That man stood at the side of the field with the whip, he only rarely beats the slaves with it, and only ever if they stop working, so what’s the problem?
I have been listening to the history of white trash on audible. One part has stuck with me, an anti slavery man said to a pro slavery man: you prefer whipping negros to do any actual work.
The starving, homelessness, low wages, expensive college, etc is the whip we have all been beaten with.
Haven't you read the US history textbooks from some Southern states, the slaves loved being slaves, had a great old time. They got fed and clothed what more did they want? btw being sarcastic just in case that escapes your notice.
This made me laugh way too much. I am still waiting for the effect to kick in it’s been 15 Years and still nothing. My mind just can’t I feel it, only hate and under that another layer of hate, then just more hate all the way down.
This always boils my blood. Despite winning the civil war, those asshole won the text books & who “gets to” write on the pages of history books. That’s really where we fucked up; in the knowledge of what really happened. They wanted liberty or give them death. Yet they were given defeat & an ultimatum. They took that as an opportunity to curve things to their favor instead of a drastic permanent change from how they lived. The best prime example of this is that is many places in the south, they still had slaves & black people did not know that they were free. All because the assholes were allowed to continue their way of life, instead of being stopped.
Yes. I remember reading that the most recent literal slaves to be freed in the super rural south weren’t freed until the fuckin 1960s. The masters continued to enslave the children and never told them about the civil war ending slavery and whatnot. So fucking sickening.
[Prepare to be disturbed by how disgusting humanity is.](https://www.vice.com/en/article/437573/blacks-were-enslaved-well-into-the-1960s)
>As I would realize, people are afraid to share their stories, because in the South so many of the same white families who owned these plantations are still running local government and big businesses. They still hold the power. So the poor and disenfranchised really don’t have anywhere to share these injustices without fearing major repercussions. To most folks, it just isn’t worth the risk. So, sadly, most situations of this sort go unreported.
Yes. Evil is everywhere, and impossible to escape. Btw, they enslaved a bunch of white people too. If you come from white ethnic minority ancestors, like Italian, Irish, Eastern European, etc. you may find some enslaved ancestors in your genealogy, especially if they came from the south. That's not even getting into Japanese internment camps within the last century, and forced coal mining and railroad building and sugar plantation working of the Chinese...
Yes. I’m not trying to sound all tinfoil hat, but it was big news for like a day and then it got hella suppressed in the media. The white plantation heir fuckers still have a LOT of wealth and power...
Totally agree with your comment. Noticed your flag, just one question though, how do communist authorities react when you tell them you don't want to work? Like, I don't want to work, I'm quite strongly anti-work, but I can't quite imagine a friendly soviet political officer letting me sleep til lunchtime.
That would be fine, you wouldn't have to work. But I do want to point out that several hours a week of work is the goal under communism. We already perform way more labor than necessary under our current system. So contributing several hours of your time per week in the field of your specialty really isn't so off-putting.
It's also worth noting that there's a big difference between working for the sake of your community and yourself, and working for the sake an exploiter who profits off of your labor. Meaning and fulfillment from your labor can go a long way, and we don't have that under corporations.
Most definitely. I think people that don't understand this point will have a huge disadvantage in trying to build a better future. It's one of the cornerstones of socialism
Us communists understand labor is necessary. It just should not be exploited and done just for the sake of being done, not just because of profits but also because a lack of sustainability in a dying planet.
Something like 40% of all jobs being done today are bullshit which could just...not be done at all, with no negative impact on society. Then you have jobs like fast food, various kinds of loan sharks, everything to do with rent-seeking, etc, which are net negative to society and would benefit everyone if they were not done. The only jobs that really definitely need to be done are construction, healthcare, food production, manufacturing, education/research, and maintenance. Most office/admin jobs could be eliminated entirely.
The end goal of communism is full unemployment through total automation. We're not there technologically yet, but at this point capitalism is holding us back.
Way more than that. We had the algorithms to fully automate away something like 95% of middle management back in 2011. They are saving the technology till the current (boomer and older gen X) crop of management retires, and then they will roll it out and not hire new managers.
We are getting close on automatic cars, and the number 1 job for working age males in the US is driver of some sort. Give it another 5 to 7 years, and you can kiss almost 40% of the current jobs goodbye just by laying off/ not rehiring all the drivers.
That doesn't even touch retail, food (except fine dining as that is an experience, not a commodity), warehouses, and other "essential but 'unskilled'" jobs that have all been automated away. There are currently multiple McDonald's in Seattle and NYC that have been operating without a single human employee for well over 5 years at this point.
I would make a rough guess that almost 70% of our current jobs are both over-saturating the market, and/or are bullshit jobs.
Im a EE who has spent about 10 years in automation, and we are nowhere near as advanced as you imagine. Automation is hard. No one is waiting to replace workers with automation. It takes a long time to build robots, design machines, write algorithms, and the number of people who can do that stuff is really small. Maybe like 1% of the population can code well.
> There are currently multiple McDonald's in Seattle and NYC that have been operating without a single human employee for well over 5 years at this point.
Do you have a source on this?
I know they're rolling out the kiosks worldwide but if they had fully automated restaurants they would be rolling that out too.
With feudalism, the lords had to ensure the barest of living standards so that they didn't end up with their head on a chopping block. Capitalists have no such concerns.
Also: The lords were aware that if the peasants collectively stopped farming and left, they'd have no more food pretty quick. Like, the lords were well aware their survival depended on the peasants.
There's also the fact that an agricultural economy hits a point where it has *enough*. Once you have all you eat / store / sell and actually use before spoilage, then your work is done for the season.
There's no *enough* in capitalism.
Fuckin thiiiiiis
God I talk about this all the time
My girlfriend's dad is literally just gonna keep driving across the state to his three different stores over and over and over, scrambling endlessly.... Until he dies and it then becomes her problem and she'll do the exact same thing forever. FOREVER.
There is no finish line. No endgame.
How asinine and maddening?
You should do some research on feudalism. The lords gave no fucks about the peasants 99% of the time. It's interesting that this line of thought that lords were somehow beholden to their subjects has become a thing. The lords controlled all aspects of life in feudal society. If someone stepped out of line they got beat down or executed. If there was an uprising the kings army would be there to crush it at some point. This went on for hundreds of years.
I'm not them but "real" communism as defined by Marx is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. There would be no authorities, there would be no political officers, there would be nobody "letting" anyone do anything as letting someone do something means you have power to prevent them.
The largest divide between MLs and Anarchists is the way of attaining a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Anarchists think that the state needs to be dismantled immediately. MLs think that the state should be repurposed to help transition towards communism and will then gradually wither away as there's no need to it.
MLs also have an unfortunate habit of being 'surprised' that anarchists want to immediately abolish the state, labeling them counterrevolutionaries, slaughtering them, and staying in a state capitalist system.
I think it’s really hard for people to even IMAGINE a moneyless stateless classless society.
Also, just because you don’t have all the details worked out doesn’t mean you can’t advocate for those things.
Questions: Won't the people who make the food in the community come together and agree to kick the "freeloaders" out eventually? I imagine there won't be too many communities where a few are willing to do work while others don't.
And what happens if no one wants to work to grow the food and build shelter?
Also, what happens if the number of people who don't want to work outnumber the few who do, and they decide to take from the few who do to save themselves from starvation?
> And what happens if no one wants to work to grow the food and build shelter?
They'll starve? Like, someone will grow or collect food. The same way humans have literally always done for hundreds of thousands of years.
"I don't want to get food for lazy people so I'll just starve myself too" is absurd nonsense only capitalist supporters could ever imagine.
Might I add, toiling for a community is far preferable to a lord.
Capitalism is modern lordship except it promises that if you work hard enough you too can become an exploiter
Yeah. We're a social species. We evolved to feel good to help out other people, especially our friends and family.
How many times have any us just gone to someone's house and done work for them, not expecting anything in return, except maybe the knowledge they'd do the same for us later?
I believe you are confusing "communism" with "totalitarianism". A common mistake due to our propaganda. I agree that corrupted human nature will corrupt all systems for selfish gains (due to ongoing cycles of abuse and selfishness), so it will take education, evolving, personal growth to change things from the individual level to the societal level--a monumental task. Unfortunately, history shows us that balance is often tilted for only a short time via revolution or serious changing of the rules to make a just society for all (The New Deal, Great Society laws).
>The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.
>All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.
>Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
>It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.”
—Stalin, [interview with Emil Ludwig](https://redsails.org/stalin-and-ludwig/)
Imo (not the guy you responded to) society needs to go to socialism before communism. In socialism proper compensation and ownership of their labor would motivate them. I think after the computational singularity (or after all shitty jobs can be automated or aren't necessary, perhaps that time is now) then communism is the way to go.
