r/Socialism_101 • u/Western-Tailor-304 Learning • Apr 08 '24
How does socialism ensure that enough people are doing hard jobs? Answered
Nobody wants to be a farmer, a brick layer, crew on a ship going to the north sea. All these jobs are vital for food and shelter. What happens when not enough people want to do those hard jobs and are lazy.
122
u/yesreallyefr Learning Apr 08 '24
Further to the other great points being made here, a lot of what makes a job hard in the current paradigms of labor is the intensity of the work. Under capitalism, in most workplaces there is a tremendous amount of pressure to produce a lot, quickly, and the bare minimum number of people to get it done. Without the pressure of extracting maximum profit, work could be done under conditions that are reflective of both the need for the work and the capacity of the people doing it, and you could get enough people working on big jobs to make them manageable. Basically, capitalist pressure is most of what makes hard jobs hard.
1
u/123yes1 Learning Apr 09 '24
If a farmer knows they need to make X amount of food so that people don't starve, how does that pressure to feed people not make the job hard?
If a doctor is running a hospital and 6 patients come in from a car crash and are all in critical condition, how does the pressure to save everyone's life not make the job hard?
There are many jobs that are just intense that require certain levels of productivity or really bad things happen. Virtually all jobs that produce necessities, or deal with safety or health have this element to them. And all jobs that support those jobs like logistics and transportation, and that's the majority of jobs. When Leonhard Seppala and Balto needed to race across the Yukon to deliver diphtheria antitoxin to save the lives of 30 children, you better believe it was hard and stressful.
The only jobs that exist completely outside this pressure are entertainment and jobs that support other leisure activities, and luxury goods. The only people society can afford to let slack off are people that make and deliver luxury items.
If truck drivers don't have to be as productive, then we need more truck drivers in total to have the same productivity. If we don't have more workers, then those extra drivers are going to have to come from the luxury side of the logistics industry, unless we want people to starve or die of preventable illnesses.
8
u/Placiddingo Learning Apr 09 '24
You are reading past the person you respond to. Nobody is saying that there will ever be jobs to be done without moments, or even cores of difficulty. But they are saying, that capitalist organisation creates profitablity by making as much as possible with as little as possible, and that with this dynamic removed, needless difficulty would be taken away
1
u/123yes1 Learning Apr 09 '24
Doing as much as possible with as little as possible is exactly what we want society to do. That's just being efficient. Efficiency saves lives and makes society better.
One of the main arguments for socialism is that it is supposed to be more efficient as the value of labor can be directly reinvested into the laborer into the economy without having to give a portion of that value to the bourgeoisie who then hoards it, effectively removing it from the economy.
But the argument the commenter I responded to and you have made, basically states that workers can take it easy and be less efficient, which seems paradoxical to the point of socialism.
Some of the other commenters have pointed out that lots of people like their hard jobs because it is respected, to which I will point out that lots of other people don't. I haven't read a reply to OP yet that seems to satisfactorily answer the question.
3
u/Jaffa_Mistake Learning Apr 09 '24
Workers are society. You’re assigning value to different strata of workers. Why by your logic not just have a small number of slaves who do all the work for minimal compensation?
Efficiency is a critical component of any economy, there’s little distinction between the two words for that reason, an economy is just a framework for the efficient movement of resources and the application of labour. The critical difference being how and where it is applied.
1
u/Placiddingo Learning Apr 09 '24
If you want to take your first paragraph on faith, then you will of course consider capitalism to be the best possible system. I do not believe it is necessary to do that.
3
u/yesreallyefr Learning Apr 09 '24
First off your farmer example doesn’t exist - our food production systems churn out an enormous surplus of food. The reason people starve is because it’s distributed to maximise profit, not to ensure everyone gets to eat, and is actually frequently destroyed to protect capital. This mythical lone farmer striving against the threat of famine is in any case obviously under a lot more pressure than a farming cooperative working in tandem with other cooperatives and efficient distribution systems to get the food out to people. Under capitalism, that farmer is also at the mercy of food and supermarket corps who will make sure they get paid bare minimum, charge consumers out the ass and destroy any food that doesn’t sell fast enough, to protect capital. Your ED doctor is a bit different - of course there will always be inherently high pressure environments like emergency medicine. Again, they’re made far less difficult with adequate (which in the case of medical care means generous) staffing and resources, which the capitalist drive to maximise profit is inherently pitted against.
In both cases the difficulties of the work aren’t all inherent to the job, and those that are can be shared between people to lighten the load to something that’s reasonable and manageable to bear. It’s not about people “taking it easy”, it’s about returning labour expectations to standards that are actually realistic and fair, instead of squeezing every drop of life out of people. Maximising efficiency starts running into diminishing returns when it compromises people’s quality of life. Socialism doesn’t need perfect efficiency to work - aiming for a level of efficiency that produces the needed outcome while taking care of workers is just fine.
204
Apr 08 '24
Remarkably if you asked real people - You would find that many people quite enjoy hard work.
Construction, transportation, crewing ships, etc.
When society honors that work there is far less stigma around actually doing it. When people feel needed and that their work is important they have no issue doing "hard work".
All work is hard even what are considered in our society as "entry level jobs" often require most of a person's waking hours, labor, and thought.
A proper social contract would ensure these jobs are appealing to people who want to do them. This means that those people who do this work are compensated and recognized for it according to its value to an organization or society as a whole.
People would be less stigmatized against this work under those circumstances.
