3 ms·

> There is no reason, beyond ideology, that human worth should be measured in productivity. We could work less. We could value care as much as capital. We could

> There is no reason, beyond ideology, that human worth should be measured in productivity. We could work less. We could value care as much as capital. We could build a world in which art, learning, and rest are not treated as indulgences, but as fundamental parts of life. The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to. I don't even know what vague nonsense this person is even in favor of. It's weird reading this leftist (re: conservative government tag) drivel. I'm a singularitarian for sure. Post scarcity and all that. What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny." What kind of insane value inversion is this? You don't want to come to the office. You don't want to interview. You don't want to work. Is it literally just "gimme"? are you a child?

slowmovintarget 2y ago
Yeah. Human worth is not measured by productivity. Human productivity is valued as an exchange good. These are completely different things. The entire missive concludes with this straw man you quote. So to answer your question... Yes, that is literally what that blog post is saying. "Gimme." Just with elevated language: "The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to."
thankyoufriend 2y ago
> What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny." So we should round up and discard all of the disabled, sick, elderly and children? Purposefully missing your point for fun - I know you don't believe that, right? IMO, the conclusion you quoted isn't arguing that people shouldn't work at all. It's arguing about the very definition of "work" in capitalism. Why are certain things which take a great deal of time and effort not considered work? Why are some types of work not valued when they clearly provide value? Of course the answer is the recipient of the value needs to have money. If they don't have money, they are immoral for not having money and unworthy of receiving the value. Using your definition: > Work is just doing something for someone else they like. Let's rewrite it to be more accurate: > Work is just doing something for someone else <who has money> they like.

slowmovintarget 2y ago

Yeah. Human worth is not measured by productivity. Human productivity is valued as an exchange good. These are completely different things. The entire missive concludes with this straw man you quote. So to answer your question... Yes, that is literally what that blog post is saying. "Gimme." Just with elevated language: "The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to."

thankyoufriend 2y ago

> What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny." So we should round up and discard all of the disabled, sick, elderly and children? Purposefully missing your point for fun - I know you don't believe that, right? IMO, the conclusion you quoted isn't arguing that people shouldn't work at all. It's arguing about the very definition of "work" in capitalism. Why are certain things which take a great deal of time and effort not considered work? Why are some types of work not valued when they clearly provide value? Of course the answer is the recipient of the value needs to have money. If they don't have money, they are immoral for not having money and unworthy of receiving the value. Using your definition: > Work is just doing something for someone else they like. Let's rewrite it to be more accurate: > Work is just doing something for someone else <who has money> they like.