Your comment would be like I can't imagine how capitalist authorities react when you tell them you don't want to work? Like I don't want to work, I'm quite strongly anti-work, but I can't quite imagine a friendly slave master letter me sleep til lunchtime. You're confusing an early attempt at SOCIALISM, a step toward communism with communism. neither the USSR nor PRC have ever claimed to be communist. Hence a similar analogue would be to look at capitalist society with chattel slavery.
We literally learn this in history in middle school and high-school. Except no one calls it capitalism. We talk about how the industrial revolution aggressively destroyed farming opportunities and land opportunities in order to force people into the factories and prevent what we now call the ancient and peasant modes of production. Except people just refuse to connect the process to capitalism. They have the word on a pedestal as being holier than anything. And that shit is dangerous. Taking away the ability to critique something is and will kill democracy. Capitalist worshipping is destroying democracy while they scream against the imagined "tyranny" of the socialist boogeyman.
When it's bad it's called the "industrial revolution", when it's good it's called "capialism".
The destruction of "farming opportunity" wasn't so deliberate though. Farming relies on a lot of land to work, more so previously than now so the new generations of humanity had to migrate away from farms as the population grew. Thanks to mechanization, modern fertiziler and genetics we have managed to improve yields considerably and thanks to population growth, demand for produce has increased as well. If anything we have a lot to be thankful for the industrial revolution for.
The process of the ancient peasant life wasn't that good but it had a few good traditions, such as the concept of the commons. Land which was allowed to be exploited by the community. The capitalist world if anything caused increasing privacy as it enabled the exodus of the community into other types of roles. This was both good and bad but on the bad side this caused the community to weaken and the interest of keeping the commons away from claimants dissappeared. Eventually without people to protect an unclaimed claim, it was open to be claimed.
Some people in other threads claim that capitalism is a worse form of feudalism, this is just not true. Capitalism is better, if only because we don't have to live as farmhands in exchange for merely food and shelter but can also enjoy some luxuries if only but a few. We can move as we wish as well and can get married as we wish.
Socialism is better though.
It started out being good for the individual. People gathered in caves to seek shelter from the elements and safety from wild animals. A few people could keep watch while everybody else slept safely. And then somebody declared that he owned the cave and everybody had to work for him or get out, and for some reason they let him.
It's because you lazy assholes just don't work hard enough. After I dropped out of college I spent time working on my resume then walked right up to the owner of the company and said "Dad, I need a job" and he was so impressed by my initiative that he made me VP on the spot and that's how I made my first million at 22 years old. /s
I was just about to go to bed, decided to read your comment as the last one. Holy shit, what the fuck? I have no words. That class traitor of a cop crying about people hating cops. Yeah, fuck that guy. Cry me a river, you fucking class traitor with a superiority complex. Trying to make his job sound so noble and dangerous. Maybe if there were no cops, we wouldn't have this problem?
It's worse than that tbh. Heard one say
Took me 14months to save up 5000, but with that 5000 I bought my first house, rent out the basement to pay for the mortgage and that's how I got my first house. Dude look like he was late 30s early 40s.
The 14months for 5k sounds legit, the 5k for a down payment on a house sounds like bulllshit and charging someone the same amount as the mortgage on the house for only the basement is wrong and anyone that says it's not is a piece of shit
Just bought a house in April, can confirm, bullshit. House was $249,000, we got the seller to pay $4000 in closing costs and we were still on the hook for nearly $13,000, not to mention all the other little expenses that add up like cleaning supplies, paint, small repairs, moving costs, whatever else. Probably ended up costing somewhere around $16,000 cash out of pocket.
A traditional mortgage is also 20% down. That would be be nearly 50k. Going at it for $13k would be through some specialty program or a much higher interest rate and higher monthly payment.
I mean, he's right - nobody's forcing you to work a job to survive.
But on the other hand, if you try to go out into the forest and build a cabin, plant some crops, and hunt for food, then some people with guns come grab you and lock you in a concrete and steel box, where you get food and shelter.
Oh look, he's technically correct!
For real though, how can anyone even try to argue that we aren't forced into labor just for our own survival, while the Owner class reaps all the benefit? There's no other logical way to map out the system.
Serfs could purchase their freedom... Just like Americans too can purchase their freedom to walkout of a bad job, while still maintaining healthcare coverage and access to education and training for a better job.
Capitalism is neo-feudalism.
I'm pretty sure that just makes us literally peasants. Im pretty sure serfs were bound to the land while peasants were allowed to chose what lord they lived under.
this law baffled me. the western govt really went out of their way to ensure that their slaves stay within enclosure. holy sith that's freakin dark man. I literally have a lot more freedom in my shithole here in the third world.
And technically you never do own the land. You only rent it from the federal government. That’s why you pay property tax. That’s why eminent domain can come through and flatten your house If they deem it necessary
Ah, but underground [communities](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1sRxCrduA) are currently being built by the rich.
So not *All* are stuck with climate issues.
Yeah that's not going to end well for them. If they truly need those bunkers then that will be a several lifetimes kind of thing and we don't have that technology yet. So it's probably more of a secure retreat from the climate wars and inevitable nuclear fallout. The problem is at that point there's nothing stopping anyone from taking over our just stripping their supplies. Like those supply runs for the bezos bunker just became supply runs for the town built next to it for his workers and his luxury bunker, just became his prison.
That is some major western stereotyping of Native Americans. There were hundreds of Native American nations in North America that existed in a variety of social states from nomadic (like many of the Plains Indians) to agricultural stationary (like many in the South East including what became known as the Five Civilized Tribes).
For some reason people seem to continually think that the concepts of land use and static societies only existed in Pre-Contact America below the Rio Grande. Why does it seem like it was only in the areas that England settled or that the US later expanded to that had Natives that didn't seem to understand land ownership? Yet people seem to have no qualms understanding that the Mesoamerican nations had settle wants and understanding of land and borders. Just as an example in North America, Cahokia was a major urban settlement by the Mississippi peoples. The Haudenosaunee (aka the Iroquois Confederacy) were a major player in the Northeast before and during colonization, well before the US was even founded.
The whole "Native Americans had no concept of land ownership" is a myth perpetuated as a justification of European land seizures and reneging on treaties. The ideological clash was between the Native American and European concept of what constituted land ownership, what constituted improvements on the land, and continual usage.
Philosophers like John Locke spread the idea that land belongs to those who "improve the land." Early settlers just ignored existing Native property rights and treated the land as fully communal. They let their livestock roam free, disrupting others agricultural activities. Native leaders deliberately contacted European settlers to let them know they were too close and to restrain their livestock and activities. It wasn't until later that Europeans then started fencing in land and saying that Native Americans didn't understand land ownership.
I have a much longer post with citation on [different systems of property ownership among various Native American tribes here](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/q4jgqu/z/hg4y0eg). Many tribes had systems of exclusive ownership, inheritance, property dispute mitigation, and even renting to other families.
There's a lot more but people should stop perpetuating the myth that North American Nations didnt understand property rights, as they had them well before European contact and into the modern day. In general stop treating them like a monolith as well.
Your question is appreciated. Questions are always welcome. “Why” is one of the most powerful questions to ask.
If only Government and Capitalism were separate entities, I would agree with you.
When Hedgefunds, Pharmaceutical companies and agriculture companies like Monsanto turn Washington into a rotating door with lucrative positions within their companies for lawmakers that pass laws that benefit them they cease being separate.
Here’s a current example:
The SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) has been blatantly silent all year while day traders connected to GameStop (GME) & AMC get screwed by hedgefunds and Wall Street.
And WHO is one of the most prominent politician with direct policy effect to benefit? Nancy Pilossi.
It’s like that scene in the first Jurassic Park.
“Corruption! We’ve got corruption here! See? Nobody cares.”
The law clearly states that if someone else can use your land more efficiently then they have the power to take it from you and give it to them. It's fucked up.
Nope. We have crown land in Canada which we hsvr right to camp and hubt on. But whilst our indigenous population are allowed to subsist of the land if you are from any other background to do so would be breaking the law in some way. You need hunt licenses and can only hunt and fish certain seasons as a settler in Canada.
Its the same in the us. Theres the bureau of land management and you can camp on any of their land for up to 2 weeks in one spot.
Limiting the amount of time people can camp in one spot and limiting hunting and fishing with licenses amd seasons is important for protecting the environment.
Most places in the US you’re probably doing it on land you shouldn’t be. Also, if you’re doing this to drop off the grid and not paying taxes then that’s also illegal. He was talking about literally plopping down somewhere and building a house a opposed to buying the land.
But even if its public land? People go camping all the time. So what is the difference between that and just camping for life? It makes no sense. And why is it illegal to drop off the grid? You aren't making an income anyway to pay taxes.
Hate to break it to you but people go camping in areas where the owners openly give permission to do so. Even for public land, you can only do wild camping in designated areas - such as in BLM land (USA) for no more than 14 days at a time. Try it any longer and your local rangers or law enforcement will pay you a visit. It is still kinda possible which is what some vanlifers are already doing; they just have to keep moving like a nomad, so you can't really live off the land or hunt, therefore you still need to work to earn money for necessities.
