I often daydream about how society would be if we were not forced by society to pigeon hole ourselves into a specialized career for maximizing the profits of capitalists, and sell most of our time for it.

The idea of creating an entire identity for you around your “career” and only specializing in one thing would be ridiculous in another universe. Humans have so much natural potential for breadth, but that is just not compatible with capitalism.

This is evident with how most people develop “hobbies” outside of work, like wood working, gardening, electronics, music, etc. This idea of separating “hobbies” and the thing we do most of our lives (work) is ridiculous.

Here’s how my world could be different if I owned my time and dedicated it to the benefit of my own and my community instead of capitalists:

  • more reading, learning and excusing knowledge with others.
  • learn more handy work, like plumbing and wood working. I love customizing my own home!
  • more gardening
  • participate in the transportation system (picking up shifts to drive a bus for example)
  • become a tour guide for my city
  • cook and bake for my neighbors
  • academic research
  • open source software (and non-software) contributions
  • pick up shifts at a café and make coffee, tea and smoothies for people
  • pick up shifts to clean up public spaces, such as parks or my own neighborhood
  • participate in more than one “professions”. I studied one type of engineering but work in a completely different engineering. This already proves I can do both, so why not do both and others?

Humans do not like the same thing over and over every day. It’s unnatural. But somehow we revolve our whole livelihood around if.

  • @Mudface@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Think about if you had a flat tire in your car. You go to get another tire to replace the one with a hole in it.

    But the tire factory only manufactures 300 tires a day. Because they only have a handful of employees who feel like making tires and they only really want to work around 10 hours a week.

    Now tires are pretty rare. And that means they are difficult to find. Also, rarity is a supply and demand thing, so now tires are also incredibly expensive. People want a lot of them, but the tire manufacturing plant doesn’t make enough.

    Oh, and while you were inside the shop being surprised at the 22 month wait for your replacement tire, and the $3,500 price tag for just the single tire, the other 3 tires were stolen off your car in the parking lot.

    Cause people don’t want to pay those prices, or wait that amount of time, which has lead to a massive car tire black market

    • CrimeDad
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      Why do we need tire factories working employees 40+ hours a week to make enough tires for everyone? Just hire enough workers so that they all have enough time for a life outside of work. Maybe with a little bit of central planning, we could also reduce the demand for tires by figuring out how to get people to drive less.

      • @Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Central planning has not been a real benefit to countries that employ it heavily. You just need to look at China, Venezuela, USSR to see the results of current and past ones. It is pretty much a joke.

        • CrimeDad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Considering where they started or what they’re up against, the countries you mentioned do (or did, in the case of the USSR) incredibly well.

          • @Zippy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Bullshit. The USSR was a house of cards by then end. If it was doing at all well, it would still exist. It same as you stopping all maintenance on your house, car, not buying any cloth for years. Ya you can live well for some time but eventually your car breaks, your house starts to leak and you look like shit.

            The USSR may have been able to survive a few more years but the longer they tried that model, the worse off each person would have been and the more unstable they would have become.

      • @Mudface@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -111 year ago

        You do understand what an analogy used for the purpose of illustrating a point is, right?

        What is it with people and being literal to the point of making a conversation painful?

        I could explain all of your questions for you, but it takes a lot of groundwork laying that you should have probably picked up on your own by now, and at least a little bit from the education system.

        Is all they teach you in school how great Karl Marx is? Did you learn how businesses operate? Assets, liabilities, profit margins, overhead, OSHA, etc?

        C-level executives usually set an operational budget per business department. There is a labour budget included in that. It’s a managers duty to use that budget to fill out the labour needs of the business, based on sales and sales forecasts and any other upcoming business changes.

        It’s not really as easy as ‘just hire everyone who walks in the door and don’t enforce any attendance policies, if they want to work they’ll show up. Sure, some days we will have more than we need, and other days we won’t have enough, but if the communities needs more tires, I’m sure they’ll just come in and do the right thing.’

        Seriously, have you ever had to depend on someone doing their job before? I’m guessing not.

        Anyway, we aren’t really talking about societies need for tires, we are talking about capitalism

        • CrimeDad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          It is the prerogative of the “C-level executives” to maximize the rate of exploitation on behalf of the bourgeoisie. When the working class eventually takes power from the bourgeoisie, that prerogative becomes obsolete (and so do those parasitic executives). Instead of utilizing improvements in productivity to increase the wealth going to the bourgeoisie, they can instead be used to improve the well-being of the working class.

          So, if it turns out that we really need more tires, or whatever fits your analogy, then we’ll just make more tires. However, the wealth that would have been syphoned off to the idle owner class and their lackeys will instead stay under the control of the workers. Therefore, as the revolution progresses, the workers will gain more and more time, energy, and opportunity for individual and communal fulfillment.

          • @Mudface@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -81 year ago

            Omg, bro don’t spout this communist manifesto shit at me please!

