4 ms·

> If you doubt how much work is required by capitalist society but actually useless by any meaningful standard, remember what happened during the COVID lockdow

> If you doubt how much work is required by capitalist society but actually useless by any meaningful standard, remember what happened during the COVID lockdowns. Most jobs are not "essential". If you work in an office, you're mostly (if not entirely) useless to society as a whole. That is ridiculous. Many, many businesses closed, and many, many more were impacted in ways that will take years to recover from. Many employees took short term cuts in pay or benefits just so the companies they work for could survive. Then add to that many of the jobs that couldn't be done during covid aren't useless, but the impact of not doing them scales over time. A good example of this is a sales person for a company that makes a product. Sure, if they can't bring in new clients for a few months, the company will hurt but may be ok. But if you take away their sale people forever, you might as well just close down the company. Just because we _did_ survive without certain employees for a period of time doesn't make them all useless. The long term impacts are substantial.

convolvatron 5y ago
you're kind of agreeing with the parent. salespeople are clearly required by capitalism, but aren't directly responsible for extracting resources or converting them into something useful.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  But many, many countries are capitalistic, so those roles that are required for capitalism are contributing and/or required for those societies. If everyone grew their own gardens and was a vegetarian, only consuming what they grew themselves, then the people working in grocery stores wouldn't be essential. But our society doesn't do that, so they are.
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    You can have an economy without capitalism. Capitalism is defined by private property and shareholding. But you could have a modern society based on consented cooperation. Have everyone who wants help in the fields (more people like that than you think), and if my neighbors think it's useful we'll have a grocery store but without money. We'll just take turns to feed the shelves and clean the floor and worry about the logistics. And if we grew too many potatoes for our local consumption, the people from other neighborhoods may well enjoy them and have some other stuff to send in our direction as well.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      Are there any large scale examples of this actually working? It seems like, in practice, there are too many bad actors for it to actually play out like you're describing. Mind you, capitalism certainly has it's issues, too... but it seems to better limit the negatives than every "share everything utopia" I've read about beyond tight knit groups of friends/family. Every single large scale example of what you describe seems to end in "and then it all burned to the ground", more or less.
southerntofu 5y ago
You are arguing based on the assumption that capitalism is the essence of life and nothing can be done without it. That companies are hurt does not have to mean that society is hurt. Companies are not persons, and if we lived in a fair society everyone would be well-off no matter what imaginary numbers (money and markets) have decided for them today. > But if you take away their sale people forever, you might as well just close down the company. When you say sales people, are you talking about a merchant behind a booth? Or a PR person? The latter should not exist at all in my opinion and is definitely a useless job which does not produce anything useful for society. The social function of marketing is to direct part of the revenue stream in one direction and not another, which is only "useful" (huge quotation marks) in an economy based on private property and competition. In a cooperative economy where as long as there is food people are fed, what matters is how to produce food and maintain infrastructure and heal people, and of course culture/science/education. > Just because we _did_ survive without certain employees for a period of time doesn't make them all useless. The long term impacts are substantial. I agree we cannot study these problems in isolation. However, you are the one not looking at the bigger picture. Another world is possible if we stop following the laws of Capital and State which are not laws of nature. Also, to be fair, many useless jobs kept going: i would have gladly done without cops and bankers and politicians for the lockdowns (and forever) but unfortunately these bloodsucking vampires grew even more virulent. Well I guess that's how species feeding on our misery operate.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > You are arguing based on the assumption that capitalism is the essence of life and nothing can be done without it. No, I'm arguing based on the assumption that a LOT of countries ARE capitalistic. And recognizing that fact and designing things to work within that framework is a reasonable approach. > if we lived in a fair society everyone would be well-off no matter what imaginary numbers (money and markets) have decided for them today. But we don't. And we never will. Period. Full stop. Human nature doesn't work that way. I can't even see a way that you can argue that it does with a straight face. Even if there were no bad people (and there will always be bad people), there's always luck/randomness coming into play. Life is not an can not be fair. The best we can hope for it to make it as far as we can, and mitigate the cases where it isn't.

convolvatron 5y ago

you're kind of agreeing with the parent. salespeople are clearly required by capitalism, but aren't directly responsible for extracting resources or converting them into something useful.

RHSeeger 5y ago
But many, many countries are capitalistic, so those roles that are required for capitalism are contributing and/or required for those societies. If everyone grew their own gardens and was a vegetarian, only consuming what they grew themselves, then the people working in grocery stores wouldn't be essential. But our society doesn't do that, so they are.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  You can have an economy without capitalism. Capitalism is defined by private property and shareholding. But you could have a modern society based on consented cooperation. Have everyone who wants help in the fields (more people like that than you think), and if my neighbors think it's useful we'll have a grocery store but without money. We'll just take turns to feed the shelves and clean the floor and worry about the logistics. And if we grew too many potatoes for our local consumption, the people from other neighborhoods may well enjoy them and have some other stuff to send in our direction as well.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    Are there any large scale examples of this actually working? It seems like, in practice, there are too many bad actors for it to actually play out like you're describing. Mind you, capitalism certainly has it's issues, too... but it seems to better limit the negatives than every "share everything utopia" I've read about beyond tight knit groups of friends/family. Every single large scale example of what you describe seems to end in "and then it all burned to the ground", more or less.

southerntofu 5y ago

You are arguing based on the assumption that capitalism is the essence of life and nothing can be done without it. That companies are hurt does not have to mean that society is hurt. Companies are not persons, and if we lived in a fair society everyone would be well-off no matter what imaginary numbers (money and markets) have decided for them today. > But if you take away their sale people forever, you might as well just close down the company. When you say sales people, are you talking about a merchant behind a booth? Or a PR person? The latter should not exist at all in my opinion and is definitely a useless job which does not produce anything useful for society. The social function of marketing is to direct part of the revenue stream in one direction and not another, which is only "useful" (huge quotation marks) in an economy based on private property and competition. In a cooperative economy where as long as there is food people are fed, what matters is how to produce food and maintain infrastructure and heal people, and of course culture/science/education. > Just because we _did_ survive without certain employees for a period of time doesn't make them all useless. The long term impacts are substantial. I agree we cannot study these problems in isolation. However, you are the one not looking at the bigger picture. Another world is possible if we stop following the laws of Capital and State which are not laws of nature. Also, to be fair, many useless jobs kept going: i would have gladly done without cops and bankers and politicians for the lockdowns (and forever) but unfortunately these bloodsucking vampires grew even more virulent. Well I guess that's how species feeding on our misery operate.

RHSeeger 5y ago
> You are arguing based on the assumption that capitalism is the essence of life and nothing can be done without it. No, I'm arguing based on the assumption that a LOT of countries ARE capitalistic. And recognizing that fact and designing things to work within that framework is a reasonable approach. > if we lived in a fair society everyone would be well-off no matter what imaginary numbers (money and markets) have decided for them today. But we don't. And we never will. Period. Full stop. Human nature doesn't work that way. I can't even see a way that you can argue that it does with a straight face. Even if there were no bad people (and there will always be bad people), there's always luck/randomness coming into play. Life is not an can not be fair. The best we can hope for it to make it as far as we can, and mitigate the cases where it isn't.