132
Why do we live to work rather than work to live? (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 days 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
[–] 4 points 5 days ago (1 child)

There are several socialist countries already. The US's time as the unipolar hegemon are quickly fading, the US cannot even win against Iran. As the global south develops economically and gains its own footing, and the US gradually decays, we see more openings for additional socialist countries. No system is ever static, no empire lasts forever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    for example? USSR is no more China is state capitalist Scandinavian countries are welfare states?

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

    The USSR certainly is no more, but the PRC, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos are all socialist countries to this day, and countries like Venezuela are undergoing revolutionary change to establish socialism, such as the growing commune movement within Venezuela. Countries like Nicaragua and those in the Alliance of Sahel States aren't socialist, but they are generally more pro-social due to their anti-imperialist stance.

    I disagree pretty firmly with your designation of China as "state capitalist." Markets and private property exist in China, of this there is certainly no doubt, but capitalism is not the mere existence of markets but the dominance of private property and the capitalist class. In China, the commanding heights of the economy are all publicly owned, and medium firms are largely publicly owned. Private property exists largely in secondary, rapidly developing industries as a means to harness the ability of markets to build up the productive forces.

    Cheng Enfu, one of China's top economists and head of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, made this helpful diagram explaining the process of developing along the socialist road:

    Moreover, the working classes are the ones that dominate the state in China, which was settled in 1949 via revolution. After succeeding in establishing socialism via revolution, the task is "reform revolution" according to many Chinese Marxists, gradually reforming socialism into higher and higher stages of development. Looking at the changes to China's systems in recent years under Xi Jinping, it appears fairly clear that China's long-stated plans are in fact being dutifully carried about by the CPC.

    The rise of China is happening alongside the fall of the US. This is no coincidence, but in fact is interconnected. China presents a far more equitable alternative to US imperialism, and as such the global south has gradually been decoupling from the thumb of the US empire. In turn, south-south trade has developed enornously, resulting in a viable way to bypass unequal exchange, retaining the wealth of the global south within the global south, rather than siphoning it to imperialists. This undercuts the US, which is why it is more nakedly aggressive today.

    All in all, socialism is rising, and capitalism is moribund.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    In China, the commanding heights of the economy are all publicly owned, and medium firms are largely publicly owned.

    Yes, state owned, which suits the definition of state capitalism:

    A state-capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production

    And most importantly

    This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago

    The driving distinction between capitalism and socialism are the following:

    1. Which class controls the state?

    2. Which form of social ownership forms the principal, ie rising and dominant, aspect of the economy?

    The socialist market economy of China has, as I already demonstrated above, a working-class state with public ownership as the principal aspect. It thus falls squarely into how Marxists understand socialism. This is reflected by how the working classes are the ones seeing the primary focus on development and upliftment in China:

    State capitalism, on the other hand, may have strong public ownership, but ultimately will be a capitalist dominated state. This is reflected in how state-owned industry ultimately is run in a manner that supports the capitalist class. Famous historical examples include Nazi Germany, as well as modern Singapore and the Republic of Korea (for at least the first few decades).

    This is why Marxist analysis is enormously clarifying. Without understanding Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, it can be difficult to understand China's social structure, as well as why the majority of communists support China. If your understanding of socialism looks like a fully collectivized, horizontalist system, then anything that exists in real life gets measured against such a model. However, socialism is enormously dynamic, as it is a transition between capitalism and communism, and thus there is no "one" socialism, not even within a single socialist state!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

    China has censorships and not freedom of speech and if this is the case what you are telling, why are there billionaires in China or from China? What about Jack Ma, was he removed anonymously cuz he criticized Chinese system or what?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 days ago

    All countries have censorship, none have freedom of speech. The class that controls speech is the class that controls the state. In capitalist countries, capitalists use dominance of the state and private media to disseminate ruling-class ideology. The same happens in socialist countries, only this time it's the working classes with domination over speech. "Freedom of speech" is generally a euphamism for allowing capital and money to dominate the speech of society. This is also why the Chinese population feels very positive about their own system of democracy:

    The reason China has billionaires is because China does have private property, and a rapidly growing economy. What's important about China is that it is consistently the lower portion of society that's actually seeing the greatest gains:

    This simply does not happen in capitalist countries, especially not in the last few years where private capital has been astronomically expanding. China's people-centric development has resulted in the strongest and most rapid rise in living conditions for working people in the modern world.

    Jack Ma is an example of worker-rule in China. Jack Ma began undermining the socialist system and publicly advocating for reforms that would strengthen the autonomy of private capital. The CPC ruthlessly punished him for trying to undermine worker power, and stripped him of his speech. The same happens in reverse in capitalist countries, the state regularly strips working people of their right to protest and speak against capitalism. There is therefore no true free speech, and therefore it's important that the working classes control speech.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent