was previously held in common for collective use by peasants was enclosed, privatized, and turned into private property. This process forced many peasants off the land, depriving them of their traditional means of subsistence and making them dependent on wage labor.

      2. Colonialism and Slavery: The expansion of European powers into the Americas, Africa, and Asia involved the appropriation of land and resources, often through violent means. Indigenous peoples were displaced or enslaved, and their resources were extracted for the benefit of European capitalist economies. This not only facilitated the accumulation of capital but also integrated various regions into the global capitalist system.

      3. Legislation: Laws and regulations played a crucial role in this process. For example, the series of laws known as the “Poor Laws” in England were designed to coerce the unemployed and poor into working for wages. These laws restricted the movement of labor and made it illegal to refuse work, effectively pushing people into the labor market.

      4. Destruction of Alternative Economies: Pre-capitalist forms of production and exchange, such as feudalism, communal living, or barter systems, were systematically destroyed or undermined. This was not only through direct coercion but also through economic policies and practices that favored capitalist modes of production and exchange.

      5. Industrial Revolution: The technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution created a demand for labor in factories. The rural populations, already dispossessed by the enclosure movements, migrated to urban centers in search of work, further entrenching the wage labor system.

      Marx argued that primitive accumulation was not a one-time historical event but an ongoing process that sustains capitalism. It involves continuous dislocation and dispossession to maintain a labor force that has no other choice but to sell its labor power. This process ensures a supply of workers for the capitalist system and maintains the conditions necessary for capital accumulation.

      In essence, the transition to capitalism, fueled by these coercive forces, created a society where the majority must sell their labor to a minority who owns the means of production, thereby establishing the capitalist labor market and perpetuating the cycle of capital accumulation.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      If we were hunter/gatherers, we would have no choice but to hunt and gather for food.

      The argument is not that people are forced to labor, but that people are forced to labor on behalf of others. Which is to say, its the difference between a Hunter/Gatherer living off the land and a King’s Huntsman, who is distinguished from a Poacher, in that he has duties and privileges assigned to him by another guy.

      You can say there is bad stuff about Capitalism, and better ideas or systems we should do instead, without this coercion claim.

      The nature of the Capitalist system is to lay claim to physical property with some threat of violence. It is inherently a dictatorial system, in which a handful of people are afforded the right to claim surplus to sustain and enrich themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

      The “bad stuff” is what makes Capitalism a system at all. It is - to crib a joke from Monty Python - the violence that is inherent within the system. If you don’t pay your dues to the King, he gets to beat them out of you.

      How can you even discuss Capitalism without talking about this innate coercive mechanic?

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        This is falling for the capitalist consent vs. coercion framing. Capitalism doesn’t have to be coercive to be wrong. Even some perfectly voluntary capitalism with a UBI would still be wrong because capitalism inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights to workplace democracy and to get the fruits of their labor (surplus). The much stronger framing is alienable vs. inalienable rights. An inalienable right is one that the holder can’t give up even with consent.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Capitalism doesn’t have to be coercive to be wrong.

          Capitalism is, necessarily, coercive. You can find other things wrong with it, but this is an inherent characteristic of reserving ownership to a “landed” class.

          Even some perfectly voluntary capitalism with a UBI would still be wrong because capitalism inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights to workplace democracy

          But it achieves that end through the process of “Capital Strikes” (ie, lockouts, hiring freezes, speculative hording, etc). And capital strikes are only possible via coercive force (ie, putting a guy with a gun in an industrial site who shoots any worker that tries to enter and engage in production).

          The much stronger framing is alienable vs. inalienable rights.

          Rights are legal fictions. There is no such thing as an inalienable right in a material sense. You show me a right, I’ll show you a guy with a gun who can alienate it.

          • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Here’s the thing: as long as poverty exists, poverty exists as a threat to get people to do things without their full consent. In some cases, like in the case of sex work, that can be actual sex, in which case, it cannot be faithfully said that all sex is fully consensual as long as it’s agreed to out of survival fears. In other cases, like for example minimum wage labor, people are accepting minimum wages out of fear of having nothing, and so they accept anything. This complete lack of bargaining power is behind low wages, dangerous conditions, terrible hours, poor treatment, etc.

