No, it’s not. Work still has to be done. The world depends on people doing things to keep each other alive
The founding principle of Marxism comes from observing worker exploitation. The work isn’t the problem, it’s necessary. The fact that workers don’t get the fruits of their labor is the problem, and it has all sorts of knock on effects
You should work at a maintainable pace. You shouldn’t overshadow or underperform compared to your peers, because that fucks the workers over. You do have to keep the business afloat, otherwise you fuck the workers over.
You should seek to organize. Ideally, you should do work that improves the world or the lives of others, but sometimes you don’t have even that luxury
Work still has to be done. The world depends on people doing things to keep each other alive
That’s true in a general sense; but it’s not an ethical imperative to do more work than required in a capitalist society. You are paid either by the hour or by the month; if you do more than what it takes to not be fired, the excess is stolen by the capitalist. If everyone both did less and consumed less, on purpose and in coordination, it would be a “soft” general strike, which would go a long way towards overthrowing capitalism.
You do have to keep the business afloat, otherwise you fuck the workers over.
This is once again technically true but also the exact same argument used to stop people from unionizing or fighting for their rights. You are not responsible for the business failing; the business owner is. If they didn’t steal excess value, you could do the same work and the business would be afloat.
You should seek to organize. Ideally, you should do work that improves the world or the lives of others, but sometimes you don’t have even that luxury
That’s true in a general sense; but it’s not an ethical imperative to do more work than required in a capitalist society. You are paid either by the hour or by the month; if you do more than what it takes to not be fired, the excess is stolen by the capitalist. If everyone both did less and consumed less, on purpose and in coordination, it would be a “soft” general strike, which would go a long way towards overthrowing capitalism.
That’s not how any of this works. This reads like voting with your wallet. Your can’t do collective action alone
You can’t go on strike on your own, you’re just forcing others to cover for you until you get fired. You can’t slow work on your own, you’re just not pulling your weight and forcing others to pick up the slack
You know what they call it when everyone independently consumes less and works less? Market conditions.
It’s already happening now, and companies will never think “what if I paid my workers fairly and skimmed only a sustainable amount off the top…”. No, they will learn the wrong lesson every single time, because it’s their job to do so
No, it’s not. Work still has to be done. The world depends on people doing things to keep each other alive
The founding principle of Marxism comes from observing worker exploitation. The work isn’t the problem, it’s necessary. The fact that workers don’t get the fruits of their labor is the problem, and it has all sorts of knock on effects
You should work at a maintainable pace. You shouldn’t overshadow or underperform compared to your peers, because that fucks the workers over. You do have to keep the business afloat, otherwise you fuck the workers over.
You should seek to organize. Ideally, you should do work that improves the world or the lives of others, but sometimes you don’t have even that luxury
That’s true in a general sense; but it’s not an ethical imperative to do more work than required in a capitalist society. You are paid either by the hour or by the month; if you do more than what it takes to not be fired, the excess is stolen by the capitalist. If everyone both did less and consumed less, on purpose and in coordination, it would be a “soft” general strike, which would go a long way towards overthrowing capitalism.
This is once again technically true but also the exact same argument used to stop people from unionizing or fighting for their rights. You are not responsible for the business failing; the business owner is. If they didn’t steal excess value, you could do the same work and the business would be afloat.
On that I 100% agree.
That’s not how any of this works. This reads like voting with your wallet. Your can’t do collective action alone
You can’t go on strike on your own, you’re just forcing others to cover for you until you get fired. You can’t slow work on your own, you’re just not pulling your weight and forcing others to pick up the slack
You know what they call it when everyone independently consumes less and works less? Market conditions.
It’s already happening now, and companies will never think “what if I paid my workers fairly and skimmed only a sustainable amount off the top…”. No, they will learn the wrong lesson every single time, because it’s their job to do so
The organization part is not optional.