- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
It’s one of those “every accusation is a confession”. People are thinking about themselves when talking about others.
I apologize for my ignorance but what is productive about Minecraft players?
I think The Uncensored Library project is pretty cool.
Created by the organization Reporters without Borders and the Minecraft design collective BlockWorks, this blocky book bastion was first introduced in 2020 to provide silenced authors a platform in their own respective countries. While social media and other platforms tend to be either blocked or controlled in these countries, Minecraft often remains accessible, giving Reporters without Borders a way to circumvent the censorship and make information accessible.
The library itself is accessed through a Minecraft server but can also be downloaded locally from their website. It consists of around 300 books distributed between twelve wings, most of them represented by a country where information may be limited. From here, visitors can explore the library and read banned articles in the form of Minecraft books.
Turns out passion, curiosity, and purpose are way stronger motivators than profit ever was 😅
It depends on the person. I’ve known people who are much more motivated by money. Some of them ended up in prison, some are doing quite well, and some are still trying.
Honestly, I sometimes wish I were more money-motivated. I’m very lucky that my passion happens to earn a good salary (for now), but I gave up my business for it.
Volunteer firefighters do actually still get paid a lot of the time.
Source: Was volunteer firefighter. Was paid per-call.
Same, 6 years from 2005-2011, $7.50 an hour for a call was great money in 2005. I think we were up to $10 by the time I quit
Isn’t it just a small stipend? Nothing you could live on, even if houses were burning down 40 hours a week.
Thanks for sharing that - out of curiosity, would you still have done it if it wasn’t paid? No judgment, just curious!
Hell yeah! I didn’t even know I would be getting paid until I went down to the station to ask how I sign up.
Good for you! Thanks for being a good human <3
I would gladly fix and assemble home appliances as hobby if I didn’t have to worry about money.
I would do basically any job that needed doing if my needs were provided for no matter what.
Hell, I’d teach for free if I didn’t have to worry about rent.
Yeah, some of that would be amazing!
I’d also happily shovel shit at the local zoo or assist nurses with prepping beds, etc (probably just ending up getting in their way, however!)
I would like to do that too but it is so bad in my country.I have to work hard for the university and the job that i don’t even want when you graduate from the university. its soo hard to live properly in a third world country.
One of these is not like the others
Capitalism and so called meritocracy have brainwashed humanity.
They lock essential things (e.g. food, water, shelter, medical services, etc.) behind a paywall because they know it is not true that people do not always—or even usually—want money.
But people do need essentials to live, and if they’re the only ones who can give you money to get those, then they can order you to do what they want instead.
The fantasy-story of profit motive: Without capitalism, people are just lazy, unproductive and die eventually. But with capitalism, there is great innovation, motivation and excitement.
Cool story, but absolute nonsense.
It’s a few bad players that are extremely greedy who ruin the whole game for everyone else. Most people don’t want to be that rich, they just want to live without starving to death, being healthy and have a roof over their head.Yep, years ago there was a massive jackpot for mega millions or Powerball, I can’t remember. I was hanging out with a buddy and we got to talking about what we’d do if we won. Of course we joked about all the stupid things we’d do, but after that night the thought stayed with me and I’ve put a lot of thought into it.
After years of thinking about it I realized that when I take vacation from work, I stay home but I work on projects I care about. Homelab, open source, animal welfare, ect. I have severe ADHD and can’t stand just laying around, so I know I wouldn’t stop working, I’d just stop working to live.
I even spent one weekend researching and developing a plan for if I actually won and put it all in a folder so I can just open the doc and see my plan, then take that an the spreadsheets to the lawyers, asset manager, and CPA, and protect myself and the money. Definitely not a obsessive ADHD weekend…lol.
As it stands right now I’d take $5 million and live off dividends, each parent gets $5 million, and anything left over goes into a nonprofit foundation I would set up to fund all the open source and nonprofit projects I care about.
When people ask me why I waste money on the lottery, I just say I don’t want the money to be rich, I want the money to be free. Also I only spend $12 a week to play, the only time I buy extra tickets is if I win a few bucks on a ticket, then I just cash it in for some extra draws.
These are all things that people enjoy doing though, and there is a certain amount of glory in doing them.
Do you think your plumber or electrician would be willing to work for free?
Yes, of course. If you lived in a society where everyone contributed their labor freely in return for access to all of the fruits of the labour of others, wouldn’t you be happy to work as a plumber or an electrician in that society? We work to pay our bills, but if we didn’t have bills, if everyone was just provided for, by default, why would you need to be paid to work? Why wouldn’t you want to give back to a system that gives so much benefits to you?
Some people have to dress up in a special suit and swim through raw sewage to repair a big pump - and they have to do it blindly because the sewage is opaque.
Some people have an even dirtier job: They have to clean off that guy’s shitty suit before he can take it off. They might have to do it multiple times if he needs to come out to take another look at schematics.
They do it because it pays very well. It pays very well because nobody wants to do it.
I’d do it in a heartbeat if we got to live in the world I outlined above, and so would many others, because we all want to live in a society that has functioning waste treatment facilities, and someone has to do it.
Maybe many would, but also, many would not.
In a society in which everyone can choose whatever career they want, all for the same “pay”/outcome/whatever it’s called in a moneyless society, I would bet that most people would choose not to do these things.
When the demand for such tasks outweighs the number of people who are both willing and skilled to do those jobs, what can be done to meet the demand?
Btw, I’m not asking rhetorically - I’m genuinely curious. If there isn’t enough people to serve such an important job for society, what can be done?
Again, if something really needs to get done, like repairing necessary sewer systems, then it will get done, because it needs to. Do you really think that people who have the skills to repair the water treatment plant are going to just deal with sewage backing up into their home because they don’t want to do the work?
For a more comprehensive analysis of the question, I’d direct your attention towards an anarchist FAQ. I’ll quote a few choice sections below, but the link goes into great detail, comparing and contrasting multiple approaches to handling the problem.
There are some jobs that few, if any, would enjoy (for example, collecting rubbish, processing sewage, dangerous work, etc.). So how would an anarchist society deal with it?
[…]
It would be easy to imagine a free community sharing such tasks as fairly as possible between a community’s members by, for example, allocating a few days a month to all fit members of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do. This would soon ensure that it would be done, particularly if it were part of a festival or before a party. In this way, every one shares in the unpleasant as well as pleasant tasks (and, of course, minimises the time any one individual has to spend on it). Or, for tasks which are very popular, individuals would also have to do unpleasant tasks as well. In this way, popular and unpopular tasks could balance each other out. Or such tasks could be rotated randomly by lottery. The possibilities are many and, undoubtedly, a free people will try many different ones in different areas.