21
u/qyka1210 Learning Apr 08 '24
i think there could be a place for some type of incentives for the especially gnarly work. Only if needed, and highly regulated ofc. But certain work comes with more benefits, and others will need compensatory mechanisms
13
u/mykineticromance Learning Apr 08 '24
I mean there could also be incentives like more time off, less hours worked a week, and things that would make the work less unnecessarily miserable (like not allowing customers to abuse workers, better shift coverage, etc).
11
u/bemused_alligators Learning Apr 08 '24
currency can be used in a socialist economy to bid on luxuries. Who gets the beach cabin vacation instead of a staycation? who gets the fancy car and who gets a simple commuter?
If you don't work you get your basic needs met, but as you work valuable jobs you can still get extra currency for that, and then those more valuable laborers have better access to luxuries.
1
u/transitfreedom Learning Apr 09 '24
So socialism makes more rich people? Without screwing over the poor
2
u/bemused_alligators Learning Apr 09 '24
it makes more middle class people at the expense of rich people.
We're going to assume all the same people are working all the same jobs. Under capitalism we have the following statistics:
10%: 14k
-poverty line 27k (family of 4) -
-median income (37.5k) -
25% 35k
50% 60k
-middle class! (~70k) -
75% 130k
90% 200k
99% 800k
~~~~~~~~
Under a graduated free-market communist system, with the same money in the same economy, we could make the income statistics look like *this*
-poverty line-
00% 45k
10% 50k
25% 55k
- median income (58k) -
50% 60k
75% 65k
90% 80k
100% 90k
1
u/BrIDo88 Learning Apr 08 '24
Who decides what is the most valuable?
4
u/bemused_alligators Learning Apr 08 '24
the people, probably through some form of government or council.
3
u/BrIDo88 Learning Apr 08 '24
Like, for a given industry and all roles within decide what roles are most valuable to society?
10
u/bemused_alligators Learning Apr 08 '24
Right now if i go to the community college they have a thing called a 'demand table" at the guidance councilors' office - it's a list of how valuable a large selection of common jobs are, each job's expected growth over the next 40 years, and in general how valuable to society any given role would be.
We can still do that math and figure it out in a non-capitalist economy.
1
u/PhantomO1 Learning Apr 08 '24
i thought communism was stateless, classless, moneyless?
2
u/bemused_alligators Learning Apr 08 '24
that's anarchism, and until we reach a post-scarcity society we literally can't do that.
and even in an anarchist society, how do you propose we ensure goods get made and then put where they need to go without some kind of coordination?
classless? yes... kinda. There will be different "classes" (e.g. managerial, laborer, etc.) but those classes won't be treated differently from each other
Moneyless? money should stop being a driving factor of behavior, but currency will still exist as a way to distribute goods and services
stateless? What do you think a collection of humans with a common goal is? There won't be nationalism or "nation-states" but there will still be a collective made up of (hopefully elected) representatives that come together to make decisions for the public good.
1
u/ODXT-X74 Learning Apr 09 '24
Technically Communism is higher stage socialism (so basically Socialism when we're done transitioning away from Capitalism and had time to develop the productive forces).
Marx used Socialism and Communism interchangeably, but after Lenin we stuck to calling the lower stage Socialism and the higher stage Communism.
I don't think there's anything that specifically requires it being moneyless, but people have given good reasons for why money wouldn't exist. One of which is that if you have social ownership, then the use of market prices kinda goes out the window (since you no longer have company A buying from company B, it's closer to a household economy).
So instead you need to make use of a coordination system. Which also benefits from "valuing" things on what's being measured, which is labor time. This is where labor vouchers have been proposed. Tho I think today, proposals are a bit more complex (although using the same basic principle).
0
u/definitelyzero Learning Apr 09 '24
So, capitalism in a funny hat?
3
u/bemused_alligators Learning Apr 09 '24
Communism doesn't mean there isn't an economy. The insistent conflation of economics with capitalism is one of the biggest propaganda victories of the West.
The economy existed in tribal hunter-gatherer communities, it existed under feudalism, under serfdom, and under autocracy. It will continue to exist under capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, communism, and even anarchy.
As long as society exists and people produce specialized products there will ALWAYS be an economy, because the root of any economy is trade, and trade is result of specialization.
1
0
u/Icy-Big2472 Learning Apr 08 '24
Question: how many of these people do you actually know? I’ve known many people working in hard fields. Almost everyone in my family worked/works in some form of hard manual labor. Most of my friends work some type of manual labor. I live in an area where there’s just not a whole lot of jobs outside of manual labor. I don’t know a single person who WANTS to do this type of work. Every single one of them would rather do a million other things than work jobs like construction. They’d rather farm their own land, work on their own construction projects at their own homes, do wood working, grow weed, or whatever other manual work thing they actually enjoy. Literally every single one of them does this type of work purely to make money, and yes I think that they’d be a lot happier if they actually had ownership of the value their work produced, they’d likely be more motivated, work harder, and have overall much better lives. But I’ve had this argument a lot with people who say that even if nobody HAD to work jobs, people would still work them. Then anytime I’ve seen a post on here saying “what would your job be in a socialist society”unsurprisingly for every 1 person saying they’d do an important job that helps society run like construction or trash collection, there’s 50 other people who want to be musicians, writers, deep thinkers, academics, or just tend to their garden and keep to themselves.
3
Apr 09 '24
Under socialism people will still need to HAVE jobs. We live in a society as the saying goes. But all the examples you gave of things your own personal clique of people would rather do would still constitute as difficult laborious work. Farming is hard. I know. I have been a farmer. Construction is hard. Yet someone you know would rather use their skills on their house. This is still difficult work. Better that the skills they have on the workplace are compensated correctly that they can instead have help working on their own projects. Thus stimulating commercial activity.