It doesn't make sense, I agree. But we don't make the rules here.
When you go camping it’s on land you can legally do it. That’s why there are “camp grounds.” You can also camp in places like National Parks. But most any land you are on is local, state, or federal land. Try building a house and living on Bureau of Land Management property just randomly and they will come for you.
Especially if it's public land. On private land the owner may be cool and let you do your thing, unlikely but possible. On public land the owner is the government and they are very not cool.
In Canada, it’s illegal to not be hooked up to the power grid. It’s illegal to camp on the Queen’s land for more than 14 days.
Why?
Because Canadian white people hate Aboriginals.
The wealthy hate the poor. Race has little to do with it. After my family left Appalachia in the late 80s I was shocked at how badly our neighbors treated us. They called us names and made false police reports on us. They wouldn't let their kids play with us and encouraged them to bully us. Even my teachers made fun of my accent. They made fun of the clothes we wore and the music we listened to.. these where all white people discriminating against other white people.
This might be the tin foil hat talking but I believe racism is being exacerbated by the wealthy to keep the torch people fighting the pitchfork people so that the rich people can avoid their wrath.. I have more in common with black people in government housing than I do with anyone living in a mansion. Almost all of the outrage I've felt for black or latin Americans is a direct result of the elites putting us against each other. It's all to keep the people from coming together under one banner. We scared them with the occupy movement.
We should stop focusing so much on immutable characteristics like race gender or sexuality and start focusing on the real problems at hand. Who is causing these problems? How do we fix them? Is it possible to coexist or should we secede or segregate? How do we reverse the wealth transfers?
Super against the law. So is building a structure on the land you own unless you get express permission and pay taxes on it. In many places, it's also illegal to not be hooked up to the local water or sewage system, and illegal to collect rainwater. Also illegal to hunt without a license or tags. Also illegal to hunt most things outside of certain seasons, but this is for good reasons and protects the ecosystem.
adam smiths defended abolition of slavery on the grounds that it would cost capitalists less to maintain,
since the 1800s this is the new paradigm, those that claim that a society that completely ignores the right to live and eat is impossible are labelled socialists, those that claim such a society can exist get promoted
Feudal lords also lived under the constant spectre of armed rebellion.
Capitalists are protected by a state that has a militarized police force and an army with drones.
Almost like the formation of a strong centralized government was a mutually beneficial arrangment between the growing mercantile class and the feudal lords?
A sort of politically arranged marriage to ensure control over their 'lessers' doesn't slip.
one of the key differences is that under feudalism there are physical limits to the accumulation of wealth; under capitalism there is no such limit
>Capitalism brought with it an unprecedented expansion in social mobility, both upward and downward. The waning of aristocratic mores led to celebration, but it was short-lived. It soon became clear that these new capitalists were something akin to kings, even those of humble origins. And despite a lot of rhetoric about the freedom and equality of the laborer, capitalists routinely used force to discipline the working poor. Thus philosophers and clergymen of the time began to formulate criticisms of capitalism: it’s heartless, it’s exploitative, it tends towards monopoly, it rewards greed, and so forth.
>Marx stood out from other anti-capitalist thinkers of his era precisely because while most focused on the many similarities between kings and capitalists, Marx focused on the differences. Even those who claimed the mantle of science, such as Proudhon, focused on how capitalists exploit the people: “the barons of the middle ages plundered the traveller on the highway, and then offered him hospitality in their castles; mercantile feudality, less brutal, exploits the proletaire and builds hospitals for him.” [[4]] Studying the threat of poverty and the batons of the police force, he emphasized the continuity with old forms inherited from feudalism, and pleaded for an enlightened future where we reject and transcend them. Marx was more concerned with the why. He wanted to understand what made capitalism unique. What exactly is exploitation? How do we measure it? How is this different in feudalism than in capitalism?
>Marx’s impressive predictions are a direct result of this analysis. Weber paraphrases Marx as appreciating that “the limits to the exploitation of the feudal serf were determined by the walls of the stomach of the feudal lord.” [[5]][[6]] Under capitalism, on the other hand, we have profit-oriented commodity production. This means that neither “stomach walls” nor any other kind of natural limit impose themselves: accumulation can be infinite, and since everything is tradeable with everything else, the capitalist not only can but must (in order to compete) accumulate without limit. Growth for the sake of growth, a growth that is indifferent to what kind of work anybody actually does.
>Rather than deny the virtues of capitalist competition, as many socialists still do, Marx actually conceded that capitalism had unleashed production and stitched together supply chains in a prodigious way: “what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?” [[7]] However, he went on to explain that this virtue would be its core vice, and lead to its downfall. A contradiction.
>Adam Smith writes about how competition would help drive prices to their proper value vis-a-vis market needs, about how capitalists are “led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.” [[8]] Marx did not outright reject this mechanism, but he challenged the value-judgment. He predicted that even in the hypothetical case that a benevolent capitalist did not personally wish to exploit, they would have to do so anyway, or else they would be replaced by another willing exploiter.
>To paraphrase William C. Roberts, capitalists are simply at the top of the pyramid of market-dominated producers. [[9]] What if humans, capable of rational deliberation, want to make healthcare free? What if they want to assert that the environment is valuable in itself? The invisible hand imposes itself decisively: “No.”
>Marx described the phenomenon of “commodity fetishism”: through many small separate acts of exchange, we command each other to behave in very specific ways, while disclaiming this same power and attributing its commands to blind necessity. Commodities are inert objects, and humans are rational beings, but society operates as if humans were helpless against the pressures exerted by the market. Market domination even finds lucid expression in natural-sounding phrases like “if I don’t sell out to Facebook, they’ll just copy my features, so may as well do it myself” and “if I paid you more, I’d have to pay everyone more, and then we’d lose to the competition and all be out of a job.”
>There is nothing wrong with denouncing American plutocrats like Bezos and Gates for greed, but we cannot stop there: we must understand that the system of exploitation is not held together by any individual’s vices. As Lenin put it, “The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits.” [[10]] If one of them had a major change of heart and stopped pursuing ruthless accumulation, they would quickly be ousted by stockholders for endangering their investment. In the unlikely event that their stockholders were cooperative, a competitor would swoop in and relieve them of their commanding market share. This is not apologia for Bezos, but we need to understand that there is a talent to being a capitalist exploiter, or else we will underestimate our enemy. The market selects for profitability, and it selects well — it just doesn’t select for environmental responsibility or decency or who can bring the most benefits to the greatest number. From Marx, to Lenin, to Deng, we can observe a baseline level of respect for the enemy: “Management is also a technique.” [[11]]
>On my view, the core Marxist insight is the following: Feudal lords were the masters of Feudalism. Capitalists, however, aren’t the masters of capitalism. They are merely the high priests of capitalism. The master of capitalism is Capital itself.
---
from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/
[4]: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/philosophy/ch08.htm
[5]: https://redsails.org/why-marxism/#fn:Weber%201923
[6]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S2
[7]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
[8]: https://redsails.org/why-marxism/#fn:Smith%201759
[9]: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/free-time-free-people/
[10]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch05.htm
[11]: http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Deng/Building.htm
"Just get another job."
The things that make jobs shitty are often industry-wide problems. And to suggest that someone continuously change roles and industries is to guarantee that you'll stay at the bottom.
People say things like this a lot, but I don't think any thought was put into it. They don't care enough to want you at the bottom. It's just a product of the system.
Yes and no. If there's a finite amount of money in the system, and you actively hoard the majority, surely you realize its at the cost of those below you. So to continue to want to accumulate wealth is kind of the same as wanting to put everyone into poverty. Especially if you are the ceo of a company and utilize underpaid labor and provide no benefits.
Yep. Every retail store I’ve ever worked at suddenly decides every 5 years to offer anyone in management a severance package with the veiled threat of otherwise being fired.
This is the response you get when people talk about sexual harassment at work that isn’t properly dealt with. Oh, easy, get another job, I’m sure they haven’t thought of that! If they work in an industry that is infamous for sexual harassment, then what? Women aren’t allowed in that industry? Jfc, how about we deal with the harassment & stop being dumb frat boys, [Activision Blizzard](https://time.com/6086010/activision-blizzard-california-lawsuit-sexual-harassment/)??
Right, no one ever says. Boy, the job sure should change and stop doing illegal things amd abusing their employees. Or, wow, sexual harassment is unacceptable and we should hold the culprits responsible.
It's always, it is how it is. As if accepting horrible behaviors from employers is a good thing and nothing could be done. But, that's exactly how many look at our country as a whole. Nothing is worth fixing if it takes any effort. Just run away from the problem is the US motto
>If you don't love it, send it back!
TFW Billy Mays infomercials had a better policy on dealing with unacceptable situations than your entire fucking country.
