You must log in or # to comment.
I don’t get why it’s so controversial that people should be able to survive without a job. It doesn’t need to be glamourous, but nobody should be unhoused or unfed. We are blessed with plenty and we should share. And before it sounds like I’m religious, no, I’m not saying churches should be responsible for that, government should. (Though obviously I have no problems with any religious groups feeding and housing people as well.)
You don’t sound religious at all, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that, but im completely against churches feeding and housing people because they impose rules upon the recipients. I don’t believe in charity, so that’s part of it.
The argument is mostly that if nobody has to work, too few people will choose to work, and then the quality of life for all will deteriorate. It is still true that our modern society requires an enormous amount of upkeep just to keep the quality of life where it is now. That’s work and if nobody does it then services will stop functioning.
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on homeless shelters and soup kitchens right now in the modern day, without the need to work. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which motivates people to work (or steal).
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on a single job right now in the modern day. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which
What do you mean with quality of life? Remember people will only get their basic needs met. If they want more quality they have to pay for it and thus have to work. So the rest should be figured out by the free market (even better than now because labor market isn’t free if people have to work to survive). Of course there will be a certain percentage that is okay with just surviving but I am sure their needs can be met by the taxes of the overwhelming amount of people who want more than that.
Well, like I said, even today, it is basically impossible to starve to death in the Western world. You can get your caloric needs met from charity programmes and government assistance alone. It requires you to sacrifice your dignity and accept a very low quality of life, but you will not die.
So if coercion is defined as “forced to perform some action under threat of not having one’s biological needs met”, nobody is in fact coerced to do anything.
and if you’re not doing good then there’s always the “go to jail” route: free housing and food, at the cost of your freedom
In some parts of the Western world (particularly in the US), prison is also forced labour. The state I live in has abolished it but many other states still have it.
I completely forgot this was a thing
Still a way not to die I guess?
What happens if the prisoner refuses to work?
It seems like they get less privileges, not specifically punished
In many cases, psychological torture (solitary confinement)
Removing consumers from a consumer economy does what exactly to that economy?
Capitalism, the system where we allow poverty to exist
I think we do more than allow it.
Indeed we do
Why, again?
You trying to get off or something?
$
And that’s what exactly?
Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions.
~Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Okay so now we’re right back to ‘why?’.
There is apparently always someone who values their own wealth over any benefit of others. So, they exploit others to enrich themselves.
It’s just selfishness all the way down.
The others, have little wealth of their own, so have little power to resist the exploiter.
That makes it sound like it’s just a passive side-effective and not a critical tool in the elite’s arsenal in keeping the working class subjugated by holding the promise of suffering over our heads if we choose not to spend a third of our lives generating wealth for them.
It wasn’t my intentions to make it sound like that and hoped that it would come across as you stated it
There was rampant poverty in the USSR too. As there is in China. They don’t seem too winning in N Korea either.
They are still capitalist societies
Nice whataboutism there. But as you seem to be under the illusion that these countries are not capitalist (and presumably therefore communist, considering the countries you chose and the usual dogma that comes with them) let’s have a look.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
First, let’s define communism. Luckily the world wide web has done that already for us.
Communism (from Latin communis ‘common, universal’)[1][2] is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
The legacy of the USSR remains a controversial topic. The socio-economic nature of communist states such as the USSR, especially under Stalin, has also been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production.[260]
some leftists regard the USSR as an example of state capitalism
Maoists also have a mixed opinion on the USSR, viewing it negatively during the Sino-Soviet Split and denouncing it as revisionist and reverted to capitalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union#Legacy
So the USSR was not communist, but rather somewhere between capitalist and its own thing.
Modern-day China is often described as an example of state capitalism or party-state capitalism.[290][291]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Economy
Not communist by any stretch of the imagination.
North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
Not communist.
Capitalism is a shit system for vast swathes of the population and results in poverty, exploitation, and death.
Is communism the answer? I don’t know, it’s never truly managed to take off anywhere without either being corrupted from within or attacked from without. But capitalism most certainly needs to go in the bin.
The Soviet Union was capitalist. Right-o.
By the way, congratulations on finally getting Wi-Fi on your planet.
The “Lucy” argument isn’t as compelling as some tankies seem to think. We’ve had plenty of communist regimes. They’re all abominable. No good holding the football out and saying “but this time it’s real communism”. Communism is rancid because people are rancid.
Infinite profit is a capitalist feature not a “USA problem” the media never fought for the working class because it seeks profit as well, the capitalist can buy it the working class cannot
Claim is ok, the unspoken “so everything will collapse” is bullshit. In the end, Hampton is right: “work (do what someone else wants) or starve” is not how anyone should live
deleted by creator
We done slavery for at least a long as there has been civilization. That doesn’t make it good.
deleted by creator
No one is denying shit. We’re stating that our systems dont have to be based on coercion. It is possible to build a society off of cooperation instead. Denying that is denying that we made this shit up and it can be how we want.
deleted by creator
I dont give a shit what most people think. Its a fact not an opinion. Our systems are built on coercion because we’re just making slight changes to them over time. Thats why they are that way. It has nothing to do with the thoughts that talking heads plant in the average Americans’ mind.