[…]
Of course, no system is perfect – we are sure that not everyone will be able to do the work they enjoy the most (this is also the case under capitalism, we may add). In an anarchist society every method of ensuring that individuals pursue the work they are interested in would be investigated. If a possible solution can be found, we are sure that it will. What a free society would make sure of was that neither the capitalist market redeveloped (which ensures that the majority are marginalised into wage slavery) or a state socialist “labour army” type allocation process developed (which would ensure that free socialism did not remain free or socialist for long).
In this manner, anarchism will be able to ensure the principle of voluntary labour and free association as well as making sure that unpleasant and unwanted “work” is done. Moreover, most anarchists are sure that in a free society such requirements to encourage people to volunteer for unpleasant work will disappear over time as feelings of mutual aid and solidarity become more and more common place. Indeed, it is likely that people will gain respect for doing jobs that others might find unpleasant and so it might become “glamorous” to do such activity. Showing off to friends can be a powerful stimulus in doing any activity.
Do you really think that people who have the skills to repair the water treatment plant are going to just deal with sewage backing up into their home because they don’t want to do the work?
In their own city’s infrastructure? No, probably not. But that doesn’t quite clear things up, so I’ll throw out some numbers as an example:
- Let’s say, on average, ~100 pumps need repair/maintenance at any given time.
- Only 50 people have the skills to fix those industrial pumps[1].
Do an average of 50 cities have sewage backing up at any given time? How do you fill that gap?
Also, do you have an example of a society that functions like this today? Maybe I’m just stuck thinking inside a box because the society I’m most familiar with is not like that. If so, an example might be helpful.
Obviously only a VERY small fraction of those 50 would be willing to travel to whatever town needs the repair, learn the schematics of their pump model, then swim through their excrement to blindly fix it. But probably easier to just focus on a simpler set of numbers. ↩︎
I mean, sure, if you have 50 meals and need to feed 100 people, 50 people go hungry every day, right? That’s just math. The best we can do in such a situation is choose a random 50 each day and ensure nobody goes two days in a row without eating. The thing is, though, a free society would respond to that mismatch because people wouldn’t tolerate that situation for long if it can be remedied, right? So people would naturally work to expand the production of meals because everyone wants to eat.
Likewise, people would learn to fix the broken sewage systems. They’d do everything they can to remedy the situation. Workarounds, alternatives, upskilling, and so on.
The question of supply and demand is also covered in exhaustive detail in an anarchist FAQ
Also, do you have an example of a society that functions like this today?
The Zapatistas in Mexico are probably the best example of an anarchist society functioning today. For a historical example, you could also read about Revolutionary Spain. There’s a good section on an anarchist FAQ about it.
That’s not what they asked.
These are people who have chosen a career in that industry, and spent years training to do so.
Why would someone choose that career path, over, say an artist or fitness coach? What would be their motivation?
I feel like I answered the question completely adequately, but I’d be happy to address your question too.
Why do you think people choose their careers under capitalism? Why would someone choose to be a teacher, a social worker, a mental health counselor, an academic researcher, a vet tech, a graphic designer, for example?
I’d say people choose those careers because they either have an interest/passion for a certain subject/discipline, because they care about improving their community, because they want to help others, or because they just felt like that would be an occupation that suits their abilities. Maybe they chose it because there is some prestige or respect from the peers associated with that occupation. Or, heck, maybe they just chose it because they thought it sounded interesting.
I don’t see why any of that would change at all in an absence of the profit motive.
And this goober thinks people are willing to do it for the love of society.
Nah mate.
Because you’re dealing with literal human faeces, that’s why.
Okay? I’d rather do that than eat it from the rich. It’s not like you can’t wear protective equipment or anything. Heck, give me a set of coveralls and I would wade waist-deep in a septic tank on the daily in return for a society that has no homelessness, no famine, no medical debt, universal access to healthcare and education, to live in a world without pedophile billionaires and corporations constantly fucking us all over for a percentage and for their own sick pleasures. Do you really not see how that would be a better world?
Socialism > communism
I’m an anarchist! If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
I’ll check it out.
Counter point: If there is no reason for some people who are capable of contributing to society to actually contribute, at least a good portion of those people will not, but they’ll still take from the system.
The inequity is inherent. There needs to be SOME reward for effort aside from pure altruism.
Edit: the guy with the Patreon shit-talking capitalism is hilarious.
I’m not convinced
I’ll check it out.
I appreciate that, thanks for hearing me out.
Counter point: If there is no reason for some people who are capable of contributing to society to actually contribute, at least a good portion of those people will not, but they’ll still take from the system.
This is well known as the “free rider problem”, and the extent to which it is a problem and how it can be addressed is widely discussed by anarchists. I’m sure everyone must be getting sick of me referencing it by now, but our old friend an anarchist FAQ addresses the issue in great detail, but I’ll quote a few relevant paragraphs:
Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work then they cannot (must not) be forced to by means of physical coercion. This makes some wonder what happens if someone refuses to work in a libertarian society.
[…]
This ignores the many people who do volunteer work (often in addition to their “real jobs”). It also ignores those who spend their time contributing to projects they are interested in (such as fan journals) which would be considered work in other contexts. A classic example of this is the internet, particularly webpages like Wikipedia and software projects like php.
[…]
There would be few people who refuse to do any kind of productive activity. The question arises of what to do with those (a small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.
On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists argue that the lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would ensure those who take from, but do not contribute, to the community to listen to their conscience and start producing for the community that supports them. If this did not happen, then the person who refused to contribute would be asked to leave (freedom of association means the freedom not to associate)
Most anarchists agree with Camillo Berneri when he argued that anarchism should be based upon “no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work.”
This means that an anarchist society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce but refuses to. Anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should support a new group of parasites after the revolution.
Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being unable to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women and so on will be looked after in libertarian communism. As child rearing would be considered “work” along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers and fathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of both parents and children as well as the creation of community nurseries and child care centres.
We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of life will not be monopolised by any group – including the commune. This means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not pull their weight within a commune and are expelled or choose to leave will have access to the means of making a living.
Even if you would be willing to do that, I doubt there would be enough to make a system like this work.
There’s a reason plumbers are so well paid.