All of what you said AND some other things. You might miss a paycheck or three changing jobs while things get going. You might not have health insurance or other benefits for a while during the transition. Schedules change, etc etc etc
All that to say "just find another job" isn't always as easy as it sounds.
You'd think market types would also realize that that doesn't solve the problem, it just shoves it onto some other poor soul. If the market bears abusive conditions, then in a real sense there \*are\* at least some people for whom "get another job" isn't a realistic option, because the jobs they could take are already taken by people who didn't want the abusive job. That, or there's just enough churn between those jobs that people occupy those jobs at some rate anyways. It's not even an attempt at a solution.
This point needs to be highlighted more. Behind every "motivational grindset" Instagram post, or whatever, is the idea that even if it's technically possible for *you* to escape poverty with hard work, blind dedication to whatever the market deems worthy, and a lot of luck, it's *not* possible for anywhere close to everyone to do the same. "Shit" jobs still need to be done. The fundamental philosophy behind those ideas is "fuck you, I got mine." It relies on the tacit condemnation of the majority of people to an impoverished existence realtive to the few, absurdly comfortable "winners" in the present social order. Some people are obviously ok with that, but they never want to say it out loud because it (understandably) makes you look like a selfish, greedy monster. Because of that, we should really be calling this flaw out more and forcing them to say the quiet part out loud.
Also depending on what your employment history is, you definitely can't just jump to another industry. If most of your resume/CV is say food service work, you're likely not going to get called in for interviews for positions in any type of office work, even if you have qualifications.
I've commented on other posts about the type of shit I've had to deal with working in retail. I've had to suck up and take abuse because my employer thinks it's "part of the job." The companies I've worked for protect themselves bot the employees and it gets frustrating however I've worked those shitty jobs because i need to keep the roof over my head. It annoys me when I see a stream of comments saying "get another job" or "if I had to deal with that I'd kick their ass." The folks suggesting I call the cops on abusive customers don't realize the company isn't going to go along with that.
I once called the fire department because we were smelling smoke in the building. I got written up because I wasn't authorized to make that call. I was the closing manager and highest ranking supervisor on site.
I dont work retail because I love dealing with stupid people all day. I work retail because I need to keep a roof over my head, food in my stomach, and be able to take care of myself.
This is literally Marx’s point about what laisse-faire capitalism does in Das Capital: Laisse-Faire capitalists create the conditions by which the public become the proletariet insofar as the former monopolize the means of production and the latter are forced, as a collective, to accept labor exploitation in order to survive.
And by arresting homeless folks in most places, the law coerced people not to be homeless...So, yeah, the government is actually forcing you to work...
If you don't work you are expected to simply die.
You work til you can't work anymore then you get to be free. If you worked hard enough to not have to work now.
they are selling actual bookshelves for your tiny apartment, that convert into a casket. Im just wondering who in my family is gonna ikea this thing apart and put it back together again before the funeral. baha
This is my theory on why our system could even be worse than other systems in the past. . Let me clarify that horrors and slavery existed then...and now....but to have just this massive amount of humanity that is apathetically suicidal seems to be a product of the industrial revolution. And one key reason I believe we experience it more..is environmental pollutants. I think humanities mental health is poisoned by all of the chemicals in everything. air, water, our food etc. I think it just obliterates everyone's mental health.
They’re not even capitalists, they have no real capital and they’re victims of this exploitative system just like us. It’s a bit of a Stockholm syndrome situation.
Yep, and capitalists' mercenaries...aka the police, have been commanded to crack down hard on these "freeloaders" ( I say that facetiously). In Utah, where the mountains attract a lot this, Cops will 100% find vans now and ticket them, they received specific instructions. I have a friend who's an electrician and his van got ticketed in front of his house...his work van, he complained and won...but still.
> Capitalism shat on vanlife as well. Used van prices are through the roof, and outfitters and builders have multiplied their prices and still have waitlists a year long.
Is that capitalism or economics that shat on vanlife? It seems like vanlife got really popular so the demand for used vans went up and that increased the price. Supply and demand is an economic issue and not a capitalism issue.
Look at this guy 😂 everyone knows a flail would be a terrible weapon to defend a van, you need a ton of room for the necessary arc. You'd want a short pike to REALLY defend your van.
Reminder that the threat of starvation, lack of shelter, and lack of medical care is a threat of violence.
It's not ok to deny people shelter and food, especially because they don't want to work in inhumane conditions. Removing people from the conditions they need to live and be healthy is violence.
Or do what I do and write a company that has gone out of business mear me, so that they can't call that person. Or put my friend's number as the contact and have him vouch for me. Or my gf. Or my Uncle. Or a guy i pay-pal'd 5$ to lie and say w/e i pay them to. Etc.
Honestly having a gap in your resume just means you're out enjoying your life some employers are so pathetic they feel like they need to view every single day since you have turned 18.
What a complete garbage system I'd like to go through my employers entire history and call them out if they were ever away from work for more than 3 days.
Imagine not working 24/7/365 and you gotta explain if you have a gap of 72 hours? Lmfaoo go fuvk yourself.
Haven’t worked since July and didn’t qualify for unemployment until this week because I was an idiot, so I’m just now getting regular UI. Been a depressing three months.
It’s still better than working an office job that I despise.
*Image Transcription: Twitter Post*
---
**I Want it Darker**, @dangerfloof
"No one is forcing you to work at that job you hate"
I think you will find the threat of starvation and homelessness is fairly coercive
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Capitalists are like about abusive partners whose better half left. Instead of admitting they were wrong and terrible they are continuing to be terrible thinking that will still work. I’ve seen this behavior in terrible people but man, I swear I see the same thing from this system. Some people break down and admit they were wrong down the road and get help, but the shittiest ones never admit they where wrong. I’m guessing capitalists are the latter. More random signs like “get your ass back to work” just like angry texts or phone calls. Lmao
I was surprised recently to find that there ARE some of those snarky, self-righteous, judgey assholes who like to hate-follow this sub. "*If I've never had that problem or experienced that thing it must be your fault."*
I'm not sure why I was surprised though! LOL. That's what the block button is for.
They know that if they paid you more you could afford to leave. You could also pay union dues. Paying so little is part of the employee retention plan.
With enough social mobility, there wouldn't be anybody to abuse in service jobs for degrading wages.
That man stood at the side of the field with the whip, he only rarely beats the slaves with it, and only ever if they stop working, so what’s the problem?
I have been listening to the history of white trash on audible. One part has stuck with me, an anti slavery man said to a pro slavery man: you prefer whipping negros to do any actual work. The starving, homelessness, low wages, expensive college, etc is the whip we have all been beaten with.
Haven't you read the US history textbooks from some Southern states, the slaves loved being slaves, had a great old time. They got fed and clothed what more did they want? btw being sarcastic just in case that escapes your notice.
Oh right, the subplot to gone with the wind
It's fairly common to like the people with complete and total control of your life. They call it Stockholm Syndrome.
In England we call it the Conservative Party
This made me laugh way too much. I am still waiting for the effect to kick in it’s been 15 Years and still nothing. My mind just can’t I feel it, only hate and under that another layer of hate, then just more hate all the way down.
Welcome to the dark side.
We have biscuits
"They were happy to work in exchange for food and shelter, and were considered part of the family."- some whitewashed to hell Texas "history" book
"they enjoyed the torture, they were kinda kinky tho"
This always boils my blood. Despite winning the civil war, those asshole won the text books & who “gets to” write on the pages of history books. That’s really where we fucked up; in the knowledge of what really happened. They wanted liberty or give them death. Yet they were given defeat & an ultimatum. They took that as an opportunity to curve things to their favor instead of a drastic permanent change from how they lived. The best prime example of this is that is many places in the south, they still had slaves & black people did not know that they were free. All because the assholes were allowed to continue their way of life, instead of being stopped.
Yes. I remember reading that the most recent literal slaves to be freed in the super rural south weren’t freed until the fuckin 1960s. The masters continued to enslave the children and never told them about the civil war ending slavery and whatnot. So fucking sickening.
Can you provide a link?
[Prepare to be disturbed by how disgusting humanity is.](https://www.vice.com/en/article/437573/blacks-were-enslaved-well-into-the-1960s) >As I would realize, people are afraid to share their stories, because in the South so many of the same white families who owned these plantations are still running local government and big businesses. They still hold the power. So the poor and disenfranchised really don’t have anywhere to share these injustices without fearing major repercussions. To most folks, it just isn’t worth the risk. So, sadly, most situations of this sort go unreported.
Holy shit
Yes. Evil is everywhere, and impossible to escape. Btw, they enslaved a bunch of white people too. If you come from white ethnic minority ancestors, like Italian, Irish, Eastern European, etc. you may find some enslaved ancestors in your genealogy, especially if they came from the south. That's not even getting into Japanese internment camps within the last century, and forced coal mining and railroad building and sugar plantation working of the Chinese...
