You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t care what system you implement, staying alive is going to require labour. We’re nowhere near utopian sci-fi style post scarcity yet.
Labor is required, having a Working Class and an Owning Class is not. Workers can share ownership.
You can start your own worker’s collective. I’m sure many liked minded people would like to join a company were risk and reward are shared equally.
I think that would be nice, but individual microcosms of a better system are woefully insufficient.
I do wonder what fraction of .ml actually tries to unionize their workplace or start a cooperative. Probably higher than most groups, but I’d wager it’s still embarrassingly low.
human labour is a matter of nature until and if post-scarcity is achieved, although I would argue it doesn’t have to be “work”. It can just be fun.
Wage slavery on the other hand, isn’t. It’s a human construct enforced through incredible violence.
I think there is an important distinction between what is required of a human to exist and what a capitalist society refers to as labor lol
We get closer to post scarcity everyday. Just depends on if society collapses or rather we get passed this great filter.
deleted by creator
You must have learned a different definition for “utopian” and are very much stretching the definition of “post scarcity”. We ain’t there yet, and aren’t going to be for the foreseeable future.
As for the first paragraph, the vast majority of western society doesn’t work that way. There are a few major examples in the US that do (Amazon comes to mind) that are rightfully criticized for it (although I wish the criticism came with a side of actual consequences).
deleted by creator
Yeah, but I did. You can’t just ignore individual words and respond to something I didn’t even say.
deleted by creator
I mean, it turns out that if we all specialize in one type of labor or another we each become significantly more productive than if we all tried to provide for ourselves as individuals or even small collectives. If we use money as a rough way of storing the value of our labor, we can use that layer of abstraction to trade labor with each other at impersonal scales, benefitting even further from specialization and organization.
I, for one, am glad someone else has gotten super good at growing food and building shelter so that I can concentrate on other things as I desire. I could even become a farmer, if I wanted!
Not sure why you’re bringing up specialization
He literally wrote a paragraph explaining why it’s pertinent…
Without specialization the effectiveness of trading labor doesn’t go much beyond just doing favors for each other. I don’t get much value out of having you do a task for me if I can do it comparably as well as you can. I have to weigh the benefit of having someone else work for me and building mutual trust against the cost of being indebted to someone else and the risk of them doing differently to how I would have wanted. If we each specialize, now other people can offer labor that I can’t perform myself, and when they get good enough at their specialty it really starts to outweigh the negative sides of having someone else do the work for you.
Again. Irrelevant. Nobody is arguing against specialization
Money is necessary if you have specialization. You can’t keep track of who has done what favor to whom or how much that favor is really worth. Money is the thing that makes extreme specialization possible.
Nonsense
Another enlightening comment where you sidestep the conversation to laude over others from your imaginary horse.
Care to explain why it’s nonsense or should we just trust you bro?
I don’t have to argue against assertions without evidence
I mean, it would be an order of magnitude more work to grow all the food and build the (subpar in comparison) amenities I need to survive. But I guess then I would just be a slave to nature. You can’t escape.
Separation of duties does not imply capitalist wage slavery
