132
Why do we live to work rather than work to live? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I heard that back in the days, people used to just go when their work was done on the farms and there was no concept of 9-5 (these days seem 24 hours work). There used to be a lot of holidays. Is that true? If it is, then given the abundance in technology, why our work hours increased and why do we have such weird lives that we live to work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 112 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

Capitalism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    A handy word that means so little it's never wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    You could say the same of history if you know nothing about it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

    That suggests the problem is people don't have any experience with capitalism, doesn't it? Whatever it means to the person using the word, it's always a system we live in, or somewhat live in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    The issue is the term is meaningless if it isn't grounded in history. If it simply means "the system you live in" then it says nothing of how it came to be and what can come after.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Sure, but there's no historical context there whatsoever, or even a present-day framing to narrow it down. The main thing it achieves, as a one-word response, is declaring a kind of tribal allegiance.

    If you've clearly defined you mean "any market-based system" or "a system which no longer has a landed aristocracy", among the many other possibilities, then sure, it's not worth being a pedant about the exact word used. (Although, any conversation is more likely to be productive if you just say what you mean, instead)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Yes, using the word "capitalism" is a signifier, but I wouldn't say it's counterproductive. Based on a person's response you can quickly conclude whether they have the historical context to understand the critique. Defining capitalism as "a market-based" system is ahistorical , markets existed before capitalism. It is very hard to surface the critique while also writing a wall of text that describes how capitalism came to be and how it was later moderated

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    The people who do work don't keep the profits of work. People who "own" stuff do.

    You have a guy who "owns" a factory. He pays some dudes to make widgets, market widgets, sell widgets. They all get $10 a day. They sell $200 of widgets a day. The guy who owns the operation, who's probably just sitting at home, keeps all those profits. Capitalism.

    The workers decide they want more rights. Get paid in real money. Sick time. 8 hour days. Owner says nah. Workers go on strike. Owner gets the police or the army to break the strike with violence. Arrest any leaders they survive. Historical context of capitalism.

    Also the guy who owns the factory, maybe he just got it because his grand dad was friends with the king or something. Maybe they killed some natives and the state said the land is yours now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    Okay, so the classical Marxist definition. If we could be sure that's what's implied, there'd be more to talk about.

    The problem being, there's tons of other definitions with just as much currency. Big corporations (but not small businesses), having free markets, having anyone control a factory in any way, and just the act of thinking about things as commodities are all senses that it's used in, as well.

    Lots of working also applies, in some/many cases, to periods Marx would have called pre-capitalist, so the Marxist definition isn't what OP meant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Are there any other systems, or point in history, where a country's population could live without working?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I don't know whether to assume this question is in good faith or not. Can you restate what you think the OP is asking? It's not about whether there was ever a time when no work was needed.

    I'm not interested in wasting my time against a sealion debating capitalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I'm not coming from a defence of capitalism. I'm just pointing out that people have had to work in some capacity to live all throughout history. People would still need to work to live under any system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago

    I’m just pointing out that people have had to work in some capacity to live all throughout history. People would still need to work to live under any system.

    Nobody said otherwise.

    .... the title in OP asked, "why do we live to work, rather than work to live?"

    The response was "capitalism."

    So: precisely under (not-capitalism)... we could "work to live," rather than "live to work."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent