What? A left wing movement that uses the wrong name to make people understand what they truly mean? Really? Nah, that would never happen!
Adversaries to a movement will split hairs and redefine a movement anyways.
That’s all we are seeing here. Look at now they tried to frame Black Lived Matters, something quite clean cut.
BLM was a scam, a grift… that’s an undeniable fact.
What was achieved? Because what we witnessed was violence, theft and property destruction. If you deny this, you are willfully ignorant or a bold faced liar.
Oh and Malcolm X was right. More Black people should study Malcolm X and his message.
I distinctly remember Malcolm X saying the white moderate fucking sucks
Malcolm X saying the white liberals
Fixed.
They are kind of the same thing, no?
Classical liberalism and all that jazz.
Classical Liberalism is an economic philosophy.
It’s unrelated to sociopolitical liberalism.Bold of you to assume the two aren’t completely intertwined.
No. We suck at naming things. And communication in general.
“Black Lives Matter Too” would have been more clear.
“Replace the Police” would have been better also.Even mainstream Democrats suck at it. They should be shouting every day, how they’re taking on big corp’s, going after antitrust abuses and unpaid taxes; While refusing to audit anyone making less than $250,000. But instead they just keep saying some variation of “The economy’s great, stupid.”
“too” implies
a) they don’t matter yet
and
b) mattering is a new concept we should consider.
The statement is clear without modifier and requires no qualification, clarification or context: do black lives matter or not?
Or to take the inverse: under what circumstances do black lives not matter? If the answer is “there are none” then obviously black lives matter.
I’m not sure if you’re arguing for or against “too”.
Because yah, police specifically, and society generally, have been acting as though black lives don’t matter. And the slogan “black lives matter” was created to argue against that idea. But it was easily confusing. Hell I was immediately confused the first time I heard it, and actually thought “Well yah. All lives matter. What are they talking about?” It took me a good min or two to understand. But simply adding the “too” immediately clarifies that.
“Black lives matter” isn’t wrong. It’s just not immediately as clear as it could be.
You’re not wrong, I guess the biggest issue with it being misconstrued was by people who watch Fox news, but honestly Fox news was gonna find a way to spin it no matter what.
Law enforcement based on the Peelian principles is not a tennable thing. Sure, every US beat officer will learn it in training but they also learn the public is the enemy, which has been the way of things for over a century.
if we could imagine a new age of policing, it would involve much less enforcement and much more prevention, mostly disincentivising people from engaging in desperation crime. Heck, we might even end retributive sentencing for a more restorative system.
If we dropped our current law enforcement – the whole thing – and turned to investigating and intercepting elite deviance (white collar crime) we would save more lives, prevent more damage and more cost by orders of magnitude. Not that law enforcement actually does much to reduce crime.
They would have willfully misinterpreted both of those alternatives and convinced you they were poorly named anyways.
They may have willfully misrepresented, but couldn’t really have an excuse to mistakenly misinterpret them. That was our bad.
Is your argument that a genuine, good faith interpretation of “Black Lives Matter” is “Only Black Lives Matter”?
This isn’t how English works. If I say “I like your mom” to an SO, they wouldn’t interpret it as I don’t like them and instead like their mom. I don’t have to say “I like your mom too”.
It should have been called of course black lives matter then move on from the stupid race baiting movement and get back to living.
Anyone coming back with “all lives matter” proves the ease of confusion over the slogan.
My own immediate response to it was “Yah, of course they do. All lives matter. Why single out Black lives? The police shouldn’t be killing anyone.”
I’m not going to try mind read anyone else.
Why single out Black lives?
Isn’t that kind of the point of BLM?
People who go out and counter protest actively have given it more than a cursory thought. They know BLM isn’t advocating for white genocide (okay, most of them understand this. There are some literal nazis/skin heads/white nationalists in the counter protesting groups that believe in The Great Replacement, but they believed this prior to BLM existing).
Yet they still go out and counter protest. It’s not confusion at that point. You can’t go up to an all lives matter reactionary and say “Hey! Did you know BLM doesn’t actually want to murder all white people? Are you a fan of BLM now?” and actually expect any progress.
Leftists can name things appropriately. You just proved that. It’s the “moderate” “liberals” that run the DNC that have the issue. That’s just because they are desperately trying to to convince the right that “there won’t be any significant changes,” while still pandering to the center. They don’t care about the left except to make us shut up and sit down.
If people are trying to make you shut up and sit down then you’re probably the problem.
If that’s the case I’m proud to be a “problem,” and “inconvenience.”
Your time is up weirdo commie.
Compromise: be the king of Doritos but also have ample opportunity for a job that actually pays a living wage; and good insurance to coincide with said title
Maybe I missed the boat on why we do it this way, but I think one of the first things we need to do is decouple jobs from insurance. Not much sucks as bad as losing a job then simultaneously losing insurance (oh but cobra! No cobra is stupidly expensive for someone out of a job)
Wages would need to go up to cover what was lost, not to mention reaching a living wage, the pay still needs to cover cost of insurance. Also in that vein, our tax brackets need to rise, our current ones are outdated compared to inflation.
This soapbox goes on a ways, but that’s probably enough for now.
Fuck Cobra, and, also, hard agree. Healthcare should just…exist. Accessibly.
It’s weird how the name doesn’t break down to what it really means.
If only there was a word that meant forced labour that injured the worker.
OK, that’s what you’re against, but what are you for?
Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
It is not illegal. My wife works for an employee owned company.
If you truly believe that systemic critique is based merely on what is legally permissable and not based on systemic pressures and forces, then you need to do some reading.
I know people who work for employee owned companies right now and they are making a metric shit ton of money.
What most of the Tankies on Lemmy seem to want is to recreate the Soviets where the Government makes the decisions. That has never been anything but the easiest way to set up a dictatorship.
No, what socialists actually want is for this paradigm of worker ownership to be writ large across society.
And the reason for that is - it is no measure of comfort to be told “mice are well within their rights to enter the lion’s den”.
I can’t speak for everyone here but I’m fine with everyone making a shit ton of money at co-ops. Personally I couldn’t find one for my profession in my city. ☹️
Honest smiles. I’m sure exceptions are sure to exist, but for the majority. When I’ve even been adjacent to them, they’re pretty awesome. I don’t care if it’s a wedding between two wonderful ladies or my dad getting a Russian WW2 M1891. There’s that grin, half not believing, half awe, and half pure childish glee that really can’t be beat. I stand for everyone getting that at some time.
It’s gonna suck most of the time, and some people are gonna need a hand to get there, but damn, it’s worth it.
Very cool.
Very cool.
And you can convince a few dozen Ph.Ds to give your kid a university education in exchange for honest smiles considering they have mouths to feed?
You asked what I’m for, not whether it was practical. Lol
For whatever it’s worth, I’m on the same boat as you with the 1.5 smiles per smile: truly fantastic.
Mutual aid, free association, common ownership of the means of production, coalescing into a society where people contribute out of genuine gratitude to be part of it
That is totally legal right now. Have at it.
You’re not actually responding to my point, you’re just reacting
20
Yeah, but that interview on Fox News really killed the movement pretty hard lol
Why? An interview with any right wing idiot doesn’t dent their movement
Because their movement is idiots.
Because they lost all credibility that day
No, a jackass appeared on fox.
You gotta stop doing the propaganda for them, dude.
Yes I agree with that but what matters is how the people saw it. That jackass became the face of the movement, and with that face the movement could only die
Actually given the mass of ‘how to push back against bad bosses’ ‘workers rights explained’ ‘go fuck yourself employers’ et al across the net i’d say otherwise.
Genz is notoriously not putting up with bullshit.
So they lost an argument to Fox and fox are the idiots. Do you realize how stupid you sound?
Behave
It’s hard. I must reply to far left and far right views. Both are the problem.
Exactly! I have a genetic illness that caused congenital deformities and injuries and disability later in life, starting around my teens thanks to puberty.
From an early age my relationship with work was distorted because I found myself trapped in the gap between two pathways. I was obviously capable of work, with the right treatment and support I had a lot of potential. But I was disabled, and I required expensive supports and medical intervention, and under the public healthcare system there reaches a point of disability and limitations in capacity that you are written off by the system. Shoved in a residential group home, given a pension below the poverty line, and expected not to try. (genuinely, we’re expected not to try, if someone on a disability pension works a job, they can loose their pension, which is many cases is also tied to housing and access to medical services)
I’d flip between the two systems, I’d have a great few months with regular access to treatment, I’d get a job plan from the dole office, I’d sit through work readiness courses, I’d be getting healthier and looking forward to working and being a good little contributor to society. Then I’d hit a waiting list for my medical care, my health would slip, I’d be re-assessed by the welfare department and deemed too disabled to work, my job plan would be shredded and I’d get a pension support plan. Then I’d get to the top of the wait list, resume treatment, and get back to getting to work.
I didn’t start a “real job” until I was 24, it was a call centre gig and I near killed myself trying to do it.
It wasn’t even hard. It was a true 9-5 (no overtime, no bullshit) and you mentally didn’t need to bring any of it home with you. It was easy for me, but my body decided it was too much. My health suffered and it took years to fully recover, with me barely pulling myself together here and there for gig work in between being bounced on and off the disability pension system.
The whole endeavour was far more expensive to tax payers than a system like UBI. Processing my case 70 times because the disability support, and employment support eligibility requirements are so strict and the lines between streams so black and white took a lot of administrative resources.
I’ve been in my current industry for 10 years this November. I work part time, 12-20 hours a week depending on my health. I’m highly successful in my field because I’m working within my body and mind’s means and playing to my strengths. I’m a whole person with a life outside work and I bring that range of experiences to my job, enriching what I bring to my organisation - which is good, because my job is a mutual exchange between me and my employer, it’s not exploitive towards me the worker, which further prevents burn out for me.
