Microblog Memes

As long as we're shooting for the moon what say you and me and the mates at work all decide together how much, and how often, and even what we produce?

It's incredible what a huge difference it make to one's health/mood/etc., having a healthy work/life balance. I think the world would overall be a less angry, spiteful place, if we all worked 4-day, 35-hour work weeks.

Humans were never meant to work 60, 70 hours per week, that's just insane and stupid. What's worse are the people who will brag to you about it. That's how ingrained it is into our culture.

Maybe it's just because I don't loathe the thought of going home to my family? It seems like a lot of those toxic work culture people are doing it for reasons like that?

In the case of capitalism, we are actually speaking about coercion, though. The concept of "primitive accumulation" (or "primary accumulation"), as introduced by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy, refers to the historical process that led to the formation of capitalism by separating the producer from the means of production. This separation is what ultimately pushed people into the capitalist labor market, making them dependent on selling their labor to survive. The coercive forces that pressured people into capitalism and the labor market can be understood through several key mechanisms:

1. Enclosure of the Commons: In England and elsewhere in Europe, land that was previously held in common for collective use by peasants was enclosed, privatized, and turned into private property. This process forced many peasants off the land, depriving them of their traditional means of subsistence and making them dependent on wage labor.

2. Colonialism and Slavery: The expansion of European powers into the Americas, Africa, and Asia involved the appropriation of land and resources, often through violent means. Indigenous peoples were displaced or enslaved, and their resources were extracted for the benefit of European capitalist economies. This not only facilitated the accumulation of capital but also integrated various regions into the global capitalist system.

3. Legislation: Laws and regulations played a crucial role in this process. For example, the series of laws known as the "Poor Laws" in England were designed to coerce the unemployed and poor into working for wages. These laws restricted the movement of labor and made it illegal to refuse work, effectively pushing people into the labor market.

4. Destruction of Alternative Economies: Pre-capitalist forms of production and exchange, such as feudalism, communal living, or barter systems, were systematically destroyed or undermined. This was not only through direct coercion but also through economic policies and practices that favored capitalist modes of production and exchange.

5. Industrial Revolution: The technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution created a demand for labor in factories. The rural populations, already dispossessed by the enclosure movements, migrated to urban centers in search of work, further entrenching the wage labor system.

Marx argued that primitive accumulation was not a one-time historical event but an ongoing process that sustains capitalism. It involves continuous dislocation and dispossession to maintain a labor force that has no other choice but to sell its labor power. This process ensures a supply of workers for the capitalist system and maintains the conditions necessary for capital accumulation.

In essence, the transition to capitalism, fueled by these coercive forces, created a society where the majority must sell their labor to a minority who owns the means of production, thereby establishing the capitalist labor market and perpetuating the cycle of capital accumulation.

If we were hunter/gatherers, we would have no choice but to hunt and gather for food.

The argument is not that people are forced to labor, but that people are forced to labor on behalf of others. Which is to say, its the difference between a Hunter/Gatherer living off the land and a King's Huntsman, who is distinguished from a Poacher, in that he has duties and privileges assigned to him by another guy.

You can say there is bad stuff about Capitalism, and better ideas or systems we should do instead, without this coercion claim.

The nature of the Capitalist system is to lay claim to physical property with some threat of violence. It is inherently a dictatorial system, in which a handful of people are afforded the right to claim surplus to sustain and enrich themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

The "bad stuff" is what makes Capitalism a system at all. It is - to crib a joke from Monty Python - the violence that is inherent within the system. If you don't pay your dues to the King, he gets to beat them out of you.

How can you even discuss Capitalism without talking about this innate coercive mechanic?

It only tracks because you can't get consent from nature. You could have gotten consent from fellow humans. The humans who put this structure in place were people that could be negotiated with and spoken to. Not some blind force.

both are correct. As long as their has been expropriation of labour there has been struggle for liberation, also enclosure and forced market participation has been a project of centuries.

As in all things it's push and pull. If you want to learn more read about enclosure of the Commons and at least the bits of Debt: the first 5000 years that deal with imposing currency.

I often think of this famous line to remember that there’s been a whole lot of improvement: “he must a king, he doesn’t have shit all over him.”

Humans have always used violence if someone takes more than they contribute.

In the grand scheme of things, using violence against those who take more than they contribute (i.e., the upper class) is one of the things we do least often.

I'd say violence is much more often used by people to take more than they contribute than the converse. Violence against the takers is so rare they write about it in history books.

To distinguish between Humans and Human Capital.

Are you saying the poor should kill the existing land owners so they can colonize Pennsylvania?

Who's ancestors got large areas of free or cheap land when they came to the United States. They also work regular jobs in their communities.

Are you suggesting the Amish don't participate in the labor market?