Well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, I’m not going to stop advocating for a better world just because you’re a bit squeamish. Nobody is going to tolerate living in a society without functioning sewage systems, so the work would get done, either way, simply because it has to. I think you’re just straight up self-evidently wrong.
Would you work if you werent paid?
If I got to do what I choose to do and didn’t have to worry on being able to afford the essentials or paying to learn the job? Absolutely. There’s been quite a few jobs I’ve wanted to do, but can’t either due to no openings or expensive schooling even with assistance. Shit I’ve often wanted to keep working at my current job past quitting time cause it’s nice and relaxing. Only problem I’ve ever had with it is it’s a morning shift and the place is closed in the afternoon. Start me at 2 PM and I’d work for 10+ hours.
For sure. Most people likely would, but not as much.
Better question: would you work if you got paid, but didn’t have to work for it?
OP is talking about communism. Socialism is far better, since you still have to work, but there are safety nets and limits on Oligarchy
I’m convinced people who believe that are some of the biggest shit stains on the planet.
Personally, I was one of the people who used to believe that, because I was born and raised in a society that taught me that since birth. I can totally understand that there are people out there who still believe it, and I do everything I can to try and bring them up to speed. It’s hard to unlearn everything you have learned, especially if you’ve already made big, irreversible decisions in your life based around the lies you believed. I think the key is to try and find common ground, and to empathize with people, even when they’re not acting their best. I believe nearly everyone is redeemable.
So did I, but I’m more referring to the Wall Street and CEO as well Billionaire types who wouldn’t do anything if they didn’t get more out of it.
Yeah, that’s totally valid. There may be some of us who don’t make it, billionaires are probably too far gone, it seems to me that living for long enough surrounded by sycophants and people who can’t say no to you warps your brain and fundamentally robs you of your humanity. In a way, it must be extremely alienating.
Reddit mods?
They don’t do any “work” but I’m sure they get off on being total dickheads
The studies about intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation suggest otherwise, and that monetary rewards can even have a negative impact on productivity and creativity. Ultimately, we want a society of intrinsically motivated people doing their best, most inspired work, not a society following financial incentives.
This is how you tell rich people have some serious mental health issue.
Decent people would rather a world where people worked because they enjoy that type of work rather than being forced to do it because they need money to live.
If you removed money, imagine where we’d all be as a society without the toxicity of money, wars and hate! :(
If you removed money, imagine where we’d all be as a society
Probably dead or living in the stone age.
There’s so many jobs that people don’t enjoy but are necessary. Nobody enjoys working in the middle of an australian desert at 40°C in a lithium mine. Nobody enjoys collecting your stinking trash. Nobody enjoys sitting in a store for 8 hours a day, scanning groceries. Nobody enjoys working in a warehouse for 8 hours.
However, these jobs and many more are vital for todays society.
toxicity of money, wars and hate!
You make it sound like wealth and wars are an invention of capitalism and not something that has existed basically since the dawn of time, even as something you can observe in primates, albeit on a much smaller scale.
There’s so many jobs that people don’t enjoy but are necessary.
I take it you asked all 7 (or whatever) billion then?
Nobody enjoys working in the middle of an australian desert at 40°C in a lithium mine.
Who says they’d need to? You talk like someone would need to do that because right now capitalism demands more production!
Nobody enjoys collecting your stinking trash. Nobody enjoys sitting in a store for 8 hours a day, scanning groceries.
Again, if we didn’t produce so much garbage, products with layer upon layer of plastic, we’d make glass and clay pots and grow, make and reuse locally making less garbage all the way but then in the 90s you had to collect bin bags off the street, now its all wheelie bins, if my health allowed I would happily go round collecting rubbish.
Also I’ve had issues with drains in the past and when I asked them about the job, they actually enjoyed the challenge. So I think you’re confusing people who do a job because too much demand means people doing jobs for the money rather than less demand would actually mean people wouldn’t even need a set job. Feel like drains on Monday, go for it. Had enough and feel like helping someone tin food on Tuesday, go for it.
Look at Animals, how many animals work 2 jobs just to survive?
Nobody enjoys working in a warehouse for 8 hours.
Another thing thats only a thing because capitalism demands we keep producing more and more shit. That washing machine that used to last 10 years now breaks after the warranty because some riches want more money and power!
It amazes me how blinded people are to a capitalist free world. Look at the waste now, the plastic pollution and then look carefully at the next package you buy and ask “does this really need ‘this’ much packaging? Do i care if this new spade I bought with all its shiny cardboard and plastic protection, arrived with a scratch? But even if the TV was scratched, does it really matter so long as it worked as intended?
But then I have no kids of my own and every year I feel better not having brought kids into this mess because unless you’re born into money now there is very little to offer kids in the near future right. 😕
Who says they’d need to?
We have a certain standard of living right now that is only maintainable that way.
we’d make glass and clay pots
Lmao.
people doing jobs for the money rather than less demand would actually mean people wouldn’t even need a set job
Yes, that’s how it generally works. Most jobs that people expect this day and age are not enjoyable. Are there people who’d do them for free? Yes. But not on a massive scale that works for billions of people.
Look at Animals, how many animals work 2 jobs just to survive?
What a retarded comparison. Probably the dumbest you could’ve made.
Animals don’t have access to a network of goods and services, they also don’t live in a city with potentially millions of inhabitants. They don’t have internet, they don’t have healthcare, they don’t have delivery drivers, plumbing, electricity or anything that we know from modern life.
With all due respect, but if that’s something you strife for, get a few like minded people and go live on an island. Nobody is stopping you. There, you can live free of capitalism. But you also get all the disadvantages.
It amazes me how blinded people are to a capitalist free world
We had a capitalist free world and it was shit for the most part. People got killed, life expectancy was shit, education was shit, extreme poverty was rampant (WAY more than under capitalism) winters were harsh and potentially deadly - bro you talk like someone who just played 12 hours of manor lords straight. You’re romanticizing a time that was just straightup terrible for the most part.
And if you’re referring to “modern” communist countries, ask yourself why so many people try to flee from them and why the regimes actually made leaving the country illegal.
Look at the waste now, the plastic pollution and then look carefully at the next package you buy and ask “does this really need ‘this’ much packaging? Do i care if this new spade I bought with all its shiny cardboard and plastic protection, arrived with a scratch? But even if the TV was scratched, does it really matter so long as it worked as intended?