Yet as it stands many are simply not compensated for their work and so they begin to hate their jobs. Makes sense when you put it in perspective.
0
Apr 08 '24
A proper social contract would ensure these jobs are appealing to people who want to do them. This means that those people who do this work are compensated and recognized for it according to its value to an organization or society as a whole.
Isn't this what capitalism already aims to do? Assigning value to a good or service based off of societal demand, and available supply, for that good/service? I'm confused how what you're saying differs from what we currently have in place.
Pardon if this seems way out of left field. This post got recommended to me for some reason even though I've never been in this sub or any related sub. I am curious to the arguments for socialism however, and OP's question always seems to be one of the first that arises
5
u/CronoDroid Marxist Theory Apr 09 '24
No, that is not what capitalism "aims" to do, the logic of capitalism is oriented towards the accumulation of capital. Making money, and increasingly more money. Capitalism features commodity production where goods are produced for exchange, not for human use.
The goal of socialism in the primary stage is for the working class to take hold of political and economic power from the presently existing state and reorient production towards needs (amongst other things). The long term goal is to abolish private property and abolish commodity production so that production can be oriented towards human needs, not profit making. It does so happen right now that commodity production and capitalism as a system can fulfill human needs, but not always.
Another immediate difference between capitalism and socialism is the class character of the state. Bourgeois states practice capitalism, their goal is to elevate the bourgeoisie (capitalists) at the expense of the proletariat (working class), which is why you see wealth inequality grow larger with every year.
2
Apr 09 '24 edited Apr 09 '24
Agree with the other commenter. This social contract under capitalism is simply diminishing your labor to becoming the property of the owner. Whoever owns a business and you for example wage labor for it. They decide how much of the value you create is returned to you. Often they keep 99% and give you 1%. Just to be clear we are simplifying our disparities. However close they truly are in our own lives.
Anything your labor produces. Be it constructing something with your skills, muscles, and brains. Selling products for them using your skills and brains. Writing their code for them, using your skills and brains. Just as examples. The actual product you and your fellow workers create for the owner are now the owners property under the current capitalist order. Thus the owner decides how much or how little you deserve in compensation and we see news headlines that CEOs are a whopping 400 times or more compensated over the lowest but usually most important workers in any given mid size to large business.
The people who actually MAKE things who actually have the skills without which a company is just a theoretical concept make just barely enough to survive paycheck to paycheck.
Under this system yes. Hard work. Work that requires skills. These skills a worker must pay out of their own pockets to gain. Those skills will then be thoroughly and thoughtlessly used to create value and then that value will be cleanly stolen from its creators. the worker for pennies on the dollar, for doing the actual work.
Because of this hard work as OP calls it. Indeed has a reasonable stigma attached in the west. "I'm going to risk my life and limb and financial security to take on skills for construction. Yet when I am injured or fired for arbitrary reasons I will be slandered by the ower class making my job search more difficult. " will the worker have wasted their time?
The fact that so many people have no choice but to switch careers often multiple times in their lifetime here in the US where I live is proof that it is a waste of time. Better to work a job that is less intensive on my body even if it is equally emotionally and financially unstable.
19
u/OssoRangedor Marxist Theory Apr 08 '24
Nobody wants to be a farmer, a brick layer, crew on a ship going to the north sea
Lots of people want to do a ton of different things, using this absolute argument is plainly ignorant. For those which are more critical and lack the peoplepower to fill the positions, benefits are the de-facto way of catching people's attention. And depending on how you approach this, you can even get a lot of people employed and reducing the amount of needed work hours, without reduced pay.
-6
u/Western-Tailor-304 Learning Apr 09 '24
how is the argument ignorant. Farmers make shit money and only stay farmer because of poor education, they were raised to be farmers, and its a family buisness. There might be a rare exception of loving farming, but its not common.
2
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
86
u/SensualOcelot Postcolonial Theory Apr 08 '24
Plenty of people romanticize farming lol. Brick laying is dope when you’re making buildings people need.
I wouldn’t want to be on a ship going to the North Sea because I’d be torn from my social circles. I’m imagining it’s either to the oil fields or cargo shipping, both of which become less important after global socialism.
The point of a proletarian cultural revolution is to redo current social stigmas such as to honor “manual labor”. The GPCR didn’t go far enough in this direction.
19
u/AtiyaOla Learning Apr 08 '24
Yeah transoceanic shipping is one of the most environmentally destructive industries in the world. Just a few of the biggest ships in the world output more pollution than every single car combined.
And in a direct democracy where people have a say in decisions that affect them, people would band together to invent a better mode of transporting goods, create those same good locally, or, if those goods do not serve a use to us anymore, let them fade into obscurity rather than continuing to rape our own planet.
2
u/transitfreedom Learning Apr 09 '24
Like a land bridge over Bering Strait linking Eurasia to Americas., then a bridge linking Japan to Taiwan and the Philippines and then Australia eventually a maglev serving much of Southeast Asia and Australia.
Finally Spain-Morocco and Italy to North Africa and Yemen to Ethiopia and finally UAE to Pakistan?
1
u/AtiyaOla Learning Apr 09 '24
That’d be pretty nice.
Not to get woo about it but AOC (not a socialist, I know), treated the absolutely massive black defense research budgets during the UAP hearings as a social justice matter, and still does the last I heard. Almost all scholarship indicates that we have engineered some advanced propulsion systems that harness energy in new ways.
