this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
1084 points (97.6% liked)

Flippanarchy

2515 readers
292 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 50 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

So how does it work if I spend 10-20,000 hours in medical school and then spend three minutes setting your broken bone?

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 93 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Healthcare’s goal should not be to be profitable. The government should subsidize both the education and pay of medical staff for the wellbeing of their people.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Ok, now do any other form of higher education.

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 64 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ok, now disconnect the ability to live comfortably from one's labor value.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but that doesn’t answer the question.

I think you can draw a line somewhere between “everyone’s skills are equally valuable” and “billionaires should exist.”

This metaphor doesn’t address the time required to develop skills.

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The line I'm drawing is a wall between the value of your skills and the need to spend time using them just to afford to survive. Then if you choose to develop skills and use them for the benefit of others, it will be because you chose to and not because you felt you had no other choice. The time spent will be your own, for your own reasons and no one else's. Its value will be a value you hold, not relying on the value others perceive it to have.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That’s cool except what happens when there aren’t enough people who find 20,000 grueling hours in med school to be worth it when operating a water slide will give them the exact same lifestyle? How do we make more people want to be doctors? Or drive garbage trucks for that matter?

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are already people who spend years of effort getting less valuable positions. If it was purely about time/money spent, everyone would be competing for the most valuable jobs.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but how many people? How do you get more people to be janitors or roofers when you need more janitors or roofers?

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 6 points 5 days ago

Equally valuing a position also destigmatizes the role. There are countries with free post-secondary education that still have jobs at every position.

The same argument was made about the USSR, about a mechanic making as much as a doctor. They still had mechanics and doctors.

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We could decrease the demand for doctors and garbage collectors any time we want, but capitalism says maximum growth, maximum consumption. Getting rid of that system will change the demand for those social roles as much as the supply.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

decrease the demand for doctors and garbage collectors any time we want

By… getting less sick and having less garbage?

[–] SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well yeah. You think we get this sick and produce this much garbage naturally?

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I don't know why you're getting downvoted when you're right. Whole lobby groups exist for the right to keep polluting, food deserts exist, anti-vax groups have taken over american healthcare so measles and smallpox are coming back, some people don't think poor kids deserve a school lunch and there are multiple ongoing water crises caused by irresponsible capitalism.

Capitalism creates more demand on resources across the board, including healthcare. It also increases waste since resources aren't used to their full potential when it's not profitable, so yes, there are ways to reduce garbage.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why are you picking apart this simplification? OP is not suggesting we eliminate money, they are simply trying to showcase how fucked up billionaires are.

Are you here to defend billionaires?

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Because it’s a dumb oversimplification that doesn’t really add anything to the discussion.

“Imagine you need to work to make money, but some people have more money than they could have ever made working” works just as well and doesn’t introduce a bunch of society-breaking plot holes.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Your training increases the value of your labor power (the cost of reproducing your labor and what the value of wages tend towards) making your hourly wage larger. The meme is good agitprop but it isn't real marxian analysis.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I've played around with this idea, and the best solution I came up with was amortizing hours spent in training over the course of a career. If you spend 20,000 hours in med school, and you have a projected career of (40 years × 2,000 hours per year) 80,000 hours, one hour of your labor would have a value of 1.25 "unskilled" hours.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Yeah but that doesn't really work because it still treats all the hours as fundamentally equal which just isn't true. It may take someone 20000 hours to become a doctor with a particular skillset, but that doesn't mean ANY person can do that. Person X may never, regardless of investment of time, be able to obtain a mastery of that skillset. Moreover, for things like surgery you're talking about the stacking of hours for regular education, med school, specialty, residency, and then surgery. Each of these is a threshold that increasingly fewer people can cross.

It seems that reasonably the best thing to do is to award additional value based on scarcity and necessity of profession, but you might just back yourself back into capitalism I guess? At the end of the day I can dig a ditch but you can't fix your grandfather's heart so that amortization is not a very satisfying split.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

To be fair this isn't necessarily how socialism/communism works - it's just a good way to get people thinking about the insane disparity between the common person and the 1%.

Under socialism roles that are hard to fill either because they're hard/specialized or just undesirable can be certainly be compensated. It may not be directly monetarily, it could be earlier retirement, more time off, more desirable housing/location, etc.

And more realistically in a milder/earlier form of socialism different jobs could absolutely pay more. Maybe a doctor gets 5x what a grocery store stocker makes. (But housing/healthcare/etc is covered for both) That would still lead to a world exponentially more equitable than the one we live in.

I didn't say it was a particularly good solution. It's definitely more complicated than hour-for-hour.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It doesn't really matter for this point.

The point is that nobody earns ten million hours (1,140 constant years) of work ($1b @ $100/hr).

You can have a lot of leeway with ratios and that'll still never be true.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

You also get paid while studying. What a concept :O

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You did a whoopsy by picking health care as your example, but you’re spot-on. Our ability to develop new skills, learn from experience, and invent new ways of doing things is perhaps the distinguishing feature of human labor over mechanical processes.

This is a decent meme for the world of 15 years ago, but as algorithmic (and now AI) centric labor has taken over and turned us into “chickenized reverse centaurs” (as Cory Doctorow says), I think it accidentally makes the same case that the tech lords are making.

That is: output is output. Artists are valuable for the art they produce, not for being an embodied being in our shared space that specializes in looking at things from new angles. Coders are valuable for the finished software they produce, not for understanding the system in motion. Etc.

Edit: There’s a Marx quote I like…

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.