We’re always told the people at the bottom rung of society, the people doing “entry level” jobs just need to work harder and harder to earn a proper living…
But how does that work really? Unlike a lot of high level jobs, none of these jobs just exist for the sake of existing, most of these “entry level” jobs are essential to society (we saw that much during the pandemic).
Somebody has to do them or society just doesn’t work, so don’t the people doing these literally essential jobs deserve to be paid a fair living wage? They’re working just as hard as the people above them, yet they’re paid peanuts in comparison
deleted by creator
only one way… come on lets not do flattery to the capitalist class here
I mean if you think about it, the default of humanity is to die of thirst assuming we were to do nothing so ‘earning a living’ is just a realistic expectation for any society.
If you follow that reasoning, the ultimate conclusion is that it’s perfectly fine to let sick or disabled people die.
That is 100% true in a capitalist society. You are measured by your ability to produce.
Edit: Apparently this needs some clarification. You are measured by your ability to produce for your owner.
It’s also true in the woods, if you don’t do anything useful you’ll just die.
Not true. If I have a group of people and they believe I’m extremely wealthy I don’t have to do anything but promise to share my wealth with them according to how much I value them, making them compete with each other for my affection. This counts as work and it takes skill but I wouldn’t say that doing this is useful.
deleted by creator
This is wishful thinking. People are not paid according to their productivity, although it is a minor factor. People are paid accordingly for a variety of factors including region, negotiating ability, charisma, job demand (the more a job is objectively helpful the less it is paid because people are willing to do it for its own merits), and network if they are commoners. If they are born into the ruling class or have amassed enough wealth to live through arbitrage, there is no requirement to produce anything other than the idea that you are productive.
The owner doesn’t pay proportionally to their worker’s ability to produce, they pay according to how little they can get away with since in order to profit it is necessary to minimize expenses. If two employees are important but the less productive employee refuses to work for less than a certain amount and the more productive employee is satisfied with what they’re being paid, the less productive employee will be paid more.
Thank you Mr. Skeletor. It is important to get the occasional outside perspective on living from an undead evil villain. Nyeh.
You need to consume to live. This means you need to manipulate your surroundings in order to survive. So you need to work to have your basic needs meet. You don’t just get to live with zero effort.
This is the natural order, yet paraplegics live, why? Because we live in a society that attempts to circumvent the natural order in many ways, for the good of all.
You should take a broader materialistic look on society, who does the work (the working class), who benefits from the work (the owner class), and instead of focusing on amping up people to devote their lives to serve the interests of capital, instead focus to reframe the goals of society to serve the interests of workers, which includes working less, or even not at all. Work is not labor.
That’s an entirely different argument. I agree with you on that topic. Reframing capitalism to fit human well being is what we should do. But feeding everyone for free with zero work from anyone just isn’t possible. Saying there are starving people because capitalism is just straight up wrong. There have always been starving people and probably will always be. Feeding everyone is logistically crazy difficult. If it ever did happen it would take a ridiculous amount of work and money from a lot of people.
Socialists use work and labor to describe different things. Work is the set of actions a worker is coerced to participate in by capitalists to align with the interests of capital. Labor can be something you engage in as part of work, but that’s not always the case. Sometimes people have jobs that are so inefficient or bullshit that they literally don’t labor at all at work (read Bullshit Jobs).
Labor is necessary (currently), work is not. Aligning with the interests of capital is not synonymous with the interests of humanity (think ad work, literally encouraging greater consumption, especially around harmful products like tobacco/alcohol/sugar. Most western countries now have bans on tobacco advertising, but still let advertising in general flourish).
On the topic of feeding everyone, it would be very logistically difficult in the 1600s no doubt. Now we have a massive international trade system, I can easily get massive amounts of goods shipped from the other side of the world in weeks or maybe months at the worst. We also produce enough food currently to feed 12 billion people, and that’s with our incredibly inefficient system of converting edible plant matter (mostly soy) to animals.
The issue is, under capitalism, poor people don’t deserve to eat. If they lack money, they’re better off dead than alive and consuming resources without paying for them, so that’s what the global international capitalist system does, it moves more than enough food great enough distances to feed everyone as it is. It just moves it to the rich countries where obesity has been a massive issue instead of the global south, because people in rich countries have the money to pay for food, and so they deserve to live (and overeat/waste food) but people born in Africa deserve death.
Capitalists often lose sight of what an economy is for. An economy isn’t something of value in and of itself, it’s about setting up incentives and systems to benefit humanity. Capitalism fails to do this in everyway that is uniquely capitalist. Anything it does right is attributed to the general functioning of markets, which existed before capitalism and can exist after capitalism (market socialism is a real thing). There are problems with markets no doubt, but capitalism really has no redeeming qualities when compared to market socialism. If you compare it to feudalism, it does do better at mobilizing productive forces, of course at the massive detriment to workers.
Thank you brave friend. I came here to say this.
I’m so fatigued by the sentiment behind this meme and so many others.
Ergh… there’s something intruding on my video game playing… what an inconvenience… boo hoo…
Removed by mod
Compassion is a part of human nature.
I think that people who need to be cared for should be cared for.
I think that’s a different issue than the one presented in the meme.
Removed by mod
So… let’s keep this in the context of the general population.
There seems to be a subset of perfectly well adjusted able bodied healthy adults that complain about anything that distracts them from video games.
I think that’s a problem.
How about you?
Removed by mod
Why am I getting the feeling that the only people you acknowledge as actual are disabled?
Removed by mod
We can provide shitty cheap unhealthy food to everyone sure. It wouldn’t be easy but yeah we could probably do that. But we absolutely would not be able to give people the kind of food they actually need.
Removed by mod
It should be sure. But that’s not our reality. Even if you take away monetary value things still hold more practical value. Try collecting and making food for 20 people. Go outside and find all that or grow it or whatever you have to do to get it tell me how long it’s you and how difficult it was to do. Now multiply that effort to 8 billion people.
Removed by mod
Youths of today discovering idioms of yesteryear going, “mm technically, this implies…” as if that wasn’t the obvious, intended implication to begin with.
“Your system is functioning as intended - no maintenance necessary.”
And yet we get born. Motherfuckers!
You do have a right to be alive, if you can gather the food to put in your mouth and get shelter (in most climates), and defend yourself from predators.
‘Earning a living’ is just some way people can do that. But you still need to defend against the predators.
Removed by mod
Our standards of living have increased, and that’s nice. But there is no question of whether or not anyone deserves to live. You simply live, until you don’t, like all life.
The increase in standards of living isn’t because we have eradicated the underlying animal needs, but rather, because we have been meeting them effectively. Sadly, this is only in the short term - we have major species-wide issues with our long-term course, but that, perhaps, is another conversation.
In any case, by denying the fundamental system you are based in, and demanding that survival not take any energy, you undercut your own foundation, and that causes problems for you.
Human rights are a social contract. They are nice, and we should keep them. However, they don’t eradicate the animal and natural foundation upon which we stand, and they absolutely must bend to necessity.
You have an animal right to exist until you die by natural processes, like disease, old age, predation, etc. You have a human right not to be tortured, enslaved, etc, because that is a goal we all agree on. But you don’t have a right to have other animals take care of all of your needs when they don’t want to. That would be slavery.
In any good society everyone who is able should be expected to contribute something though. Even in the wild you have the right to be alive but you don’t have the right to free food, shelter etc without working for it
Similarly under capitalism you’re not going to be executed for not working but also unless there’s a good reason you can’t contribute nobody’s going to work to feed you for nothing in return
Removed by mod