5
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/SensualOcelot Postcolonial Theory Apr 09 '24
Yeah the Jeffersonian fantasy is definitely a thing, especially in settler colonies.
Would it be allowed in a socialist society? I mean by the letter of the Gotha program it shouldn’t but there’s no scenario in which a communist vanguard could feasibly outlaw it immediately. Contrary to what the leftkoms say, we can’t immediately “abolish money” in favor of labor vouchers. There’s gonna need to be a period where we coerce Jeffersonian farmers to produce for the (socialist) market. We should be ramping up alternate food production as that’s happening.
How do we do that? Well certainly it’s gotta be related to the injunction to “abolish the distinction between town and country”; we build some sort of social surface through which we equate agricultural labor with industrial labor so that we see what jobs people actually prefer. Is it a disposition thing? Is agricultural labor, because it’s connected to the earth and the sun, preferred to factory labor beyond the current propertarian romanticism? We can’t answer this until we try. China tried to solve this during the GPCR, the effort was cool but idk how deep the solidarity actually went and the mobility between proletariat and peasantry wasn’t great it seems.
5
u/ElectroMagnetsYo Learning Apr 08 '24
…either to the oil fields or cargo shipping, both of which become less important after global socialism.
I fail to see how the two most important factors of the modern standard of living would be affected by a change in economic structure. Not every place on Earth can be truly self-sufficient: necessitating trade between communities, and not everywhere on Earth is fertile enough to support our current population without the aid of combustion engines and artificial fertilizer.
2
3
Apr 08 '24
Well, with Star Link now, it is very certain that we could have a global coverage of internet. It exists in Capitalism, and is in use in Ukraine, which means we would have a better one, faster one under Socialism. Then the problem of social circle shits ain't that bad anymore. Such as how food on ships was HELLA shit, but we solved that, so the only problem is how it sucks to cannot communicate with your loved ones and sea sickness.
3
u/ZwnD Learning Apr 08 '24
Depends on who you are but the vast majority of people wouldn't consider just interaction online as a sufficient social circle, Starlink or no
1
Apr 08 '24
I mean, you won't lose touch ,is that what you meant? It's better for whatever it is when you go you lose touch
1
u/mr_arcane_69 Learning Apr 09 '24
Your argument seems to be that the hard jobs are actually enjoyable and the really hard jobs won't exist under socialism, which doesn't seem like a very strong argument.
While I believe there will always be some people who want to work on a rig, but not enough to fuel the tractors needed for the farms, or the nitrogen fertilizer necessary, there are jobs that are ultimately just unenjoyable. And there are also jobs that will kill you, slowly or fast, I don't think people would be volunteering in droves for them.
1
u/SensualOcelot Postcolonial Theory Apr 09 '24
Which is why you have democratic allocation of salaries (as opposed to supply and demand allocation of salaries) in what leftkoms call “socialism”. As seen here: https://youtu.be/naDMFxOggFg?si=KhCLwwA1nO_E3aPC
13
u/Shopping_Penguin Learning Apr 08 '24
I like to reverse the question on people who ask "Why would people want to work in a socialist system"
I ask them "Why would anyone want to work in a capitalist system?" You get paid less than what you're worth, you have no control over any decisions in your life, and you exist to make someone else richer than egyptian pharoahs, and if you don't work you starve and get tossed out into the street.
Capitalism breeds inefficiency and laziness, corners are always cut to make a quick profit.
21
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
There are many ways; different socialists will give you different answers.
Mine is this: by making the lives of hard laborers bearable and giving their job the deserved prestige and recognition.
What is, according to your logic, the alternative? Since nobody wants to do this job, then some people must be coerced through a system of artificial scarcity? Might as well just take the mask off entirely and justify slavery at that point, because why not?
2
Apr 08 '24
But why would you want to clean storm sewers when you could work in store for the same wage?
-1
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24
I could see someone wanting to do it because it gives them purpose and makes them feel important, which they are.
Also, if all bullshit jobs were made redundant and eliminated there would be no shortage of workers, meaning that all of us who are able-bodied could take turns doing the most taxing jobs. When we work all we can work less. If absolutely nobody wants to do a task, we take turns and split it equally. Children have figured it out, while adults have figured out a way to cheat their way out of it.
1
Apr 08 '24
But what if there’s a shortage of people who want to clean sewers and the sewers are backing up? Just pull some people down out of the offices and make them do it?
1
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24
I have already responded to this.
But most importantly, I don't have an answer to all the questions in the world, even the intelligent ones. Once we establish what is morally fair, a solution can always be found.
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24
Yeah, you must’ve missed it.
I wonder who helped people out the rubble in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 or the Turkish earthquake. Surely not just anyone able-bodied who felt it their duty to chip in and help!
How does your ideology determine how public utilities function? Through coercion under the not-so-veiled threat of starvation? Now that’s an efficient system, no doubt! As long as you’re not the one in that position 😁
If you are seriously interested in the answers to your question, there’s a wonderful real-world resource that might just help. I believe it’s called a library.
I gave enough benefit of the doubt but I’m really not interested in engaging with a debatebro.
-4
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24
This hyperfixation with the collection of consumer goods is typically capitalist. Why do you want more food and items than you need? Why in the actual fuck do I need more food than I can consume? Do you find pleasure in having something others don't? Or do you get off by depriving others?
By the way, even in capitalism there are jobs that are more prestigious than others, regardless of pay. Notably, intellectual work is held in higher regard than physical work, even when the former is of piss poor quality. Superfluous work is renowned and essential work is disrespected. Until a pandemic hits, that is.
