I often daydream about how society would be if we were not forced by society to pigeon hole ourselves into a specialized career for maximizing the profits of capitalists, and sell most of our time for it.

The idea of creating an entire identity for you around your “career” and only specializing in one thing would be ridiculous in another universe. Humans have so much natural potential for breadth, but that is just not compatible with capitalism.

This is evident with how most people develop “hobbies” outside of work, like wood working, gardening, electronics, music, etc. This idea of separating “hobbies” and the thing we do most of our lives (work) is ridiculous.

Here’s how my world could be different if I owned my time and dedicated it to the benefit of my own and my community instead of capitalists:

  • more reading, learning and excusing knowledge with others.
  • learn more handy work, like plumbing and wood working. I love customizing my own home!
  • more gardening
  • participate in the transportation system (picking up shifts to drive a bus for example)
  • become a tour guide for my city
  • cook and bake for my neighbors
  • academic research
  • open source software (and non-software) contributions
  • pick up shifts at a café and make coffee, tea and smoothies for people
  • pick up shifts to clean up public spaces, such as parks or my own neighborhood
  • participate in more than one “professions”. I studied one type of engineering but work in a completely different engineering. This already proves I can do both, so why not do both and others?

Humans do not like the same thing over and over every day. It’s unnatural. But somehow we revolve our whole livelihood around if.

  • @Mudface
    link
    -129 months ago

    You do understand what an analogy used for the purpose of illustrating a point is, right?

    What is it with people and being literal to the point of making a conversation painful?

    I could explain all of your questions for you, but it takes a lot of groundwork laying that you should have probably picked up on your own by now, and at least a little bit from the education system.

    Is all they teach you in school how great Karl Marx is? Did you learn how businesses operate? Assets, liabilities, profit margins, overhead, OSHA, etc?

    C-level executives usually set an operational budget per business department. There is a labour budget included in that. It’s a managers duty to use that budget to fill out the labour needs of the business, based on sales and sales forecasts and any other upcoming business changes.

    It’s not really as easy as ‘just hire everyone who walks in the door and don’t enforce any attendance policies, if they want to work they’ll show up. Sure, some days we will have more than we need, and other days we won’t have enough, but if the communities needs more tires, I’m sure they’ll just come in and do the right thing.’

    Seriously, have you ever had to depend on someone doing their job before? I’m guessing not.

    Anyway, we aren’t really talking about societies need for tires, we are talking about capitalism

    • CrimeDad
      link
      fedilink
      English
      79 months ago

      It is the prerogative of the “C-level executives” to maximize the rate of exploitation on behalf of the bourgeoisie. When the working class eventually takes power from the bourgeoisie, that prerogative becomes obsolete (and so do those parasitic executives). Instead of utilizing improvements in productivity to increase the wealth going to the bourgeoisie, they can instead be used to improve the well-being of the working class.

      So, if it turns out that we really need more tires, or whatever fits your analogy, then we’ll just make more tires. However, the wealth that would have been syphoned off to the idle owner class and their lackeys will instead stay under the control of the workers. Therefore, as the revolution progresses, the workers will gain more and more time, energy, and opportunity for individual and communal fulfillment.

      • @Mudface
        link
        -79 months ago

        Omg, bro don’t spout this communist manifesto shit at me please!

        And to the second part “then we’ll just make more tires” is where the devil is in the details. How is that organized? How is that, more importantly, enforced?

        You can’t just “bourgeoisie” and the. “We’ll just make more” and skirt off into the sunset. How will we, how exactly will we, make more tires?

        Like really dive in here, because this is where the rubber meets the road. How do we ‘just make more’? Where do the workers come from? How do they know we even need to make more tires? Who tells them? And what happens if …. No one shows up to make any more tires?

        What if everyone is too busy hiking, or learning a new language, or doing art or writing great novels to make more tires?

        • CrimeDad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          59 months ago

          If you really want to dive in then just go and read Capital. Otherwise, the short and sweet of it is that it would really be up to the workers. The particular solutions will probably vary depending on the industry, location, the status of the revolution and whatnot, but it might involve combinations of time banks, computer AIs, human engineers just doing the math, and/or even some forms of markets and price signals.

          • @Zippy
            link
            19 months ago

            Heard that before. Remember the USSR?

            Why would anyone with a bit of critical thinking believe that would be a good model to try again. It is such a joke.

            • CrimeDad
              link
              fedilink
              English
              19 months ago

              The critical thinker would consider that maybe the material conditions of the people of the former USSR would be better if dissolution never happened, that they are much better even 30 years after dissolution than if the USSR never happened in the first place.

              • @Zippy
                link
                19 months ago

                No they fucking wouldn’t. The USSR was completely failing and was being propped up by using up every resource and relying on old technologies to not break down. The house was slowly deteriorating and the sooner they left that model the sooner they could get on track to a sustainable system.

                Unfortunately there was so little left after years of communism that it was pretty hard to kick start a functional economy. Communism just ingrained corruption so deep it is hard to invest there. Then you got a dictator type of government that again is centralizing much of their output and this is what you get. Shit economy with incredible stability.

                Pretty much same in any country that has any model like that.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          This is quite an in depth solution to sortof what you’re talking about

          https://www.thevenusproject.com/

          It really only covers making sure people are fed, housed and watered. Personally I think cars are a pain in the arse, I’d rather run or cycle everywhere, but then that’s not everybody. If you really liked them, and you were fed, housed and watered, you’d definitely have time to look at building or contributing to building one, assuming people don’t tell you to fuck off because it’s a noisy, smelly death trap…

          Unfortunately, the likelihood would be that a lot of people couldn’t handle being in the same kind of housing as everyone else, because they believe they’re special. But logically this makes much more sense that what we’re currently doing. Capitalism is extremely wasteful.

          And before you say, well you’d never get people to agree to this. I think the tankies/fascists have solutions to that problem, you’re just encouraging them…

    • المنطقة عكف عفريت
      link
      59 months ago

      You do understand what an analogy used for the purpose of illustrating a point is, right?

      Yes, we all get that. Not sure what you gain from saying that. It good mental exercise to accept the modifications people make to your anology. Otherwise, we’re not “thinking together”.