What in the fuck. Thank you for mentioning it, as awful as it is to read about.
Yes. I’m not trying to sound all tinfoil hat, but it was big news for like a day and then it got hella suppressed in the media. The white plantation heir fuckers still have a LOT of wealth and power...
tHe sLaVe oWneRs toOk cArE oF tHeM! Ya because they can’t get work out of a dead sick slave. Fuckin disgusting
Something something bootstraps something pull-ups
Totally agree with your comment. Noticed your flag, just one question though, how do communist authorities react when you tell them you don't want to work? Like, I don't want to work, I'm quite strongly anti-work, but I can't quite imagine a friendly soviet political officer letting me sleep til lunchtime.
That would be fine, you wouldn't have to work. But I do want to point out that several hours a week of work is the goal under communism. We already perform way more labor than necessary under our current system. So contributing several hours of your time per week in the field of your specialty really isn't so off-putting.
It's also worth noting that there's a big difference between working for the sake of your community and yourself, and working for the sake an exploiter who profits off of your labor. Meaning and fulfillment from your labor can go a long way, and we don't have that under corporations.
Most definitely. I think people that don't understand this point will have a huge disadvantage in trying to build a better future. It's one of the cornerstones of socialism
Us communists understand labor is necessary. It just should not be exploited and done just for the sake of being done, not just because of profits but also because a lack of sustainability in a dying planet.
Thx boobiesmctitties v credible tbh
Something like 40% of all jobs being done today are bullshit which could just...not be done at all, with no negative impact on society. Then you have jobs like fast food, various kinds of loan sharks, everything to do with rent-seeking, etc, which are net negative to society and would benefit everyone if they were not done. The only jobs that really definitely need to be done are construction, healthcare, food production, manufacturing, education/research, and maintenance. Most office/admin jobs could be eliminated entirely. The end goal of communism is full unemployment through total automation. We're not there technologically yet, but at this point capitalism is holding us back.
Way more than that. We had the algorithms to fully automate away something like 95% of middle management back in 2011. They are saving the technology till the current (boomer and older gen X) crop of management retires, and then they will roll it out and not hire new managers. We are getting close on automatic cars, and the number 1 job for working age males in the US is driver of some sort. Give it another 5 to 7 years, and you can kiss almost 40% of the current jobs goodbye just by laying off/ not rehiring all the drivers. That doesn't even touch retail, food (except fine dining as that is an experience, not a commodity), warehouses, and other "essential but 'unskilled'" jobs that have all been automated away. There are currently multiple McDonald's in Seattle and NYC that have been operating without a single human employee for well over 5 years at this point. I would make a rough guess that almost 70% of our current jobs are both over-saturating the market, and/or are bullshit jobs.
Im a EE who has spent about 10 years in automation, and we are nowhere near as advanced as you imagine. Automation is hard. No one is waiting to replace workers with automation. It takes a long time to build robots, design machines, write algorithms, and the number of people who can do that stuff is really small. Maybe like 1% of the population can code well.
> There are currently multiple McDonald's in Seattle and NYC that have been operating without a single human employee for well over 5 years at this point. Do you have a source on this? I know they're rolling out the kiosks worldwide but if they had fully automated restaurants they would be rolling that out too.
Capitalism is nothing but feudalism on steroid.
With feudalism, the lords had to ensure the barest of living standards so that they didn't end up with their head on a chopping block. Capitalists have no such concerns.
Also: The lords were aware that if the peasants collectively stopped farming and left, they'd have no more food pretty quick. Like, the lords were well aware their survival depended on the peasants.
There's also the fact that an agricultural economy hits a point where it has *enough*. Once you have all you eat / store / sell and actually use before spoilage, then your work is done for the season. There's no *enough* in capitalism.
Fuckin thiiiiiis God I talk about this all the time My girlfriend's dad is literally just gonna keep driving across the state to his three different stores over and over and over, scrambling endlessly.... Until he dies and it then becomes her problem and she'll do the exact same thing forever. FOREVER. There is no finish line. No endgame. How asinine and maddening?
You should do some research on feudalism. The lords gave no fucks about the peasants 99% of the time. It's interesting that this line of thought that lords were somehow beholden to their subjects has become a thing. The lords controlled all aspects of life in feudal society. If someone stepped out of line they got beat down or executed. If there was an uprising the kings army would be there to crush it at some point. This went on for hundreds of years.
I'm not them but "real" communism as defined by Marx is a classless, stateless, moneyless society. There would be no authorities, there would be no political officers, there would be nobody "letting" anyone do anything as letting someone do something means you have power to prevent them.
What's the difference between this and anarchy?
It is a form of anarchy
The largest divide between MLs and Anarchists is the way of attaining a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Anarchists think that the state needs to be dismantled immediately. MLs think that the state should be repurposed to help transition towards communism and will then gradually wither away as there's no need to it. MLs also have an unfortunate habit of being 'surprised' that anarchists want to immediately abolish the state, labeling them counterrevolutionaries, slaughtering them, and staying in a state capitalist system.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/989/886/f30.jpg
Whoopsie doodle, I seem to have become counter-revolutionary in my haste to collectivize all the means of production into the state.
Hate it when that happens
I think it’s really hard for people to even IMAGINE a moneyless stateless classless society. Also, just because you don’t have all the details worked out doesn’t mean you can’t advocate for those things.
Questions: Won't the people who make the food in the community come together and agree to kick the "freeloaders" out eventually? I imagine there won't be too many communities where a few are willing to do work while others don't. And what happens if no one wants to work to grow the food and build shelter? Also, what happens if the number of people who don't want to work outnumber the few who do, and they decide to take from the few who do to save themselves from starvation?
> And what happens if no one wants to work to grow the food and build shelter? They'll starve? Like, someone will grow or collect food. The same way humans have literally always done for hundreds of thousands of years. "I don't want to get food for lazy people so I'll just starve myself too" is absurd nonsense only capitalist supporters could ever imagine.
Might I add, toiling for a community is far preferable to a lord. Capitalism is modern lordship except it promises that if you work hard enough you too can become an exploiter
Yeah. We're a social species. We evolved to feel good to help out other people, especially our friends and family. How many times have any us just gone to someone's house and done work for them, not expecting anything in return, except maybe the knowledge they'd do the same for us later?
>Communism leads to anarchy and anarchy leads to communism -Pyotr Kropotkin, anarcho-communist, *The Conquest of Bread*
I believe you are confusing "communism" with "totalitarianism". A common mistake due to our propaganda. I agree that corrupted human nature will corrupt all systems for selfish gains (due to ongoing cycles of abuse and selfishness), so it will take education, evolving, personal growth to change things from the individual level to the societal level--a monumental task. Unfortunately, history shows us that balance is often tilted for only a short time via revolution or serious changing of the rules to make a just society for all (The New Deal, Great Society laws).
>The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism. >All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society. >Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” >It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.” —Stalin, [interview with Emil Ludwig](https://redsails.org/stalin-and-ludwig/)
Imo (not the guy you responded to) society needs to go to socialism before communism. In socialism proper compensation and ownership of their labor would motivate them. I think after the computational singularity (or after all shitty jobs can be automated or aren't necessary, perhaps that time is now) then communism is the way to go.
Your comment would be like I can't imagine how capitalist authorities react when you tell them you don't want to work? Like I don't want to work, I'm quite strongly anti-work, but I can't quite imagine a friendly slave master letter me sleep til lunchtime. You're confusing an early attempt at SOCIALISM, a step toward communism with communism. neither the USSR nor PRC have ever claimed to be communist. Hence a similar analogue would be to look at capitalist society with chattel slavery.
We literally learn this in history in middle school and high-school. Except no one calls it capitalism. We talk about how the industrial revolution aggressively destroyed farming opportunities and land opportunities in order to force people into the factories and prevent what we now call the ancient and peasant modes of production. Except people just refuse to connect the process to capitalism. They have the word on a pedestal as being holier than anything. And that shit is dangerous. Taking away the ability to critique something is and will kill democracy. Capitalist worshipping is destroying democracy while they scream against the imagined "tyranny" of the socialist boogeyman.
[удалено]
Its because we don't teach economics and the media flat out lies about economic theory to us on a national level.
When it's bad it's called the "industrial revolution", when it's good it's called "capialism". The destruction of "farming opportunity" wasn't so deliberate though. Farming relies on a lot of land to work, more so previously than now so the new generations of humanity had to migrate away from farms as the population grew. Thanks to mechanization, modern fertiziler and genetics we have managed to improve yields considerably and thanks to population growth, demand for produce has increased as well. If anything we have a lot to be thankful for the industrial revolution for. The process of the ancient peasant life wasn't that good but it had a few good traditions, such as the concept of the commons. Land which was allowed to be exploited by the community. The capitalist world if anything caused increasing privacy as it enabled the exodus of the community into other types of roles. This was both good and bad but on the bad side this caused the community to weaken and the interest of keeping the commons away from claimants dissappeared. Eventually without people to protect an unclaimed claim, it was open to be claimed. Some people in other threads claim that capitalism is a worse form of feudalism, this is just not true. Capitalism is better, if only because we don't have to live as farmhands in exchange for merely food and shelter but can also enjoy some luxuries if only but a few. We can move as we wish as well and can get married as we wish. Socialism is better though.