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Alienated ≠ violated
            An inalienable right isn’t one that should not be alienated, but rather can’t be alienated. For labor’s rights, responsibility can’t be alienated at a material level. Consent isn’t sufficient to transfer responsibility to another. For example, a contract to transfer responsibility for a crime is invalid regardless of consent.

            Legal rights can be fictions but also can be based on ethics.

            Workers consent to employment unlike kings. Inalienability shows it’s invalid

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

              Consent isn’t sufficient to transfer responsibility to another.

              These are legalistic concepts, not materialistic concepts.

              For example, a contract to transfer responsibility for a crime is invalid regardless of consent.

              A contract is valid when it is enforced. And any cartel boss will tell you how “illegal” contracts are regularly enforced between criminal organizations.

              Past that, the very subject of crime and enforcement is subjective, as illustrated by the various states of the drug trade, human trafficking, and stolen property. More than one pawn shop has subsisted primarily on fenced goods. The legality of their stock does not appear to inhibit the success of their business.

              Legal rights can be fictions but also can be based on ethics.

              Ethics has no material basis.

              Workers consent to employment unlike kings.

              This doesn’t mean anything.

              • J Lou@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Consent and responsibility are descriptive not legal concepts there.

                Opposing coercion is an ethic. Certain material facts logically imply ethics. A brain has finitely many states it can be in. The whole state space is finitely representable. Minds can be mathematically modeled completely in principle. The concept of strong attractors and flows in the space of all possible minds is thus coherent. The transcendent truth about ethics is unknowable, but that doesn’t allow denial of moral realism.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I cant agree with you, by the simple fact that no one says you have to work for someone else.

        You could argue that even if you own the company you still have to work for someone else to get paid, but likewise everything you need to survive needs to be made or produced by someone.

        The hunter gatherers would get food, but they don’t make their own Healthcare. Doctor’s don’t make their own food or houses, and builders don’t work the land. Bet you didn’t make the device you typed that comment on.

        Capitalism allows people to work in one aspect, and trade for what else they need. You could easily argue that late stage is exploitive, more regulation is needed and people are greedy, but that’s a whole different arguement.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          no one says you have to work for someone else

          Primary accumulation says you have to work for someone else. You never got to be there when all the free land was handed out.

          You could argue that even if you own the company you still have to work for someone else to get paid

          “Everyone works for someone” is a going line in modern business. But this ignores the folks that are legacies of the fortunes of prior generations. The British Royal Family gets to fuck around however they please. The Vanderbilts and Hiltons and Kennedys and Bushs have no economic obligations, just enormous trust funds fueled by the labors of their peers.

          The hunter gatherers would get food, but they don’t make their own Healthcare.

          The primitive hunter gatherer worked 3-5 hours a day with the rest reserved for leisure. What this amounted to over time was the explosion of art, language, and culture that formed the foundation of the modern scientific movement.

          For millennia, the information primitive people accumulated - understanding of seasonal cycles, crop cultivation strategies, navigational techniques, linguistic techniques, the development of simple tools - was passed down and matured, until we could enjoy a life better than any other species on the planet. That absolutely included health care. Greek and Chinese physicians were doing surgeries 4000 years ago. Egyptians and Persians were mastering anatomy. We’ve got evidence of dentists dating back to 10,000 BCE.

          What we’ve developed in the modern era is an accumulation of historical knowledge that’s accelerated thanks to a boom in population and a period of relative global peace. But we wouldn’t have been in the position to capitalize on a population boom / peace dividend if we’d never had the leisure time to make those original scientific discoveries.

          Capitalism allows people to work in one aspect, and trade for what else they need.

          It does not. It forces one (large) group of people to surrender their surplus gains to another (significantly smaller) set. It prevents people from working for themselves and saps them of resources to trade with one another.

          You could easily argue that late stage is exploitive

          Every stage is exploitive. The Late Stage of Capitalism just happens to be the one where the folks closest to the imperial core begin to suffer a fraction of what folks on the periphery endured.

          • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            You have raised a number of points here, and unfortunately I don’t have the time to debate all of them.

            The key takeaway i have from your comments is that your only focus is on those who succeed. You’ve ignored all of those who took the same risks and didn’t make it. You see the success, but you don’t see the time and history they (originally) put in to make it happen.

