3 ms·
I disagree that ... the "ruling class" sat down to decide most people should work bullshit jobs. But the author denies this explicitly. The phenomenon is more
by Lagged2Death 13y ago
I disagree that ... the "ruling class" sat down to decide most people should work bullshit jobs.
But the author denies this explicitly.
The phenomenon is more elegantly explained by pure economics ... more energy is absorbed by the zero-sum, gimmicky game of selling and marketing them.
It's sort of odd to appeal to economics on the one hand and then characterize sales/marketing as zero-sum on the other. I wouldn't spend any energy defending sales/marketing as positive-sum myself, but economists do.
- zeteo 13y ago>The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger
- ddeck 13y agoYes, he contradicts himself. Your quote clearly implies design, and then he concludes with this: >If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how they could have done a better job... ...Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. There are some good points in the analysis, but it would be more compelling if it didn't hint at some sort of elite conspiracy.
- aidenn0 13y agoThe usage of "as if" like that means to me that he doesn't thinl k it's really what happened. He is using a similie.
- richardjordan 13y agoJust like when scientists use words like design and God - it's not literal it's figurative. The author's pretty clear he doesn't think a committee of plotters sat down and mapped out our road to ruin. See my earlier comment. He's merely describing a stable attractor. A feature of the system which creates local maxima which are hard to escape from. An involuntary alignment of interests which means that individuals acting on their own behalf reinforce a system which has less than ideal characteristics, without themselves either thinking through the larger collective consequences or supporting them.
- RodericDay 13y agoI think you're connecting all the wrong dots. Things Graeber says: * The ruling class could not wish for a better system (hyperbole of course) * The ruling class has figured out threats to its position * Such systems arise organically Things he does not say: * The ruling class has engineered this system after figuring out what threatens its position, and made it seem organic