While I agree with the sentiment, saying that it’s been hundreds of years in the making is just wrong. If anything, labor rights are at historic highs, and that’s been centuries in the making.
I often think of this famous line to remember that there’s been a whole lot of improvement: “he must a king, he doesn’t have shit all over him.”
both are correct. As long as their has been expropriation of labour there has been struggle for liberation, also enclosure and forced market participation has been a project of centuries.
As in all things it’s push and pull. If you want to learn more read about enclosure of the Commons and at least the bits of Debt: the first 5000 years that deal with imposing currency.
Capitalism is just feudalism with a glow up
Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top
It doesn’t because the people with capital make decisions
Christianity straight up opposes wealth, but it doesn’t play out that way because people with wealth make the decisions
It’s the same for every system/ideology because a power vacuum will always be filled
You are assuming someone always has to be in power over someone else. Historically most communities where run without anyone in charge, but with direct democracies. It just became harder with bigger cities, because it was harder to communicate with everyone else. Perhaps we can change that with the Internet.
Historically you are incorrect
If you don’t put power over someone else then someone comes in and puts it over you
The vehicle for change was just how easily that other person can get to you
You can go back to bronze age kings to demonstrate how what you said was false in all of recorded history
There is a good yt channel talking about egalitarian societies in prehistory called What is Politics
If you want to go far enough back that we use theory
Then we can say prehistoric nomadic humans still had fights with other clans and territorial disputes because our genetic ancestors (chimps/monkeys/apes) also have those
And if you were there with a gun, would you be able to dominate them? If so then you are able to put power over people without a power structure
Territorial disputes where only common after agriculture in humans, because territory wasn’t as important before as mutual aid.
Ah yes. The Always Sunny argument for UBI.
Labour is fine. Just not 40, 50 or 60 hours a week. 10-15, maybe 20 hours should be way enough to live a worryfree life. Change my mind.
As long as we’re shooting for the moon what say you and me and the mates at work all decide together how much, and how often, and even what we produce?
You mean like a worker co-op? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative)
Or co-determination? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination)
Things like Mondragon Corporation, as well as Germany’s quality of life and economic prosperity since their adoption of co-determination laws, shows us that these are not the pipe dreams that capitalists want you to believe they are.
OH! i had heard about how labor gets on the board in germany specifically but never knew the term for it. Thank you friend!
shows us that these are not the pipe dreams that capitalists want you to believe they are.
Could you elaborate?
Also, it was interesting going through those two links and checking out the sections of different countries in the world that have them, and noticing that the United States has almost none of that. Seems like such an outlier, compared to Europe and South America.
What I mean is that the existence, and thriving of these models proves that they’re not only viable, but can provide much better economic outcomes… There is a group of people in the US who work very hard to make sure nothing like that ever gets codified here. At least at the federal level.
Indoctrinating kids into “American exceptionalism” has left us with one and a half generations of “rugged individualists” who think they “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,” when in reality they’re no different than anyone else. But now they’ve got this warped worldview ingrained in them that makes them believe that everyone who’s ever been successful got there entirely on their own. When in reality, none of them did.
A well-written reply, thank you for that.
“pulled themselves up by their bootstraps,”
When in reality, none of them did.
Granted, your painting with a broad brush, to offer a quick summarization, but I don’t think you’re completely correct.
I’m actually someone who figuratively did pulled himself up by his bootstraps (broken home, high school dropout, etc.), and at the end of my career I do have a small amount of wealth, which I earned all on my own, and was able to retire early.
I don’t want to say too much because I don’t want to dox myself accidentally, but there are those, even if it’s just a minority, who do literally work the system to success, the way it currently is.
Shit man, I had this whole thoughtful response typed out, and then my palm must have hit the touchpad on my laptop and I guess clicked a link. When I went back, it was all gone.
I guess I will try to hit the main points… I think I started like:
First, the saying to, “pull one up by their own bootstraps,” itself has actually had its meaning altered over the years into something nearly opposite the original. You see, what they’ve described is an impossible task. It is physically impossible to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The saying was being sardonic. A witticism. They were basically saying you were doing something absurd/impossible. So the irony there is always fun to point out (would normally get a source for this kind of thing, but literally just google the phrase).
Then I think I said something like…
With all due respect, you didn’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It seems as though you’ve worked very hard to get where you are, and that’s great and some may call it commendable. Others work harder for much less, and others do nothing for far more. That’s inequality at work… Regardless, even if you did literally every piece of business yourself, you still cannot claim to have (at least by the current definition) pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, there were many (literally countless) others involved in the events that led you to where you are today.