            The company I currently own started off with the equivalent of about 8 hours minimum wage in assets, and one contract for 1 hour a week - I technically now no longer need to work and can sit on my ass and take minimum wage. What you, and my staff didn’t see was the number of sleepless nights I had, how many weekends and public holidays I missed, how many times I worked a 10 hour day, then got up again at midnight because more work came up. You don’t see the extra 20 hours a week I take on unpaid to build or invest for the next thing. I am considering passing on a contract for 15% annual growth not because I am too tired, but because there is physically not enough hours to do everything between 5pm and 8am when our work needs to be finished by, and that’s before I start the next days work.

            If you want to be upset about those who are at the top, who get trust funds, literally put your money and body where your mouth is. I can tell you right now that you won’t benefit from it, you will suffer immensely, and it could be all for nothing, but your kids might have it easier.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              What you, and my staff didn’t see was the number of sleepless nights I had

              My guy, you’re not the only one who has ever had a sleepless night. You don’t think I’ve pulled all-nighters for my assorted employers? You don’t think I’ve driven overnight in the rain to an office in a different city to fix a machine that went down in the storm, so my boss could keep collecting on a contract? You don’t think I pulled all-nighters preparing for job interviews in anticipation of proving myself to assholes like you?

              Idfk if you cut yourself in the bathtub between meetings with investors. That’s not something I think anyone should have to do, but I’m not the one running JP Morgan Chase likes its my own piggy bank. I’d just like equity in what I got my hands dirty building. And that’s one thing no employer seems to want to offer.

              My boss and I can be side-by-side in the trenches, trying to keep the lights on. But at the end of the day, he’s the owner and I’m an “at-will” employee. My work goes into his pocket first and he pays me back a fraction of what I earned.

              If you want to be upset about those who are at the top, who get trust funds, literally put your money and body where your mouth is.

              What do you think every employee does every fucking day?

                • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Im at the point where I wonder both “what is the world coming to” and “am I turning into a boomer”?

                  In what reality does an employee turn up to work in a building they didn’t lease, use equipment they didn’t pay for, inputs they didn’t buy, logistics they didn’t develop, to fill contracts they didn’t aquire, done through loans they aren’t responsible for and a business plan they didn’t back, and expect the lions share of the profit from utalising this, ironically being paid by someone they didn’t hire and with money they didn’t collect?

              • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Then stop arguing with internet strangers and go out and do it yourself. I can’t make this any clearer - if you think its unfair, that they take a disproportionate amount, that you work soo much harder, quit bitching and quit. Because I can guarantee you won’t - the job security, less responsibility and ability to let someone else worry if you have work or not is far too comfortable. At will works both ways.

                ~95% of businesses fail in the first 5 years. Have fun.

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Because I can guarantee you won’t - the job security, less responsibility and ability to let someone else worry if you have work or not is far too comfortable.

                  ~95% of businesses fail in the first 5 years. Have fun.

                  You are right about some people being too comfortable (or not knowledgeable on how) to start their own business, but that’s not the whole story.

                  A business will always fail if it doesn’t have the quality employees to run it. A business cannot function without employees.

                  Just because one side has more risk upfront doesn’t mean they should keep the vast majority of the profits for themselves, forever. Long-term it’s still a team effort.

                  There’s nothing wrong with sharing the wealth that’s produced from the effort which is done by all.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Anti-capitalism does not fail because of the many senses of working *for* someone else. What anti-capitalists means by working for someone else in this case is a specific set of property relations where workers jointlyuse up the inputs to produce the output, but are denied the property rights to the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs. Having the choice to be individually or jointly self-employed does not undo the violations of inalienable rights of employees

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It only tracks because you can’t get consent from nature. You could have gotten consent from fellow humans. The humans who put this structure in place were people that could be negotiated with and spoken to. Not some blind force.

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

      Is your argument is that our needs have been imposed by nature rather than society and therefore our society is not coercive? I think this doesn’t work because our option to meet our needs in the traditional way has been removed; in most cases living as a hunter-gatherer has been rendered impossible (natural sources of food depopulated/destroyed) and illegal (all land is privately or publicly owned and you can’t live on it without meeting expensive requirements).

      And even if that coercive situation hadn’t been created, it would still be our collective responsibility to remove unnecessary naturally imposed hardships that cannot be efficiently dealt with on an individual level.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I can keep a good attitude in bad weather, but when it’s a felony conviction because every stage of the process is just people looking to profit, I’m mad about it.