            And to the second part “then we’ll just make more tires” is where the devil is in the details. How is that organized? How is that, more importantly, enforced?

            You can’t just “bourgeoisie” and the. “We’ll just make more” and skirt off into the sunset. How will we, how exactly will we, make more tires?

            Like really dive in here, because this is where the rubber meets the road. How do we ‘just make more’? Where do the workers come from? How do they know we even need to make more tires? Who tells them? And what happens if …. No one shows up to make any more tires?

            What if everyone is too busy hiking, or learning a new language, or doing art or writing great novels to make more tires?

            • CrimeDad
              link
              fedilink
              English
              51 year ago

              If you really want to dive in then just go and read Capital. Otherwise, the short and sweet of it is that it would really be up to the workers. The particular solutions will probably vary depending on the industry, location, the status of the revolution and whatnot, but it might involve combinations of time banks, computer AIs, human engineers just doing the math, and/or even some forms of markets and price signals.

              • @Zippy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Heard that before. Remember the USSR?

                Why would anyone with a bit of critical thinking believe that would be a good model to try again. It is such a joke.

                • CrimeDad
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  The critical thinker would consider that maybe the material conditions of the people of the former USSR would be better if dissolution never happened, that they are much better even 30 years after dissolution than if the USSR never happened in the first place.

                  • @Zippy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    No they fucking wouldn’t. The USSR was completely failing and was being propped up by using up every resource and relying on old technologies to not break down. The house was slowly deteriorating and the sooner they left that model the sooner they could get on track to a sustainable system.

                    Unfortunately there was so little left after years of communism that it was pretty hard to kick start a functional economy. Communism just ingrained corruption so deep it is hard to invest there. Then you got a dictator type of government that again is centralizing much of their output and this is what you get. Shit economy with incredible stability.

                    Pretty much same in any country that has any model like that.

            • @oroboros@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is quite an in depth solution to sortof what you’re talking about

              https://www.thevenusproject.com/

              It really only covers making sure people are fed, housed and watered. Personally I think cars are a pain in the arse, I’d rather run or cycle everywhere, but then that’s not everybody. If you really liked them, and you were fed, housed and watered, you’d definitely have time to look at building or contributing to building one, assuming people don’t tell you to fuck off because it’s a noisy, smelly death trap…

              Unfortunately, the likelihood would be that a lot of people couldn’t handle being in the same kind of housing as everyone else, because they believe they’re special. But logically this makes much more sense that what we’re currently doing. Capitalism is extremely wasteful.

              And before you say, well you’d never get people to agree to this. I think the tankies/fascists have solutions to that problem, you’re just encouraging them…

        • ???
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          You do understand what an analogy used for the purpose of illustrating a point is, right?

          Yes, we all get that. Not sure what you gain from saying that. It good mental exercise to accept the modifications people make to your anology. Otherwise, we’re not “thinking together”.

    • TacoButtPlug
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      World War II is a working example of your hypothetical. The country (USA*) had to ration food, shoes, metal, paper, and rubber - so therefore even tires - to name a few. This all happened under capitalism. The country complied and to even make up for the loss of product women joined the workforce - i.e. Rosie the Riveter. I’m not trying to get into an argument but I wanted to point out your example already came and went and the country responded as it would under either economic system.

    • @matcha_addict@lemy.lolOP
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      First of all, I will start with saying that this is a highly unlikely scenario, because modern technology already allows us way way more tires that we need with a fraction of the labor time we put. But let us assume not and entertain this a bit.

      This is a perfect example where members of society will find themselves in a situation where there is a big need for tires that is not being met. Instead of hand wavingly complaining and hoping the government or corporations ramp up production, we remember we don’t live under capitalism anymore. We are masters of our own destiny! society is now oriented around human need and wants, not profits! Our prime motivation for working is not to please capitalists in exchange for earning enough to live and a little more. It is to serve the interests of ourselves and our communities, and this is a prime example of a need of ourselves and communities.

      So because we are unhappy with the state of tires, we decide to contribute more of the large amount of free time we have to produce more tires (and you only need a tiny fraction of humanity to do this. Consider how many people work in the tire industry right now). The fluidity afforded to us by having both free time and the control over production is a lot greater than you think. We do not even have to imagine this. Many historical civilizations did this already. We can only do better because technology grants us a million times the ability they had to produce.

      • @rbesfe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Historical civilizations were not producing tires or any goods for that matter at industrial scales, so that comparison is useless. If you think that the only reason profit motives exist today is to “please capitalists”, you need to do some more reading into how the industrial economy works.

        • @matcha_addict@lemy.lolOP
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We only got to producing more advanced things like tires because of how technology made things so much easier to produce with a fraction of the labor time. This is a continuing trend in history.

          And yes I do think that society is oriented around profits (and pleasing capitalists, which happens by producing profits. I find it ironic that you chose this truism to argue against lmao). I hope you don’t expect a response to that second part, because it is not argument and not worth responding to.