I’m going to assume you are in the US, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Surely you’ve used township/county/state/interstate roads and highways? Ever cross a bridge and not die? You make use of wastewater and drinking water infrastructure that you don’t even think about the existence of 98% of the time. The countless medications, devices, technologies, etc., that you interact with on a continuous basis, that would not exist if not for government funding. Which ultimately means paid by tax revenue.
Literally being lifted up by everyone who pays taxes in your community, state, and country.
I am glad that you find working that way fulfilling. And that you’ve been able to make something out of it is great. But maybe that’s a similar feeling of fulfillment to what a guitarist might feel when they write a sick riff? Or when a graffiti artist makes a particularly amazing tag (and admires it for a moment before bailing)?
It sucks we live in a system where, in nearly every situation, those people are forced to do the thing that fulfills you (as in you specifically), while leaving themselves no time and/or energy to do the thing that actually fulfills them.
Ideally, in a post-rarity society where there are plenty of food and resources for everyone on the planet many times over, we should be able to do the thing that gives us that feeling; that fulfills us.
Instead, we’re born shackled to this broken system that breeds hate, bitterness, where maybe single-digit percent of people actually get to do the thing that fulfills them, while the rest of us suffer until we die.
Fun stuff. Sorry, lately the brain’s been in the mood for writing I guess.
You mean we’d be in control of the means of production? That’s an interesting idea. We should come up with a recognizable symbol for this new concept. Something simple, like two silhouettes of tools, maybe crossed.
I just don’t think this argument really tracks. If we were hunter/gatherers, we would have no choice but to hunt and gather for food. No it’s not consensual, you have to do it, but would we really say we were being coerced? By who? Nature?
You can say there is bad stuff about Capitalism, and better ideas or systems we should do instead, without this coercion claim.
Hunter/gatherers worked less hours and ate better food then those working the land. But the coercion here is meant by one group making others work more then necessary so they can get richer. Just because there are difficulties in nature, doesn’t mean it’s ok for humans to make it harder for other humans.
I can keep a good attitude in bad weather, but when it’s a felony conviction because every stage of the process is just people looking to profit, I’m mad about it.
In the case of capitalism, we are actually speaking about coercion, though. The concept of “primitive accumulation” (or “primary accumulation”), as introduced by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy, refers to the historical process that led to the formation of capitalism by separating the producer from the means of production. This separation is what ultimately pushed people into the capitalist labor market, making them dependent on selling their labor to survive. The coercive forces that pressured people into capitalism and the labor market can be understood through several key mechanisms:
-
Enclosure of the Commons: In England and elsewhere in Europe, land that was previously held in common for collective use by peasants was enclosed, privatized, and turned into private property. This process forced many peasants off the land, depriving them of their traditional means of subsistence and making them dependent on wage labor.
-
Colonialism and Slavery: The expansion of European powers into the Americas, Africa, and Asia involved the appropriation of land and resources, often through violent means. Indigenous peoples were displaced or enslaved, and their resources were extracted for the benefit of European capitalist economies. This not only facilitated the accumulation of capital but also integrated various regions into the global capitalist system.
-
Legislation: Laws and regulations played a crucial role in this process. For example, the series of laws known as the “Poor Laws” in England were designed to coerce the unemployed and poor into working for wages. These laws restricted the movement of labor and made it illegal to refuse work, effectively pushing people into the labor market.
-
Destruction of Alternative Economies: Pre-capitalist forms of production and exchange, such as feudalism, communal living, or barter systems, were systematically destroyed or undermined. This was not only through direct coercion but also through economic policies and practices that favored capitalist modes of production and exchange.
-
Industrial Revolution: The technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution created a demand for labor in factories. The rural populations, already dispossessed by the enclosure movements, migrated to urban centers in search of work, further entrenching the wage labor system.
Marx argued that primitive accumulation was not a one-time historical event but an ongoing process that sustains capitalism. It involves continuous dislocation and dispossession to maintain a labor force that has no other choice but to sell its labor power. This process ensures a supply of workers for the capitalist system and maintains the conditions necessary for capital accumulation.
In essence, the transition to capitalism, fueled by these coercive forces, created a society where the majority must sell their labor to a minority who owns the means of production, thereby establishing the capitalist labor market and perpetuating the cycle of capital accumulation.
Thanks for taking the time to do this informative write-up.
