zlacker

[return to "The Who Cares Era"]
1. 0_____+U5[view] [source] 2025-05-28 13:44:58
>>NotInO+(OP)
I was just kvetching about this to my partner over breakfast. Not exactly, but a parallel observation, that a lot of people are just kind of shit at their jobs.

The utility tech who turned my tiny gas leak into a larger gas leak and left.

The buildings around me that take the better part of a decade to build (really? A parking garage takes six years?)

Cops who have decided it's their job to do as little as possible.

Where I live, it seems like half the streets don't have street signs (this isn't a backwater where you'd expect this, it's Boston).

I made acquaintance to a city worker who, to her non-professional friends, is very proud that she takes home a salary for about two hours of work per day following up with contractors, then heading to the gym and making social plans.

There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

◧◩
2. sp0rk+ic[view] [source] 2025-05-28 14:28:05
>>0_____+U5
> There's a culture of indifference, an embrace of mediocrity. I don't think it's new, but I do think perhaps AI has given the lazy and prideless an even lower energy route to... I'm not sure. What is the goal?

I think pride in work has declined a lot (at least in the US) because so many large employers have shown that they aren't even willing to pretend to care about their employees. It's difficult to take pride in work done for an employee that you aren't proud of, or actively dislike.

◧◩◪
3. saubei+dm[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:22:55
>>sp0rk+ic
The solution to this is worker's self-management, an economic model that was pioneered by Yugoslavia, but has mostly disappeared with its dismantlement.

Any company with more than five employees had to be run as a worker-run coop. The board and execs were elected by the workers. Companies still competed on the market.

This would solve for the problem of alienation while still having an environment of competition.

◧◩◪◨
4. Walter+Lm[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:25:17
>>saubei+dm
Was Yugoslavia an economic powerhouse?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. layer8+No[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:35:21
>>Walter+Lm
Do we need economic powerhouses to live well?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Walter+Oq[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:46:34
>>layer8+No
Yes. Or would you prefer working dawn to dusk picking bugs off of your crops, with the constant spectre of crop failure and famine?

Do you prefer living in a mud hut to a house with air conditioning, central heat, hot and cold running water, electric lighting and flush toilets? All courtesy of economic powerhouses.

Maybe you'd prefer spending your free time spinning thread with your spinning wheel, making cloth, and sewing all your clothes? (The first industrial target was textiles.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. saubei+Rs[view] [source] 2025-05-28 15:55:39
>>Walter+Oq
Do you think that was the lifestyle in Yugoslavia? And their heyday was half a century ago at this point. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Nobody's gonna live in a mud hut using a spinning wheel just because workers run companies.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. Ray20+va1[view] [source] 2025-05-28 19:58:29
>>saubei+Rs
>Nobody's gonna live in a mud hut using a spinning wheel just because workers run companies.

That exactly what will happen. In the best case, if you lacky enough, you will be live in a mud hut. The rest will envy those who can afford to live in a mud hut.

Workers can start running companies at any time, no one restricts them from running their companies. The only reason they don't do this is that this will be worse for workers.

So you are being hypocritical. You don't want workers to run companies (they can do that now), you want workers to have no alternative.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. saubei+Ab1[view] [source] 2025-05-28 20:05:49
>>Ray20+va1
[flagged]
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. Ray20+lh1[view] [source] 2025-05-28 20:51:35
>>saubei+Ab1
>they lack the capital

This is absolutely not true. In absolute numbers, the cost of starting a business is quite low, and workers have a lot of money, much more than their employers. And if workers collectively stop spending their salaries on unnecessary things, and instead organize a fund - on average, in 2 years they will have enough money to buy out the entire company they work for, or organize a comparable one.

There are no problems with capitalism, capitalism just allows you not to do all of this, not to suffer 2 years of poverty for the sake of living in a mud hut (if you're lucky enough).

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. trinix+Jp1[view] [source] 2025-05-28 22:03:47
>>Ray20+lh1
You’re roughly describing the whole point of Yugoslavia’s workers’ self-management. This is in contrast to what the Eastern Bloc had with the government establishing and running the factories directly. Also in contrast to the capitalist system where someone with enough capital establishes and runs the factory themselves while employing the workers.

And no, you didn’t have to live in a mud hut for it. In fact, it was more affordable for the regular worker to build a house than it is now. Those houses were/are comparable to what you see in Germany today. Go check out the real estate market in Slovenia if you don’t believe me, look for houses built 1950-1990.

[go to top]