While yes i don't want to slave away most of my time by effectively working 10hrs in my 40hr work week.
yet- he who does not work shall not eat.
We overproduce an abundance of food.
There are people who cannot labour or be materially productive members of society, they are no less important or worthy of basic humanity.
A persons value is not limited to what you can extract from them.
i know my claim sounds confrontative, of course we should provide people with access to our abundand resources and some people are mentally or physically unable to work - you can't expect them to provide something to society as they rely on us to survive.
but everyone who's able should provide something.
no the abundance doesn't come from 40-80hr wage slavery done by billions.
BUT the abundance comes from actual work done by billions.
Abundance comes from advancement of tech and tools, not just from labour.
If only the "40 hours a week" people deserve to live outside poverty then this exclude many other people who are without a doubt productive for society and even capital.
Many scholars never got money from their contributions, they didn't even get recognition within their life. They for sure contributed positively to the society. Yet their works was not included in "40 hrs work week".
Housewives also provide labour without which the society can not function, they are also within this categories.
Open source devs also don't get paid for their work. Yet their hobby does in fact lead to productivity.
By restricting our definition to "40 hrs work week", we overlook many of these segments.
look i think i am just bad with words. i agree. i don't consider work as "beating hammers for 5hrs" but as contributing something. labour is labour. open source devs do work, scientists do work, mothers do work. everything is work in some form, as long as it contributes to society.
the 40hrs are an arbitrary time window while a lot of people only use a fraction of this time productively.
Both things can be true.
One step at a time.
Yeah, splitting up isn't a great thing right now. Let's team up together and fight the nazis.
It's almost like some people here desperately want to create division in the left.
Glad to see it backfiring on one post.
You're the only person in here talking about splitting up?
Let's just make sure when this is over, that actual leftists are put in charge so we don't get a repeat of this in 20 years.
Let's just make sure when this is over, that actual leftists are put in charge
Leftist don't want to get organized to be a third party or vote as left as they can in major parties. They won't be in charge because they don't want to be engaged.
Dude, the leftists shitting on liberals thing is extremely strong around here. You would think the only enemy in sight is the Democratic Party to hear some tell it. Oh look, here comes someone right now to do exactly that!
Walking in the direction of only one.
Because the other is merely a stop on the way.
If you don't strive for the best option, you'll settle for compromise.
That's what politics is, compromise. That's why "they" say to shoot for the biggest thing you want, because half way there is still better than when you first started.
No, that's what centrism is, compromise with the right.
We fight for what we want, and we don't stop halfway sorry.
damn right. in the US, performing labor is seen as more important than human life. that tells you a lot.
I’m “collectivize the farms and factories” left, and even I recognize that it’s a hell of a lot easier to get to the second state from the first state than from where we are now.
I do wish the left broadly could unify under the idea that we need to make incremental progress.
A lot of people on this very site think there's going to be a glorious people's revolution any day now. I could spend hours describing how unrealistic that fantasy is, but I think more people rather live with their indulgent fantasies than go out and plant trees that they will never sit in the shade of.
I feel like you hear the top line because those specific liberals are trying to convince independents, moderates, conservatives, and people on the right to agree on at least something. Many of the people they’re trying to convince would give a big “NO” if they didn’t include that 40 hours part.
The fact that there isn’t even a “YES” with the 40 hours part caveat is the bad sign.
I don’t think most of the people labeled as liberals would disagree with what the people labeled leftist are saying, but their trying to convince the other people that aren’t even bought in to the first step.
This is also an issue where the people that don’t want to help others have over 50% of the power in the US federal government currently.
Our energy should be focused on bringing these progressive help options to everyone at the state level right now to have the greatest chance of getting these programs implemented.
Liberals: We should compromise with the fascists and blame trans people for our incompetence
Leftists: DOWN WITH FASCISM AND DOWN WITH BIGOTRY
This misses the point. The point is no one, especially someone who has given back to society by preforming labor, should be left out in the cold.
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. But the first sentence is the core of everything.
They don't agree with that, they think that if you have a job you are more worthy of being allowed to live.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not "make money" (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of "people who work" is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
...even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.
Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don't do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).
someone who has given back to society by preforming labor
These are two things that are often lumped together but don't really have anything to do with one another.
You can be employed and give absolutely nothing back to society (tbh, probably the majority office workers are in that category). You can even be employed and take from society (looking at you, people working in e.g. the tobacco industry).
And you can be unemployed and massively give back to society. Just look at the people who do voluntary work or at the millions of moms and dads who are raising the next generation that will keep society running, all completely without compensation.
I spend all day sitting in front of a PC so that numbers on the screen of some investor go up. That's not giving back to society.
This is a bit like responding "All lives matter" when hearing about Black Lives Matter.
It's more like "End Slavery" not "End Debt Bondage".
One is clearly more serious than the other and it's not the 40 hr workers.
I'm sure you can get into the anti-confederate nature of that.
Progressive purity tests help the billionaires and right more than they help us make progress toward a future were common people aren’t treated like trash.
X: We have a non-fascist competent party - ?
Y: No! Only leftism!
X: Well, howabout the fascist party.
Y: Only Leftism!
X: That’d be the fascist party then.
I don't know about your country, but our "non-fascist" party lost to a cartoon villain, so I wouldn't call them competent. All it would've taken was not treating their voters with disdain and acting like they cared, but apparently that was too difficult.
And before anyone tries to direct blame at the base that got demoralized by shitty leadership, actually consider why you never direct that blame at the people with all power to shape their campaigns; the people who are supposed to "represent" their constituents.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
