3 ms·

related? David Graeber's On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs https://davidgraeber.org/articles/on-the-phenomenon-of-bullshit-jobs-a-work-rant/ https://davidgrae

related? David Graeber's On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs https://davidgraeber.org/articles/on-the-phenomenon-of-bullshit-jobs-a-work-rant/ https://davidgraeber.org/articles/on-the-phenomenon-of-bulls...

dkdcio 1y ago
it’s mentioned and linked a few paragraphs in so probably related
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
> The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ’60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them. Isn't this sort of similar to 1984 Like they had ways to provide enough but they wouldn't because then they would lose the power or something similar
- immibis 1y ago
  Stories like 1984 try to convey (among other things) the mechanisms and effects of power. Everything else (laws, money, work) is subordinate to power relationships. People who are good at obtaining and maintaining power may collectively be called "the ruling class". By definition, people with lots of power control us. That's what it means to have power. But the exact appearance of that power differs in each society. In North Korea you worship the leader or they shoot you dead, because "he is literally God and how dare you defy God". In the USSR you report good numbers to your boss or you are kidnapped and brought to a gulag, because "you are interfering with our progress towards glorious communist utopia, comrade". And in the United States of America you seek out a boss to submit yourself to 40 hours a week, or else you find yourself unable to obtain food because "it's a free market and you didn't earn enough money; we can't give you food because that would be slavery".
  - nradov 1y ago
    The key difference is that in the USA you can also start your own business and obtain food that way. No one will stop you, you can just go ahead and do it. Something like 20-25M people work full time in their own business and have no boss.
    - immibis 1y ago
      ???????
      - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
        I think he seems to explain that in the situation that you had presented between multiple different countries, every other country doesn't even give you the freedom/opportunity to be the powerful person without requiring some same set of ideologies (communism good, or the NK example) Whereas, in a capitalist system with no matter how much of its flaws, as long as you can produce value (whatever that is in current society), you have power and can actually be your own boss in that sense. I am worried how much of that can change in recent year but still, I feel like socialism can be good for generating extreme amounts of money /value because as a society on whole, people are willing to take on more risks if there is something to fall back on (like not having to worry that you or your family will starve if you fail) Sweden has more amounts of billionaires per capita than america (source wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...)
        immibis 1y ago
        Everyone has at least some power in every situation. Even actual slave owners couldn't force their slaves to work - they just could (and did) kill them if they refused. What you say about capitalism could work if capitalism rewarded creating value, but capitalism actually rewards taking money, and pro-capitalist theory says that's strongly coupled to creating value, but in reality we observe that it's actually very weakly coupled. If we allow alternative definitions of value (like the common "value = whatever brings money") then we could say the same thing about totalitarian dictatorship - in that system, value is defined as whatever the dictator likes, and if you create that, you are rewarded just like in capitalism. It's not true that in capitalism you don't need a certain ideology to become powerful. You do need one - profit above all else, bribes are okay if you can get away with them, each person's moral value is solely determined by their net worth, that sort of thing. If you don't think that way, you won't become powerful in capitalism. (Well, occasionally it happens by luck, but that's true in any system, and if you didn't have the skill to deliberately seek power, you also don't have the skill to hold onto it. See Notch or the average lottery winner.) The ideology you need to become powerful in a system usually isn't the one it says on the tin. Believing in God in a theocracy doesn't make you powerful, just average. Believing you're God's chosen prophet might make you powerful; but more likely is believing the whole God thing is a scam and it's really a dictatorship, so you suck up to the guy at the top while publicly praising God. In USSR, believing you're helping create a communist utopia doesn't make you powerful, just average (and more delusional than average). More likely to make you powerful in the USSR is believing that it's useful for the plebs to believe they're creating a communist utopia and they deserve for you to steal all their wealth because they're so stupid for believing that nonsense. You don't get powerful in feudalism by believing the king is chosen by God; you're more likely to get powerful in feudalism by believing that if you murder the king you might get to be the new king. The Gervais Principle applies to more than just corporations. I avoid the word "socialism" because in practice it can be substituted by "something that isn't capitalism" and different people don't agree on what, specifically, that thing is.