Chatgpt is that you D:
-
If we were hunter/gatherers, we would have no choice but to hunt and gather for food.
The argument is not that people are forced to labor, but that people are forced to labor on behalf of others. Which is to say, its the difference between a Hunter/Gatherer living off the land and a King’s Huntsman, who is distinguished from a Poacher, in that he has duties and privileges assigned to him by another guy.
You can say there is bad stuff about Capitalism, and better ideas or systems we should do instead, without this coercion claim.
The nature of the Capitalist system is to lay claim to physical property with some threat of violence. It is inherently a dictatorial system, in which a handful of people are afforded the right to claim surplus to sustain and enrich themselves at the expense of their neighbors.
The “bad stuff” is what makes Capitalism a system at all. It is - to crib a joke from Monty Python - the violence that is inherent within the system. If you don’t pay your dues to the King, he gets to beat them out of you.
How can you even discuss Capitalism without talking about this innate coercive mechanic?
I cant agree with you, by the simple fact that no one says you have to work for someone else.
You could argue that even if you own the company you still have to work for someone else to get paid, but likewise everything you need to survive needs to be made or produced by someone.
The hunter gatherers would get food, but they don’t make their own Healthcare. Doctor’s don’t make their own food or houses, and builders don’t work the land. Bet you didn’t make the device you typed that comment on.
Capitalism allows people to work in one aspect, and trade for what else they need. You could easily argue that late stage is exploitive, more regulation is needed and people are greedy, but that’s a whole different arguement.
no one says you have to work for someone else
Primary accumulation says you have to work for someone else. You never got to be there when all the free land was handed out.
You could argue that even if you own the company you still have to work for someone else to get paid
“Everyone works for someone” is a going line in modern business. But this ignores the folks that are legacies of the fortunes of prior generations. The British Royal Family gets to fuck around however they please. The Vanderbilts and Hiltons and Kennedys and Bushs have no economic obligations, just enormous trust funds fueled by the labors of their peers.
The hunter gatherers would get food, but they don’t make their own Healthcare.
The primitive hunter gatherer worked 3-5 hours a day with the rest reserved for leisure. What this amounted to over time was the explosion of art, language, and culture that formed the foundation of the modern scientific movement.
For millennia, the information primitive people accumulated - understanding of seasonal cycles, crop cultivation strategies, navigational techniques, linguistic techniques, the development of simple tools - was passed down and matured, until we could enjoy a life better than any other species on the planet. That absolutely included health care. Greek and Chinese physicians were doing surgeries 4000 years ago. Egyptians and Persians were mastering anatomy. We’ve got evidence of dentists dating back to 10,000 BCE.
What we’ve developed in the modern era is an accumulation of historical knowledge that’s accelerated thanks to a boom in population and a period of relative global peace. But we wouldn’t have been in the position to capitalize on a population boom / peace dividend if we’d never had the leisure time to make those original scientific discoveries.
Capitalism allows people to work in one aspect, and trade for what else they need.
It does not. It forces one (large) group of people to surrender their surplus gains to another (significantly smaller) set. It prevents people from working for themselves and saps them of resources to trade with one another.
You could easily argue that late stage is exploitive
Every stage is exploitive. The Late Stage of Capitalism just happens to be the one where the folks closest to the imperial core begin to suffer a fraction of what folks on the periphery endured.
You have raised a number of points here, and unfortunately I don’t have the time to debate all of them.
The key takeaway i have from your comments is that your only focus is on those who succeed. You’ve ignored all of those who took the same risks and didn’t make it. You see the success, but you don’t see the time and history they (originally) put in to make it happen.
The company I currently own started off with the equivalent of about 8 hours minimum wage in assets, and one contract for 1 hour a week - I technically now no longer need to work and can sit on my ass and take minimum wage. What you, and my staff didn’t see was the number of sleepless nights I had, how many weekends and public holidays I missed, how many times I worked a 10 hour day, then got up again at midnight because more work came up. You don’t see the extra 20 hours a week I take on unpaid to build or invest for the next thing. I am considering passing on a contract for 15% annual growth not because I am too tired, but because there is physically not enough hours to do everything between 5pm and 8am when our work needs to be finished by, and that’s before I start the next days work.
If you want to be upset about those who are at the top, who get trust funds, literally put your money and body where your mouth is. I can tell you right now that you won’t benefit from it, you will suffer immensely, and it could be all for nothing, but your kids might have it easier.
