It's generally true that technology improving actually increased work load for the working classes. Major concessions for leisure time came from active organization and resistance, as concessions to prevent revolt (especially when near the USSR, which was more advanced in social safety nets), or via imperialism, using the global south to subsidize the global north's living standards.
This is all true of capitalism, but of course technological development within socialism can and does serve the working classes. The advancement of technology is critical to reduce work load and increase living standards, and as such socialist society needs to place an immense amount of effort on the technological front.
ever? Totally used to. Social movements fought for the 40h work week in the 19th and early 20th century in many countries. Then the post-WW2 era was defined by Keynesian economics, and economic growth in Western economies actually translated into higher wages.
Then came neoliberalism, peddled by fraud economists like Hayek and Friedman, enacted by politicians like Raegan and Thatcher. Unions were weakened, and the rich were free to appropriate all the productivity gains and growth.
I recommend reading "The Hidden Doctrine", short and easy book.
The point they're making is that during the creation of the middle class and increase of leisure time, that wasn't because of technology or increased production. It was due to labor organization, and democratic efforts to restrain capitalism. Technology just made the profits so flagrant, it was easy to make the case that the state should regulate them.
Well it has, indirectly. Plenty of times, it has given politics and unions a basis for demanding those improvements. Looking back over the last century or so, conditions have improved, drastically.
They have, but that's by virtue of the working conditions getting nuked from orbit during the industrial revolution. Testimony from pre-industrial times show that we're working ourselves to the bone in comparison (I'll take that instead of, you know, literal medieval living conditions, but still)
Many good answers here, but one also has to factor in that not all labour is socially necessary. With rising surplus value and extraction thereof, there follows also a rising inequality leading directly to more people becoming more or less servants of the capitalist class.
I would argue that labour of this type, whether that be managing contradictions arising from the capitalist mode of production or the placating of rich people's whims and needs, is not socially necessary. At the very least the product of this effort ranges from insignificant to detrimental for the proletariat.
14 Comments
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 104d
It's generally true that technology improving actually increased work load for the working classes. Major concessions for leisure time came from active organization and resistance, as concessions to prevent revolt (especially when near the USSR, which was more advanced in social safety nets), or via imperialism, using the global south to subsidize the global north's living standards.
This is all true of capitalism, but of course technological development within socialism can and does serve the working classes. The advancement of technology is critical to reduce work load and increase living standards, and as such socialist society needs to place an immense amount of effort on the technological front.
a14o@feddit.org · 16 pts · 104d
Or real wage hikes.
inkblade@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 104d
Economists say that will kill the Global Economy.
weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 79d
Perhaps the global economy in it's current form should be killed.
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de · 13 pts · 104d
ever? Totally used to. Social movements fought for the 40h work week in the 19th and early 20th century in many countries. Then the post-WW2 era was defined by Keynesian economics, and economic growth in Western economies actually translated into higher wages.
Then came neoliberalism, peddled by fraud economists like Hayek and Friedman, enacted by politicians like Raegan and Thatcher. Unions were weakened, and the rich were free to appropriate all the productivity gains and growth.
I recommend reading "The Hidden Doctrine", short and easy book.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 104d
The point they're making is that during the creation of the middle class and increase of leisure time, that wasn't because of technology or increased production. It was due to labor organization, and democratic efforts to restrain capitalism. Technology just made the profits so flagrant, it was easy to make the case that the state should regulate them.
weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 79d
Thanks, I will add it to the tbr.
unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth · 11 pts · 104d
Well it has, indirectly. Plenty of times, it has given politics and unions a basis for demanding those improvements. Looking back over the last century or so, conditions have improved, drastically.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 104d
Kind of. There's that, and also that imperialist countries have exported their greatest abuse to the periphery.
CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 104d
They have, but that's by virtue of the working conditions getting nuked from orbit during the industrial revolution. Testimony from pre-industrial times show that we're working ourselves to the bone in comparison (I'll take that instead of, you know, literal medieval living conditions, but still)
tae_glas@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 104d
Just to put credit back in here, without bringing more clicks to Twitter:
https://xcancel.com/orevazsn/status/2056666244300825043
PunnyName@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 104d
JFC many of those responses don't pass the vibe check.
CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 104d
no shade but I don't know what people expect from what's essentially "nazi facebook"
Urist@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 104d
Many good answers here, but one also has to factor in that not all labour is socially necessary. With rising surplus value and extraction thereof, there follows also a rising inequality leading directly to more people becoming more or less servants of the capitalist class.
I would argue that labour of this type, whether that be managing contradictions arising from the capitalist mode of production or the placating of rich people's whims and needs, is not socially necessary. At the very least the product of this effort ranges from insignificant to detrimental for the proletariat.