They have no value to capitalism other than raw, unskilled, undifferentiated labour and consumption. They are nothing but the grease that gets mashed into the gears of the machine.
I think humans are worth more than that, and OP’s framing.
Please read the post. It says no job, no education. Person likely has mental illnesses, this is not about economics. The situation is political, sure, but this is not the best place to unionise.
They are nothing but the grease that gets mashed into the gears of the machine.
You must be either the servant or the master, the hammer or the anvil.
Surely there was no reason to hide the argument that servants and masters are a necessity in advancement of the point you’re outsourcing to someone that died over 300 years ago in defence today’s economic structure?
We don’t heed the works of Karl Marx though do we? Even if you are that way politically inclined it’s called Postmarxist now. Because Karl Marks was frankly insane.
It’s the same reason we don’t really pay much attention to anything that Sigmund Freud came up with. All of it has either being subsequently discredited, or was never really taken seriously to begin with.
Noone was citing those figures, but Marx saw the industrial revolution, at least. We take what’s relevant, and dismiss what isn’t - implying Voltaire was smart, so we should uncritically agree with everything he wrote is unhinged.
Would you rather defend the necessity of the master/servant model, or concede that the argument you outsourced is irrelevant pre-industrial nonsense?
No, this banned from dating apps, which means at best misogynist, at worst rapist, trash of a 30-something year old man is worthless. Babies are precious, what on earth motivated you to make that comparison?
So someone’s worth is defined by their adherence to Tinder’s TOS? This is all you’re basing this assessment on?
Shall we put autists in camps for missing social cues and making people feel uncomfortable too?
Maybe they’re mysoginistic, maybe they’re a rapist… or maybe they’re awkward, and had shit opportunities/parents - you can’t know, and to rush to write them off like that seems pretty bloodthirsty.
You’ll suffer nicely for the sake of shareholder profits.
This person is not even among the unemployed reservation, so how is this about capitalism?
They have no value to capitalism other than raw, unskilled, undifferentiated labour and consumption. They are nothing but the grease that gets mashed into the gears of the machine.
I think humans are worth more than that, and OP’s framing.
Please read the post. It says no job, no education. Person likely has mental illnesses, this is not about economics. The situation is political, sure, but this is not the best place to unionise.
Ok, poet.
Do you image that a comfortable existence for those that you assume are mentally ill isn’t gated behind economic decisions?
Who is talking about unions?
As Voltaire once said: You’re either the hammer or the anvil.
The full quote is
Surely there was no reason to hide the argument that servants and masters are a necessity in advancement of the point you’re outsourcing to someone that died over 300 years ago in defence today’s economic structure?
We still heed the advices of Adam Smith, Henry George, Karl Marx, etc. What’s so different about an Enlightenment writer?
We don’t heed the works of Karl Marx though do we? Even if you are that way politically inclined it’s called Postmarxist now. Because Karl Marks was frankly insane.
It’s the same reason we don’t really pay much attention to anything that Sigmund Freud came up with. All of it has either being subsequently discredited, or was never really taken seriously to begin with.
Noone was citing those figures, but Marx saw the industrial revolution, at least. We take what’s relevant, and dismiss what isn’t - implying Voltaire was smart, so we should uncritically agree with everything he wrote is unhinged.
Would you rather defend the necessity of the master/servant model, or concede that the argument you outsourced is irrelevant pre-industrial nonsense?
They have no value period. This is not one to defend.
People have no value beyond what the market dictates?
This baby is crawling in front of me? No value, no point in stepping around it - Guess I’ll stomp its skull into the pavement.
This is deeply unhinged, and you should be institutionalised before you kill people.
No, this banned from dating apps, which means at best misogynist, at worst rapist, trash of a 30-something year old man is worthless. Babies are precious, what on earth motivated you to make that comparison?
So someone’s worth is defined by their adherence to Tinder’s TOS? This is all you’re basing this assessment on?
Shall we put autists in camps for missing social cues and making people feel uncomfortable too?
Maybe they’re mysoginistic, maybe they’re a rapist… or maybe they’re awkward, and had shit opportunities/parents - you can’t know, and to rush to write them off like that seems pretty bloodthirsty.
Nice strawman argument but this guy is a loses loser. All the basement dwellers look down on him and say oh look at him he’s pathetic.
It’s not capitalism’s fault that this guy can’t get his life in order.
It literally doesn’t even matter; he’s looking for sympathy and support which he has the right to seek out regardless of who is responsible.
So you can choose to quibble over who should bear the blame for his problems or you can console him like you’re supposed to be doing.
They can’t deliver value in this system, so they have no worth, and should suffer and starve to death?
Access to socialised education and housing seems like it would give them the opportunity to be of more value to society, no?
I’m willing to bet he does have access to socialized education since every western has socialized education.
This is Lemmy. Everything is capitalism’s fault.
How are shareholders making money off an alcoholic NEET? Apart from him buying the cheapest possible booze they can get their hands on, obviously.
They get labour at poverty rates under threat of homelessness and starvation, and a hungry mouth to create (limited) demand for goods.