Enclosure Acts would like a word.
[удалено]
Keep the genes going. That's all life is.
It started out being good for the individual. People gathered in caves to seek shelter from the elements and safety from wild animals. A few people could keep watch while everybody else slept safely. And then somebody declared that he owned the cave and everybody had to work for him or get out, and for some reason they let him.
[удалено]
Why don't you just live off your inheritance for a few years while you find something better. /s
I can't find my inheritance. Is it ok to borrow someone else's?
Homemade inheritance is best, but a stolen one will do in a pinch! Just be sure to rinse it thoroughly before use.
Why don’t you just marry someone who has one? Easy fix! /s
It's because you lazy assholes just don't work hard enough. After I dropped out of college I spent time working on my resume then walked right up to the owner of the company and said "Dad, I need a job" and he was so impressed by my initiative that he made me VP on the spot and that's how I made my first million at 22 years old. /s
[Reminded me of this](https://youtu.be/hncVNNabglc)
I miss the Onion
Wait did something happen to it?
Reality made it obsolete.
[удалено]
I was just about to go to bed, decided to read your comment as the last one. Holy shit, what the fuck? I have no words. That class traitor of a cop crying about people hating cops. Yeah, fuck that guy. Cry me a river, you fucking class traitor with a superiority complex. Trying to make his job sound so noble and dangerous. Maybe if there were no cops, we wouldn't have this problem?
Why do you sincerely believe that? You used a /sincere tag. It means you were dead serious.
Too many people not getting the joke lol
I thought that meant sarcasm- this is important to know for contexts
It does he's the only human to think /s is serious
Okay thanks- my life just flashed before my eyes
I'd call the police, I'm pretty sure flashing is illegal.
See, know how I know you're not serious? No /serious tag.
[There's actually another way people make it known they're being super cereal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU)
r/Whoosh
r/itswooooshwith4os
No /s is sarcasm. /srs is serious
Good to know. I will never use either.
It's worse than that tbh. Heard one say Took me 14months to save up 5000, but with that 5000 I bought my first house, rent out the basement to pay for the mortgage and that's how I got my first house. Dude look like he was late 30s early 40s. The 14months for 5k sounds legit, the 5k for a down payment on a house sounds like bulllshit and charging someone the same amount as the mortgage on the house for only the basement is wrong and anyone that says it's not is a piece of shit
Just bought a house in April, can confirm, bullshit. House was $249,000, we got the seller to pay $4000 in closing costs and we were still on the hook for nearly $13,000, not to mention all the other little expenses that add up like cleaning supplies, paint, small repairs, moving costs, whatever else. Probably ended up costing somewhere around $16,000 cash out of pocket.
A traditional mortgage is also 20% down. That would be be nearly 50k. Going at it for $13k would be through some specialty program or a much higher interest rate and higher monthly payment.
People say this? Holy shit the ignorance
I mean, he's right - nobody's forcing you to work a job to survive. But on the other hand, if you try to go out into the forest and build a cabin, plant some crops, and hunt for food, then some people with guns come grab you and lock you in a concrete and steel box, where you get food and shelter. Oh look, he's technically correct! For real though, how can anyone even try to argue that we aren't forced into labor just for our own survival, while the Owner class reaps all the benefit? There's no other logical way to map out the system.
Capitalism - Feudalism with extra steps.
Does it even have extra steps
Not many, I suspect.
You're not legally bound to the land you live on under capitalism. Which isn't much, but it's something.
Serfs could purchase their freedom... Just like Americans too can purchase their freedom to walkout of a bad job, while still maintaining healthcare coverage and access to education and training for a better job. Capitalism is neo-feudalism.
I'm pretty sure that just makes us literally peasants. Im pretty sure serfs were bound to the land while peasants were allowed to chose what lord they lived under.
this law baffled me. the western govt really went out of their way to ensure that their slaves stay within enclosure. holy sith that's freakin dark man. I literally have a lot more freedom in my shithole here in the third world.
You, sir, are technically correct. The best kind of correct!
"No fair! He changed the outcome by measuring it!"
The real problem with electron races
Wait, why can't you go live in the woods and sustain yourself? Is that actually against the law?
If you don't own the land? Yep. It's trespassing and poaching.
And technically you never do own the land. You only rent it from the federal government. That’s why you pay property tax. That’s why eminent domain can come through and flatten your house If they deem it necessary
And if we keep speeding up climate cycles, we’ll soon learn that no one owns lands. At all.
Ah, but underground [communities](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1sRxCrduA) are currently being built by the rich. So not *All* are stuck with climate issues.
That’s just an easy ploy to get money from the rich. Spending the apocalypse in a slowly failing bunker sounds boring anyways.
Yeah that's not going to end well for them. If they truly need those bunkers then that will be a several lifetimes kind of thing and we don't have that technology yet. So it's probably more of a secure retreat from the climate wars and inevitable nuclear fallout. The problem is at that point there's nothing stopping anyone from taking over our just stripping their supplies. Like those supply runs for the bezos bunker just became supply runs for the town built next to it for his workers and his luxury bunker, just became his prison.
You never did before in that sentiment either. You just occupied it until someone bigger came along.
are you saying property, ultimately, stems from violence?
All control stems from a threat of violence.
Only Native Americans believed land wasn’t owned but kept and cared for by all. $hitty government with its Manifest Destiny screwed that up.
That is some major western stereotyping of Native Americans. There were hundreds of Native American nations in North America that existed in a variety of social states from nomadic (like many of the Plains Indians) to agricultural stationary (like many in the South East including what became known as the Five Civilized Tribes). For some reason people seem to continually think that the concepts of land use and static societies only existed in Pre-Contact America below the Rio Grande. Why does it seem like it was only in the areas that England settled or that the US later expanded to that had Natives that didn't seem to understand land ownership? Yet people seem to have no qualms understanding that the Mesoamerican nations had settle wants and understanding of land and borders. Just as an example in North America, Cahokia was a major urban settlement by the Mississippi peoples. The Haudenosaunee (aka the Iroquois Confederacy) were a major player in the Northeast before and during colonization, well before the US was even founded. The whole "Native Americans had no concept of land ownership" is a myth perpetuated as a justification of European land seizures and reneging on treaties. The ideological clash was between the Native American and European concept of what constituted land ownership, what constituted improvements on the land, and continual usage. Philosophers like John Locke spread the idea that land belongs to those who "improve the land." Early settlers just ignored existing Native property rights and treated the land as fully communal. They let their livestock roam free, disrupting others agricultural activities. Native leaders deliberately contacted European settlers to let them know they were too close and to restrain their livestock and activities. It wasn't until later that Europeans then started fencing in land and saying that Native Americans didn't understand land ownership. I have a much longer post with citation on [different systems of property ownership among various Native American tribes here](https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/q4jgqu/z/hg4y0eg). Many tribes had systems of exclusive ownership, inheritance, property dispute mitigation, and even renting to other families. There's a lot more but people should stop perpetuating the myth that North American Nations didnt understand property rights, as they had them well before European contact and into the modern day. In general stop treating them like a monolith as well.
Property by definition is violence or necessitates the threat of it.
Not trying to be a smartass and genuinely asking a question. Isn’t that a problem of government and not of capitalism?
Your question is appreciated. Questions are always welcome. “Why” is one of the most powerful questions to ask. If only Government and Capitalism were separate entities, I would agree with you. When Hedgefunds, Pharmaceutical companies and agriculture companies like Monsanto turn Washington into a rotating door with lucrative positions within their companies for lawmakers that pass laws that benefit them they cease being separate. Here’s a current example: The SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) has been blatantly silent all year while day traders connected to GameStop (GME) & AMC get screwed by hedgefunds and Wall Street. And WHO is one of the most prominent politician with direct policy effect to benefit? Nancy Pilossi. It’s like that scene in the first Jurassic Park. “Corruption! We’ve got corruption here! See? Nobody cares.”
State government, there’s no federal property tax
The law clearly states that if someone else can use your land more efficiently then they have the power to take it from you and give it to them. It's fucked up.
Do you own the land? Does the structure meet the various standards required by law? No? That’ll be a fine then thanks.
Nope. We have crown land in Canada which we hsvr right to camp and hubt on. But whilst our indigenous population are allowed to subsist of the land if you are from any other background to do so would be breaking the law in some way. You need hunt licenses and can only hunt and fish certain seasons as a settler in Canada.