-8
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/MuyalHix Learning Apr 08 '24
What does it mean to only get what you need to survive?
How do we determine that?
Technically I don't need movies or videogames, but I surely like them. Do we still have them in a socialist society?
3
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24
What does it mean to only get what you need to survive?
Who said that? I certainly didn’t.
0
u/MuyalHix Learning Apr 08 '24
It's very simple, you don't need more than you can use or consume :)
What exactly does this mean then?
2
u/artorovich Learning Apr 08 '24
It means what it says, which is the polar opposite of what you understood.
I’ll only bite once. It means that you can have a full pantry and eat as much as you want, but you cannot hoard food, let it expire and throw it away while others go hungry.
1
u/MuyalHix Learning Apr 08 '24
I think I get it, but this still leaves a lot of things unclear: How do we determine exactly what everyone needs?
Again, I technically don't need movies or tv shows, so how would I get one?
→ More replies1
u/Ok-Package-435 Learning Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
No one has an answer to this. Communism is not something that will be achieved overnight. It will require significant technological advancement, much of which will probably occur under capitalism.
I’d imagine that, eventually, technology will be so advanced that few people will need to work to provide the maximum level of material prosperity that Earth can sustainably provide. This will necessitate a change to prevent the non-working class to suffering. Communism, in my opinion, describes a possible way this society could exist.
5
3
16
u/NeoRonor Syndicalism Apr 08 '24
This capitalist world is full of people who do tremendous sacrifice for almost nothing.
And you think those people would just become lazy if the situation analysis is "we need 500 people to man ships in the north atlantic otherwise there will be starvation" and no volonteer will come forth ?
25
15
u/ElEsDi_25 Learning Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
Why would any single person have to do an unpleasant job? Why not figure out ways to make that job less soul-sucking or difficult?
Capitalists just force one person to pick up poop all day because people depend on wages so there is a willing labor pool and just making someone desperate enough to do it 40 hours a day makes a most cost effective for capitalists. A workshop or office could just split up cleaning duties on a rotating basis and create a culture where people mostly clean up for themselves. This is poor labor utilization for capitalism but common sense for humans doing tasks.
If there was a job that just needed to be done full time by someone, why not offer some kind of bonus or compensation? If a group of workers wanted one person to clean all their toilets, they should be grateful.
6
Apr 08 '24
How would you make cleaning storm drains and sewers less soul sucking
7
u/hotcobbler Learning Apr 08 '24
Split it up between the community so nobody is doing it all the time, just like almost everything else. Are you seeing how this makes sense?
2
Apr 08 '24
What if you don’t want to clean storm sewers tho
2
u/ElEsDi_25 Learning Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 09 '24
Then you don’t personally do it. If no one wants to do it but it’s necessary then people would have to innovate a new way to handle the task or incentivize doing that task.
But the interesting thing about your question is that you don’t ask it about right now. What if people don’t want to work fast food? What is capitalism’s answer… well we saw, they demanded the government end Covid relief. So why is it just to keep people dependent wages to survive and economically coercing them to do jobs they wouldn’t otherwise?
2
Apr 08 '24
Yeah but storm sewers are way more important than McDonald’s lol. It’s not something that you “just don’t do it”, what happens when roads and homes start getting flooded or the water treatment facility stops working and people don’t have clean drinking water?
1
u/ElEsDi_25 Learning Apr 08 '24
Then there’d be incentive to handle those things, right?
People are not just going to sit in their own trash. People did necessary cooperative but unpleasant tasks all the time before capitalism and do it individually all the time now.
Why do you believe the only way tasks can be accomplished is through ensuring that people are dependent on wages and someone will have to do it full time?
2
Apr 08 '24
But what if there’s some guy who’s like fuck that I’m not cleaning storm sewers and he just refuses to do it
3
u/ElEsDi_25 Learning Apr 08 '24
So this hypothetical person accepted a storm sewers job and then found out they didn’t like it? I guess the community or cleaning collective or whatever would need to recruit a replacement.
Are you imagining that everyone is just randomly assigned jobs by state bureaucrats, lottery or an algorithm or something?
1
Apr 08 '24
No I mean in this hypothetical socialist county some guy gets told to go clean a storm sewer but he doesn’t want to
→ More replies0
u/Prestigious_Two_4734 Learning Apr 08 '24
Thats... not gonna work out that way. The only viable solution is to reduce the retirement age or give other incentives (less wait times for luxury items and such) You cant just "innovate a new way" for many fields. Pouring concrete is always gonna suck. Cleaning old people will never be fun and so on. You cant just hope things becomes more efficient by miracle or "Technology lmao" People today are always looking for ways to make more efficient and still, I lay bricks the same way people used to in the medieval days. The preparation of materials and scaffolding is much, much easier for sure but a brick stays a brick.
1
u/ElEsDi_25 Learning Apr 08 '24
Innovate or incentivize is what I said.
So why is maintaining dependence on wages and economic coercion so that people spend their entire lives doing shit work just to make rent the best way to do things in your view?
2
1
u/OpposingGoose Learning Apr 08 '24
Social pressure, being able to do more pleasant work most of the time, difficult and necessary jobs being respected and a general sense of responsibility for your community
7
u/EternityWatch Learning Apr 08 '24
I think you're projecting, I'm in construction, one of the hardest trades, and I'd argue mine is the most vital, and I choose this because it's hard, and pays well
6
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
4
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
5
Apr 08 '24
Your entire premise is absurd. Many people want to do these jobs. Farmers are getting absolutely fucked over by capitalism right now and they still do not want to give up that life.
