4 ms·

As a socialist I think this could be said about a lot of labor under capitalism. Yes.

by jim-jim-jim 9y ago

Teever 9y ago
This mentality does a disservice to people who are actually living in slavery.
- realusername 9y ago
  Why exactly? There's different degrees of slavery and independence, it's not black and white. Poor people don't really have a choice with their lives, they do whatever people command to them so they can just to get enough to get food.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Some black slaves in the US South got to live in the house, eat and drink with their masters, whip other slaves, and maybe even got an education. They lived in luxury compared to the field workers. They were still slaves.
  - frankc 9y ago
    Could the slaves quit their jobs? This whole sub-thread is completely preposterous.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      Can someone making just enough to get by quit their job? Technically, sure. But they lose their home, they lose their insurance, they lose their car, their children get taken from them. And now they can't find another job because they have no house and no car, and they can't get another car because they have no job and no credit. So they stay, no matter what, because quitting is a death sentence.
core-questions 9y ago
This is so easy to type, but I imagine it would be much harder for you to devise any kind of system wherein I get to maintain a high standard of living and somehow don't have to work for a living. My employers tell me what to do, yes; but have you ever thought that perhaps I like the exchange, and find it valuable to have someone who tells me what to do to get to an end result where I get a decent, reliable wage for doing so? And how under socialism am I going to be freed from having to labour? If nobody labours, nothing will get done. Conversely, if I labour and see a massively reduced benefit from doing so personally, I will hardly be inspired to work hard.
- meko 9y ago
  These are earnest questions seemingly asked in good faith so Ill try to respond in kind (although my comments are all dead for some reason, so I hope you can see this). socialism is not about 'ending work', it's about the relationship the worker has to his output. "but who will clean the toilets?" probably the same people that do it now, but they will be paid the full value of their labor instead of having most of it skimmed off the top in the name of "profit". Corporate Profit doesn't really exist in socialism, because profit by definition is surplus value. This value needs to ends up in the hands of the people who produce it. under this, toilet cleaning (sanitation) becomes a more lucrative job prospect because the compensation would be higher. "but how can businesses be run without a single private entity handing down orders from the top" same as they are now, with people working together. It may seem like a stretch to think of a society where the population is empowered enough that employees can self administrate, but ome needs to look no farther than the open source community for good examples of it being possible. "but software developers are smart people! they aren't like the mindless drones doing my laundry" arguments for why that is textbook classism aside, we got ourselves into this position because that's the society we've cultivated, it's not some fundamental aspect of our species that 'most of us are dumb that's why we need rich people to tell us what to do' on some level that's true, we are but animals. However it applies to economic elites too: they are also just animals, and despite the smoke and mirrors still deal with the limitations of our biology. being smart or good at something should be it's own reward. having more money than they can reasonably spend ends up becoming a self preserving entity on it's own, rent seeking and legalized bribery and so on. if you want to learn more about this phenomena, I recommend reading Marx's Das Kapital. it's easy to think we have a "high standard of living" under capitalism when that's all we've known, especially in the last bastion of the middle class that is the tech sector. but look at our (non)prescription drug use, depression rates, access to healthcare and living necessities for the most vulnerable (children, special needs, elderly minorities), our unemployment rate, our incarceration rate, our impact on the environment, the international conflicts and affairs we're involved in and you'll find a _very_ different picture being painted. If it wasn't for empty calories like McDonald's and Coke we'd probably have a food crisis too, but instead we just make the poor fat with sugar and other junk.

As a socialist I think this could be said about a lot of labor under capitalism. Yes.

Teever 9y ago

This mentality does a disservice to people who are actually living in slavery.

realusername 9y ago
Why exactly? There's different degrees of slavery and independence, it's not black and white. Poor people don't really have a choice with their lives, they do whatever people command to them so they can just to get enough to get food.
freehunter 9y ago
Some black slaves in the US South got to live in the house, eat and drink with their masters, whip other slaves, and maybe even got an education. They lived in luxury compared to the field workers. They were still slaves.
- frankc 9y ago
  Could the slaves quit their jobs? This whole sub-thread is completely preposterous.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Can someone making just enough to get by quit their job? Technically, sure. But they lose their home, they lose their insurance, they lose their car, their children get taken from them. And now they can't find another job because they have no house and no car, and they can't get another car because they have no job and no credit. So they stay, no matter what, because quitting is a death sentence.

core-questions 9y ago

This is so easy to type, but I imagine it would be much harder for you to devise any kind of system wherein I get to maintain a high standard of living and somehow don't have to work for a living. My employers tell me what to do, yes; but have you ever thought that perhaps I like the exchange, and find it valuable to have someone who tells me what to do to get to an end result where I get a decent, reliable wage for doing so? And how under socialism am I going to be freed from having to labour? If nobody labours, nothing will get done. Conversely, if I labour and see a massively reduced benefit from doing so personally, I will hardly be inspired to work hard.

meko 9y ago
These are earnest questions seemingly asked in good faith so Ill try to respond in kind (although my comments are all dead for some reason, so I hope you can see this). socialism is not about 'ending work', it's about the relationship the worker has to his output. "but who will clean the toilets?" probably the same people that do it now, but they will be paid the full value of their labor instead of having most of it skimmed off the top in the name of "profit". Corporate Profit doesn't really exist in socialism, because profit by definition is surplus value. This value needs to ends up in the hands of the people who produce it. under this, toilet cleaning (sanitation) becomes a more lucrative job prospect because the compensation would be higher. "but how can businesses be run without a single private entity handing down orders from the top" same as they are now, with people working together. It may seem like a stretch to think of a society where the population is empowered enough that employees can self administrate, but ome needs to look no farther than the open source community for good examples of it being possible. "but software developers are smart people! they aren't like the mindless drones doing my laundry" arguments for why that is textbook classism aside, we got ourselves into this position because that's the society we've cultivated, it's not some fundamental aspect of our species that 'most of us are dumb that's why we need rich people to tell us what to do' on some level that's true, we are but animals. However it applies to economic elites too: they are also just animals, and despite the smoke and mirrors still deal with the limitations of our biology. being smart or good at something should be it's own reward. having more money than they can reasonably spend ends up becoming a self preserving entity on it's own, rent seeking and legalized bribery and so on. if you want to learn more about this phenomena, I recommend reading Marx's Das Kapital. it's easy to think we have a "high standard of living" under capitalism when that's all we've known, especially in the last bastion of the middle class that is the tech sector. but look at our (non)prescription drug use, depression rates, access to healthcare and living necessities for the most vulnerable (children, special needs, elderly minorities), our unemployment rate, our incarceration rate, our impact on the environment, the international conflicts and affairs we're involved in and you'll find a _very_ different picture being painted. If it wasn't for empty calories like McDonald's and Coke we'd probably have a food crisis too, but instead we just make the poor fat with sugar and other junk.