What you, and my staff didn’t see was the number of sleepless nights I had
My guy, you’re not the only one who has ever had a sleepless night. You don’t think I’ve pulled all-nighters for my assorted employers? You don’t think I’ve driven overnight in the rain to an office in a different city to fix a machine that went down in the storm, so my boss could keep collecting on a contract? You don’t think I pulled all-nighters preparing for job interviews in anticipation of proving myself to assholes like you?
Idfk if you cut yourself in the bathtub between meetings with investors. That’s not something I think anyone should have to do, but I’m not the one running JP Morgan Chase likes its my own piggy bank. I’d just like equity in what I got my hands dirty building. And that’s one thing no employer seems to want to offer.
My boss and I can be side-by-side in the trenches, trying to keep the lights on. But at the end of the day, he’s the owner and I’m an “at-will” employee. My work goes into his pocket first and he pays me back a fraction of what I earned.
If you want to be upset about those who are at the top, who get trust funds, literally put your money and body where your mouth is.
What do you think every employee does every fucking day?
You blew right past his final point.
Im at the point where I wonder both “what is the world coming to” and “am I turning into a boomer”?
In what reality does an employee turn up to work in a building they didn’t lease, use equipment they didn’t pay for, inputs they didn’t buy, logistics they didn’t develop, to fill contracts they didn’t aquire, done through loans they aren’t responsible for and a business plan they didn’t back, and expect the lions share of the profit from utalising this, ironically being paid by someone they didn’t hire and with money they didn’t collect?
Then stop arguing with internet strangers and go out and do it yourself. I can’t make this any clearer - if you think its unfair, that they take a disproportionate amount, that you work soo much harder, quit bitching and quit. Because I can guarantee you won’t - the job security, less responsibility and ability to let someone else worry if you have work or not is far too comfortable. At will works both ways.
~95% of businesses fail in the first 5 years. Have fun.
This is falling for the capitalist consent vs. coercion framing. Capitalism doesn’t have to be coercive to be wrong. Even some perfectly voluntary capitalism with a UBI would still be wrong because capitalism inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights to workplace democracy and to get the fruits of their labor (surplus). The much stronger framing is alienable vs. inalienable rights. An inalienable right is one that the holder can’t give up even with consent.
Capitalism doesn’t have to be coercive to be wrong.
Capitalism is, necessarily, coercive. You can find other things wrong with it, but this is an inherent characteristic of reserving ownership to a “landed” class.
Even some perfectly voluntary capitalism with a UBI would still be wrong because capitalism inherently violates workers’ inalienable rights to workplace democracy
But it achieves that end through the process of “Capital Strikes” (ie, lockouts, hiring freezes, speculative hording, etc). And capital strikes are only possible via coercive force (ie, putting a guy with a gun in an industrial site who shoots any worker that tries to enter and engage in production).
The much stronger framing is alienable vs. inalienable rights.
Rights are legal fictions. There is no such thing as an inalienable right in a material sense. You show me a right, I’ll show you a guy with a gun who can alienate it.
Alienated ≠ violated
An inalienable right isn’t one that should not be alienated, but rather can’t be alienated. For labor’s rights, responsibility can’t be alienated at a material level. Consent isn’t sufficient to transfer responsibility to another. For example, a contract to transfer responsibility for a crime is invalid regardless of consent.Legal rights can be fictions but also can be based on ethics.
Workers consent to employment unlike kings. Inalienability shows it’s invalid
But we aren’t hunter & gatherers anymore (not that back then there were capitalist). That age is gone (for now).
Nothing about capital (something someone can own & accumulate) is required to have and sustain cities, technology, services, etc. And it all comes from the propaganda that people are lazy & don’t work if they don’t have to (the opposite is true, but the distinction is that often what you want to do can’t be monetized for various & fairly random bullshit reasons - like, you will always find people that will want to bake/cook/serve, but most of the people that would enjoy that just get a different job that pays better & the ones that don’t like it get stuck with it … and we all get the worst part of that deal, even as consumers, except the people with incentive to maximize sales & minimize wages … like that is a good long-term goal for society or something).
As opposed to communism, where you can just choose not to work and get everything you need for free?
That’s never how communism, even failed attempts at communism, has ever worked.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to highlight.
How is this a microblog meme? Can we please not turn this community into unnuanced political opinions?
How is it not a microblog meme? It fits the definition of both a microblog and a meme. Being nuanced isn’t a requirement.
How is this a meme? It’s just a screenshot of someone’s post.
