"Labour Market"

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?

It's incredible what a huge difference it make to one's health/mood/etc., having a healthy work/life balance. I think the world would overall be a less angry, spiteful place, if we all worked 4-day, 35-hour work weeks.

Humans were never meant to work 60, 70 hours per week, that's just insane and stupid. What's worse are the people who will brag to you about it. That's how ingrained it is into our culture.

Maybe it's just because I don't loathe the thought of going home to my family? It seems like a lot of those toxic work culture people are doing it for reasons like that?

It is not about how long you work, but is the work needed shared equally. I want to work how much it is needed to work and do my fair share. Not that someone in power should dictate how much I should work, regardless on how much work is needed.

Don't het me wrong. I get your point and it makes perfect sense. But I like my job and the things I do and 40 hours sometimes isn't enough to finish all the things I want to do in a week. A 20 hour workweek would mean that i would barely be able to do ànything meaninful.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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?

It only tracks because you can't get consent from nature. You could have gotten consent from fellow humans. The humans who put this structure in place were people that could be negotiated with and spoken to. Not some blind force.

Is your argument is that our needs have been imposed by nature rather than society and therefore our society is not coercive? I think this doesn't work because our option to meet our needs in the traditional way has been removed; in most cases living as a hunter-gatherer has been rendered impossible (natural sources of food depopulated/destroyed) and illegal (all land is privately or publicly owned and you can't live on it without meeting expensive requirements).

And even if that coercive situation hadn't been created, it would still be our collective responsibility to remove unnecessary naturally imposed hardships that cannot be efficiently dealt with on an individual level.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”

Capitalism is just feudalism with a glow up

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.

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.

Humans have used violence for lots of stuff including taking or taking from takers or because the other tribe looked at em funny or whatever else. I wished we could be free of our worst instincts.

Humans used to give to those who needed, regardless of how much they contribute. That is the whole point of tribes and why we are social animals. We help each other. They did however take from those that have significantly more then others.

K so that'd be the billionaires.

To distinguish between Humans and Human Capital.

Because someone else gets to have what's left.

I understand your sentiment, but I wouldn't liken working a fast food or retail job 40 hours a week to working the fields every day in the hot sun and under the crack of a whip.

This is actually a batshit insane comparison. You're fucking crazy, man.

Best explanation I've heard yet. Every time I try to counter everyone I always get Capitalizm=/=Slavery and it's like just because it's not racist doesn't mean it's not doing more damage to hard workers and slavery was never racist just because a short history recently was. Capitalizm=Slavery doesn't really say how bad capitalizm is and that's not denoting how horrible slavery is.

Are you saying the poor should kill the existing land owners so they can colonize Pennsylvania?

Who's ancestors got large areas of free or cheap land when they came to the United States. They also work regular jobs in their communities.

Are you suggesting the Amish don't participate in the labor market?

...hand-made, Amish produced goods are sold to the wider world. And that's a selling point for those goods. They very much so participate in wider capitalism.

The Amish pay their taxes.

Whole Foods already exists. But of course it's owned by Bezos so it only transfers wealth from the rich to the super rich.

I don't think that lack of voting was the problem, it was lack of direct action. You always get voting choices that both make things worse, so you have to fight outside of the voting booth. And for taxes, I shouldn't have to give my money to the powerful rich that are running the state, but should be able to take tax from the rich that have more then others and make them share with everybody.

How is it not a microblog meme? It fits the definition of both a microblog and a meme. Being nuanced isn't a requirement.

Already did.

Correct. And if we were paid proportional to the generated value, we would have a lot more middle-class people.. working.. providing value..

But instead, we work, sometimes one, two, three jobs, and still can't afford to see a doctor, or do anything besides exist, go to work, pay rent, sleep from exhaustion.

This is prison.

The exchange is for that labour is extremely disproportionate to the value produced, especially in our modern environment of record breaking profits and runaway wealth gaps.

someone needs to do work to get anything

The issue isn't that someone needs to do work, it's that some people are forced to do more than their share of work so that other people can do less. There's a class of people who get money without having to lift a finger just for owning stuff (land, residential buildings, companies, etc.). When there are people who get money without having to earn it through work, that means there must be other people elsewhere in the system who are paid less than their work is worth. And there's not a damn thing they can do about it, because the owner class can simply refuse to pay them more, so the workers' choice is between being exploited or starving. The workers can't just go and find some land to claim as their own, it's all owned already.

The alternative is to abolish the employer-employee relationship and have everyone be either individually or jointly self-employed as in a democratic worker coop. On top of that, since land and natural resources are not the fruits of anyone's labor, there is no fruits of labor based claim to it. As a result, land and natural resources can be subject to collective ownership arrangements with revenue from this collective ownership as a UBI

There exist people at the top who are obscenely wealthy, despite doing zero work. In contrast, workers who produce everything of value are badly underpaid, entirely due to the fact that all the surplus value goes to the few fabulously wealthy.

The proposal is that of all the unnecessary, overpaid, worthless positions in society, there are none more worthy of elimination across the entire market than CEOs, executives, and shareholders. There is no reason for a scant few to gorge themselves upon all the resources and money. Instead, we ought to make all businesses the equal and collective property of the people who work there, with management positions promoted and removed by worker elections only, with term limits. One worker, one vote.

The alternative is everyone grows their own food

The alternative is that when you grow food or build homes or make cloths or gather firewood, you own the real material you create plus all the surplus, which can then be used in trade.

When you're working in an industrial agricultural system, you produce orders of magnitude more food than you could ever consume. But as a tenant farmer or field hand, you barely claim enough income to buy enough to sustain yourself personally, because so much of your work product is claimed by your employer.

You certainly wouldn’t have the Internet in such a paradise.

When you're enjoying an industrial surplus, why wouldn't you have access to a cheap and efficient means of mass communication?

You should not confuse capitalism with markets, and you should not confuse markets with working together.

Consider the family unit, it is doubtful that everyone cooks their own single serve or rotates meal duty evenly. Humans can specialise without capital.

Capital is what enables someone to have someone else cook for them, who then has to go cook their own meal. The one with capital isn't even doing anything for the cook, they are simply taking money that someone working at a widgt factory they own made and giving it to the cook. In so doing they appropriate both the widget factory worker's meal and the cooks!

you can even have market exchange without capitalism. In the above situation if we remove the capitalist the widget maker could give the cook widgets for a meal. Or even currency from selling widgets for a meal. Materially the capitalist contributes nothing, their role is entirely created by private property law.

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?

Have you heard of co-ops?

Be the change you want to see in the Fediverse and start posting funny memes instead of complaining.

I think it is just a lack of a popular alternative platform we can talk about important things in the society without being censored or quietly diprioritized by the algorithm.

Says the user who has never posted a meme...

Might be logically weaker, but it might resonate with more people. I personally haven't understood your last sentence. It is more valuable for people to grasp the idea you are conveying then be 100% precise.

Missing here: you can start your own business

Missing here: you can be part of the exploiting class instead.

Not really. If you have no capital, if you are working class, you have to make that salary right now and can't invest or wait for your business to be profitable. It's also a lot easier to take risks if you are rich, and have less to lose. Then it's not really a big risk.

That's never how communism, even failed attempts at communism, has ever worked.

No one is saying that you don't need to work for food to be produced, just that you shouldn't be forced to work to pay for food, even if enough work was already done for that. We want fair share of work for everyone, not for the poor to work all the time just to get luxuries created for the rich.

Why should I have to need imagination to survive, while the rich get richer by default?