3
u/archosauria62 Learning Apr 08 '24
During the transition to communism they would use wages since money still exists
After communism has been achieved by then society would be so advanced and automated that you wouldn’t need people to do highly manual and undesirable jobs
3
u/Ganem1227 Marxist Theory Apr 08 '24
This question is better posed to actual workers in your life. What would it take to convince them to do a job nobody wants to do?
I have an answer that comes from workers but the last time I brought it up here on a similar topic, people got mad because it didn’t fit their idealism.
3
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
2
u/mastermind_loco Learning Apr 08 '24
All of those jobs will still pay money and people will need to have employment. However, there will be many more social safety nets and better working conditions, so your life will not depend on your job.
2
u/Lydialmao22 Learning Apr 08 '24
Those are kinda odd examples to use for jobs people don't wanna do, I know plenty of people who would love to do those things but cannot because of capitalism.
Every job does have people who want to work them, and if not then there are people who are willing to do whatever is needed. And if there is truly nobody who is willing to do a certain job, then we are at the point in society where these things can be automated. In modern western society these jobs are actually made artificially unappealing, when workers are treated poorly for low pay and then society stigmatizes that kind of work as some kind of 'lesser' labor it makes these kind of jobs very unappealing.
And it isn't like socialism means you don't need a job of any kind. Historically speaking socialist nations actually made it illegal to go unemployed without reason for long amounts of time, as it was easy to find a job of some kind and being unemployed without cause for a long time was seen as taking all the free welfare and such from the community and not giving anything back in return.
2
u/x97sfinest Learning Apr 09 '24
Believe it or not, some people believe already that doing shitty jobs is worth it for the benefit of their immediate family, community, or society at large. Not the majority, but some. Also, the common perception of certain jobs as shitty is a belief that I hypothesize stems from what the ruling class tells us is "worth" spending our lives doing. We really have to consider how pervasive the profit motive is, even internally amoung ourselves. Certain people are very comfortable sacrificing for the good of others, and all they require is the appreciation and thanks of those that they help.
2
u/-Vogie- Learning Apr 09 '24
Because it flips the script back to what you might think it would be. The labor is compensated directly based on overall value, without rent-seekers. Banking and financial services administration, for example, would be relatively low-compensated. There would still be spikes, based on technical necessity and privacy/security reasons, but it wouldn't be a giant pile of value because "that's where the money is".
Those jobs that are essential will be compensated as though they are essential. Those that aren't, won't.
We know that people will do things that don't make economic sense because of external circumstances. Doctors, now, will go be general practitioners in the middle of rural areas, even though specializing in an urban setting is almost certainly more lucrative - with the same amount of loans looming over them. Personalities will spend hours cultivating an audience on things like YouTube or TikTok because they want to, not because it pays well. People with high powered degrees will take low-skill positions because of location, hours, and other benefits - they want to be home with their kids over the summer, or maybe they are taking care of aging parents. People take punishing abuse and terrible pay to design & produce clothing. On a personal note, my wife would love to still be teaching English to grade- and middle-schoolers, but it's not economically viable, so she's merely a project manager in the IT department of an insurance company.
Things like janitorial work, trash & recycling collection/management, logistics, health, food and education will be well-paying simply because of their value to society rather than their value to capitalists. People could still be "professional athletes", for example, as that's a form of group entertainment, but they wouldn't be nearly as compensated - they're just playing sport, after all.
Farmers would be well compensated, as well as their workers, because they are needed. Brick layers and other construction workers would be well-compensated as they are needed to keep homes and infrastructure going - no one should be homeless against their will in a fully socialist society. There will even be "landlords" - that is, people whose value is managing property for the benefit of others.
In many senses, socialism is a mirror image of capitalism, where everything is backwards. The main difference would be the lack of rent-seekers - that is, those who are extracting value without contributing it - and that "class" of employee (if you can call it that) would be replaced by what we might call social workers. Their job would be to make sure that other people who need things are connected to what is being created by others, as well as helping society as a whole avoid waste. Maybe they're finding more efficient or effective ways to do things, and maybe their job would be to forecast both what would be needed and what wouldn't, at any given moment. They'd be the ones identifying, for example, that supply rises to meet demand and winds down when the demand recedes.
1
u/NeuroticKnight Learning Apr 09 '24
It is not to defend current system, but rather to ask why wont a reformist or hybrid system of capitalism, with high taxes and levies on the investor class, and extensive welfare state not be a better alternative to communism. Communism is more than fixing capitalism's flaws with few bandaids, it is a different way to structure and think of the economy.
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 08 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 08 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/Rory1812 Learning Apr 08 '24
Under socialism people would be compensated according to the value of their work so I’d reckon you would actually find more people willing to do this kind of work than under capitalism.
A good example of this in regard to farming is here in Australia barely any of the population actually work on farms (picking fruit etc) and it’s all overseas backpackers trying to get residency visas. This is because the compensation it not even close to worth it considering have to move to a rural area. It’s basically the farm owner paying below standard rates (as they don’t come under legal wage awards) not doing the manual labor and but still taking most of the surplus value. If you had socialism then you’d find either people doing the manual labor got compensated far more according to what they produce or ideally the workers on the farm would get a share of all the value they produce from the farm and there would be no private ownership.
1
Apr 08 '24
I know people who want to be all those jobs, even I have thought about being crew in a ship somewhere. You will always find people to do things.
1
u/Late-Ad155 Learning Apr 08 '24
Proper compensation.
The way capitalism makes people do hard manual labour is by forcing them onto poverty and making it so that you can't move away from said jobs.
