It's handled efficiently as is evidenced by the never ending innovation and increased productivity. In fact, it is this very system that is producing the robots that you believe will lead to our salvation, yet for some reason you condemn it — Hanover

I don't see innovation as a feature of capitalism. People innovate regardless of the private ownership over the workplace.

You're speaking gibberish. The term "sacred" means nothing to you. It's a hollow concept that fools insert into sentences to create meaning where there is none. Unless you can tell me what is sacred, it seems a waste for me to explain why labor might be sacred. — Hanover

You have an odd habit of telling me what I believe.

Sacred is deserving of religious veneration. It's not so hard to draw out that labor is considered sacred when it is both part of existence and created by God. Did you not bring in the allusion of the Garden of Eden?

I don't think I'm being unfair in using the word. You'd be far from alone in thinking that labor is sacred.

These leisurely folks work much longer hours than the guys on the assembly line — Hanover

Perhaps when we consider white men living in the United States within unionized jobs with unions which are strong that is the case.

But even in the U.S. that's quite false. The 80 hour work week is far from unknown to the working class. The compensation which these people who somehow consider chairing meetings and delegating tasks as work, however, is quite unknown.

Our thirst for more things doesn't end when one task is completed, but we produce more things. — Hanover

Here we might have some agreement, actually. But I don't think that the unboundedness of human desire explains why people would work themselves to death.

And I've seen things that don't suck. That is to say, I'm dismissive of your anecdotes. — Hanover

I'd say that there is no science of this stuff. People try, but inevitably the metrics are just ways of restating the assumptions and positions which are based on anecdotes anyways, but hiding that fact.

Experience is not measurable in the same way mass is. But I assure you that my anecdotes are far from singular. You may not believe me, or find them to be of minor consequence from your experiences -- but dismissal is the sin I've been calling out this entire time, no?

...dreams... — Moliere

I hope I'm not too much of a wet blanket; I agree at heart with what you're saying. I think perhaps I am a little overwhelmed by disappointment at the current state of political discourse, and the plight of the working person. But I did go and sing in a choir at an event celebrating 500 years since Thomas More's Utopia, so maybe there's still hope in my heart :)

The term "sacred" means nothing to you. It's a hollow concept that fools insert into sentences to create meaning where there is none. — Hanover

I agree that "sacred" and other words are thought to add weight to airy sentences. However...

Luther thought ordinary work was sacred and holy.

[In Luther's time] The division between the laity and the professional priesthood was stark during this time period. The idea of the priesthood of all believers, prominent in the New Testament, became marginalized.

This was the historical context for Luther’s rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of work. Luther was one of the first theologians to spark renewed interest in reconnecting faith and everyday life. In his book How Then Should We Work? Hugh Whelchel writes that, "It was initially through Martin Luther’s efforts that the sixteenth century Reformers began to recover the biblical doctrine of work."

Lee Hardy summarizes Luther’s contribution to a more robust theology of vocation in his book, The Fabric of This World. According to Hardy, Luther expanded the idea of vocation to include: Domestic duties, civic duties, and employment. Luther then argued that everyday work is imbued with spiritual significance.

He wrote in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church that "…the works of monks and priests, however holy and arduous they may be, do not differ one whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic laborer in the field or the woman going about her household tasks…all works are measured before God by faith alone."

don't see innovation as a feature of capitalism. People innovate regardless of the private ownership over the workplace. — Moliere

Then you simply fail to see a key element of capitalism and why it's preferable over other systems. Financial incentivization is very effective. Robots are being created to do more work not to give humans an easier life, but to make the builders of them more wealthy.

Sacred is deserving of religious veneration. It's not so hard to draw out that labor is considered sacred when it is both part of existence and created by God. Did you not bring in the allusion of the Garden of Eden?

I don't think I'm being unfair in using the word. You'd be far from alone in thinking that labor is sacred — Moliere

I'm not suggesting that labor is not sacred, Puritan work ethic and all. What I'm saying is that your comment that labor is not sacred is a meaningless concept when uttered by you because you don't hold anything to be sacred. If I'm incorrect here, then give me a specific example of what you hold to be sacred.

The 80 hour work week is far from unknown to the working class. — Moliere

Very, very few working class people work 80 hour days (11 hour days 7 days a week). If you own your business, you might put in that kind of time. Certain doctors might end up working that much. Other than that, it just doesn't happen. You're just making stuff up.

But I don't think that the unboundedness of human desire explains why people would work themselves to death. — Moliere

A bit of hyperbole here? Jobs where people work themselves to death would include dangerous jobs and high stress jobs.

Experience is not measurable in the same way mass is. But I assure you that my anecdotes are far from singular. You may not believe me, or find them to be of minor consequence from your experiences -- but dismissal is the sin I've been calling out this entire time, no? — Moliere

I don't believe them, so I dismiss them, which isn't a sin. It's a reasonable response to your unfounded assertions.

Then you simply fail to see a key element of capitalism and why it's preferable over other systems. Financial incentivization is very effective. Robots are being created to do more work not to give humans an easier life, but to make the builders of them more wealthy. — Hanover

What capitalism offers to innovation is a dynamic society (during the boom times anyway). Bell Labs is proof that a government regulated monopoly can be a global leader in innovation. They had a captive market and labored under profit-caps.. so they weren't going to get any richer for innovating.