But we exist within the capitalist system of funding and our wages are set by the department of health and human services. I make $34,000AUD a year and it’s not enough to survive.
But if I work any harder my body will not survive.
I’m asking to do what I can do for my community, while living a safe existence… Not being forced to choose between litteraly breaking my back working for someone else’s greedy profit, or starving in a tent (though realistically, a lot of people are doing both)
Kings fucking love doritos
Anti-work is anti-exploitation.
It’s not about people wanting to be lazy yet still have all the niceties, it’s about not being coerced into a lifetime of labor to enrich the ones coercing you. A person’s labor should enrich themselves and those they choose.
Anti-work is anti-exploitation.
Well, then why not call it anti-exploitation? That would clear up a whole lot of things.
I think that would cause a different confusion. I don’t know that this is a concept that can be expressed in a single existing word. Sometimes concepts take time before the right word arises. No sense blaming people for using the language available to them to express a novel idea.
It is tricky to make something both snappy and accurate. I think anti-JOB might have worked better, but it sounds like a sex strike, so don’t put me in charge of marketing.
So… anti-physical labor work?
Non-physical labour is also often incredibly stressful, stress has similar effect on both mental and physical health of people.
Hm… I can agree with that. Especially if working in a toxic environment. After all, when you’re negatively impacted mentally, it does have the effect of making you physically lethargic.
Not just lethargy really, chronic stress is really bad for your body. Also the symptoms make it more likely for people to not engage in good lifestyle choices like exercise and better food.
Once I saw a guy arguing for pure capitalism because otherwise the state would have to force people to work with threats of incarceration or whatever.
It’s like some sort of trolley problem delusion. It is fine shoving desperate people into whatever jobs they can get, but only if the Invisible Hand does it. It’s fine if the threat is homelessness and starvation, but only if the Invisible Hand does it.
I take issue with all the comments suggesting that the movement should be rebranding into “work reform”, because reforming is absolutely not the point. Speaking as someone who subscribes to the anti-work movement, my problem is not that much with current laboral laws and, in fact, I’d go as far as saying that all jobs I have had so far have been reasonably respectful with me except for maybe one.
My problem with that is that we consider normal that, in order to deserve leading a meaningful life, we must be working for someone richer or for the economy. Our life must be dedicated to constantly providing products and services so that we deserve to enjoy what little is left of it. In more concrete terms, I don’t like that we must get into wage labor in order to have access to fundamental goods such as food, water, housing, amenities or even free time. I believe all human beings living in a society capable of providing these are entitled to them, I also believe that our current society is perfectly capable of that, and that the only reason why the working class only gets conditional access or no access at all to fundamental goods are bullshit “number go up” reasons. I don’t buy for a second that homeless people deserve their status because “they didn’t work hard enough”. Wage labor being such a central axis of our current way of life is what I’m strongly opposed to.
Furthermore, I regard the power balance between employer and worker to be fundamentally broken, and no reform can do away with that. When you sign a contract and accept the terms of a job, are you really accepting them or just avoiding the alternative, the threat of homelessness? For a lot of people who can’t find jobs easily, not signing might mean starving or losing their home. How is that not coercion? Sure, if you don’t accept the terms of your current job, you can just look for another (even though this is not a reasonable posibility for a lot of people), but any job will offer as little pay with as many working hours as possible because, due to the lack of meaningful consent, all employers can get away with that. And we accept it as normal and reasonable.
I also don’t believe that abolishing wage labor will make people spend their whole lives not adding anything to society. If given enough free time, people will get bored of not doing anything and engage in work that they actually enjoy, of their own actual volition. I know I get involved into a lot of things given long enough vacations or subsidized unemployement. Now imagine if we just could get organized to find out what tasks need to be done, and each picked the tasks that they geniunely want to do, without being coerced. Without rich assholes and investors getting involved and often forcing us to work long hours on tasks that won’t add anything to the world, but they make money.
“Reforming” laboral laws is absolutely not enough for this. Sure, I’d appreciate a reduction in my working hours, an increase in my salary, more vacations, etc but even if those goals were met, I’d still be out there protesting for the reasons I’ve just stated. Work, as we understand it today, is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed without it being abolished first.
You may not agree with me, mind you, and have a more moderate position stating that work must not be abolished as it can be meaningfully reformed. But then you are subscribing to a different ideology altogether. Which is legitimate and can be argued for, but it does not match the ideology of the anti-work movement. Sure, under late capitalism, some short term goals may match, but the long term goals are entirely different. My point being, “work reform” would be a terrible rebranding for the movement because it stands for a different ideology entirely.
If I sort this community by top for the week, this is the top post.
The second post hilariously concludes “All work is degrading.”
Yeah no.
That is not what most here say when they talk about it. It’s immediately “working for a salary is slavery!” (Literally that I’ve been told literally dozens of times now here)
Everyone can agree with the second paragraph, most people here subscribe to the first paragraph, though.
Why the hell haven’t you guys shifted the movement name over to work reform after what happened on tv? It’s not helping