    • olivebranch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hunter/gatherers worked less hours and ate better food then those working the land. But the coercion here is meant by one group making others work more then necessary so they can get richer. Just because there are difficulties in nature, doesn’t mean it’s ok for humans to make it harder for other humans.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      But we aren’t hunter & gatherers anymore (not that back then there were capitalist). That age is gone (for now).

      Nothing about capital (something someone can own & accumulate) is required to have and sustain cities, technology, services, etc. And it all comes from the propaganda that people are lazy & don’t work if they don’t have to (the opposite is true, but the distinction is that often what you want to do can’t be monetized for various & fairly random bullshit reasons - like, you will always find people that will want to bake/cook/serve, but most of the people that would enjoy that just get a different job that pays better & the ones that don’t like it get stuck with it … and we all get the worst part of that deal, even as consumers, except the people with incentive to maximize sales & minimize wages … like that is a good long-term goal for society or something).

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    While I agree with the sentiment, saying that it’s been hundreds of years in the making is just wrong. If anything, labor rights are at historic highs, and that’s been centuries in the making.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      both are correct. As long as their has been expropriation of labour there has been struggle for liberation, also enclosure and forced market participation has been a project of centuries.

      As in all things it’s push and pull. If you want to learn more read about enclosure of the Commons and at least the bits of Debt: the first 5000 years that deal with imposing currency.

    • wowwoweowza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      I often think of this famous line to remember that there’s been a whole lot of improvement: “he must a king, he doesn’t have shit all over him.”

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Technically feudalism is a separate system of resource extraction. Someone who owns the land basically just takes a percentage cut of your goods or earnings for being on their space and leaves you to do whatever you want as long as you survive .

        So arguably being something like a content creator on a platform or working for uber is closer to feudalism than capitalism.

        Capitalism is more the complicated system of landholders wanting to profit from selling, holding, leasing and developing land for profit as an investment good forcing people to perpetually earn to afford to live as individual family units.

        It’s a subtle distinction.

      • ILikeBoobies
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top

        It doesn’t because the people with capital make decisions

        Christianity straight up opposes wealth, but it doesn’t play out that way because people with wealth make the decisions

        It’s the same for every system/ideology because a power vacuum will always be filled

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top

          No it isn’t. It’s supposed to put capital at the top. It’s right in the name!

          • ILikeBoobies
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s supposed to take money away from the owning class (lords) and give it to the working class (craftsmen)

            The idea is that no matter what you do, you are paid based on hours put into it

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              So then billionaires are just simply putting in more hours than everyone else, is that it?

              • ILikeBoobies
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Refer to my first comment for why that’s not the case

        • olivebranch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          You are assuming someone always has to be in power over someone else. Historically most communities where run without anyone in charge, but with direct democracies. It just became harder with bigger cities, because it was harder to communicate with everyone else. Perhaps we can change that with the Internet.

          • ILikeBoobies
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Historically you are incorrect

            If you don’t put power over someone else then someone comes in and puts it over you

            The vehicle for change was just how easily that other person can get to you

            You can go back to bronze age kings to demonstrate how what you said was false in all of recorded history

            • olivebranch
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              There is a good yt channel talking about egalitarian societies in prehistory called What is Politics

              • ILikeBoobies
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                If you want to go far enough back that we use theory

                Then we can say prehistoric nomadic humans still had fights with other clans and territorial disputes because our genetic ancestors (chimps/monkeys/apes) also have those

                And if you were there with a gun, would you be able to dominate them? If so then you are able to put power over people without a power structure

                • olivebranch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Territorial disputes where only common after agriculture in humans, because territory wasn’t as important before as mutual aid.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Not only that, before we can even “freely” sell ourselves, we, or someone, has to pay for our preparation/education, because why pay for a slave’s training when you can charge them?

  • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Centuries of violence? Try prehistory. Humans have always used violence if someone takes more than they contribute.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      5 months ago

      Humans have always used violence if someone takes more than they contribute.

      In the grand scheme of things, using violence against those who take more than they contribute (i.e., the upper class) is one of the things we do least often.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        And yet give two kids a cookie and a knife and watch how carefully they divide that cookie. Fairness is a very old instinct.

        • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Humans are for the most part inherently fair and cooperative.