You’re talking about minor individual problems. How is this a problem that warrants the abolishment of capitalism? Why not just fix that singular problem? You’re finding a small scratch in the wallpaper of your house and instead of just fixing it, you want to tear down the entire house? All of these things are SOCIETAL problems that are not the fault of capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t force companies to use excessive plastic for each cucumber - it’s the customers expectation that makes companies do that.
Capitalism is different from a regular market in that it is not just trying to make a profit in order to have enough money to exchange for useful goods and services.
Capitalism demands that your profit grows and grows and grows. It’s growth for it’s own sake. A capitalistic economy like our world economy needs to grow 3% or so every year or it gets into a recession. 3% doesn’t sound like much, but it’s exponential growth, doubling every 25 years or so. This growth doesn’t come out of thin air, but from extracting from value from other people, our world and so on.
And measuring an economy by GDP is incomplete, because it doesn’t take uncompensated labor, human happiness and wellbeing, and public goods (like a healthy nature) into account. When a factory owner pollutes and dries up the river while employees have no choice but to work 16 hour weeks, GDP goes up.
In nature, things grow until they are mature. That does not mean progress halts. Adults don’t grow anymore, but continue to learn.
My try to explain why money and markets are okay, but growth for it’s own sake (growthism you may call it) is destroying our societies, making us unhappy, and is also killing us with the climate and biodiversity crises.
The reasons those jobs are such shit is also money. A lot of people enjoy cleaning, nobody enjoys being overworked. Normal functioning societies don’t leave heaps of stinking trash around, they neatly pack it and the work of a janitor of garbage collector becomes actually enjoyable if you’re a proper type of personality.
Hell, my uncle right now works as a part time street sweeper basically for free. He has his basic needs met by other means, and his “job” pays him enough to get a cup of coffee before the shift and a sandwich after. He just enjoys making the world cleaner, chatting with locals, taking care of stray cats, and having a routine. All of that is possible in a world that doesn’t revolves around squeesing every bit of labour from people so some pedos can buy themselves another island and fill it with sex slavesAnd you think your uncle is a scalable solution to a city of millions of people. These positions dont scale. Some quick googling show about a half a millions workers in waste remediation in the us in 2023. Do you honestly think you could find half a million people like your uncle that all live spread out enough to fill all the positions (thats on the low end of need also fyi, not surprisingly they have high turnover and difficulty keeping staff for extended periods) around the entire us and that those people would never lose motivation or get burned out or just tired or stop caring. Because that is what we need and that is a single job for a single industry.
Its not scalable
I just think it’s boring that you think money is the only reasonable motivator for these people. There are other forms of compensation and appreciation. And it’s not the only option available to us. It’s crazy to me that people understand the idea of countries that have military conscription but can’t fathom the idea of a system of workable civil conscription.
As I see it you successfully identified a problem and a solution, but that does not suggest that that is the sole or even best solution.
When you do your scaling you need to scale everything. The adult population of the US is estimated as 266 million people as of now. Half a million is roughly 1 adult in 530 people. Let’s quadruple it up so they have nice relaxed works schedule. Let’s say now you need 4 people per 530. If you think you can’t find 10 out of 1000 people who would do some sanitation work, with no stress and without having to think where their next meal comes from, you just never met people.
And this is the most important part that you seem to ignore - when people’s basic means are met, they want to fulfill higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. For some that means doing arts or doing some engineering or running a company. For some, and there are s many of those some, that means “it’s not much but it’s honest work”. Doing small visible changes that make the world the better place one picked up piece of rubbish at a time, is exactly, precisely what significant portion of humanity will be doing.
This also works in another direction: billions of people who would be doing something grand and moving humanity further, are stuck in mundane repetitive broken jobs they hate, because they’re stuck in this cycle of needing to grind to survive, without having a moment to breath, which slowly kills every bit of light they once had a potential to have.
Normal functioning societies don’t leave heaps of stinking trash around, they neatly pack it and the work of a janitor of garbage collector becomes actually enjoyable if you’re a proper type of personality.
Idk if you noticed, but people won’t behave that way if there is no repercussion for it.
He has his basic needs met by other means, and his “job” pays him enough to get a cup of coffee before the shift and a sandwich after. He just enjoys making the world cleaner, chatting with locals, taking care of stray cats, and having a routine.
Great but some people have more aspirations than your uncle. And I think they should have the chance to achieve that. And I don’t think having a clean neighborhood should depend on having that uncle that enjoys cleaning for free.
All of that is possible in a world that doesn’t revolves around squeesing every bit of labour from people
I mean, yes, absolutely possible without squeezing every bit of labor from people. However, it’s not possible in a world without money or capital. The wide-spread introduction of capitalism has DRASTICALLY reduced the amount of people living in extreme poverty. According to https://ourworldindata.org/end-progress-extreme-poverty , from 1990 - 2025, the amount of people living in extreme poverty dropped by 65%, from 2.3 billion to 800 million. If we extend the timeframe a bit further, according to https://ourworldindata.org/history-of-poverty-data-appendix , the number went from 53.9% in extreme poverty to only 5.5% - meaning an almost 90% reduction in extreme poverty. Unless I’m too stupid to do math now.
(ourworldindata.org is a non-profit funded by the university of oxford btw - so it’s fairly reliable)
Now, capitalism isn’t the sole reason why poverty dropped - it’s the combination with effective social policies. Capitalism creates wealth, taxes take a part of that wealth and spread it to the rest of society. That’s how it should work and that is also by far the best system we could ever have in place. The fact that america fails on that tax-part is not the fault of capitalism. It’s a failure of the government.
It’s insane that so many people tried to flee from communist terror regimes, and still try to flee to this day out of North Korea or Cuba, yet people on lemmy will just close their eyes and pretend that communism is the perfect system and every system that fails is just because of the “CIA”.
Would you enjoy being a garbage man or a plumber? Or is that work you’re saving for others to enjoy?
Doctors make good money and we don’t have enough of them because it takes so much time and dedication. You think getting rid of money would help there?
Do kids need to go to school? Five days a week?
It’s not that gotcha that you think it is. I worked a lot of hard jobs, for 10 years I did very hard and complicated work in very unpleasant environments for very very little money only because I loved what we did and the results of our labour, and I was good at it. I would be doing that still if I didn’t need money to feed my family. In my years I’ve met a lot of people who were enjoying, properly enjoying jobs that other people will call hell. My job at the time, and to a big extend my job now, is something other people will never want to do for any amount of money.
