1 point
*

Human nature, regardless of political systems, dictates that one and their family must provide trade-worthy value to receive trade-worthy value. There are plenty of exceptions to that thanks to charity (at any scale) and social policies that allow for some to provide little trade-worthy value and still receive essential benefits (for example, those with disabilities). But if there were an option to provide no trade-worthy value and receive completely satisfying goods, accommodations, and freedoms in return, then productive people would naturally feel foolish for spending time working any more than they like to. There is some point where there wouldn’t be enough people to maintain the benefits for the non-workers. Although people would offer to work as good will, labor and supply shortages would be far more frequent or constant. So should we allow the option, but only a limited amount so that the threshold of value-produced to value-consumed is never met? It’s unlikely that there would be good relations between the class of people in society that would be gifted with that option and those that aren’t.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

Does “human nature” “dictate” that nuclear families are a central organizational structure within society, or are there plenty of exceptions, in the sense of societies following systems and cultures very different from the one under which you live?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

When did antiwork get filled with bootlickers?

permalink
report
reply
9 points

Why the FUCK do you think you’re entitled to get the free labor of bakeries working hard to make bread, farmers farming to create food, and people building technology to make your life easier?

No, you don’t have to work. Go live in the forest and farm your own food. Maybe then when a lion attacks you you’ll realize the value of modern civilization.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Because if FOSS exist he imagines that also people would like to do real actual work just for fun!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s true, but the whole point of technology and modern civilization was to make us lazy and somehow people are working even more? Except for like 5 people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

You ARE working much less. Have you tried working in a farm for 12 hours a day? You wanna compare serving coffee in Starbucks with farming for months then losing it because there’s frost?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Who TF is working on a farm 12 hours a day? What’re you watching grass grow? My mom’s family has a farm and I have worked there before and it’s pretty fun actually and all the usual work is done by 2 pm. Feeding animals, cutting grass for them using a spinny wheel thingy. Getting eggs from chickens, milking cows, ploughing the fields is done by tractors and only thing you have to do is throw seeds around. And it’s not like you’re doing the same thing for 8 hours straight. So yeah I’d say it’s more work. I’d much prefer doing that over graphic design for 8 hours. As for the frost, well, just grow shit where it’s not cold I guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Most people in the west can work less, if they are willing to sacrifice comfort, material goods etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Most people can live without teeth and with cancer killing them, while eating cheap ramen for the whole month staring at a wall, sitting naked on the floor, in a house without a roof and walls.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s the way of the world. To eat, to live, work must be done. The most fair is way to divide up the work which must be done is by capacity. The fruits of those labors should be distributed first according to need, second according to whomever produced them.

This is not how things are done now, of course. Now, the neediest work hardest, and the fruits of that labor flow to those who have the least need.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

You think you should not work for a living?

permalink
report
reply
8 points

The logical conclusion of

you should have to work (to make money, transactionally, anything not valued by capitalism and rich people doesn’t even count, if you don’t or can’t fit this model it doesnt count) to make a living

is that

if you don’t work (with the previous very large caveats for what counts as ‘work’), you deserve to suffer and die

A lot of people don’t think about the implications of that statement when they make it, but that is the logical end point. My experience is that most people - at least if they aren’t stressed from the existing model - absolutely want to do things, often sharing them for free, without coercion.

But even if not, do you think people should be miserable and die if they can’t or even won’t “work for a living” (for a very particular narrow definition of work that can gain you money under the current system, when stuff created and donated is often more valuable than things payed for due to lack of perverse incentives - e.g. FOSS ^.^).

I’m not even starting on how the current model of labour provides perverse anti-automation incentives. Automation should be liberating, but the way our society values people based on labour (e.g. Protestant Work Ethic) actively forces people (and the non-capitalist class as a whole) to avoid tools or processes that should improve our collective lives :/ - imo this is one of the most fucked up things about capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Pure capitalism without rules is bad, sure.

Capitalism is also THE most successful system in our history. Without capitalism you’d be dead. Me too. Without capitalism the would wouldn’t be able to sustain more than a few hundred million people. Do not underestimate all the processes we have in place that make it that you have your Hamburger.on your place to eat and survive. Hospitals would cease to function without it.

So let’s call capitalism a necessary evil of you like. I know there are loads of communist types around here that live in the fantasy world where communism can do this and we’ll, it can’t. If you want, just even look at the history of Communism over the entire world. Every single communist government has failed and has caused only pain and suffering on the practical level.

I fully agree with you that you don’t just want to ket people die so that is the solution?

