you should have to work (to make money, transactionally, anything not valued by capitalism and rich people doesn’t even count, if you don’t or can’t fit this model it doesnt count) to make a living
is that
if you don’t work (with the previous very large caveats for what counts as ‘work’), you deserve to suffer and die
A lot of people don’t think about the implications of that statement when they make it, but that is the logical end point. My experience is that most people - at least if they aren’t stressed from the existing model - absolutely want to do things, often sharing them for free, without coercion.
But even if not, do you think people should be miserable and die if they can’t or even won’t “work for a living” (for a very particular narrow definition of work that can gain you money under the current system, when stuff created and donated is often more valuable than things payed for due to lack of perverse incentives - e.g. FOSS ^.^).
I’m not even starting on how the current model of labour provides perverse anti-automation incentives. Automation should be liberating, but the way our society values people based on labour (e.g. Protestant Work Ethic) actively forces people (and the non-capitalist class as a whole) to avoid tools or processes that should improve our collective lives :/ - imo this is one of the most fucked up things about capitalism.
And who is working to build that automation, who is working to integrate that automation? Who is building the mechanic stuff, the electric stuff the robots and linear tranfer axes, the PlCs and the sensors?
I asked sapient_cogbag who would do the automation work he likes to be implemented? Because someone has to get up in the morning and actually do that work, it doesn’t grow on it’s own.
And you’re asking me about threats of starvation and homelessness … I don’t get it …
The current way we coerce (by threatening starvation and homelessness) is not the only way to make people do things. I agree that free everything forever with sprinkles is probably not going to work or allow us to maintain our current quality of life (I too like pop-tarts medicine, and computers). It’s not a binary. There are options in between that can be used to motivate people to do even unpleasant things.
I think we coerce way to much and I think a lot of coercion that we do benefits only a few people and not the many.
I’m not coerced, I choose to. I could very well live off the land. The only difference would be the life standard and what I can afford, but hey smartphones, internet and restaurants are a first world luxuries not real life needs.
Oh my bad. I did realize you’re one of the 12ish people that can do that. Can you imagine not having that ability and sympathize with people who don’t have that ability? If not, we don’t really have any common ground to stand on.
The people who want to? I mean loads of people like developing infrastructure, hell, I am very much included in that number (more FOSS/software stuff and I’m not always the most effective for various executive dysfunction reasons but still)
People don’t need to be threatened with starvation to do stuff, and not having that threat enables people to do stuff they think is valuable rather than what some rich arsehole wanting to fuck over everyone else thinks is valuable or what will happen to make money <.<
Capitalism is also THE most successful system in our history. Without capitalism you’d be dead. Me too. Without capitalism the would wouldn’t be able to sustain more than a few hundred million people. Do not underestimate all the processes we have in place that make it that you have your Hamburger.on your place to eat and survive. Hospitals would cease to function without it.
So let’s call capitalism a necessary evil of you like. I know there are loads of communist types around here that live in the fantasy world where communism can do this and we’ll, it can’t. If you want, just even look at the history of Communism over the entire world. Every single communist government has failed and has caused only pain and suffering on the practical level.
I fully agree with you that you don’t just want to ket people die so that is the solution?
I’d say a limited capitalist system where we place hard limits on what companies can do, hard limits on sizes and incomes and what people can own through -for example- taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay until taxes reach 100%
With that huge income you finance a socialist state where all the basics are free. Free healthcare , free education, etc. Food and housing is paid with Universal income so that everyone can at least afford a basic nice level of living. Anyone who wants extra can work extra in the capitalist system and earn extra if they want, but not need.
That just my 2 cents, but you’ll still need capitalism. Take that away and you’ll destroy the world and kill millions.
The logical conclusion of
is that
A lot of people don’t think about the implications of that statement when they make it, but that is the logical end point. My experience is that most people - at least if they aren’t stressed from the existing model - absolutely want to do things, often sharing them for free, without coercion.
But even if not, do you think people should be miserable and die if they can’t or even won’t “work for a living” (for a very particular narrow definition of work that can gain you money under the current system, when stuff created and donated is often more valuable than things payed for due to lack of perverse incentives - e.g. FOSS ^.^).
I’m not even starting on how the current model of labour provides perverse anti-automation incentives. Automation should be liberating, but the way our society values people based on labour (e.g. Protestant Work Ethic) actively forces people (and the non-capitalist class as a whole) to avoid tools or processes that should improve our collective lives :/ - imo this is one of the most fucked up things about capitalism.
And who is working to build that automation, who is working to integrate that automation? Who is building the mechanic stuff, the electric stuff the robots and linear tranfer axes, the PlCs and the sensors?
You know you can get people to do this without threatening them with starvation and homelessness right?
I asked sapient_cogbag who would do the automation work he likes to be implemented? Because someone has to get up in the morning and actually do that work, it doesn’t grow on it’s own.
And you’re asking me about threats of starvation and homelessness … I don’t get it …
*they
The current way we coerce (by threatening starvation and homelessness) is not the only way to make people do things. I agree that free everything forever with sprinkles is probably not going to work or allow us to maintain our current quality of life (I too like pop-tarts medicine, and computers). It’s not a binary. There are options in between that can be used to motivate people to do even unpleasant things.
I think we coerce way to much and I think a lot of coercion that we do benefits only a few people and not the many.
Who coerced you by threats?
No one in particular. But I am coerced into working as are you.
I’m not coerced, I choose to. I could very well live off the land. The only difference would be the life standard and what I can afford, but hey smartphones, internet and restaurants are a first world luxuries not real life needs.
I thought of another good argument so I’m posting it here.
Saying that I can stop working anytime and eat dirt is not really selling me on your ideas.
Oh my bad. I did realize you’re one of the 12ish people that can do that. Can you imagine not having that ability and sympathize with people who don’t have that ability? If not, we don’t really have any common ground to stand on.
The people who want to? I mean loads of people like developing infrastructure, hell, I am very much included in that number (more FOSS/software stuff and I’m not always the most effective for various executive dysfunction reasons but still)
People don’t need to be threatened with starvation to do stuff, and not having that threat enables people to do stuff they think is valuable rather than what some rich arsehole wanting to fuck over everyone else thinks is valuable or what will happen to make money <.<
I think you missed the point if my comnent.
Thats the fun stuff, but theres lots of stuff that has to be done in a society thats not fun.
It cannot be! People are working for fun:
“love what you do and you would not work a day” , right!? /s
Pure capitalism without rules is bad, sure.
Capitalism is also THE most successful system in our history. Without capitalism you’d be dead. Me too. Without capitalism the would wouldn’t be able to sustain more than a few hundred million people. Do not underestimate all the processes we have in place that make it that you have your Hamburger.on your place to eat and survive. Hospitals would cease to function without it.
So let’s call capitalism a necessary evil of you like. I know there are loads of communist types around here that live in the fantasy world where communism can do this and we’ll, it can’t. If you want, just even look at the history of Communism over the entire world. Every single communist government has failed and has caused only pain and suffering on the practical level.
I fully agree with you that you don’t just want to ket people die so that is the solution?
I’d say a limited capitalist system where we place hard limits on what companies can do, hard limits on sizes and incomes and what people can own through -for example- taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay until taxes reach 100%
With that huge income you finance a socialist state where all the basics are free. Free healthcare , free education, etc. Food and housing is paid with Universal income so that everyone can at least afford a basic nice level of living. Anyone who wants extra can work extra in the capitalist system and earn extra if they want, but not need.
That just my 2 cents, but you’ll still need capitalism. Take that away and you’ll destroy the world and kill millions.