3 ms·

To be fair, the definition of "productivity" has changed a lot since the start of the industrial revolution too, from "helping your community make ends meet" to

To be fair, the definition of "productivity" has changed a lot since the start of the industrial revolution too, from "helping your community make ends meet" to "engaging in soul-crushing, inhuman labour to make a group of wealthy investors who actively campaign against your well-being even wealthier".

vkou 6y ago
Actually, prior to the start of the industrial revolution, the definition of "productivity" was "Spend nearly every waking hour tending the fields (that someone else owns) if you're a man, or spinning flax and wool (to make clothes for you and your family) if you're a woman." Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed[1] is two full-time jobs. And that's for free-persons, who aren't serfs, slaves, or indentured labourers. [1] Prior to industrialization, it took something close to ~3,000 work-hours a year[2] to keep a family barely-clothed. Add another thousand or three if you wanted to have a change of clothes for Sundays. [2] https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-they-make-it-part-iii-spin-me-right-round/ https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  >Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed is two full-time jobs. My point was, back then, your two full-time jobs benefited the community in and of themselves. I'm not trying to argue that we should go back in time to the dark ages (I like modern medicine and technology), but am just suggesting that workers would have been far more likely to find intrinsic satisfaction in the work they did back then because they both had more autonomy/personal input and could also directly see their labour benefitting the people they cared about.
- d0mine 6y ago
  Injustice is not the only way to get new technology even if you believe that there is a connection between the two notions. Also, by your logic it wouldn't be enough for people to work around the clock just to survive in hunter-gathering times
  - vkou 6y ago
    In hunter-gatherer times, we didn't wear as many woven textiles, and we didn't rely on agriculture (Which results in a much higher caloric output of an acre of land, but requires vastly more labour to produce the same number of calories.) The problem with being a hunter-gatherer is that your agricultural neighbours move in, settle down, work their asses off, have lots of children, and then war with you until they push you off your land. And nine times out of ten, they win this war, because their way of life supports a lot more people per acre of land. This is why the world is full of agricultural societies, and the few remaining hunter-gatherers have been pushed into unproductive, fringe territories.

vkou 6y ago

Actually, prior to the start of the industrial revolution, the definition of "productivity" was "Spend nearly every waking hour tending the fields (that someone else owns) if you're a man, or spinning flax and wool (to make clothes for you and your family) if you're a woman." Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed[1] is two full-time jobs. And that's for free-persons, who aren't serfs, slaves, or indentured labourers. [1] Prior to industrialization, it took something close to ~3,000 work-hours a year[2] to keep a family barely-clothed. Add another thousand or three if you wanted to have a change of clothes for Sundays. [2] https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-they-make-it-part-iii-spin-me-right-round/ https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...

AussieWog93 6y ago
>Not much left to better the community when keeping yourself fed and clothed is two full-time jobs. My point was, back then, your two full-time jobs benefited the community in and of themselves. I'm not trying to argue that we should go back in time to the dark ages (I like modern medicine and technology), but am just suggesting that workers would have been far more likely to find intrinsic satisfaction in the work they did back then because they both had more autonomy/personal input and could also directly see their labour benefitting the people they cared about.
d0mine 6y ago
Injustice is not the only way to get new technology even if you believe that there is a connection between the two notions. Also, by your logic it wouldn't be enough for people to work around the clock just to survive in hunter-gathering times
- vkou 6y ago
  In hunter-gatherer times, we didn't wear as many woven textiles, and we didn't rely on agriculture (Which results in a much higher caloric output of an acre of land, but requires vastly more labour to produce the same number of calories.) The problem with being a hunter-gatherer is that your agricultural neighbours move in, settle down, work their asses off, have lots of children, and then war with you until they push you off your land. And nine times out of ten, they win this war, because their way of life supports a lot more people per acre of land. This is why the world is full of agricultural societies, and the few remaining hunter-gatherers have been pushed into unproductive, fringe territories.