Doctors make good money and we don’t have enough of them
And your conclusion isn’t that the system of people working for money and only for money is a broken system that demonstrably doesn’t work, but that we need to conserve it as long as we can because it was always done like that?
Yes, getting rid of money will absolutely help. Many people want to be doctors but can’t afford the time or resources to either become one, or to actually put their existing education to use.
And as an example I’ve personally witnessed, being a doctor in Russia in the 90s was about the worst job you can get, you don’t get any money, and I mean none, they were going multiple consecutive months without any salary. The shortage was about on par with the doctor’s shortage in US right now. Trapping people in jobs they don’t want to do is not something that helps humanity in any way.Do kids need to go to school? Five days a week?
I struggle to understand how this is relevant to the conversation.
Doctors make good money and we don’t have enough of them because it takes so much time and dedication. You think getting rid of money would help there?
Yes. There are easier ways of making money. If you do it just for the money you won’t have the mental fortitude to get to the point of making money. Profit motives is about the path of least resistance.
Lol what MD is the goto job for making easy money. Getting the degree is difficult because everyone wants to do that job, not because it’s difficult per se
the degree is difficult because everyone wants to do that job, not because it’s difficult per se
Pretty much says everything about why your wrong on this. Being a doctor is hard. There are far easier career and business if profit is the motive.
Beyond that are doctors that rich? They are wealthy, but the Zucc ain’t no MD. Neither is Warren Buffet.
My point is that someone motivated by money will drop out of the MD path. Being a doctor is a career of passion that also happens to pay well.
Engineer is similar. Take some differential equations or read Jackson EM. There are easier things to do for money.
I know someone who make similar to a doctor with a seafood restaurant. Particularly when you consider fewer hours.
Nobody enjoys working in the middle of an australian desert at 40°C in a lithium mine.
Believe it or not I’ve actually met someone who enjoys this line of work. He lives in the middle of nowhere in Paraburdoo Australia and loves the heat. So not exactly nobody…
Okay, let me rephrase it: Not enough people enjoy working the middle of an australian desert at 40°C in a lithium mine to cover the global demand of rare earths.
Like, half of the jobs you listed would be automated out pretty quick in a world without money, out of the other ones, a few would be rendered obsolete without profit motive (pretty sure we can find something better for batteries than lithium, and why would you need someone scanning groceries if there was no money?). What’s left can be rotated out or done by lottery, and those doing the undesirable labor get to have more luxury items or whatever. It’s not hard to imagine, people have been doing it for centuries.
Automated by who?
We do need incentives to work. As technology and efficiency advances we should be able to work less, but we still need people to do work they/we don’t want to do.
Personally I think people are pretty happy working 24 hours a week even if their job isn’t something they love doing. I’m more interested in working towards that, slowly, over time, than just going to “nobody needs to work”.
Like, half of the jobs you listed would be automated out pretty quick in a world without money
If that was even remotely possible, companies would’ve done that already. Every company tries to cut staff as much as possible.
pretty sure we can find something better for batteries than lithium
Which requires research, which requires investment. Much of the research we currently have only exists exactly because of funding, and a lot of funding is done by companies, not by the government.
What’s left can be rotated out or done by lottery, and those doing the undesirable labor get to have more luxury items or whatever
I like the “whatever”. Let’s just introduce a shitty system that also potentially forces people to do work they don’t want to do and they get like a bar of soap or “whatever” as reward…
It’s not hard to imagine, people have been doing it for centuries.
I don’t know where these people lived that you talk about, but it certainly wasn’t on this planet. Such a system has never existed.
pretty sure we can find something better for batteries than lithium
Trust me, bro
would you need someone scanning groceries if there was no money?
Because this is the most efficient way of keeping track of how many goods leave your moneyless store, and ensuring assholes aren’t just taking everything for themselves and hoarding it. Tracking how many goods leave the store at any given time allows you to order an appropriate amount to keep things in stock so that people who need things don’t go without, and is especially important for perishable goods like fresh produce.
What’s left can be rotated out or done by lottery,
People have different skill sets and specialties. Many jobs take years of training and practice to reach an acceptable level. Also, you just invented state-sanctioned slavery/a non-military draft. What do you do with someone who refuses to perform their lottery-assigned job?
and those doing the undesirable labor get to have more luxury items or whatever.
That’s literally the system we have now, but more authoritarian, since someone has to decide what is a “luxury good” and how much undesirable work is required to attain a given level of luxury.
people have been doing it for centuries.
Citation needed. Concerns: authoritarianism; scaling; maintenance of the modern standard of living
I didn’t cite sources because the literal decades and decades of refutations to your arguments already exist.
But I will leave you with this: Why do libraries work?
If there are so many refutations, then it should be trivial to point me to one. Assume I am an idiot who doesn’t know how a search engine works - I very well might be. Would you be able to point me to one of these innumerable refutations that would disprove me - otherwise, how am I to learn?
Why do libraries work?
I’m not sure what you mean here. If you explain your point of view, I can explain mine. But I will point out that libraries are not a full, functioning society - just part of one.
Fine. Sure. A few starting points since you asked in good faith:
For historical examples of non-market/cooperative organization, see Elinor Ostrom’s Governing the Commons (1990), which documents real communities managing shared resources without privatization or central coercion. David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years also covers many societies that operated through reciprocity/obligation rather than modern monetary exchange.
I can point you to some great podcasts if you want.
For historical examples, Revolutionary Catalonia (1936–39) and numerous Indigenous communal systems demonstrate large-scale cooperative production/distribution outside traditional capitalist structures. See the previous Debt: the First 5000 years and just SO MUCH research. Maybe Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia would be a good place to look.
My library point wasn’t “libraries are a whole society,” but that they demonstrate distribution based on shared access/need rather than direct purchase can function effectively. Public institutions already allocate many goods/services this way.
As for undesirable labor, societies don’t need to choose between “profit motive” and “slavery.” Additional leisure, prestige, reduced hours, or enhanced benefits can incentivize difficult work just as effectively as wages. Automation can also reduce much of the repetitive labor currently done purely because it’s cheaper than innovating away the need for it.
I’m not claiming a moneyless society would be simple or easy—just that the idea humans can ONLY organize through profit incentives is historically and empirically false.
What a child-like view of society.
I wish i was so naive.
I don’t think you understand. I want my boat to be bigger than your boat.
I mean, thats easy, I don’t have, or care to own a money pit that I only use once a year, i mean boat! 😎
Unless you count 3D printed benchy… and even then if you scaled your benchy up then it’s bigger than mine!
