4 ms·

This is a shame though. We should work towards a world where most people can find meaning in what they do. For now it can work better to be a contractor and ha

by A_Duck 1y ago

This is a shame though. We should work towards a world where most people can find meaning in what they do. For now it can work better to be a contractor and have your 'meaning' be a positive reputation in your industry. More like being a medieval blacksmith. You don't mind what you're making, but you're known in your village by the quality of your work.

terminalbraid 1y ago
What's your reasoning equating "a medieval blacksmith" serving a village directly with their own work and "a rank and file employee" which is how the post you're commenting on was intentionally framed?
- A_Duck 1y ago
  I'm contrasting rather than equating them. The medieval blacksmith / freelancer may be in a better position to feel meaning in their work, compared with an employee, because of the system of incentives around them.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bjackman 1y ago
You can be in case 1 and find meaning in what you do. That's where the blacksmith is. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing a good job for 40 hours a week in return for a salary. Being a competent professional who does quality work is rewarding! I just think if you're doing work of that nature (which _most of us are_, BTW) you need to recognise it for what it is. Don't burn yourself out trying to squeeze every drop of initiative/creativity/productivity out of yourself. Definitely don't answer emails at the weekend. Don't tolerate under-payment. Don't accept non-legally-binding promises from the boss. Just deliver the best work you can in the time you get paid for, then stop.
- pydry 1y ago
  At the same time we can maaaaaaaybe start pushing back on all of the "capitalism is not the problem" and "capitalism is the least worst of all available options" memes? Or is it too soon already?
  - appreciatorBus 1y ago
    All of the same human dynamics will be present under socialism or communism or whatever you prefer. Under capitalism, a boss might try to persuade you to work hard harder than you might otherwise for dubious or illusionary future reward. Under some form of collectivism, there will still be pressure to attend some sort of goal, even if it is non-financial in nature. That pressure will ultimately come in the form of a leader of some form, and one of the tools they will have to achieve that (possibly collective) goal will be to persuade you to work longer and harder than you might otherwise for some dubious or illusionary future reward. Perhaps this future reward won’t be in money, but that won’t change the underlying dynamic.
    - pydry 1y ago
      You could equally argue that there is no point making murder illegal because "all the same dynamics leading to murder" will still happen. They will. Society exists to either curtail or encourage our instincts for a collective purpose. This is not about that. This about an institution being rewarded and operating entirely within the law which takes a valuable asset, systematically disenfranchises the people who made it valuable before parasitically sucking it dry for material gain. That is a pretty unique capitalist dynamic, actually.
      - appreciatorBus 1y ago
        You’ve moved the goal posts. First, we were talking about an outcome – exploitation of workers. Your claim, if I understand you correctly is that this outcome is inevitable under capitalism, (perhaps solely possible under capitalism?) and then under some other system you prefer, it would no longer happen, or perhaps be impossible. My contention is the incentive to exploit exists in all socioeconomic systems, even collective ones. This doesn’t mean there’s no better system, or that we should stop caring, or that we should have no laws regarding it. But if correct, it means the arguing that your preferred system cannot or will not have this outcome, is weak and unconvincing. Instead of engaging directly with the claim, you pivoted to implying that my argument was that we should not have laws against bad things. Under capitalism: Both murder and worker exploitation should be illegal. Both murder and worker exploitation will likely occur to one degree or another. Under collectivism: Both murder and worker exploitation should be illegal. Both murder and worker exploitation will likely occur to one degree or another. If you want to argue that collectivism is better for other reasons - go nuts! But if your argument is that there will be no power hierarchy, no pressure to achieve goals, and no incentive to exploit then I just don’t think you’re serious.

by A_Duck 1y ago

terminalbraid 1y ago

What's your reasoning equating "a medieval blacksmith" serving a village directly with their own work and "a rank and file employee" which is how the post you're commenting on was intentionally framed?

A_Duck 1y ago
I'm contrasting rather than equating them. The medieval blacksmith / freelancer may be in a better position to feel meaning in their work, compared with an employee, because of the system of incentives around them.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bjackman 1y ago

You can be in case 1 and find meaning in what you do. That's where the blacksmith is. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing a good job for 40 hours a week in return for a salary. Being a competent professional who does quality work is rewarding! I just think if you're doing work of that nature (which _most of us are_, BTW) you need to recognise it for what it is. Don't burn yourself out trying to squeeze every drop of initiative/creativity/productivity out of yourself. Definitely don't answer emails at the weekend. Don't tolerate under-payment. Don't accept non-legally-binding promises from the boss. Just deliver the best work you can in the time you get paid for, then stop.

pydry 1y ago
At the same time we can maaaaaaaybe start pushing back on all of the "capitalism is not the problem" and "capitalism is the least worst of all available options" memes? Or is it too soon already?
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  All of the same human dynamics will be present under socialism or communism or whatever you prefer. Under capitalism, a boss might try to persuade you to work hard harder than you might otherwise for dubious or illusionary future reward. Under some form of collectivism, there will still be pressure to attend some sort of goal, even if it is non-financial in nature. That pressure will ultimately come in the form of a leader of some form, and one of the tools they will have to achieve that (possibly collective) goal will be to persuade you to work longer and harder than you might otherwise for some dubious or illusionary future reward. Perhaps this future reward won’t be in money, but that won’t change the underlying dynamic.
  - pydry 1y ago
    You could equally argue that there is no point making murder illegal because "all the same dynamics leading to murder" will still happen. They will. Society exists to either curtail or encourage our instincts for a collective purpose. This is not about that. This about an institution being rewarded and operating entirely within the law which takes a valuable asset, systematically disenfranchises the people who made it valuable before parasitically sucking it dry for material gain. That is a pretty unique capitalist dynamic, actually.
    - appreciatorBus 1y ago
      You’ve moved the goal posts. First, we were talking about an outcome – exploitation of workers. Your claim, if I understand you correctly is that this outcome is inevitable under capitalism, (perhaps solely possible under capitalism?) and then under some other system you prefer, it would no longer happen, or perhaps be impossible. My contention is the incentive to exploit exists in all socioeconomic systems, even collective ones. This doesn’t mean there’s no better system, or that we should stop caring, or that we should have no laws regarding it. But if correct, it means the arguing that your preferred system cannot or will not have this outcome, is weak and unconvincing. Instead of engaging directly with the claim, you pivoted to implying that my argument was that we should not have laws against bad things. Under capitalism: Both murder and worker exploitation should be illegal. Both murder and worker exploitation will likely occur to one degree or another. Under collectivism: Both murder and worker exploitation should be illegal. Both murder and worker exploitation will likely occur to one degree or another. If you want to argue that collectivism is better for other reasons - go nuts! But if your argument is that there will be no power hierarchy, no pressure to achieve goals, and no incentive to exploit then I just don’t think you’re serious.