cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/14891969
ANTI-CAPITALIST AFFIRMATIONS
- i am allowed to spend my time creating things, even if they are not beautiful.
- there is no such thing as a “real Job”. all forms of work are real and vlid.
- there is nothing that i need to accomplish to be worthy. i am already worthy.
- doing nothing ls good for my soul.
- i am not deflined by what I produce.
- my worth cannot be measured by my paycheck, my job title, or a list of professional or academic achievements.
- i də not need to monetize my hobbles, It is enough to spend time doing something i love.
- | will not let society decide what success looks like. I can define what successful life looks like for me.
All valid points, however the ‘real job’ one has a caveat in my book. Someone may perfectly well be happy making pretty things for their own enjoyment, but it won’t by default pay the bills. Basic services such as food, housing, and medical could well be supplied by society, but nobody should expect that entitles them to luxury and extravagances by extension.
They’re not? I don’t know where you got that from. It has nothing to do with the point you claim to be addressing.
There is a segment that would argue the doctor and the florist should have equal accomodations in society, despite the massive disparity in training and skill required. I don’t ascribe to that logic is what I’m pointing to.
Then are you really anti-capitalists? We’re talking basic human rights, and yes that does mean money and time to have hobbies. Are you just saying that they shouldn’t be paid the same? I think that’s the difference between an anti-capitalist and a socialist.
I would argue against the functional enslavement of anyone, whether the basic laborer forced to work multiple jobs just to survive, or in taking from the accomplished skilled professional who used their time and dedication to become exceptionally skilled by not compensating them for their efforts.
Nobody should have to struggle excessively to live, but they should have the ability to excell if they choose. So you can make what you will of that for a title.
What is excelling to you? They get paid more, okay, but where do we draw the line? How much compensation is too much? And who gets to determine which jobs qualify for high compensation? Some of the worst, hardest jobs I’ve ever worked were unskilled labor, my body ached after, and the pay was awful. I now have a job that requires a BA, and I don’t go home aching every day, and they pay is much better, but only because I had the money and time to devote to getting an education. I guarantee most of the people I worked with in those unskilled labor jobs do not, and they will work until their bodies break with not a retirement savings in sight.
Let me ask you this: if you had a PhD and all the money you need to live happily, would you be angry if someone who doesn’t have a PhD was making the same amount as you?
Are you not paying for my PHD, the time and efforts put in to obtain it, and then demanding I use those skills obtained for your benefit at what price you decide appropriate? If so you are just taking of my efforts without concern for me and my well being. It’s just coerced labor of the intellectual and skilled then as much as it is to demand heavy labor without due compense. Without the expert’s guidance the laborer has nothing to labor for and so those distinctions need to be recognized. There is some reasonable cap and it falls well short of the billionaire sitting on a horde of wealth, but to demand of the accomplished while giving freely to the idle punishes innovation, ambition, and leadership.
Why do you care if you have enough money to be happy? Why look at someone else and decide you deserve more than them?