Some blunt hot take of a politically charged opinion, which serves no purpose but to preach to the choir of people who already agree, is not what I’d imagine most people expect from a meme community without a theme other than specifying a source. It’s a meme community, not soapbox for my opinions land.
No humor or entertainement value, no bait and switch, non-sequiteur, or anything to get any sort of reaction other than “you’re right and that makes me upset at the state of things” or “wow that’s a crap take”.
I’m not even going the route of “keep politics and things that remind me of the poor state of the world out of my funny hahas”, and you could probably argue endlessly about what the modern definition of a meme really is, but this ain’t it boss.
There’s plenty of more appropriate communities for this sort of content.
A meme is anything that is spread through sharing and imitation. If you don’t like that definition, take it up to that one biology guy who came up with it
By that (definitely incorrect) definition, all content on any mass media is a “meme”.
“meme” never meant “has text on it” until the Internet bastardized the term for several years straight
Speaking of eat the rich, I’d like a rich market. A market for the rich we can transfer the wealth from and impoverish them.
Whole Foods already exists. But of course it’s owned by Bezos so it only transfers wealth from the rich to the super rich.
Except that the Amish exist…
Sir this is a wendy’s.
We are slaves. We just don’t like in a big plantation. No. We live anywhere where there are “jobs”. No jobs means we become homeless eventually. And who has these “jobs”? The rich assholes do. Just like we were forced to work for their forefathers in plantations, now we work for them in “jobs”. The job is basically a metaphorical plantation.
This is actually a batshit insane comparison. You’re fucking crazy, man.
In my view, crazy is a dismissive word used to avoid making an attempt to understand. A lazy word, and I think most who think about it realize this and stop using it.
I can see your perspective, but I believe you’ve made minimal effort to understand the “crazy” ideas you are being presented.
Lazy and offensive is comparing people as property to what we have now. I do understand the hyperbole but it’s so fucking wrong I can’t even respond any other way. Actual property that can be done with whatever the owner chooses, versus the struggles of today. Get out of here with being an apologist on this.
Centuries of violence? Try prehistory. Humans have always used violence if someone takes more than they contribute.
Humans have always used violence if someone takes more than they contribute.
In the grand scheme of things, using violence against those who take more than they contribute (i.e., the upper class) is one of the things we do least often.
And yet give two kids a cookie and a knife and watch how carefully they divide that cookie. Fairness is a very old instinct.
I’m not giving knives to children, not after last time. Nice try Child Protective Services.
You look away for TWO seconds and they’re already mid-goat-sacrifice.
And somehow it’s YOUR fault…
Humans are for the most part inherently fair and cooperative.
But sociopaths aren’t, so they think no one else will do anything without the threat of starving to death.
And the sociopaths have been making the rules since the mid 80s.
Untold damage done to humanity and civilization just so a handful of old white men can be ridiculously, unspendably rich.
And we are taught to idealize them.
Calling anyone who does this stuff a sociopath is such a simplistic way to view things. You know beside the fact a sociopath isn’t an official diagnosis. It’s a fallacy to call everyone of these people mentally ill, sure it’s easier to otherize people rather than accepting some of these pieces of shit of sound mind. It’s hard to believe people can be capable of these things without something mentally wrong with them.
Not really, and it used to be a diagnosis. This is not a formal academic setting and I am not talking exclusively to mental health professionals.
There is study after study showing that people who rate high on the Hare scale, who the layman would call sociopath/psychopath are SIGNIFICANTLY overrepresented per-capita in positions of highest power such as politician, or some flavor of executive officer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpyIZ4DGIK8
Other studies have shown that sociopaths are very effective at acquiring power, but are TERRIBLE at using that power to forward the company’s goals, because they are raging narcissists.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05303-x
I’m not exactly sure why you are defending the mentally ill power brokers that are turning our world to shit, you may want to re-examine your values.
But you probably won’t.
There isn’t study after study saying that, hell the one study that people point to have been pulled apart. I don’t like calling every asshole a mentally ill person, it has nothing to do with defending pieces of shit CEOs. Spreading bad research is also a problem. This idea of speaking up when people throw around terms Willy nilly is me defending the behaviour or the people is ridiculous. This little gotcha at the end is also pathetic. “Reexamine” my ass.
I’d say violence is much more often used by people to take more than they contribute than the converse. Violence against the takers is so rare they write about it in history books.
I should have said more than they need. Humans will look after people who can’t look after themselves.