dkdcio 1y ago

it’s mentioned and linked a few paragraphs in so probably related

Imustaskforhelp 1y ago

> The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ’60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them. Isn't this sort of similar to 1984 Like they had ways to provide enough but they wouldn't because then they would lose the power or something similar

immibis 1y ago
Stories like 1984 try to convey (among other things) the mechanisms and effects of power. Everything else (laws, money, work) is subordinate to power relationships. People who are good at obtaining and maintaining power may collectively be called "the ruling class". By definition, people with lots of power control us. That's what it means to have power. But the exact appearance of that power differs in each society. In North Korea you worship the leader or they shoot you dead, because "he is literally God and how dare you defy God". In the USSR you report good numbers to your boss or you are kidnapped and brought to a gulag, because "you are interfering with our progress towards glorious communist utopia, comrade". And in the United States of America you seek out a boss to submit yourself to 40 hours a week, or else you find yourself unable to obtain food because "it's a free market and you didn't earn enough money; we can't give you food because that would be slavery".
- nradov 1y ago
  The key difference is that in the USA you can also start your own business and obtain food that way. No one will stop you, you can just go ahead and do it. Something like 20-25M people work full time in their own business and have no boss.
  - immibis 1y ago
    ???????
    - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
      I think he seems to explain that in the situation that you had presented between multiple different countries, every other country doesn't even give you the freedom/opportunity to be the powerful person without requiring some same set of ideologies (communism good, or the NK example) Whereas, in a capitalist system with no matter how much of its flaws, as long as you can produce value (whatever that is in current society), you have power and can actually be your own boss in that sense. I am worried how much of that can change in recent year but still, I feel like socialism can be good for generating extreme amounts of money /value because as a society on whole, people are willing to take on more risks if there is something to fall back on (like not having to worry that you or your family will starve if you fail) Sweden has more amounts of billionaires per capita than america (source wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...)
      - immibis 1y ago
        Everyone has at least some power in every situation. Even actual slave owners couldn't force their slaves to work - they just could (and did) kill them if they refused. What you say about capitalism could work if capitalism rewarded creating value, but capitalism actually rewards taking money, and pro-capitalist theory says that's strongly coupled to creating value, but in reality we observe that it's actually very weakly coupled. If we allow alternative definitions of value (like the common "value = whatever brings money") then we could say the same thing about totalitarian dictatorship - in that system, value is defined as whatever the dictator likes, and if you create that, you are rewarded just like in capitalism. It's not true that in capitalism you don't need a certain ideology to become powerful. You do need one - profit above all else, bribes are okay if you can get away with them, each person's moral value is solely determined by their net worth, that sort of thing. If you don't think that way, you won't become powerful in capitalism. (Well, occasionally it happens by luck, but that's true in any system, and if you didn't have the skill to deliberately seek power, you also don't have the skill to hold onto it. See Notch or the average lottery winner.) The ideology you need to become powerful in a system usually isn't the one it says on the tin. Believing in God in a theocracy doesn't make you powerful, just average. Believing you're God's chosen prophet might make you powerful; but more likely is believing the whole God thing is a scam and it's really a dictatorship, so you suck up to the guy at the top while publicly praising God. In USSR, believing you're helping create a communist utopia doesn't make you powerful, just average (and more delusional than average). More likely to make you powerful in the USSR is believing that it's useful for the plebs to believe they're creating a communist utopia and they deserve for you to steal all their wealth because they're so stupid for believing that nonsense. You don't get powerful in feudalism by believing the king is chosen by God; you're more likely to get powerful in feudalism by believing that if you murder the king you might get to be the new king. The Gervais Principle applies to more than just corporations. I avoid the word "socialism" because in practice it can be substituted by "something that isn't capitalism" and different people don't agree on what, specifically, that thing is.