But what about our other neighbors boat? I have an insatiable need to feel like I’m better than anyone else, and I don’t know how to express it without inflicting mass amounts of suffering and evil on tons of people.
Society would collapse.
While working out of enjoyment instead of necessity is a noble and good goal. There are jobs that no one enjoys. Money can be used as an incentive to motivate people to work on jobs that aren’t that enjoyable, but still necessary.Indigenous peoples figured this shit out before centralized governments and computers, I’m sure we can think of something.
Which jobs? Most of the time there are people enjoying something you wouldn’t expect
Roofing during the summer
Some yeah, but undoubtedly not enough to keep it working. For example i doubt that many people enjoy working at garbage disposable or basically any waste disposal. Of course these jobs should be fully operated by machines. Or any assistant jobs in manufacturing or jobs that operate in shifts.
Uncle worked down at city dump. He loved it. He was kind of a garbologist in a way. He was fascinated by all the things folks threw away. Retired there too. Got a job right out of high school and worked until he was 62 and retired. Dude has so many “trash” sculptures. That is to say, sculptures made out of trash. I think you’d be surprised the jobs folks enjoy doing.
Do you think your uncle was in any way representative of the millions of people employed in waste disposal? The city of Birmingham’s bins have gone partially uncollected for over a year due to a dispute over pay. If waste disposal workers were, in general, doing it for the love of it, they’d surely be happy to do it for minimum wage.
Seems more likely your uncle was the odd one out, and most people need to be paid to do stinky work.
The pay argument is cause it wasn’t enough to cover necessities. If necessities were 100% covered then there’s no need to argue over pay.
I think that mostly happens because it’s a hard job and because people need money to live. If they didn’t they wouldn’t need more pay
If it’s so enjoyable, why don’t they do it as a hobby and have a different paying job?
To be clear, I think the answer is obviously that, to most people, it’s not that enjoyable.
Most people need to be paid to do work. Bad argument. I won’t be responding further, if this is how you argue.
If you agree most people need to be paid to do work, then we have no disagreement on the topic at hand, so there is no need to argue at all.
For example i doubt that many people enjoy working at garbage disposable or basically any waste disposal
Ehhh I bet you’d be wrong. Only anecdotal obviously, but at practice and games for the kids, a lot of dads just chat when there isnt much going on. A couple of them work for the local garbage company. One of them commented that he doesnt know how I stay inside and work all day, he really enjoys being outside with the trucks in the morning, then enjoying the afternoon outside with the kids. Another one is a mechanic for them, he always thought the trucks were cool, and he still enjoys working on them (though he will 100% tell you, in great detail, which manufacturers suck for various parts). Haven’t talked much with the last one about work, I think he is the only one just straight up doing it for money though.
And who knows, maybe the guy who likes being outside says that to be positive about his choices in life, but I see him at the park with the kids a lot, I’ve run into him heading out to the trails on his mountain bike, etc, so I believe him that he’s perfectly happy doing it.
Automation for unwanted tasks is great though, I agree, and where automation should be focused.
One of them commented that he doesnt know how I stay inside and work all day, he really enjoys being outside with the trucks in the morning, then enjoying the afternoon outside with the kids.
He could be taking the local kids out for hikes in nature instead - an activity which also gets him outside, provides a benefit to society, and lets him spend time with his kid and their friends. If he didn’t get paid, do you think he would prefer picking up garbage, or going on hikes with his kid? And even if he finds picking up trash meaningful now, do you think he started the job for the money, benefits, and schedule, and then learned to appreciate the good he was doing for the community after years of doing the work?
I’m not him so I couldn’t say, but considering I know he does volunteer cleanup days at the trails, I really dont think he looks down on garbage pickup the way you and others seem to be, that its only fulfilling because of money.
I met a guy last week who was unusually passionate about water filtration and wanted to make a business globally. People are wonderfully weird.
Would you really trust podiatrists or proctologists who were in it just for the love of the game?
Tbh I’d kind of trust them more. Even if they got off thinking of my feet later (which, who cares, have at it), they are going to put a lot more effort and get a lot more knowledge than someone just doing it for the high billing rate, dont you think? And probably care more about the quality of my arch than the guy writing a prescription for orthotics because the manufacturer just bought him a nice dinner.
Just because they are pervs doesnt mean they’d be bad at it, I’d say they’d be even better at it than most. Wouldn’t you think?
They might not even be pervs, maybe they’re autistic and feet are their special interest.
Also true, I was just working off the implications in the comment I was replying to
On the contrary, I don’t trust any medical profession that is in it for the money.
I daresay there’s a few people out there who might enjoy going into the sewers to manually remove the fatbergs, but probably not enough.
I build rockets that go on satellites and scientific missions. I enjoy my job; I find it extremely interesting and often quite fulfilling. In the grand scheme of things, I really wouldn’t change much. But like my boss said on the first day of the job, “This job is awesome, but it’s not worth doing for free.” If you told me I could still enjoy the same level of comfort at home that my job affords me, but I wouldn’t be paid, I would quit. I’d rather be at home reading, spending time with my family, playing around with my hobbies, etc.
My wife is a nurse. She loves her job, but she wouldn’t do it for free either. Her love for the job prevents her from quitting when she’s abused by the public for 12 hours, the pay makes her come in.
Some people are motivated by enjoyment alone to do jobs for free, but many are not. Or the thing they love doesn’t help society in a meaningful way. Or they just don’t want their hobby to turn into a job. I don’t think there’s a big enough overlap to have a functioning society.
I was also thinking that. As an example, retail work seems to me to be a kind of hell I don’t think I’d want to endure. But I know people that really enjoy it. So it’s probably true of any job you might think is only done by those that are forced to.
I think, if AI and robotics replace most jobs. After some years of pain when capitalists enjoy the infinite money glitch they’ve discovered, there will either be a revolution or a natural coming to understand that things need to work differently.
Now, understand this would only work if the vast majority of work could be done via automation. In this case the vast majority of people would be able to pursue what they enjoy, a bit like the star trek anti-economy. If all remaining required jobs were no longer filled by those that volunteered to do them, there would be some kind of draft (think like jury duty), where people able to do a job have a chance to be called in to do it for a few months then released back to pursue their own interests.
