22
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by tradclasstruggle@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

I've noticed that currently kids in University are told to Network, so they can have Connections when they get to the job market. Which, you know, fair enough, it's better advice than whatever non-sense I got in my time.

The thing is, however natural these things are, as a social mechanism, are they implicitly saying that the invisible hand is utter bullshit? We all know it is, but from the liberal point of view.

I mean, if it isn't your degree, skills, etc. what gets you the job, but your network, you're admitting so called merit is a dead end. The invisible hand isn't choosing you, it's the very visible strings attatched to you that must buy your way into the job market, right?

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] CanaryFeigned@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 day ago

Invisible hand is a concept explicitly invented to explain away the contradictions of the "Free market" and it's for the people who lack class consciousness.

Like let's say we have a group of 10 friends and they all come up with 1 business idea. 1 of those ideas remains open after few years and 9 of them fail. Why? "Invisible hand"

Even if you network under "free market" there's still the underlying class interests. Relationships usually do not form cross-class because of those underlying class interests. I can be a Homeless person with 9/10 Charisma and still end up on the streets.

To a libertarian the explanation is simple: "Invisible Hand" that's why. Or it's corruption.

But you can't incentivize equality because it would "Make people lazy" all you can do is have a state guard the Capital and let the "invisible hand" sort it out.

[-] tradclasstruggle@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 day ago

You're right, and I admit I was referring to the "free market" and not really to the invisible hand. Which still translates to, the job market clearly not being remotely free but heavily biased.

[-] CanaryFeigned@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 day ago

That's alright and you aren't wrong in the sense that a lot of Sociology tries much harder to escape Marxism than it tries to invent anything new.

It's how you end up with the likes of "Game theory" Like look at this:

Source: https://napkinfinance.com/napkin/game-theory/

This is to replace Marx's theory of class. One of the many attempts.

So instead of thinking about what the worker wants we strip ourselves down to individuals.

Let's use this as an example to show why Game Theory is so nasty and return to Networking, what even is that? Well it's not friendships, it's relationships specifically with monetary incentive in mind. Under Game Theory these relationships are treated as a math problem. If you fall behind and it's better off to lay you off, you're off the hook. It doesn't matter, to the Capitalists, if it hurts social trust in the long run, the police is there to protect Capital.

I think we're at a point where bourgeoise have been sniffing their own farts for so long they might not be aware of the long term consequences and they've lost sense of their own capabilities. Otherwise it makes no sense how Iran still stands, that was not the plan.

[-] tradclasstruggle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Now this is an unexpected take, and granted you might be right, but I always understood the prisioner's dilema as a restricted view of relations between individuals at very similar status, or in this case of the same class in similar circumstances.

I did see an old Richard Dawkins documentary's about this many years ago, before we became a massive prick, and it did inform my view of this particular thought experiment. But I always took the tit-for-tat response to it, as an indicator of reasonable response to people on the level with you. Obviously, your manager/boss/etc will rarely give you a favourable answer, to begin with, or when it does it's with the prospect of getting something extra out of you, it's more of a prisioner-warden relationship.

[-] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago

I think you make a good point and I would further add that part of what this is getting into is that advice for jobs under capitalism has to be somewhat bullshit because capitalism is not actually built to employ everyone who wants/needs a job. It instead has artificial scarcity and a reserve labor force (I believe is the term?), which pits the working class against each other and toward scrabbling for survival.

As to the specifics of what works best, my perception of it from observation would be that it goes something like this, with the top being the strongest toward getting you a job and bottom being the weakest:

  • High level connections (e.g. nepotism type stuff where the connection is so powerful it overrides other priorities of an institution)
  • Average connections and proven skill (like from job history)
  • Average connections without proven skill
  • Skill without connections (on occasion, this one may win out if it's a really specialized field with few people who have the technical skill, e.g. where demand is so high and the quality of the work so important that they'll take most anyone as long as they can do the work)

Not "coming with" connections, such as from family or friends of family, and not being skilled at confidently reaching out to others and maintaining social ties (even if transactional ones), is probably one of the worst positions you can be in for employment under capitalism. There are other factors that can make it even worse like belonging to a marginalized group, but either way, capitalism is not in the business of humane policy surrounding work and labor, so the best you'll see under it is reforms and welfare stuff.

[-] tradclasstruggle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 12 hours ago

It's not humane, but then ironically they insist on forcing fake relationships onto the worker: "we're a family™️", great/informal work environment your manager pretending to be your buddy, forced corporate dinners, and so on.

Hell, I should know, me not aligning with their nepotistic cult-like (and I'm not exaggerating here) culture was a major contribution for me losing my last job.

this post was submitted on 16 May 2026
22 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1319 readers
59 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS