this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
533 points (80.6% liked)

Leftism

2062 readers
50 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

!abolition@slrpnk.net !antiwork@lemmy.world !antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world !breadtube@lemmy.world !climate@slrpnk.net !fuckcars@lemmy.world !iwwunion@lemmy.ml !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com !leftymusic@lemmy.world !privacy@lemmy.world !socialistra@midwest.social !solarpunk@slrpnk.net Solarpunk memes !therightcantmeme@midwest.social !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world !vuvuzelaiphone@lemmy.world !workingclasscalendar@lemmy.world !workreform@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

OK, but qq: Who pumps out septic tanks if there is no coercion involved?

[–] Khotetsu@lib.lgbt 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The dude with a passion for septic infrastructure who wants to provide a rewarding service for the community, instead of getting yelled at by customers at the convenience store he works at to make sure he can afford the microwave dinner he's eating that night.

Pie in the sky scenario/sarcasm aside, criticism of capitalism doesn't mean pure anarchy. It means looking at what works and what doesn't work towards making sure people have what they need. Money is much easier to trade people to do a service than trading a goat for 2 sheep, but that doesn't mean that some landlord deserves 1 of the sheep and half the goat for "allowing" you to raise them under threat of starvation and homelessness.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I love the enthusiasm, but see my reply to the comment above yours. Basically: do you believe that no one should work for anyone else for money? Should every single professional be their own sole proprietorship? Who runs the marketing, bookkeeping, land management, etc for all of these people doing their work? You could have a person who specializes in doing these things professionally for other professionals, but the farther you take that idea, the more you're just recreating the idea of employment piece by piece. Am I missing something? Honest question.

I love the idea, but I've always been a bit confused about the end game goal for this line of thinking. I agree with the idea that landlords are trash, but everybody still needs the ability to purchase food and pleasure goods and such, and as long as the idea of money exists, the need to work for it does also.

[–] the_inebriati@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Companies can still exist under socialism. They can exist in very similar forms to what we have at the minute. The difference is the ownership.

I suppose the question I'd put back to you is "Do you think there is an intrinsic benefit in someone (who doesn't do the work) owning a company vs each of the workers having an ownership stake in the business?".

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You constructed a false dichotomy, between one case of labor being organized such workers that are subordinate to an employer, versus the other of everyone working individually.

[–] Khotetsu@lib.lgbt 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that I don't have a problem with capitalism, I have a problem with the consequences of modern-day unregulated capitalism. To me, capitalism is a system of abstraction that allows us to simplify the bartering of old with money. Money is a very useful metaphor for the value of goods and time spent working, but the nature of businesses is to maximize profits, and given the chance, they will do so at the expense of their employees (more so large corporations, but small businesses can be just as guilty). Modern corporate hierarchy is basically just feudalism with extra steps.

People like to work. People like to feel like they're contributing to their community/society. What people don't like is not getting paid a fair amount for their labor doing something that doesn't feel meaningful or fulfilling. Doing a job you don't like just to put food on the table often falls under this category. It's "do a job for the sake of doing a job, or die." Regardless of whatever job you're thinking of, there's people out there who will willingly do it, so long as they feel rewarded adequately for their effort. There are people who do actually enjoy being garbagemen or whatever, because they dont mind the work and feel good providing an important service for their community. This is why socialism/socialist systems are so important. Because capitalism is a system that can easily be abused if it isn't regulated and kept in check, and socialism and capitalism can easily coexist.

There was a study done in Canada about 5-10 years back (which the conservative party stopped and tried to destroy the results of when they got elected into power) where they gave everybody of working age (something like 16 and older) $1,000 a month. What they found was that the vast majority of people continued to work, except for 2 segments of the population: pregnant women and high-school aged kids. This coincided with a general increase in the grades of students and the number of kids who went to college after they graduated. The theory was that because kids from poor families didn't have to work jobs after school to help their parents pay for bills, they were able to focus more on their education and more could afford to go to college afterwards. And that $1,000 per person ended up back in the economy, stimulating economic growth in all corners of the town.

What we need isn't to destroy the concept of money and manufacturing. We need to protect workers and provide the support systems that will improve the lives of the general populace, not ensure the growth of the wealthy's stock portfolios at the expense of everything else.

The weekend was a right given to us by socialists who fought and died for the idea of being able to work a 5 day week instead of working 7 days a week. We don't need company towns where people use company funny money to buy food from the company store, sleeping in company beds with 2 other people in 8 hour shifts for 100% occupancy in company bunkhouses - like it was in the US around the early 1900s. We need longer weekends.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Money and trade are older than capitalism.

Capitalism emerged from the industrial revolution, as the system of unbounded accumulation of private wealth by a small cohort of society, who contribute no labor, by claiming as profit a share of wealth generated by labor of the rest of society, depriving them from realizing the full value of their own labor.

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Based on the above image, I'd say its the guy who sees a demand for septic tank maintenance and is willing to do that work for pay. The first issue is the disparity between the workers and the business owner. but if they're the same, you don't have that issue.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Who does the marketing and bookkeeping for that one guy? Are you saying that every single professional should be their own sole proprietorship?

[–] angrymouse@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Holy shit you guys are not joking about not knowing cooperative of workers?

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Idk, maybe sole proprietor works. Keep the communities relatively, everyone picks up an array of skills, you don’t need marketing to know jimbob and Lisa are the only people skilled w plumbing stuff in the community. And I think it’s pretty common for soleprop to do their own bookkeeping, if it’s really done at all.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How does society build spacecraft, or do high energy physics research in this scenario? Sounds like paradise if you're willing to stay in an agrarian society, but you have to be comfortable with life expectancy dropping like a rock from its current levels, because there would be no MRI machines, or gene therapy. These things are not the work of individuals, or even small groups working on handshake agreements. Contrary to how it might sound, I'm really not attacking the premise, I just want to make sure everyone understands what their advocating when they imply that this is how society should be.

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Yeah, it was really feeling like you were just being contrarian. Which led me to not really try at all to engage with you further. But since it now seems you’re coming at this in good faith….

I’m 100% on the same page with you about advanced technologies and science, though I do wonder if our individual happiness wouldn’t be greater with a bit less technology. The harnessing of tech/science to extract value out of people at the expense of mental health (corporate social media for example) is a cost that is hard to weigh against the advantages of modern health sciences.

It’d be nice if we could find a way to achieve those things without the need for obscene concentration of wealth and this global tragedy of the commons perpetuated by companies and individuals that are so far removed from the impacts of their actions.

There must be a letter way, and I have no clue how to figure it out or how we’d implement it… but the way things are now just… doesn’t feel good.

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why do people want to become doctors, astronauts, invent medical devices, invent new technology, etc

When you give people the choice to actually contribute to society with the things they enjoy doing then they will

And menial tasks such as emptying a septic tank can be automated

Right now the only way people can contribute to society in a way they enjoy is if they have enough money to do so, if not they are forced into doing jobs that they don't enjoy and drain them

[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right now you can contribute to society by doing work that matters which does not always require individual expenses.

For example bar none the single most important job in any developed society is water purification. Working at the water utility is something you can do that benefits everyone and has no cost to yourself.

The second most critical task is waste management which requires no money from the worker either.

Im not being pedantic here. The claim you have to be wealthy to contribute is false

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Did you read my comment properly

Some people may enjoy waste management or water purification but not all people do

People also have to lay for the cost of transport, bills, taxes, food, shelter, etc

People want to contribute to society in ways which they enjoy and tasks like water purification and waste management can be largely automated with notifications sent out to people overseeing the automation if there's an issue

[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Lol, you think we can completely automate water systems and trash collection? What planet do you live on because those have NEVER been automated anywhere.

I think you live in a dreamworld where people can just do whatever task fulfills them and all the unpleasant jobs are magically taken care of.

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Do you think waste management is only the garbage people who come to collect your bin rubbish every week

I think those garbage people need to come see you more often because it's clear you're making trash here in the comment section by arguing I'm bad faith

[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No I don't think waste management is just picking up trash. Nothing in my comment suggests that I think that way.

I did not say you made abad faith argument as I suspect you do believe these things can be automated. What I DID say was that your vision of how societies could function is unrealistic and ignorant of how things actually work. That is different than bad faith.

[–] Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

All the nitpicking aside, this is the 'somebody's gotta scrub the toilets' argument right?

The simplest answer to this I can think of is, who scrubs the toilets in your home? It's you right?

Do you do it because you own the toilet? Not necessarily because people who live in rented accommodation still scrub the toilet. So why? It's because you have an interest in not living in a place with a filthy toilet. Now suppose you actually had a local community, you'd have an interest in making sure nobody was living with a filthy toilet they couldn't clean because then they might get sick and you don't want that because you're a nice person and you don't like seeing your friends hurt. So you'd probably set up a communal rota, which is basically what people here in the UK already do because elder care on the NHS doesn't exist in practice.

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The reality is that most people are self-interested and not at all ulturistic about things. They'll begrudgingly clean their own toilet for their own sanitary sake but that line of thinking doesn't do so well with public places.

Go into a public bathroom at a truck station or anywhere else that doesn't have a paid worker to clean up the mess and you'll see just how much people cooperate to keep it clean. Spoilers: they dont, because almost nobody wants to clean up after themselves let alone others germ filled shit stains, clogged toilets, dirty water splashed+litter everywhere on the ground, and used needles.

Maybe theres some magical unicorn ulturistic people that would haul ass to clean up the place out of kindness of their heart/for the good of community. Good for them, the next dozen people would trash it up again and undo all their hard work out of pure apathy.

Some people are great and upstanding members of society that go out of their way to improve things, most are stupid, lazy, self-interested animals who couldn't care less about their actions inconveniencing others and making environments worse than when they enter.

Lots of jobs important to keeping places running and clean are shitty, hard work and usually in nasty environments. Getting a gold star on their upstanding citizen sheet isn't enough incentive.

Now I can totally see a UBI system where people who do voulenteer for these kinds of things get paid more/ gets exclusive societal perks over someone who doesn't. But now were back to where we started, people getting paid more to do work that very few wants to do or has the skills to do.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

From reading your comments, I am developing a sense that you are unaware of living within a particular historic period characterized by particular attitudes, values, and customs.

In particular, you seem to be unaware that societies have existed, and some currently exist, under which the organization of labor is not through wage remuneration.

It might be helpful for you to learn about a variety of different kinds of social organization, in order to gain broader insight.

[–] AliceTheMinotaur@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's a bit more to it than just being g nice and not seeing being hurt. It's just as much self interest in making sure their able to work, and do their part in society/community or what ever group their part of and keep it running

[–] Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 months ago

Sure but this was meant to be a simplistic explanation, so I simplified.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Septic tanks only require pumping when something goes wrong with them. I've grown up and lived on properties with septic tanks. As long as the microbiome is in check and the tank doesn't get filled too quickly, it will never need pumping.

[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

First of all: that's not true. As have/do I, and it's not a monthly requirement or anything, but it's an important maintenance item for the longevity of the tank. Not 100% of everything that goes down there is metabolizable. Second of all: what happens when they do?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm more of the homesteader mindset, I think that people living out in the country within a socialist society should have the knowledge to do it themselves, and can get the tools from a library (I'm assuming a library economy here). However, socialism is not "everyone is paid the same". Assuming that there is a state, sanitation workers could be well compensated for their valuable labor.

Edit: Continuing the side note on septic tanks, my dad's house growing up is over 100 years old and has been in the family since my grandpa bought it before the Korean war. My grandparents put in a modern septic tank some time in the 70s/80s. While I've been alive, the septic tank has needed to be pumped maybe once a decade. It does need to happen, but not very often. The real trick is making sure kids don't flush their legos