I’ve always seen capitalism as the carrot on a stick we need, when we need human productivity from the vast majority of people. If that’s no longer the case, it’s not a suitable solution and all the ideas like universal basic income are just stopgap measures to try to eke a bit more time out of the capitalist system that has already run past the point where we can keep enough people usefully employed to make it work. That’s almost certainly the reason we’re seeing the huge wealth disparity that increases. As the productivity per person goes up, all the increased value only ever rises to the top.
Bit of a mini rant there, sorry about that.
deleted by creator
I can’t imagine anyone enjoying being a correctional officer enough to do it for free. Or waste management (sewage).
Why do you assume that we’d need correctional officers in a world without money?
Because people murder each other for reasons other than money.
Oh I dunno, people are still inclined to uh probably murder and/or rape people for fun, steal things, commit any other unlawful acts society may deem against the law that doesn’t involve monetary situation. I understand money is the root of all evil but some people are evil just because.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. But you realise how that reads right? It sounds like you’re saying we should keep a boot on the neck of “the little people” so the rest of us can have a good life.
Fair point, though i did try to use positive encouragement model to incentice people to work in not so enjoyable jobs. Even if not permanently, maybe in rotation.
Living in a nice society is all the motivation people need. I hate doing dishes, but I do them because I hate living without clean dishes even more. Everyone understands sometimes we gotta do stuff we don’t like doing for a greater good. Acting like we need a wageslave class to do menial tasks otherwise we’d just let our world collapse is insulting our collective intelligence. We can share the burden.
Living in a nice society is all the motivation people need.
You might want to read up on the bystander effect. You do the dishes because no-one else is going to do it. But as soon as there are others who can do the job people will just stand around and let other die before they put in the effort.
That’s absolutely not what bystander effect is, not even close. It has also nothing to do with the issue at hand. Bystander effect caused not by not willing to put an effort, it’s incredibly complicated, layered, and not exactly explained, but probably the only thing we know about it for sure is that it’s not because people are lazy
Don’t you think there is some way we could structure society to counteract that without creating an underclass of wage slavery?
That’s been one of the goals of just about every socio-economic system, but since are not yet at the point where we can completely automate away all undesirable jobs, it all circles back to being shit.
I believe that there’s a way we can fairly share out all the shitty work among everyone, rather than a few at the top who do no work and exploit everyone, and a lot of people at the bottom who do all of the dirty work.
We don’t need to automate everything, we just need a fair system to distribute the work evenly. We have the technology. We can do it. The reason we haven’t is because those in power benefit too much from the current system.
I don’t think I can see a way to actually accomplish that without still ending up with negative outcomes.
Take for example a surgeon, one who is a specialist who’s time is 100% occupied saving people. Does he get taken away from that to do his time as a garbage collector? Do you tell the patient “sorry, you are going to die. You could have been saved, but we needed your surgeon to go pick up garbage.”, or do you have an exemption list?
And if there’s an exemption list, you will never convince me that people wouldn’t start abusing who is and isn’t on that list. You arrive right back to having a class society.
Yes, paying more for the shitty jobs.
Do you think the capitalistic system is going to just pay people fairly out of the goodness of the hearts of the ruling class?
How can people be paid the value of their labor while still generating profit? Profit is, by definition, the extraction of surplus labor value. Under capitalism, inherently and definitionally, no member of the working class is ever paid fairly.
No, never even implied that. But in any system we need something that can be exchanged for labor in carrying quantities so we can give more to the people who do the shittiest jobs. Whatever system you come up with, it’s not going to work without money.
ubi, competitive wages, strict caps on profits. there is lots of ways to mitigate capitalism. but basically no way to completely remove it at this point in time.
And all of those reforms will be resisted and then removed by the ruling elite, who control politicians and the media through capitalism. Reform is just short term harm reduction. I agree we are just at the start of our journey to abolish capitalism, but we need to reach our destination, or we will be cursed to forever live through cycles of fascism rising and falling inevitably again and again.
That seems kinda too idealistic view of the world.
I know much more people who, if not directly forced, would let the dishes or basically any environment around them completely mould and break down before even considering cleaning up even just the mess they have left behind, than people who altruistically do clean up after themselves and others.I do agree that living in a cleaner and nicer society should be enough of a motivation and for some it is, but there’s not enough of us.
We can already observe it in many public spaces where trash gets left laying around even if trash cans are available or public bathrooms or showers or my favorite example in the gym where plates get constantly left on the machines and cable attachments just piled up wherever those fell.
I’m not suggesting that we just leave everything to chance and just hope society maintains itself, I’m saying that we can structure society in a way that everything that needs to get done still gets done without the profit motive, because everyone inherently understands that if we evenly and fairly divide up the work that needs to get done, that they’re doing their part to live in a better world - does that make sense?
Yeah it makes sense and I’m not actually that much against the idea. I’m not that fond of the current wage slavery system either.
I just don’t trust general populations altruism that much to believe it would work on a large scale without any sort of a positive Incentivization in addition to just keeping the society running.
I don’t think we need to fully rely on altruism - humans can be selfish and we need to take that into account, and even make use of that tendency for us to want to feather our nests.
I believe that we can create an awesome society based on anarchist principles - freedom, liberty, bottom-up structures, socialized and democratized control of the means of production, and so on. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime, and/or an anarchist FAQ if you’re more of a reader.
Sure is a good thing doing this dishes is the most complicated and least-pleasant thing people can do…
Who’s gonna volunteer to go through years of training specializing in commercial diving in wastewater to treatment plants for free?
“Who’s gonna do mindbraking soulcrushing jobs for days without a break?” Nobody, that’s not a job that has to be done this way. “But if we stop orphan crushing machine, what will crush all the orphans?”
When you’re imagining the worst parts of the worst jobs, remember that the reason those jobs have worst parts is because the main incentive of every job is to have the profit of a job as high as possible, and to exploit the workers. Yeah, some jobs are hard, some are complicated, some are dirty, some are all three. But all that is something people can and regularly enjoy. People don’t enjoy when it’s degrading, when it’s soulcrushing for no reason, when there is obvious injustice. And it has nothing to do with jobsSome things require years of specialization and simply can’t be done by novices. You don’t want volunteer engineers, pharmacists, etc. Some of those specializations are also unpleasant. We need to support people and not require that all humanity be profitable, but we also need to incentivize people to do shitty and/or difficult jobs. That balance is extremely difficult to find, and the most effective solution we’ve found is paying people for that work. There’s an incredible imbalance in our system right now that values non-productive ownership over all else, but the solution to that isn’t saying “Fuck it - nobody gets paid and it’ll all work itself out.”
