46 ms·

> Only a radical change in how work is done and who controls this can make labor once again an integral part of life, one through which we can fully develop our

• 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  > #1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. speak for yourself, i sure as hell can't.
  • OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    I believe that the point of life is to become more than we are. My friend - grow to where you can. I wish you the best.
    • badcppdev 4y ago
      Your wishes are worth zero. - Would you be willing to oppose corporations controlling the government with bribes/campaign contributions? - Support a judicial system where poorer people can access justice? - Tell your representatives that wage theft should be punished as seriously as theft and fraud?
      • OrangeMonkey 4y ago
        I don’t think this vitriol is warranted or reasonable. * I would support completely disbanding corporations who bribe officials, and jailing its officers * I think the biggest problem with our judicial system is the prevalence of plea deals leading to a lifetime of regret for those who ignorantly take them. Fix it. * I believe wage theft is theft and would like to see jail time for those involved. I imagine I’ve a harsher view than you on these elements. But, more to the point, even if I wasn’t this opinionated I dont think this hate is warranted.
        • badcppdev 4y ago
          Apologies for my misunderstanding. I meant zero hate or vitriol. I categorised 'wish you the best' the same as 'thoughts and prayers' but you probably didn't mean it like that. I wanted to draw a contrast between actions that only effect an individual, like your example of quitting a bad job, and actions that effect society, i.e. changing the rules to close the loopholes that businesses use to exploit their workers. I think we both agree that systematic societal change would be a good thing. Cool.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• vladharbuz 4y ago
  Why do you assume the only options are being controlled by a different self-serving employer, or having the government regulate everything? After all, shouldn't those who actually form the workforce of a company and shape the products and services it offers be in control? Why not have those who actually do the work collectively control the fate of the company, instead of having to hand over that power to someone else? Resource 1 by me: https://vladh.net/alternatives-to-wage-labour https://vladh.net/alternatives-to-wage-labour Resource 2 by Yanis Varoufakis: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now More resources: https://vladh.net/wage-labour-resources https://vladh.net/wage-labour-resources
  • sershe 4y ago
    It's not like this hasn't been tried. First, do you know what Soviet stands for? The relevant meaning of the word in Russian is "council", and it refers to "worker councils", "soldier councils", etc. that made the revolution happen (the Petrograd Soviet, or council, in St Petersburg was the main alternative power structure to Provisional Government that took over from the czar), that were supposed to "democratically" run things like factories, and send delegates to higher levels to democratically run things there. Somehow, this all ended up a dictatorship, as it did pretty much every time something like this has been tried. Then, economically, co-ops are perfectly legal in the West. There are some successful ones, like REI. I shop at REI a lot, and I really don't give a damn if employers are wage laborers or co-op members - I doubt most people do. If anything, some people might prefer co-ops because they would give them the same warm fuzzy feeling as green-washed products do, so a co-op would start out with a competitive advantage at least among the well-off liberals. Why not go build a coop to replace your local restaurant or a laundromat; or Exxon, or Google, or whatever? Perhaps because generally, it doesn't work so well? Heck, I don't know how much of a "real" co-op REI is anymore, at this scale.
  • rightbyte 4y ago
    Co-ops are quite common but I guess the problem is that if they grow the old co-ops guys becomes the shareholders of a corp. So co-ops stay small or becomes corps.
  • 4y ago
• becquerel 4y ago
  We can choose who we work for (sometimes), but we can't choose not to work at all. Our engagement in the capitalist labour market is mandatory; otherwise we starve to death. Doesn't sound like we have much control over our labour to me.
  • sparrish 4y ago
    Visit any large city in the US and you'll find hundreds or thousands who have made that choice. They line the sidewalks and alleys. Yes, you have that choice; you may not like the lifestyle it provides but you have that choice.
