this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
116 points (97.5% liked)

Socialism

6775 readers
171 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago

Many good answers here, but one also has to factor in that not all labour is socially necessary. With rising surplus value and extraction thereof, there follows also a rising inequality leading directly to more people becoming more or less servants of the capitalist class.

I would argue that labour of this type, whether that be managing contradictions arising from the capitalist mode of production or the placating of rich people's whims and needs, is not socially necessary. At the very least the product of this effort ranges from insignificant to detrimental for the proletariat.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It's generally true that technology improving actually increased work load for the working classes. Major concessions for leisure time came from active organization and resistance, as concessions to prevent revolt (especially when near the USSR, which was more advanced in social safety nets), or via imperialism, using the global south to subsidize the global north's living standards.

This is all true of capitalism, but of course technological development within socialism can and does serve the working classes. The advancement of technology is critical to reduce work load and increase living standards, and as such socialist society needs to place an immense amount of effort on the technological front.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

ever? Totally used to. Social movements fought for the 40h work week in the 19th and early 20th century in many countries. Then the post-WW2 era was defined by Keynesian economics, and economic growth in Western economies actually translated into higher wages.

Then came neoliberalism, peddled by fraud economists like Hayek and Friedman, enacted by politicians like Raegan and Thatcher. Unions were weakened, and the rich were free to appropriate all the productivity gains and growth.

I recommend reading "The Hidden Doctrine", short and easy book.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

The point they're making is that during the creation of the middle class and increase of leisure time, that wasn't because of technology or increased production. It was due to labor organization, and democratic efforts to restrain capitalism. Technology just made the profits so flagrant, it was easy to make the case that the state should regulate them.

[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 8 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Well it has, indirectly. Plenty of times, it has given politics and unions a basis for demanding those improvements. Looking back over the last century or so, conditions have improved, drastically.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago

Kind of. There's that, and also that imperialist countries have exported their greatest abuse to the periphery.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago

They have simply by virtue of the working conditions getting nuked from orbit during the industrial revolution. Testimony from pre-industrial times show that we're working ourselves to the bone in comparison (I'll take that instead of, you know, literal medieval living conditions, but still)

[–] a14o@feddit.org 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] inkblade@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Economists say that will kill the Global Economy.

[–] tae_glas@slrpnk.net 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Just to put credit back in here, without bringing more clicks to Twitter:

https://xcancel.com/orevazsn/status/2056666244300825043

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

JFC many of those responses don't pass the vibe check.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

no shade but I don't know what people expect from what's essentially "nazi facebook"