Edit: reading this after posting I would just like to clarify that I am not trying to be pointed or angry with you. It comes off that way tho. I really do mean we have the choice in how our societies operate.
deleted by creator
People who use the term “most people” are usually full of shit in my experience.
(Guess who the commander-in-chief is of the “most people” crowd)
deleted by creator
If you meet people’s basic needs, they do not cease to care or aspire.
A lot of the issue is “bullshit jobs” and being forced to do one. Work needs to be done, but we could be just as productive and maintain higher quality of life if we all worked less or for a shorter part of our lifespan.
Folks are happy to do a job that helps others, but they’re less inclined to do a job to make a few bastards rich.
Bullshit jobs (=> jobs that are doing unnecessary work) are certainly part of that, but shit jobs (=> jobs that you would really not want to work) are another part of the equation.
Shit jobs make up a huge amount of the jobs that actually do stuff we depend on (e.g. food industry, retail, agricultural, garbage, …). So the question is how do you get people to do these jobs? Without some form of coercion, that might be difficult.
by making them not shit, maybe?
like we have absurdly advanced robots, people don’t really need to crawl through blocked sewers anymore.
That also assumes that once people have what they need to survive they would give up on the things that they want. I’d love to have things like the necessities taken care of but I wouldn’t expect them to pay for my video games and movie tickets, so I’d need a job to pay for that. Not only that, but I’d be able to work towards a career that I actually want instead of being forced to work a dead end job because I have to be constantly employed or else be homeless. The way the system works now makes it difficult to change careers or go to school later in life because any risk of being unemployed or lapse of time in our income could literally ruin our lives in a matter of weeks.
People are going to work for pleasure. That’s how we’re wired. What I find interesting is that people don’t get this. They also never see any motive to work beyond the profit motive. I guess that what a system designed to squeeze all the blood out of you does… you have none left to wander your mind.
Betterment of yourself and your part of society, human connection, just fucking around with curiosity and silliness. That’s what I know deep down I want to guide me, but I’m also fighting against an internal system that had me hearing “you have to work if you want to eat” since I was a child.
You have to eat food to eat. That’s it. It’s literally the basis of life. I don’t see birds commuting and paying taxes on their food
Birds commute all the time. If they aren’t where the food/nesting material/mating partner is, they commute there.
Yes, they follow their basic needs. Migrating and commuting are not the same thing. They don’t have to deal with made up “you have to work from the office” situations was my point
You have to eat food to eat. That’s it.
…and that food has to come from somewhere. Someone has to work so you can eat.
Surprise, it comes out of the fucking ground! Of course if you want to eat something that is not native to your region it’s a whole thing with exploitation and whatnot. I just find the disconnection with nature/life jarring
I think your observation is valid even though labor and planning are needed to produce enough and consistently enough to sustain a big population. Reconnection with nature, some autonomy in culture, I also think are necessary
Food doesn’t simply erupt out of the ground on its own, not in quantities necessary to feed any kind of significant population. Farmers do in fact have to do labor to produce crops.
The bit about food not simply erupting from the ground on its own in quantities sufficient to feed a significant population goes double for cities where you have lots more people and lots less growing land.
food absolutely erupts out of the ground on its own lmao, the fuck do you think vegetables are?
you can literally go out into the wilderness and just find food in the ground, what the fuck are you on about
Not in quantities sufficient to feed any kind of significant population. You could at least get to the end of the first sentence before you reply.
It’s also just not true. Most people will find work to do if they have none. That’s pretty much what hobbies are. And all of the people I know who lived very long lives stayed active volunteering the whole time. My grandmother was like that, and died at 97 shortly after she had to stop for health reasons.
Not to mention that if your basic necessities are covered, you could still work to buy things that aren’t necessities.
Okay but you won’t do stupid bullshit in inefficient ways that keep me in 5000$ wine and a gilded skull throne of all the kids who hit puberty and became too old for me to fuck. So nothing of actual value to society.
so is it even really ‘work’?
this tweet is philosophical junk
Are you saying that it’s bad philosophy or that philosophy is bad?
Hobbies are also a thing. Even if they don’t work, at least they won’t be criminals. Poverty is a major predictor/pre-requisite for criminal activities.
There’s a fact that a lot of people commenting here are overlooking. Marx himself admitted that in the lower stage of communism, wages will have to exist until people’s mindset on labor changes. It’s simply not true that communism will not work because ‘people don’t like working’.
edit: grammar
Yep, every existing socialist society past and present requires labor, and paid for it. We can’t jump from A to Z, we have to build socialism and build communism, and we have to continue developing. Wage labor as the sole motivator for labor in society is something that gets phased out as work becomes more for satisfying needs than profits for the few.