    • worldshit 4y ago
      but you don't have the choice of living like a hunter-gatherer, because all good lands have been swallowed up by capitalist megacommunities
      • badpun 4y ago
        There's plenty of hunter-gatherers in Siberia or Amazon rainforest.
        • wizofaus 4y ago
          "Plenty"? What fraction of the world's population today do you suppose could feasibly choose to live as hunter gatherers?
        • worldshit 4y ago
          those in the amazon are being brought to extinction by bolsonaro. those in siberia are subject to putin's whim...
          • badpun 4y ago
            I don't think Putin gives a shit about them. Probably the state does not even have the means to track (public id document etc.) a lot of them.
• libertine 4y ago
  >#1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. Sometimes this is not straight forward for example when you have some responsibilities in your life, or when your career is too specialized with little to no transferable skill (like when you´re proficient at an internal process of a company). Unless we could quit and be self sustainable without a job, then yes, at that point you could say one can quit anytime we want to find another place to work for.
  • OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    I think my point is being misunderstood just slightly. Its not that 'finding a job is easy' its that we are not slaves and while we can not necessarily choose who we labor for, we can choose who we do not labor for.
    • libertine 4y ago
      I believe I understood your point, we are just treading a fine line, which is: You need to work for a living, and while you´re not a slave (because it´s not forced labor), your livelihood depends on it - and that has a conditioning effect on many levels (emotional, financial, relationships...) Of course we always used a form of work to sustain ourselves, the difference might just be on the rewards we get from it. Maybe that´s why some people exaggerate when they say they´re slaves of work, perhaps is a coping mechanism that allows them to frame that activity as something they´re being forced to do, rather than a deliberate choice they´re not happy about.
    • dorchadas 4y ago
      I would argue that as long as our health insurance is tied to our current job we are basically slaves of that job. I can't choose to quit if I need insurance to cover chronic problems, or to cover kids, etc. Not to mention all the aspects of not everyone can afford to take the time off to search for other employers, or move to wherever a new employer might be even if they wanted to. Quitting is only for the privileged.
• hotpotamus 4y ago
  Regarding number #1, why limit yourself to finding another place to work when crime is also an option? Though I suppose crime is work too.
• VictorPath 4y ago
  > uhh. The article appears to suggest that we change who controls our labor... > #1 - we do, we can quit anytime we want and find another place to work for. We change who controls our labor by making those who control our labor us, the workers creating wealth, not the heirs who own companies and expropriate our surplus labor time via dividend profit checks. The idea that a worker controls his own labor seems to be the one idea that is alien to your prescription.
  • OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    No, I'm a big fan of workers controlling their own labor. If a person wants to 100% control their own labor, they can create a business and provide their services (at a price someone else will pay for them) to the world at large. What is alien to me is that a person believes they can take over other peoples property (factories, existing IP [go to microsoft, say 'windows is mine now' and try to sell your copy of the source). I'm a big fan of property rights. So, I think we mostly agree right? Someone should be able to start their own business, using their own funds, and have their chance to excel in this world.
    • pwinnski 4y ago
      I suspect the author would say that we currently live in a system that is designed to reward a certain way of doing business, and that artificially makes things harder for those determined to control their own labor. Some of that system is government, where laws naturally benefit larger business and are explicitly aimed at "small businesses," which are still traditional work-for-someone-else concerns with four or more employees. Some of that system is non-governmental, where it seems to be much easier for an S-corp with a few employees to get an operating loan than it is for a self-employed person. It is easy to say that the rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under the bridge, but it is a too-narrow focus that ignores many, many assumptions.
• pwinnski 4y ago
  #1 The article is suggesting radical change across a wide swathe of society, while you are suggesting a minor adjustment for individuals. Yes, ideally we can choose any one of many options that require us to work, work, work to make someone else rich. The suggestion is that none of those options are ideal. #2 There are more options than "private individuals" and "government control." The author specifically says, "Cooperatives and communes, organized and controlled locally, are two avenues to pursue." Feasible or not, neither of those options are "government control."