I’d say a limited capitalist system where we place hard limits on what companies can do, hard limits on sizes and incomes and what people can own through -for example- taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay until taxes reach 100%

With that huge income you finance a socialist state where all the basics are free. Free healthcare , free education, etc. Food and housing is paid with Universal income so that everyone can at least afford a basic nice level of living. Anyone who wants extra can work extra in the capitalist system and earn extra if they want, but not need.

That just my 2 cents, but you’ll still need capitalism. Take that away and you’ll destroy the world and kill millions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

define success and what systems you’re comparing it to. it may come as a surprise to you but many people don’t value the supposed benefits of capitalism the way you do or even agree with the statements you’re spouting as if they are facts. note communism isn’t generally the system people propose as alternatives today due to its centralized nature. not the mention the changes to a capitalist system you made would make it not a capitalist system as you’re putting restrictions on the market. and capitalism is based on a ‘free’ market. which is both impossible to have and easily corrupted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

And who is working to build that automation, who is working to integrate that automation? Who is building the mechanic stuff, the electric stuff the robots and linear tranfer axes, the PlCs and the sensors?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The people who want to? I mean loads of people like developing infrastructure, hell, I am very much included in that number (more FOSS/software stuff and I’m not always the most effective for various executive dysfunction reasons but still)

People don’t need to be threatened with starvation to do stuff, and not having that threat enables people to do stuff they think is valuable rather than what some rich arsehole wanting to fuck over everyone else thinks is valuable or what will happen to make money <.<

I think you missed the point if my comnent.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You know you can get people to do this without threatening them with starvation and homelessness right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

For a living? Hell no, but I’d work for enjoyment if I didn’t have to work to live.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

What do you mean “for a living hell no”? You think ancient humans didn’t have to work to survive? You think life is some gift to you and you deserve it? Survival is work. You just want free food and shelter while others are working to provide enough for themselves and for you? If surviving is too much work for you, don’t do it. No one is forcing you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Your point is invalidated by the invention of the combine harvester, among other things. I’d also be happy going to the fields and helping out, or tending my own garden with my neighbors. It’s actually already in my to-do list over the next few years. Also is that a “kill yourself” veiled in your last sentence? Certainly seems like it to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So you expect others to just hand you stuff for free? Is that it? I mean, the world does require people to work to, you know, make goods that we consume… Or did you think that Mac Donald’s hamburgers are just magically willed into existence? Police are just NPC computer characters?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Actually, yes. Yes I do. Because it already happens, and because that’s how it used to work. My neighborhood couldn’t afford to repave our streets, but it happens anyway. Farmers certainly couldn’t afford to plant all the corn they do, but they do anyway because of government subsidies. Medieval peasants worked far less than we have to and enjoyed far more freedoms, and here we are toiling away despite the fact that one farmer now could feed a whole kingdom. What you’re missing is our dollar and economy are not tied to actual, physical things. There’s this whole imaginary line graph in the heads of certain people that has to keep going up at all costs.

I think I understand better than you do what goes into a McDonald’s hamburger judging by your spelling of it. I also work with my local PD on a daily basis, and I can tell you to them it’s just a way to collect a paycheck to live.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

When current amount of automation and efficiency? Yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You do understand that Elon musk is full of shit, right? AI isn’t going to take away all jobs within the next year.

We automate the crap out of stuff but without humans, the system is dead within days and that isn’t going to change for decades to come, still.

You can put up your hand to beg but people aren’t going to give you stuff just because you’re too lazy or too naive about the world. Maybe 20 years from now there will be universal income because both automation and AI became good enough to really take away jobs. But until then, get your ass back to work, like everybody else

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You do understand that Elon musk is full of shit, right?

Hahahahaha. It is so funny the first thing you mention is Musk. He sure looks like Musk:

AI isn’t going to take away all jobs within the next year.

AI is not automation, it doesn’t do a shit.

We automate the crap out of stuff but without humans, the system is dead within days and that isn’t going to change for decades to come, still.

From the top of my head: steel plant. Just bring whatever needed to automatic loader and ship whatever stuff comes out with occasional taking of samples to check against desired specs.

Secong thing from top of my head: CNCs. They have been around for at least 50 years.

Mechanization is much simpler: just replace an army of street cleaners .

What? Not as eye-catching and you cannot flame in comments about Elon? This is reality, not a wet dream of billionare.

Maybe 20 years from now there will be universal income because both automation and AI became good enough to really take away jobs.

Except if we go into that age without economic reforms made beforehand, then it will become feudalism.

But until then, get your ass back to work, like everybody else

Sorry to disappoint you, but my work gets to me. That’s called remote work.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Antiwork

!antiwork@lemmy.ml

Create post
  1. We’re trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We’re trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

Community stats

  • 271

    Monthly active users

  • 393

    Posts

  • 4K

    Comments