Which does make you think. For example if one person who has the knowledge is trying to build a bridge and they need a lot of resources to build it and someone else keeps coming along and taking some of that large pile because they think the person has too many resources, then that person can’t complete the bridge and noone gets the benefit from the bridge.
Missing here: you can start your own business
Missing here: you can start your own business
Missing here: you can be part of the exploiting class instead.
Do you really feel that every business exploits people?
By definition, they have to if they’re making profits and not sharing those profits with the workers. So unless it’s a co-op, yeah every business exploits people. The workers create the surplus value with their labor and the business owner gets to decide what to do with it, dictatorially.
Does the owner not deserve compensation for the risk, time, and energy he takes in starting the business, and organizing and supporting the team?
Why are you even asking this? Please tell me where I said that a business owner does not deserve compensation for their labor. If they’re working, they deserve compensation. However, for them to have profits (i.e. more money taken in than all of their expenses, costs, and taxes combined), that means they are by definition not paying their workers the full value of whatever the workers created with their time and labor. Wages are a cost for an owner/capitalist. If they paid workers the full amount of the value they generate with their labor, that’s less money that the owner gets to take home, even though they weren’t the ones who created that wealth. If they worked and paid themselves the same as the workers or split the profits with the workers, and made decisions about all of the expenses/management of the business democratically, it wouldn’t be exploitation. When I say exploitation, I don’t mean they are creating awful working conditions or being abusive or something extreme; I’m literally just talking about workers not receiving the full value generated by their labor.
This community is incredibly pessimistic. I know the world is in a hard place already, but I don’t want to be reminded of it every 5 posts on c/all. I have taken to block multiple communities because of it.
The alternative is everyone grows their own food, builds their own houses, makes their own clothes, gathers firewood, yadda yadda.
You certainly wouldn’t have the Internet in such a paradise.
That said, with all that we now have, 4 6 hour work days should be the norm.
It’s about the question who owns the product that labor produced (along with land).
Why can someone be the owner of a production line?
Because someone has to build it. Why would you build something if you couldn’t own it afterwards?
Besides that it gets built with labor and not capital … lots of things people build for all to use, some even pool together to build libraries, schools, etc.
But the short answer why would you build a garden/factory/connect hall/etc is so that afterwards you live in a world/society that now has a place to take a walk, toys, concerts, etc.
You would only like to own those things just because it gets you into the position to exploit others (the main topic here I mean) that were unable to build it. Exploit them to have a more comfortable life in unrelated things.
But why would I, as an individual, spend my life learning how to build buildings and then build them if I have no more benefit from doing that than I would from someone else putting in all that work? Surely I’d just do nothing and wait for someone else to do it?
What else would you do? You get all your needs met.
And when no money as such having a big role, you get recognized by what you do and accomplish, not by what made the most profit (that is a huge distinction imho).
Recognition isn’t as important as you make it sound. And most people will hardly start to work out of boredom. There’s plenty of ways to spend your time that are not productive.
In addition, there are plenty of jobs literally nobody wants to do, and consequently, nobody would do under your proposed system.
With absence of money as the main ‘power’ it’s your deeds that are the only thing left to define the extra exclusive things like apartments, experiences, etc.
And that is the thing, afaik all studies & experiments concluded that people start being productive regardless. It’s not “out of boredom”. Its just something to do. Sure, not everything benefits everyone, but imagine the impact of all the eg artist stuck flipping burgers. They would seem ‘unproductive’ just “laying about” until they produce a pice the whole world recognizes as something special (and not just because of the marketing budget).
Basically no one just stays still doing nothing, definitely not a significant margin. Same with animals, at the very least they will play.
Eg, could you imagine your life without long-term producing/making/planning something?
This perfectly describes capitalism. The workers are factually responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. The workers build the positive and negative product, but the employer has sole ownership of the produced outputs and holds the liabilities for the used-up inputs. The workers produce the whole product but are denied the legal rights to it under capitalism
The difference is that in capitalism, you are compensated for your labour in a different way, with wages. That is sufficient motivation to be productive. It does not make a difference in that regard who owns the final product.
You have choices, just a lack of imagination
Why should I have to need imagination to survive, while the rich get richer by default?
Removed by mod
I should just die because I just want to do the work necessary and not go above and beyond to make some rich people richer for no reason or interest of my own?
That and the whining.
Can’t complain either? I guess you neither believe in free speech nor in right to choose not to make rich people richer against your own will. These fascistic ideas hurt everyone and saying that someone should die for simply saying them always causes more problems.
If you had any imagination