The easiest solution is to tax the shit out of the uber-wealthy. Right now we have lower classes defined by income and an upper class defined by wealth. If we remove the wealth and make work and productivity more valuable than ownership, it moves us much closer to equity.
Someone who wants to live a life of luxury and comfort in a world with wastewater treatment plants, knowing that everyone else is also pitching in and doing their part.
Someone who wants to live in a world without billionaire pedophiles in power doing nothing but hoarding all of the wealth and abusing women and children.
Someone who cares about the wellbeing of their community and is motivated by that, rather than by selfish greed.
In other words, anyone. Everyone.
Everyone can’t do everything, and some specialized jobs with specialized skills are extremely unpleasant. Are you suggesting that we just hope things get done, or that we force people to do it while giving nothing in return.
One is delusional - the other is just slavery.
I’m suggesting that we can come up with a better system than the current one we have. I have ideas for how we could do that, and if you’re interested you can check out an anarchist FAQ for a wide variety of ideas, but I don’t have all the answers, no one does. We can only reach a system which works for everyone by first acknowledging our current system is deeply flawed, then coming together to work to build a better alternative.
This is idealistic to the point of parody.
These are all real things. A better world is possible. It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, but remember that incredible changes that would have seemed impossible have happened before and will happen again.
If you told a pioneer in the Virginia company back in 1607 that black women would be given rights and the abililty to vote to elect their leaders, they’d probably burn you as a witch.
It sounds like you have never come across the concept of the tragedy of the commons?
The particular topic of waste disposal is a good one because we have good historical accounts of the transition from a free-for-all to regulated, paid profession. Take the example of Paris, which in the 17th century was infamous for its dirt and stink. Repeated efforts to force people to keep their own streets clean failed, and ultimately residents complained that if the King wanted the streets to be clean, he had better pay for someone to come and clean them. Eventually city officials managed to force (through threat of punishment) residents to sweep waste and mud into the middle of the streets, and pay people to come through and collect and remove it.
In 15th century Britain, nightmen removed waste from cess-pits and charged two shillings a ton. If there were enough people who just loved shoveling shit so much to do this without money changing hands, why weren’t they out doing that?
I’m actually very familiar with the idea of the tragedy of the commons.
Rather than re-cover well tread ground, I hope that you don’t mind if I quote from a relevant section of an Anarchist FAQ, and I encourage you to check the link I shared, as it goes into far more detail:
In reality, the “tragedy of the commons” comes about only after wealth and private property, backed by the state, starts to eat into and destroy communal life. This is well indicated by the fact that commons existed for thousands of years and only disappeared after the rise of capitalism – and the powerful central state it requires – had eroded communal values and traditions. Without the influence of wealth concentrations and the state, people get together and come to agreements over how to use communal resources and have been doing so for millennia. That was how the commons were successfully managed before the wealthy sought to increase their holdings and deny the poor access to land in order to make them fully dependent on the power and whims of the owning class.
[…]
In fact, communal ownership produces a strong incentive to protect such resources for people are aware that their offspring will need them and so be inclined to look after them. By having more resources available, they would be able to resist the pressures of short-termism and so resist maximising current production without regard for the future. Capitalist owners have the opposite incentive… unless they maximise short-term profits then they will not be around in the long-term (so if wood means more profits than centuries-old forests then the trees will be chopped down). By combining common ownership with decentralised and federated communal self-management, anarchism will be more than able to manage resources effectively, avoiding the pitfalls of both privatisation and nationalisation.
If you want a modern, real-world example of this which you may have actually experienced yourself, look no further than this medium we are using to communicate. The Internet is a great example. The Internet was a fantastic common space lovingly maintained and curated by individuals, with services and content provided freely. Corporations encircled it, and turned it into the torment nexus we have today. It wasn’t because of us, collectively, that spoiled the commons of the Internet - it was capitalism itself.
I feel like that entire passage completely ignores the fact that last time the bulk of humanity lived a communal lifestyle, the number of humans on the planet was a few orders of magnitude smaller. It’s a fairly easy setup to maintain when settlements are small and the bulk of people’s time is spent as hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers. As soon as you put a very large number of people into a city, the communal arrangement falls apart. And many people like living in cities. That genie is out of the bottle, and people are not going to be willing to go back to being a subsistence farmer in a commune.
I don’t see why we would need to give up modern agriculture, fertilizer, heavy machinery, or automation in order to abolish capitalism, can you explain why you feel that way?
There are many things that people are willing to do for their own satisfaction, I don’t disagree with that. I don’t think waste disposal is one of them.
The “communal life” you’re talking about cannot exist in an urbanised society, because most people you affect in a city are not personally known to you, and there will be no opportunity for the social mechanisms we evolved to pressure us into doing the right thing. In a village of 200 people, if you throw your shit in the street, your neighbour, whom you know personally and whose opinion you likely care about, will complain. In a city of 2 million, if someone throws shit in the street you have no idea who it was, they’ve never met you, and what are you gonna do about it anyway?
Anyway, I should bow out now. I have no interest in discussing politics or economics with an anarchist.
because most people you affect in a city are not personally known to you, and there will be no opportunity for the social mechanisms we evolved to pressure us into doing the right thing
That’s a demonstrable bullshit. Believing that the only motivation people can have is the fear of repercussions is the same level of that christian psychotic “if it wasn’t for the fear of god everyone would be raping and killing all the time” that says more about you than about supposed issue you’re afraid of.
It’s not fear of repercussions; it’s social glue. Crime is much more common in cities, out of proportion with how many people there are, because people who are willing to commit crime are not willing to commit it against people they know personally. Urbanisation allows depersonalisation allows bad behaviour.
It also allows effects to be transmitted that are simply way less direct than you have any hope of instinct being able to reckon with. Like, you can work out that tossing shit out of your window will piss off your neighbour, but the knock-on-effects of what you do can be harder to figure out than that. Did you buy a little bit more of anything at the start of COVID, “just in case”?
Do you really believe everyone would act like a psychopath if they aren’t always directly accountable for their actions? And how does that differ from our current system?
I have no interest in discussing politics or economics with an anarchist.
That’s really too bad, because I’m sure you’d learn a lot! Anarchism is not what you think it is. Either way, have a great day, I wish you all the best. Solidarity forever!
Do you really believe everyone would act like a psychopath if they aren’t accountable for their actions?
No.