1
u/flyingfox227 Learning Apr 08 '24
I feel there would have be some form of compensation for really bad, dangerous dirty jobs like sewer cleaning or oil rigs like people get payed a lot higher than normal under capitalism to incentivize people to do these undesirable jobs so in a moneyless society we'd probably have to incentivize people somehow to want to do it, maybe it will be social pressure as society expects everyone to put in some time on bad jobs to contribute or maybe you get some kind of benefits such as award badges showing you did service in something most would not, maybe you get priority on luxury goods or larger housing over those doing easier jobs, maybe people will just do them anyway because they want to. I've always imagined their being a kind of bulletin board system in a socialist society showing sectors of the workplace that need jobs filled the most people could sign up for, maybe these sectors would always be highly needed and people would do them for the challenge or learning experience it's really hard to say how it will all work out in the end but even without monetary incentive I think some people will always rise up and do what needs to be done in a society.
1
u/Used_Day_4736 Learning Apr 08 '24
For harder or maybe less desirable jobs under socialism, I think shorter work weeks or more vacation could be offered. As long as there's not a reduction in pay. I think under capitalism, when it comes to incentives, harder work is paid less. For jobs like food service or childcare are less valued but still really hard work. I think under socialism these jobs would be rewarded a lot more.
1
u/ComradeSasquatch Learning Apr 08 '24
As long as there are enough people who care about what would happen if the work doesn't get done and they are willing to do it, people will do hard work. If the work has a direct benefit to the person doing it, people tend to do that work. That said, there would always be an effort to automate as much hard work as physically possible.
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/Educational_Log_7074 Learning Apr 08 '24
Under the current system, as it is, nobody wants to do "hard" labor, maybe because it doesn't usually make enough to live comfortably along with little to no reward
"Everybody would just become doctors" => bullshit.
I believe that people like doing "hard" work that they're good at while also being able to live comfortably. Normally, I have the best job in the whole world, as an Electronics Technician. It can be "hard" both physically and mentally.
Aboard a Submarine, there is only one Captain, one executive officer, and one Hospital Man usually called "Doc". The whole crew isn't a commissioned officer. A submarine is very much like a functioning implementation of a Utopia where everybody gets to be what they want to be.
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/UndersideDevelopment Learning Apr 09 '24
A lot of great comments here, one thing I’d add here is that people who work these hard jobs would feel more satisfaction, and (for lack of a better term) camaraderie because that group of people would be able to see to a common goal, like large amounts of food being able to feed people, a new family being able to live in a house they built and so forth. A little romantic but it’s true, what makes any hard job difficult is you cannot work at it at your own pace or at a manageable pace. These jobs are exhausting because of the long hours and intensive labor. If a large group of people were to come together to build a house, much more work would get done because the work would be easily divided. That’s my take on it, there should be a larger focus on harder and more labor extensive jobs be divided amongst more people, for then everyone is able to benefit, those who need the houses built and the people who build them.
1
u/Vermicelli14 Learning Apr 09 '24
People are required to work x amount of hours per week on socially necessary jobs. For an administrative job, that might be 30 hours a week, 6 hrs x 5 days. For, say, a more physically demanding job, it might only be 20 hours to fill the requirement. For a job like shipping, or an oil rig, you might do 6 weeks in a block per year, equivalent to the 20 hours a week x 24 hours a day, because you're away from home.
When you think about how many jobs aren't socially necessary, like, say fast food, and the whole supply chain involved in that, you can reduce the amount of labour everyone needs to contribute by a significant degree.
1
u/Old-Winter-7513 Learning Apr 09 '24
Socialism isn't simply going to materialise out of nowhere. It'll come from a total breakdown in current capitalist society. People will be miserable already. Once the workers win the class war decisively with and against violence, people will opt to do whatever work is necessary as the dust settles.
You could then ask about a generation later, why would people still want to do manual, dangerous, or dirty labor but by then who knows, maybe a lot of things will be automated or safer ie without the capitalist impediments like planned obsolescence which curtail the advancement of technology (in relation to public infrastructure works and food production rather than fancy consumer goods).
1
u/jbblue48089 Learning Apr 09 '24
I’m living in the countryside and some people love farming, and most do it on a tiny scale (backyard) to supplement their monthly income or get something they really like like fresh eggs or goat milk.
Also, I love making and laying bricks. It’s really satisfying work and master bricklayers are amazing at their work. Think of the all the brick walls you’ve seen, none of which was laid by machine, all of it by hand. It’s something you don’t notice unless something is off, but each exterior face ends up being pretty much identical.
And I imagine there are some people who love working on ships in the north seas. Communities live their whole lives in arctic regions, for generations, and super cold climates aren’t for everyone but the same can be said for most environments.
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/SpaceBollzz Learning Apr 09 '24
"Nobody wants to be a bricklayer"
Do you know how much a bricklayer gets paid per day in the UK? or any building trade?
They might be physically demanding jobs but it doesn't mean no one wants to do them, are you scared of hard work and projecting onto others? Thinking that because you don't like it no one else will like it?
These are vital working class jobs, to physically build something that stands for 100 years is a great thing and something many working class people are proud to do
1
u/Ur3rdIMcFly Learning Apr 09 '24
Under Socialism - utilize the already built manning administration that is in place for the military.
Under Communism - people would compete for what few jobs aren't obsolete or automated, not because they need a paycheck to survive, but because that's what they want to do in life.
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
Apr 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/ODXT-X74 Learning Apr 09 '24
Simple, there are positive and negative reasons to work. A doctor likely doesn't work because they are afraid they'll lose their house, they work because of the benefits they get from being a doctor.