          But sociopaths aren’t, so they think no one else will do anything without the threat of starving to death.

          And the sociopaths have been making the rules since the mid 80s.

          Untold damage done to humanity and civilization just so a handful of old white men can be ridiculously, unspendably rich.

          And we are taught to idealize them.

            • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              We had a brief progressive period where citizens were protected and supported, I was referring specifically to the reagan-thatcher era.

              Honestly the entire world was going much more progressive then, even the middle east.

              Neoliberalism and oil greed started the current fire we are roasting in. And it started with reagan

          • Doof@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Calling anyone who does this stuff a sociopath is such a simplistic way to view things. You know beside the fact a sociopath isn’t an official diagnosis. It’s a fallacy to call everyone of these people mentally ill, sure it’s easier to otherize people rather than accepting some of these pieces of shit of sound mind. It’s hard to believe people can be capable of these things without something mentally wrong with them.

            • mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Not really, and it used to be a diagnosis. This is not a formal academic setting and I am not talking exclusively to mental health professionals.

              There is study after study showing that people who rate high on the Hare scale, who the layman would call sociopath/psychopath are SIGNIFICANTLY overrepresented per-capita in positions of highest power such as politician, or some flavor of executive officer.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpyIZ4DGIK8

              Other studies have shown that sociopaths are very effective at acquiring power, but are TERRIBLE at using that power to forward the company’s goals, because they are raging narcissists.

              https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05303-x

              I’m not exactly sure why you are defending the mentally ill power brokers that are turning our world to shit, you may want to re-examine your values.

              But you probably won’t.

              • Doof@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                There isn’t study after study saying that, hell the one study that people point to have been pulled apart. I don’t like calling every asshole a mentally ill person, it has nothing to do with defending pieces of shit CEOs. Spreading bad research is also a problem. This idea of speaking up when people throw around terms Willy nilly is me defending the behaviour or the people is ridiculous. This little gotcha at the end is also pathetic. “Reexamine” my ass.

        • Nina@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          Very vaguely related, I had a somewhat-friend in college who told me about her, her twin, and her year younger sister would fight constantly all the time. Imagine 3 close aged kindergardeners just constantly at each other’s throats when you were really not ready. They were so fed up that they went into the kitchen placed the three of them in equal distances away from the center, and then gave them each a knife and said “Go! If you hate each other so much, kill each other!”

          The all started sobbing and hugged each other, and got along a lot better after that.

          That’s…def trauma territory, but, it’s an example that human instinct to divided resources (emotional attention from a parent is REQUIRED for children’s psyche) isn’t darwinian. America specifically touts Survival of The Fittest as THE default human psyche and I find that it’s just not true.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d say violence is much more often used by people to take more than they contribute than the converse. Violence against the takers is so rare they write about it in history books.

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

        I should have said more than they need. Humans will look after people who can’t look after themselves.

        Which does make you think. For example if one person who has the knowledge is trying to build a bridge and they need a lot of resources to build it and someone else keeps coming along and taking some of that large pile because they think the person has too many resources, then that person can’t complete the bridge and noone gets the benefit from the bridge.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Humans have used violence for lots of stuff including taking or taking from takers or because the other tribe looked at em funny or whatever else. I wished we could be free of our worst instincts.

      • olivebranch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Humans naturally practice mutual aid and are good to each other. It is hierarchical systems that make them fight for power. Humans used to collectively fight everyone who got too greedy and powerful. It is only relatively recent development of agriculture that made it possible for violent people to grow huge armies and take over less connected tribes. Hopefully Internet can make as unite together on a global scale against the powerful, instead of fighting each other based on regions we live in.

    • olivebranch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Humans used to give to those who needed, regardless of how much they contribute. That is the whole point of tribes and why we are social animals. We help each other. They did however take from those that have significantly more then others.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    We are slaves. We just don’t like in a big plantation. No. We live anywhere where there are “jobs”. No jobs means we become homeless eventually. And who has these “jobs”? The rich assholes do. Just like we were forced to work for their forefathers in plantations, now we work for them in “jobs”. The job is basically a metaphorical plantation.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I understand your sentiment, but I wouldn’t liken working a fast food or retail job 40 hours a week to working the fields every day in the hot sun and under the crack of a whip.

      • olivebranch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Some people are still forced to work under the sun. But yeah, crack of a whips was worse. They are a bit nicer to slaves nowadays.

