I’m not gonna pretend that life under capitalism means all labour is equally dignified, or rewarding, or a benefit to your community.
But, the fundamental difference between the working class and the owners is that we work, and they don’t. They only have their livelihood because of us, and that is why we are valuable, and they are not.
Your skills and abilities are dignified. The future is NOT us all choosing to be idle. That is a bourgeois ideal, and is valueless.
Obviously I’m not counting people who have no option. Ableism can also go fuck itself.
Definitely on the same page. Humans tend to opt to do things with their time without need for coercion, whether necessary for survival or not. I WOULD argue that in an ideal, highly automated world, idleness could be a valid option but, I don’t suspect it would be as popular as some may think.
I’m absence of sufficient automation, people will tend to pursue what interests them or what they’re good at, which allowed our species to thrive long before social constructs introduced coercion to extract value from others’ labor.
Oh indeed. Like I stated, I doubt that many would take that option. Humans just tend to be too driven to do something to dedicate their lives to idleness. They would also likely feel social pressures to do otherwise. And when I say “idle”, I really mean it. It would take effort to avoid producing anything at all - not even art (Steevo and Bob in SLC Punk comes to mind).
Would some be inclined to be idle? Probably. Would many want to spend their whole lives idle? The data does not suggest this.
I interpreted it as implying “being coerced into selling one’s labor is degrading, regardless of occupation” rather than “labour is without dignity”.
(And just realized that I mixed European and Simplified English spelling there… I’m going to leave it.)
I’m not gonna pretend that life under capitalism means all labour is equally dignified, or rewarding, or a benefit to your community.
But, the fundamental difference between the working class and the owners is that we work, and they don’t. They only have their livelihood because of us, and that is why we are valuable, and they are not.
Your skills and abilities are dignified. The future is NOT us all choosing to be idle. That is a bourgeois ideal, and is valueless.
Obviously I’m not counting people who have no option. Ableism can also go fuck itself.
Definitely on the same page. Humans tend to opt to do things with their time without need for coercion, whether necessary for survival or not. I WOULD argue that in an ideal, highly automated world, idleness could be a valid option but, I don’t suspect it would be as popular as some may think.
I’m absence of sufficient automation, people will tend to pursue what interests them or what they’re good at, which allowed our species to thrive long before social constructs introduced coercion to extract value from others’ labor.
Even highly automated, an idle future would mean no change.
That would require essentially a perfect, and unchanging, society.
That doesn’t sound realistic given our social nature.
Oh indeed. Like I stated, I doubt that many would take that option. Humans just tend to be too driven to do something to dedicate their lives to idleness. They would also likely feel social pressures to do otherwise. And when I say “idle”, I really mean it. It would take effort to avoid producing anything at all - not even art (Steevo and Bob in SLC Punk comes to mind).
Would some be inclined to be idle? Probably. Would many want to spend their whole lives idle? The data does not suggest this.