this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
21 points (88.9% liked)

Antiwork

8271 readers
1 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] rurb@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Human nature, regardless of political systems, dictates that one and their family must provide trade-worthy value to receive trade-worthy value. There are plenty of exceptions to that thanks to charity (at any scale) and social policies that allow for some to provide little trade-worthy value and still receive essential benefits (for example, those with disabilities). But if there were an option to provide no trade-worthy value and receive completely satisfying goods, accommodations, and freedoms in return, then productive people would naturally feel foolish for spending time working any more than they like to. There is some point where there wouldn't be enough people to maintain the benefits for the non-workers. Although people would offer to work as good will, labor and supply shortages would be far more frequent or constant. So should we allow the option, but only a limited amount so that the threshold of value-produced to value-consumed is never met? It's unlikely that there would be good relations between the class of people in society that would be gifted with that option and those that aren't.

[โ€“] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Does "human nature" "dictate" that nuclear families are a central organizational structure within society, or are there plenty of exceptions, in the sense of societies following systems and cultures very different from the one under which you live?