Also, in the higher stage of communism, labor that is necessary but not preferred — cleaning the sewers, for example — could be done in turn.
Fuck I’d be happy to clean sewers if I had a stable high quality of life and I knew that my work was directly contributing to the community and its health. (In fact, most sanitation workers currently have that perspective - sanitation work is care work, and something to be very proud of).
Serious question, how can we provide everyone’s basic needs without some work? Food doesn’t harvest itself. Tools don’t maintain themselves.
Labor will always be required on some level though it does not need to be exploited.
The premise is that without coercion people won’t work. Which is just not true, people will do the work they want to do. It’s just that the work people want to do isn’t necessarily the work capitalists want them to do. Which means less exploitation and profit for the capitalists.
Yeah the work people “want to do” and the work that needs to get done do not align IRL. Not enough people want to deal with waste systems or sanitation yet those are critical to any society.
This isn’t Star Trek. We don’t live in a magical future where all the dangerous yet necessary work is automated.
The people that want waste systems do
They’ll want to clean the sewer when the sewer needs cleaning, the same way that you “want” to vacuum your home even if you don’t want to do it.
That requires a ton of people who know how to maintain sewage systems from experience. You aren’t getting that from volunteers and you’ll need these people in every community.
You missing the point. People will do work when it is required whether or not they desire to do work. It doesn’t require a magic job creator to get work done.
YOU are missing the point. At no time have I cited the need for capitalist ownership of this system but rather an need for unequal and naturally higher payment for those that do these jobs. They cannot be volunteer positions as they require experienced people.
Do you have any idea how these systems function IRL?
Yea, I can fix a shitter if I have to.
have you met many people?
most people don’t want to clean their homes. they want to pay someone else to do it.
But I get 100% of the benefit of vacuuming my home; there’s no free rider problem.
Tell that to your kids.
Not enough people want to deal with waste systems or sanitation
No one has “shit purger” as their favorite way of passing their time. That doesn’t mean that no one would pick the job and leave themselves and everyone else waddling in two inches of it
there are absolutely people who really like maintaining waste systems
I disagree that “labor” can never be voluntary. But I also fully agree that labor in a Capitalist system is fundamentally based on coercion.
The thing to me is that “labor” and “doing work” are two fundamentally different things. You can accept a role that someone else needs done in exchange for something, or you can work on things you find important or interesting, or that just needs doing, to maintain yourself and your environment in a broad sense.
You should look up the feminist definition of labor. It includes everything you’re talking about and draws a line between public and private labor. Labor =/= work.
why does feminism have its own definition of labor?
i get that women have unique challenges in the workforce but this seems like it should be a universal
It’s not about a women’s labor it’s about everyone, it’s just a feminist concept. It’s about acknowledging that house work, paid work, unpaid work, are all work. They’re all forms of labor. Taking care of a house, kids, aging parents, disabled people are forms of private labor, which feminism goes on to say as a society we value less than public forms of labor. Public forms of labor are jobs. Now I’d rather not discuss the value of private vs. public labor in this forum. Even though this is Lemmy there are still a ton of misogynists here.
My point being that forms of labor aren’t as simple as voluntary and involuntary. There are many forms of labor. Most of which I agree with you are involuntary. It’s just like every a much more nuanced concept. Which sucks, cause why can’t everything be simple?!
deleted by creator
And if it wasn’t, at least it was brief.
Well, no. Infant mortality was crazy high, health problems were different, but life expectancies were 60-70 years if you survived puberty. We only recently hit that in agricultural hierarchalist society, and are slipping back below it.
how would that be different without capitalism?
Most people work a job they are unhappy with because they need the money for basic needs. If your basic needs are being met like food, housing , etc you are able to pursue something you enjoy doing to make additional money. You are no longer forced to labor for someone else, to sell your labor so someone else can profit off it.
Who will do hard jobs then? Who will work for nothing? Food doesn’t make itself
“who will do hard work if we don’t force them to do it” isn’t a good argument, especially if you’re not the one currently doing the hard work.
Answer it then? I don’t see how it’s a bad argument
A lot less crime for one. We funnel people into prison because of how currency functions. If Basic Needs were met like not charging for food or other necesseities people wouldn’t be nearly as miserable. Shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to understand this. Complain about where the money comes from all you want but keeping things status quoe means we are okay with all the cruelty in our world.
Is misery really the only factor? I know a lot of people who are doing well or really well that are complete assholes and steal shit
Stealing for necessities is really rare. People are just selfish assholes
Non-capitalism doesn’t magically make people rich. Don’t know what you’re thinking. If anything, you consume less
Maybe I’m ignorant but this feels like a stretch. You have to work to survive, that’s just how it is
You don’t have to work if you’re wealthy. Give me $5 million and I’ll never work again, and live a happy life. Even as little as $2mil is doable