Bust times give rise to innovation in the creation of shanty towns.

Then you simply fail to see a key element of capitalism and why it's preferable over other systems. Financial incentivization is very effective. Robots are being created to do more work not to give humans an easier life, but to make the builders of them more wealthy. — Hanover

I think you overstate your own knowledge of human motivation, here. Financial incentivization is very effective at motivating people, I won't deny. But it's not really effective at motivating people to be innovative in the sense of novelty. People are already creative. There is pleasure in creativity.

What it is effective at is dulling people's sympathy, or assuaging people's pain.

I'm not suggesting that labor is not sacred, Puritan work ethic and all. What I'm saying is that your comment that labor is not sacred is a meaningless concept when uttered by you because you don't hold anything to be sacred. If I'm incorrect here, then give me a specific example of what you hold to be sacred. — Hanover

The working class. ;)

Art, knowledge, relationships with people, human needs, love, compassion. These aren't things that are up for negotiation. No argument could persuade me that these are not valuable. They are beyond reproach -- like God.

Though, I'd wager that "sacred" is not meaningless as a concept regardless if I am a sacrilegious person in general. In fact, if I hold nothing to be sacred, then it would follow, logically, that labor is included in that, as a part of everything.


As to the rest -- uh, it's like denying there's a computer I'm writing on. OK, cool.

It's an understandable sentiment, and no you're not bringing me down. I do that to myself enough already :P :D.

I still wouldn't defend utopianism myself. I don't consider my way of approaching politics utopian. But it was interesting to see a defense that seemed reasonable to me.

But. . . I mean, I just don't agree I guess. Socialism is an economic system where workplaces are publicly owned rather than privately owned. So just because you didn't have to buy something at work that doesn't mean that it's socialist. The workplace is a privately owned entity, where the rules are written and enforced by those who own it (or delegate that out to managers, as is often the case). — Moliere

I'm not saying that they are literally socialist, but if you converted some generic large corporation into a "nation", we would probably consider the economic system of that country to be essentially socialist. Workers have free access to the "means of production" and get benefits and central organization of a "state". Try to imagine you are setting up a company and tried to set it up as a mini-capitalist system. Employees can own office equipment and charge others for their use. You don't even mind if one employee owns all the equipment and a large number of employees sit around doing nothing because they can't afford to pay the other employees. Your company basically makes money by charging a fee to all your employees just for being employees of your company, based on how much they make, (taxes). (Actually it sounds more like Uber and AirBnB now). But the majority of companies consider consolidating company resources and not making employees compete with each other as the standard.

Caring is important, I wouldn't disagree. But the household is more of a benevolent dictatorship -- which some believe is how socialism must run, but I don't think that's true. It doesn't seem to me to be set in stone. — Moliere

I think there is a unwarranted tendency to mix up political and economic systems. You can have a socialist democracy, (Scandinavian countries), or socialist dictatorship, (former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia). There are also capitalist democracies, (Western Europe), and capitalist dictatorships, (Azerbaijan). The only difference is in who controls the distribution of resources. Either there is a "glorious leader", or people vote on it or assign representatives. It can be a benevolent dictatorship and a socialist system.

Just look at how hard-core capitalist emphasize competition and individual merit. If socialism is the "opposite" of capitalism, then it is because it emphasizes cooperation and relative equality within the community as a whole. Just the kind of morality usually associated with families and inside corporations between employees.

So though we might choose to share, and not turn a profit with every individual action we take, or view school (and push for schools) which are more than jobs training, I don't see any of that as taking away from the capitalist project where there are owners who write the rules, and workers who follow them. — Moliere

Just talk to a hard-core capitalist or (small-L) libertarian and they will paint a picture of how they wish there was less government interference, taxes and public support, then complain bitterly about how the trend is generally in the opposite direction. In US politics, this is the first time someone could run for a major party as a "socialist". A few decades ago, it would be unthinkable. If you look long-term over history, from feudal organization to the present, the trend is always further away from capitalism and more toward socialism. By definition, whatever the "conservatives" believe in is the past that is disappearing and "liberals" believe in the future that is gradually arriving. If the trend was toward greater capitalism and competition, conservatives would be against it and liberals would be its defenders.

The catch is the effects of limits of growth combined with global warming. These will likely lead to a world without work, but not in the way that most expect.

A guaranteed income sufficient for shelter, food, and basic health care would be great. A modern civilized society should be able to afford it, like it can afford infrastructure for transportation which enables all to travel, meet, and generate businesses, culture, intellectual life, sports, crafts, inventions, sciences etc.

A guaranteed income sufficient for shelter, food, and basic health care would be great. A modern civilized society should be able to afford it, like it can afford infrastructure for transportation which enables all to travel, meet, and generate businesses, culture, intellectual life, sports, crafts, inventions, sciences etc. — jkop

I wholeheartedly agree. I went to see Caroline Lucas, UK Green leader, speak this week. If only she were running the UK.

Even if work sucks, that doesn't mean that having no work will be better. Even the suckyest work place is likely the source of many people's vital social relationships. It's often the very suckyness of work that has bound people together. — Bitter Crank

This is forced circumstances of interaction. If people need to be forced through work to socialize and find meaning, perhaps the Human Project has more to worry about. If existential angst is so great that work situations are necessary in order to calm it, this is not saying much for existence itself.