4 ms·

Also this is not about a dystopian village with one single employer that exploits workers that cannot move. Startup employees agree with free choice to work som

by vasco 4y ago

Also this is not about a dystopian village with one single employer that exploits workers that cannot move. Startup employees agree with free choice to work somewhere for the agreed upon profit share, be that % based or fixed, or mixed.

VictorPath 4y ago
- Brigand 4y ago
  I am pretty sure among hunters there was a very strict pecking order and I am glad to live in the system we have today.
  - achenet 4y ago
    any proof of that statement? from reading description of native american societies in Dawn of Everything, the opposite seems to be the case.
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    They really didn't. Hunter gatherer societies were the most democratic and egalitarian that we've ever had. Graeber's work on this is fantastic.
- judge2020 4y ago
  Hunter-gatherer bands don't exactly survive without families to continue the cycle of reproduction, someone to take care of the children, someone to tend to the wounded and sick, someone to build the houses while the hunter-gatherers are out hunting, someone to grow crops when it's cold and food is harder to hunt for, someone to track how much food everyone is getting...
  - necovek 4y ago
    I did not read the original reply to mean that "hunter-gatherer band" only consists of hunters and gatherers. And while there is certainly division of labour as you describe it, it does not necessarily imply that these are distinct social classes (even today, we have different job roles in a single social class).
    - judge2020 4y ago
      But it only takes one spark of someone thinking they "put more effort in than everyone else" to demand more food, and suddenly you have societal classes that drift further apart over time.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > in the US a hunter gatherer band a century and a half ago provides for their own needs Such hunter gatherer band was much worse dystopia village. You were dependent with your life on the band and if you disagreed with others, you could not just switch bands as easily as you can switch employers today.
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    Such bands had very flat hierarchies. Your opinion was weighted on merit (i.e. the best hunter's word was trusted in that activity and the best farmer on theirs). Different bands absolutely exchanged people. Young people heading out to find their way and tribe was practically a right of passage. If you said we have greater material comforts today, I couldn't disagree with you. If you said we're happier? I'm not so sure. There is something so damned compelling about a tight knit family and tribe.

by vasco 4y ago

VictorPath 4y ago

Brigand 4y ago
I am pretty sure among hunters there was a very strict pecking order and I am glad to live in the system we have today.
- achenet 4y ago
  any proof of that statement? from reading description of native american societies in Dawn of Everything, the opposite seems to be the case.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  They really didn't. Hunter gatherer societies were the most democratic and egalitarian that we've ever had. Graeber's work on this is fantastic.
judge2020 4y ago
Hunter-gatherer bands don't exactly survive without families to continue the cycle of reproduction, someone to take care of the children, someone to tend to the wounded and sick, someone to build the houses while the hunter-gatherers are out hunting, someone to grow crops when it's cold and food is harder to hunt for, someone to track how much food everyone is getting...
- necovek 4y ago
  I did not read the original reply to mean that "hunter-gatherer band" only consists of hunters and gatherers. And while there is certainly division of labour as you describe it, it does not necessarily imply that these are distinct social classes (even today, we have different job roles in a single social class).
  - judge2020 4y ago
    But it only takes one spark of someone thinking they "put more effort in than everyone else" to demand more food, and suddenly you have societal classes that drift further apart over time.
zajio1am 4y ago
> in the US a hunter gatherer band a century and a half ago provides for their own needs Such hunter gatherer band was much worse dystopia village. You were dependent with your life on the band and if you disagreed with others, you could not just switch bands as easily as you can switch employers today.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  Such bands had very flat hierarchies. Your opinion was weighted on merit (i.e. the best hunter's word was trusted in that activity and the best farmer on theirs). Different bands absolutely exchanged people. Young people heading out to find their way and tribe was practically a right of passage. If you said we have greater material comforts today, I couldn't disagree with you. If you said we're happier? I'm not so sure. There is something so damned compelling about a tight knit family and tribe.