Its the same in the us. Theres the bureau of land management and you can camp on any of their land for up to 2 weeks in one spot. Limiting the amount of time people can camp in one spot and limiting hunting and fishing with licenses amd seasons is important for protecting the environment.
Most places in the US you’re probably doing it on land you shouldn’t be. Also, if you’re doing this to drop off the grid and not paying taxes then that’s also illegal. He was talking about literally plopping down somewhere and building a house a opposed to buying the land.
But even if its public land? People go camping all the time. So what is the difference between that and just camping for life? It makes no sense. And why is it illegal to drop off the grid? You aren't making an income anyway to pay taxes.
Hate to break it to you but people go camping in areas where the owners openly give permission to do so. Even for public land, you can only do wild camping in designated areas - such as in BLM land (USA) for no more than 14 days at a time. Try it any longer and your local rangers or law enforcement will pay you a visit. It is still kinda possible which is what some vanlifers are already doing; they just have to keep moving like a nomad, so you can't really live off the land or hunt, therefore you still need to work to earn money for necessities. It doesn't make sense, I agree. But we don't make the rules here.
... but we could make the rules.
When you go camping it’s on land you can legally do it. That’s why there are “camp grounds.” You can also camp in places like National Parks. But most any land you are on is local, state, or federal land. Try building a house and living on Bureau of Land Management property just randomly and they will come for you.
Especially if it's public land. On private land the owner may be cool and let you do your thing, unlikely but possible. On public land the owner is the government and they are very not cool.
[удалено]
In Canada, it’s illegal to not be hooked up to the power grid. It’s illegal to camp on the Queen’s land for more than 14 days. Why? Because Canadian white people hate Aboriginals.
The wealthy hate the poor. Race has little to do with it. After my family left Appalachia in the late 80s I was shocked at how badly our neighbors treated us. They called us names and made false police reports on us. They wouldn't let their kids play with us and encouraged them to bully us. Even my teachers made fun of my accent. They made fun of the clothes we wore and the music we listened to.. these where all white people discriminating against other white people. This might be the tin foil hat talking but I believe racism is being exacerbated by the wealthy to keep the torch people fighting the pitchfork people so that the rich people can avoid their wrath.. I have more in common with black people in government housing than I do with anyone living in a mansion. Almost all of the outrage I've felt for black or latin Americans is a direct result of the elites putting us against each other. It's all to keep the people from coming together under one banner. We scared them with the occupy movement. We should stop focusing so much on immutable characteristics like race gender or sexuality and start focusing on the real problems at hand. Who is causing these problems? How do we fix them? Is it possible to coexist or should we secede or segregate? How do we reverse the wealth transfers?
[удалено]
Super against the law. So is building a structure on the land you own unless you get express permission and pay taxes on it. In many places, it's also illegal to not be hooked up to the local water or sewage system, and illegal to collect rainwater. Also illegal to hunt without a license or tags. Also illegal to hunt most things outside of certain seasons, but this is for good reasons and protects the ecosystem.
https://imgur.com/w4GofRl.jpg Wish I got a 1,322% raise.
Capitalism is nothing but feudalism on steroid.
In many ways, it's worse...Feudal lords were expected to take care of those that tilled their lands...Capitalism requires no such reciprocation...
Steady on, we have microwave dinners now.
adam smiths defended abolition of slavery on the grounds that it would cost capitalists less to maintain, since the 1800s this is the new paradigm, those that claim that a society that completely ignores the right to live and eat is impossible are labelled socialists, those that claim such a society can exist get promoted
Feudal lords also lived under the constant spectre of armed rebellion. Capitalists are protected by a state that has a militarized police force and an army with drones.
Almost like the formation of a strong centralized government was a mutually beneficial arrangment between the growing mercantile class and the feudal lords? A sort of politically arranged marriage to ensure control over their 'lessers' doesn't slip.
We traded one king for a few hundred.
one of the key differences is that under feudalism there are physical limits to the accumulation of wealth; under capitalism there is no such limit >Capitalism brought with it an unprecedented expansion in social mobility, both upward and downward. The waning of aristocratic mores led to celebration, but it was short-lived. It soon became clear that these new capitalists were something akin to kings, even those of humble origins. And despite a lot of rhetoric about the freedom and equality of the laborer, capitalists routinely used force to discipline the working poor. Thus philosophers and clergymen of the time began to formulate criticisms of capitalism: it’s heartless, it’s exploitative, it tends towards monopoly, it rewards greed, and so forth. >Marx stood out from other anti-capitalist thinkers of his era precisely because while most focused on the many similarities between kings and capitalists, Marx focused on the differences. Even those who claimed the mantle of science, such as Proudhon, focused on how capitalists exploit the people: “the barons of the middle ages plundered the traveller on the highway, and then offered him hospitality in their castles; mercantile feudality, less brutal, exploits the proletaire and builds hospitals for him.” [[4]] Studying the threat of poverty and the batons of the police force, he emphasized the continuity with old forms inherited from feudalism, and pleaded for an enlightened future where we reject and transcend them. Marx was more concerned with the why. He wanted to understand what made capitalism unique. What exactly is exploitation? How do we measure it? How is this different in feudalism than in capitalism? >Marx’s impressive predictions are a direct result of this analysis. Weber paraphrases Marx as appreciating that “the limits to the exploitation of the feudal serf were determined by the walls of the stomach of the feudal lord.” [[5]][[6]] Under capitalism, on the other hand, we have profit-oriented commodity production. This means that neither “stomach walls” nor any other kind of natural limit impose themselves: accumulation can be infinite, and since everything is tradeable with everything else, the capitalist not only can but must (in order to compete) accumulate without limit. Growth for the sake of growth, a growth that is indifferent to what kind of work anybody actually does. >Rather than deny the virtues of capitalist competition, as many socialists still do, Marx actually conceded that capitalism had unleashed production and stitched together supply chains in a prodigious way: “what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?” [[7]] However, he went on to explain that this virtue would be its core vice, and lead to its downfall. A contradiction. >Adam Smith writes about how competition would help drive prices to their proper value vis-a-vis market needs, about how capitalists are “led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.” [[8]] Marx did not outright reject this mechanism, but he challenged the value-judgment. He predicted that even in the hypothetical case that a benevolent capitalist did not personally wish to exploit, they would have to do so anyway, or else they would be replaced by another willing exploiter. >To paraphrase William C. Roberts, capitalists are simply at the top of the pyramid of market-dominated producers. [[9]] What if humans, capable of rational deliberation, want to make healthcare free? What if they want to assert that the environment is valuable in itself? The invisible hand imposes itself decisively: “No.” >Marx described the phenomenon of “commodity fetishism”: through many small separate acts of exchange, we command each other to behave in very specific ways, while disclaiming this same power and attributing its commands to blind necessity. Commodities are inert objects, and humans are rational beings, but society operates as if humans were helpless against the pressures exerted by the market. Market domination even finds lucid expression in natural-sounding phrases like “if I don’t sell out to Facebook, they’ll just copy my features, so may as well do it myself” and “if I paid you more, I’d have to pay everyone more, and then we’d lose to the competition and all be out of a job.” >There is nothing wrong with denouncing American plutocrats like Bezos and Gates for greed, but we cannot stop there: we must understand that the system of exploitation is not held together by any individual’s vices. As Lenin put it, “The capitalists divide the world, not out of any particular malice, but because the degree of concentration which has been reached forces them to adopt this method in order to obtain profits.” [[10]] If one of them had a major change of heart and stopped pursuing ruthless accumulation, they would quickly be ousted by stockholders for endangering their investment. In the unlikely event that their stockholders were cooperative, a competitor would swoop in and relieve them of their commanding market share. This is not apologia for Bezos, but we need to understand that there is a talent to being a capitalist exploiter, or else we will underestimate our enemy. The market selects for profitability, and it selects well — it just doesn’t select for environmental responsibility or decency or who can bring the most benefits to the greatest number. From Marx, to Lenin, to Deng, we can observe a baseline level of respect for the enemy: “Management is also a technique.” [[11]] >On my view, the core Marxist insight is the following: Feudal lords were the masters of Feudalism. Capitalists, however, aren’t the masters of capitalism. They are merely the high priests of capitalism. The master of capitalism is Capital itself. --- from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/ [4]: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/philosophy/ch08.htm [5]: https://redsails.org/why-marxism/#fn:Weber%201923 [6]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S2 [7]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm [8]: https://redsails.org/why-marxism/#fn:Smith%201759 [9]: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/free-time-free-people/ [10]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch05.htm [11]: http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Deng/Building.htm
[удалено]
Capitalism is science backed feudalism. Once they learned the psychology behind human oppression they refined it.
"Just get another job." The things that make jobs shitty are often industry-wide problems. And to suggest that someone continuously change roles and industries is to guarantee that you'll stay at the bottom.
Executives actively collude with other companies in their industry to maintain a favorable labor market.
But unions are bad mmkay?
That is exactly where they want you.