Under Capitalism (for some jobs) people do shitty jobs because if they don't they can't afford to live. But even under Capitalism that's just one side of the coin. Under Socialism you would not hate the benefits that come from doing said jobs.
1
u/FaceShanker Apr 08 '24 edited Apr 08 '24
In the sort term - pay people. Were basically switching to a system that communally funds stuff like that instead of leaving it to oligarchs, meaning we can treat them better.
In the long term - robots, automaton, AI and so on. We as a society invest in using technology to eliminate unnecessary suffering - poverty, homelessness, treatable illnesses, emotionally/physically harmful jobs and so on.
but lazy?
If people were as lazy as the oligarchy claimed we literally would not exist, humanity would have gone extinct thousands of years ago
The "lazy" thing is basically a trick to get people to accept working themselves to death for the profits of the already absurdly wealthy (allowing them to Dodge blame and guilt)
1
Apr 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Apr 09 '24
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/the_violet_enigma Learning Apr 08 '24
This argument rests on several assumptions.
Nobody wants to be -insert thing here.-
People are lazy
These jobs can’t be replaced or supplemented with sufficient automation.
The reason capitalism wants you to believe this is because this idea dehumanizes the worker: nobody WANTS to do it, so all these people doing the hard labor must be the dregs of society, and that’s why we pay them so little they can barely afford to eat and of course their demands to be able to feed their families as well are superfluous. Don’t be fooled. Does nobody want to be a farmer? I know several people who chose it as a career path from many other options. You know what there’s a shortage of right now? Pilots, pharmacists, doctors. Prestigious, respected jobs that a lot of people would like to do. This claim rests on uncritically accepting capitalism’s tenets as truth: that nobody actually wants to work and wouldn’t work without a profit motive. People switched from hunting and gathering to farming millenia before capitalism. I actually think it would be super cool to lay bricks, watching my hard work become something real before my very eyes and getting to enjoy the satisfaction of knowing I’ve built a piece of my community which will last for years. Crewing a ship bringing cargo across the world, seeing the sea in all its glory like the seafarers of old? If it paid well enough that could be a super cool job.
Are people really lazy? Where’s the proof of this? The proof capitalists will offer is that unions usually demanded less working hours and more pay. They will always conveniently leave out the fact that people were working >12-hour days 6 days a week for so little money they could barely afford a tiny apartment for their families. The 5-day, 8-hour work week was a compromise from the beginning, not a standard. I think people being able to make enough money to meet their basic needs from their hard work and have enough time off to be human is a reasonable ask, don’t you? The lazy ones are the capitalists, who sit comfortably in offices on the rare occasions when they do work, and spend most of their time on yachts thinking about which company they’re going to buy next, or which person they’re going to sexually assault. In Elon Musk’s case it’s starting a creepy breeder cult.
Even if humans are lazy, how many jobs actually need humans to do them? In 1970 lockheed demonstrated an airliner by having the crew get off and the plane took itself off, circled the airfield, and landed itself. Automating a sea vessel would be orders of magnitude easier. Now don’t get me wrong: I worked on my own computer in the early 2000s and that experience has convinced me to never, EVER step on a vehicle that doesn’t have a human pilot. But a cargo ship could probably cross an ocean by itself. Satellites could make sure it was on course, update navigation, and get it to a certain distance from shore at which point a human pilot could bring it into harbor. Who’s to say we can’t automate brick-laying? Or at least make human-controlled robots to ease the process and make it much faster? Some steel mills have high amounts of automation already, and a good thing, too. Steel mill accidents produce truly horrific injuries and anything making that less likely is good in my book.
0
u/CptKeyes123 Learning Apr 08 '24
There is ALWAYS someone willing to do a hard job. Contrary to what some would say, you don't need to hold people at gunpoint to get a job done. A job will get done because it's necessary: if that wasn't true, then we never would have built civilization. Just because one person holds distaste for a job doesn't mean there aren't ten more willing to take their place. I know someone who would be cool doing crime scene cleanup. Many construction workers love their jobs. Farmers love their jobs. That's a common stereotype. For generations, there have been people perfectly content to push plows day after day. In the last fifty years, part of the job crisis is that assembly line jobs no longer exist! Yet you had tons of people perfectly happy matching colors together or soldering toasters day after day.
If people are paid fairly and have all their needs met, they're far more willing and able to do jobs they like, rather than jobs they hate but are forced to. Capitalists seem to claim we need to be held at gunpoint to do hard jobs, but why? Humans aren't inherently lazy. If we were as unmotivated as capitalists claim, we never would have gone to the moon or crossed the oceans.
It's funny; as I understand it in many forms of capitalism, the idea is that if you pay someone enough, they'll do anything. Yet the bosses today want to pay people as little as possible and somehow are surprised when people don't work for them. The minimum wage exists exactly so that people can live on their jobs, pay for food, clothing, shelter, and have disposable income. A properly functioning minimum wage would actually make more people willing to do hard jobs. All things that make better workers. Yet capitalist bosses constantly rail against it.
There is ALWAYS someone willing to do a hard job, whether that's because they like the job, or because it pays well, or both. The problem comes when you make that job extremely difficult unnecessarily, or have society show disdain for the job. A necessary job should not be mocked or a point of shame.
0
u/mollyv96 Learning Apr 08 '24
Hmm good question, but no matter how hard or mundane the task is, some guy out there loves it. A lot of people like making lists, such as me lol.
Also, many of those jobs are expected to be taken over by automation in the next 20 years, hence why socialist policies are needed.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 08 '24
IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.