    • iegod@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is actually a batshit insane comparison. You’re fucking crazy, man.

      • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

        Similarities between wage labor and slavery were noted as early as Cicero in Ancient Rome, such as in De Officiis. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, thinkers such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx elaborated the comparison between wage labor and slavery, and engaged in critique of work while Luddites emphasized the dehumanization brought about by machines. The introduction of wage labor in 18th-century Britain was met with resistance, giving rise to the principles of syndicalism and anarchism.

      • stembolts@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        In my view, crazy is a dismissive word used to avoid making an attempt to understand. A lazy word, and I think most who think about it realize this and stop using it.

        I can see your perspective, but I believe you’ve made minimal effort to understand the “crazy” ideas you are being presented.

        • iegod@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Lazy and offensive is comparing people as property to what we have now. I do understand the hyperbole but it’s so fucking wrong I can’t even respond any other way. Actual property that can be done with whatever the owner chooses, versus the struggles of today. Get out of here with being an apologist on this.

  • MystikIncarnate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    But we have our freedom.

    Freedom to work at a selection of under paying, exploitative places that will take from you every ounce of effort, strength, and time, so that you can “earn” a living… Because nobody is going to give you a living; you’re not worth anything unless you work and earn your life.

    Freedom to choose from a number of ways to live, how to travel from place to place, either by buying an overpriced automobile, and paying for every interaction any professional repair person has with it… Or you can choose to pay to ride transit, where you have to conform to their schedule and if you’re late, you’re left behind… And you get to pay for the privilege. Or you could, IDK, walk? But wait, it’s MILES away from your home, because it’s in a commercial zone and you live in a residential zone. We couldn’t possibly mix commercial and residential. Tsk tsk. That’s just not okay.

    You can also choose to buy food at the grocery store where the lowest prices are not in the shareholders best interest, so we’ll do everything we can to convince you that you’re getting the best deals by offering lower prices on your food, as the quality slips away, and products are shrunken down to the point where it’s almost not worth buying it anymore.

    But because you have been given a choice, you are “free” and not a slave. Clearly.

    … Late stage capitalism is just slavery with extra steps. They’re making the slaves figure their own shit out, rather than give them food and a place to sleep… Just, here’s your barter (pay) for today, go figure out where to sleep and what to eat on your own fucking time.

    • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Best explanation I’ve heard yet. Every time I try to counter everyone I always get Capitalizm=/=Slavery and it’s like just because it’s not racist doesn’t mean it’s not doing more damage to hard workers and slavery was never racist just because a short history recently was. Capitalizm=Slavery doesn’t really say how bad capitalizm is and that’s not denoting how horrible slavery is.

      • MystikIncarnate
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        As far as I can tell, the only significant benefit that modern “slaves of capitalism” (if you will), have is that, compared to actual slaves, we can’t be beaten, sold, or outright murdered on a whim.

        The physical abuses are no longer allowed.

        Mental and emotional abuse is fine though, as long as it’s filtered through a thin coat of “corpo-speak” so that HR can rubber stamp it.

        • Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You’re missing starvation, homeless, oh and, the fact that police do all that shit you deny being done…

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Are you saying the poor should kill the existing land owners so they can colonize Pennsylvania?

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Who’s ancestors got large areas of free or cheap land when they came to the United States. They also work regular jobs in their communities.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          Huh. Ok. I mean they sell their goods so that they can pay their taxes just like the rest of us. Being Amish doesn’t get you any sort of pass or anything in that regard.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      …hand-made, Amish produced goods are sold to the wider world. And that’s a selling point for those goods. They very much so participate in wider capitalism.

      • festus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        They participate voluntarily because they benefit from it. You don’t have to work for anyone else, but the same is true for farmers - they don’t have to grow your food.

        • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          No they don’t. They have to own their land and pay taxes just like everyone else. They can’t farm dollar bills; they must participate in capitalism to obtain money to pay their taxes. They’re no different than a person of any other religion or social group choosing to live a homesteading lifestyle. Even communist communes must participate in capitalism for the exact same reasons. It doesn’t matter if you’re producing a good to sell or selling your time as a service. This is a capitalist country; you cannot completely opt out.

  • bionicjoey
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    How is this a microblog meme? Can we please not turn this community into unnuanced political opinions?