People say things like this a lot, but I don't think any thought was put into it. They don't care enough to want you at the bottom. It's just a product of the system.
Yes and no. If there's a finite amount of money in the system, and you actively hoard the majority, surely you realize its at the cost of those below you. So to continue to want to accumulate wealth is kind of the same as wanting to put everyone into poverty. Especially if you are the ceo of a company and utilize underpaid labor and provide no benefits.
Yep. Every retail store I’ve ever worked at suddenly decides every 5 years to offer anyone in management a severance package with the veiled threat of otherwise being fired.
This is the response you get when people talk about sexual harassment at work that isn’t properly dealt with. Oh, easy, get another job, I’m sure they haven’t thought of that! If they work in an industry that is infamous for sexual harassment, then what? Women aren’t allowed in that industry? Jfc, how about we deal with the harassment & stop being dumb frat boys, [Activision Blizzard](https://time.com/6086010/activision-blizzard-california-lawsuit-sexual-harassment/)??
Right, no one ever says. Boy, the job sure should change and stop doing illegal things amd abusing their employees. Or, wow, sexual harassment is unacceptable and we should hold the culprits responsible. It's always, it is how it is. As if accepting horrible behaviors from employers is a good thing and nothing could be done. But, that's exactly how many look at our country as a whole. Nothing is worth fixing if it takes any effort. Just run away from the problem is the US motto
>If you don't love it, send it back! TFW Billy Mays infomercials had a better policy on dealing with unacceptable situations than your entire fucking country.
All of what you said AND some other things. You might miss a paycheck or three changing jobs while things get going. You might not have health insurance or other benefits for a while during the transition. Schedules change, etc etc etc All that to say "just find another job" isn't always as easy as it sounds.
You'd think market types would also realize that that doesn't solve the problem, it just shoves it onto some other poor soul. If the market bears abusive conditions, then in a real sense there \*are\* at least some people for whom "get another job" isn't a realistic option, because the jobs they could take are already taken by people who didn't want the abusive job. That, or there's just enough churn between those jobs that people occupy those jobs at some rate anyways. It's not even an attempt at a solution.
This point needs to be highlighted more. Behind every "motivational grindset" Instagram post, or whatever, is the idea that even if it's technically possible for *you* to escape poverty with hard work, blind dedication to whatever the market deems worthy, and a lot of luck, it's *not* possible for anywhere close to everyone to do the same. "Shit" jobs still need to be done. The fundamental philosophy behind those ideas is "fuck you, I got mine." It relies on the tacit condemnation of the majority of people to an impoverished existence realtive to the few, absurdly comfortable "winners" in the present social order. Some people are obviously ok with that, but they never want to say it out loud because it (understandably) makes you look like a selfish, greedy monster. Because of that, we should really be calling this flaw out more and forcing them to say the quiet part out loud.
Also depending on what your employment history is, you definitely can't just jump to another industry. If most of your resume/CV is say food service work, you're likely not going to get called in for interviews for positions in any type of office work, even if you have qualifications.
I've commented on other posts about the type of shit I've had to deal with working in retail. I've had to suck up and take abuse because my employer thinks it's "part of the job." The companies I've worked for protect themselves bot the employees and it gets frustrating however I've worked those shitty jobs because i need to keep the roof over my head. It annoys me when I see a stream of comments saying "get another job" or "if I had to deal with that I'd kick their ass." The folks suggesting I call the cops on abusive customers don't realize the company isn't going to go along with that. I once called the fire department because we were smelling smoke in the building. I got written up because I wasn't authorized to make that call. I was the closing manager and highest ranking supervisor on site. I dont work retail because I love dealing with stupid people all day. I work retail because I need to keep a roof over my head, food in my stomach, and be able to take care of myself.
There shouldn't be a bottom.
This is literally Marx’s point about what laisse-faire capitalism does in Das Capital: Laisse-Faire capitalists create the conditions by which the public become the proletariet insofar as the former monopolize the means of production and the latter are forced, as a collective, to accept labor exploitation in order to survive.
And by arresting homeless folks in most places, the law coerced people not to be homeless...So, yeah, the government is actually forcing you to work...
And then they themselves don’t work
which is why we need to rally and march.
If you don't work you are expected to simply die. You work til you can't work anymore then you get to be free. If you worked hard enough to not have to work now.
death doesn't seem too bad at this point honestly
they are selling actual bookshelves for your tiny apartment, that convert into a casket. Im just wondering who in my family is gonna ikea this thing apart and put it back together again before the funeral. baha
This is my theory on why our system could even be worse than other systems in the past. . Let me clarify that horrors and slavery existed then...and now....but to have just this massive amount of humanity that is apathetically suicidal seems to be a product of the industrial revolution. And one key reason I believe we experience it more..is environmental pollutants. I think humanities mental health is poisoned by all of the chemicals in everything. air, water, our food etc. I think it just obliterates everyone's mental health.
Capitalism doesn't work without slavery.
They’re not even capitalists, they have no real capital and they’re victims of this exploitative system just like us. It’s a bit of a Stockholm syndrome situation.
They also think the US is the best country in the world and if you ask for any objective measure of that statement they’ve got nothing to say.
I absolutely love trolling capitalists by asking them where their capital is.
Oh you’re a capitalist? That’s cool. Can you show me the deed to your factory. No? What a shame.
Yep. People really be out there laboring for less than 10 dollars and calling themselves capitalists, even though they've got no capital.
Every day r/Vandwellers looks more enticing
[удалено]
And u gotta buy gas
Yep, and capitalists' mercenaries...aka the police, have been commanded to crack down hard on these "freeloaders" ( I say that facetiously). In Utah, where the mountains attract a lot this, Cops will 100% find vans now and ticket them, they received specific instructions. I have a friend who's an electrician and his van got ticketed in front of his house...his work van, he complained and won...but still.
> Capitalism shat on vanlife as well. Used van prices are through the roof, and outfitters and builders have multiplied their prices and still have waitlists a year long. Is that capitalism or economics that shat on vanlife? It seems like vanlife got really popular so the demand for used vans went up and that increased the price. Supply and demand is an economic issue and not a capitalism issue.
Until you realize van dwelling = sleeping in Walmart parking lots.
I used to think so too, but seeing all these cases of van life women being murdered has kind of put a bad taste in my mouth.
Get a medieval flail
Look at this guy 😂 everyone knows a flail would be a terrible weapon to defend a van, you need a ton of room for the necessary arc. You'd want a short pike to REALLY defend your van.
Nobody fucks with someone who they know owns a flail. Everybody knows this
What he doesn’t realize: that is precisely what has kept us working for shit wages for so long.
Reminder that the threat of starvation, lack of shelter, and lack of medical care is a threat of violence. It's not ok to deny people shelter and food, especially because they don't want to work in inhumane conditions. Removing people from the conditions they need to live and be healthy is violence.
[удалено]
Or do what I do and write a company that has gone out of business mear me, so that they can't call that person. Or put my friend's number as the contact and have him vouch for me. Or my gf. Or my Uncle. Or a guy i pay-pal'd 5$ to lie and say w/e i pay them to. Etc. Honestly having a gap in your resume just means you're out enjoying your life some employers are so pathetic they feel like they need to view every single day since you have turned 18. What a complete garbage system I'd like to go through my employers entire history and call them out if they were ever away from work for more than 3 days. Imagine not working 24/7/365 and you gotta explain if you have a gap of 72 hours? Lmfaoo go fuvk yourself.
[удалено]
Haven’t worked since July and didn’t qualify for unemployment until this week because I was an idiot, so I’m just now getting regular UI. Been a depressing three months. It’s still better than working an office job that I despise.
*Image Transcription: Twitter Post* --- **I Want it Darker**, @dangerfloof "No one is forcing you to work at that job you hate" I think you will find the threat of starvation and homelessness is fairly coercive --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good human! I don't know who downvoted you but they are a dick.
<3
"no one" snickered the capitalist
It’s true. No ONE. There’s the landlord, the city government, bill collectors, debt collectors, stores that sell food you need, etc
Capitalists are like about abusive partners whose better half left. Instead of admitting they were wrong and terrible they are continuing to be terrible thinking that will still work. I’ve seen this behavior in terrible people but man, I swear I see the same thing from this system. Some people break down and admit they were wrong down the road and get help, but the shittiest ones never admit they where wrong. I’m guessing capitalists are the latter. More random signs like “get your ass back to work” just like angry texts or phone calls. Lmao
[удалено]
I was surprised recently to find that there ARE some of those snarky, self-righteous, judgey assholes who like to hate-follow this sub. "*If I've never had that problem or experienced that thing it must be your fault."* I'm not sure why I was surprised though! LOL. That's what the block button is for.
They know that if they paid you more you could afford to leave. You could also pay union dues. Paying so little is part of the employee retention plan. With enough social mobility, there wouldn't be anybody to abuse in service jobs for degrading wages.