1784
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

work in society (in general) to not starve

No. Capitalism requires that we 'work'. I.e. provide output that is valuable to the capitalists. In a normal society, there are other forms of value that merit the person existing.

But also, we're human. One of the reasons I want people to not starve is that I'm not a sociopath. So sometimes the value a person provides to society is that they're not starving in the middle of the street. There's value in that.

[-] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

In a normal society

What's a normal society? Is this a no true scottsman argument? It'd be my perspective that in the vast majority of societies people generally have to work to live.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

normal society

Good point! Let's start with a definition that's something like... a society of humans that are treated like humans, and not treated like 'human capital', and go from there.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

output that is valuable to capital (owners)

This is false. You need to provide output that is valuable to your consumers

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No, the owner needs to do that to stay in business. You need to provide output valuable to the owners. The owner can decide whether you need to provide value to the customers or not.

Example: Nepotism.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

example: nepotism

Because unethical acts that are bad business practice are such a great example.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Nepotism isn't unethical. The owner of the company has every right to do what they want with their capital. There is nothing that says the owner must act in a rational or profit seeking way. A CEO must act in a profit seeking way, but that's because he is accountable to the owner.

It's also not necessarily bad business practice. You seem to be suffering under the misconception that the world is a meritocracy, and the 'best' person for a job should get it. That's not how any of this works in the real world.

Regardless, you seem like a creative chap. You can come up with other examples of when a business owner might keep someone on payroll that wasn't directly to extract value for the customer and instead to provide value for other reasons. I believe you can do it.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I can think up all sorts of things, but that doesn't make those things good business practice.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What's "good"? Maximized growth? Maximized returns? Having your face on the TV the most times you can? Making a name for yourself in your town? When you're the owner, you choose what 'good' is because it's your business.

And to my point, since the owner picks what is good, they will employ people whose output is valuable to the owner.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

"good business practice" would be behaviors that are good for the long-term health of your business. These are objective, not subjective. You might want your face on the news but if it hurts, rather than helps, it's poor business practice (just ask Papa John).

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're still assuming that long-term health of the business is the 'good'. You may think that's good, and when you're a capitalist, you can choose that as your goal. It may even seem like the most obvious goal. But it's not the only one. "Good business practice" is whatever achieves the goals of the owner of the business. Otherwise, it's not a good business, because a business exists to serve the owner.

Scenario: A business owner chooses to liquidate his entire company and shut down so he can retire. This is a good business decision, for him. But it is clearly not good for the long-term health of the business.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is false. There are many types of work that the market fails to value accurately. An example of this would be economic public goods. A producer of these will not be rewarded anywhere near the social value of what they produce

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't say you're rewarded commensurate to value brought, but rather that workers produce output valuable to consumers.

[-] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In some cases, the valuation of work by the market due to it involving economic public goods can be insufficient, so people producing valuable public goods are forced to take on another job. In the case of public goods, there is nothing for the employer to appropriate and exclude others from to charge consumers for access, so employers don't value it despite it being valuable to consumers. I don't believe they were mis-attributing what work is under the current economic system

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
1784 points (100.0% liked)

Antiwork

3627 readers
1 users here now

A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.

The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml

This server is no longer working, and we had to move.

Active stats from all instances

Subscribers: 2.1k

Date Created: June 21, 2023

Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads

Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.

c/Antiwork Rules

Tap or click to expand

1. Server Main Rules

The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/

2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments

Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.

Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.

3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved

Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.

4. Educate don’t attack

No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.

If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.

5. No Advertising

Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service

6. No factually misleading informationContent that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.

7. Headlines

If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.

8. Staff Discretion

Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.

It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.


Other Communities

c/workreform@lemmy.world


Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS