• Melllvar
    link
    English
    263 months ago

    While I agree with the sentiment, saying that it’s been hundreds of years in the making is just wrong. If anything, labor rights are at historic highs, and that’s been centuries in the making.

    • @naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      143 months ago

      both are correct. As long as their has been expropriation of labour there has been struggle for liberation, also enclosure and forced market participation has been a project of centuries.

      As in all things it’s push and pull. If you want to learn more read about enclosure of the Commons and at least the bits of Debt: the first 5000 years that deal with imposing currency.

    • @wowwoweowza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      133 months ago

      I often think of this famous line to remember that there’s been a whole lot of improvement: “he must a king, he doesn’t have shit all over him.”

      • @Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Technically feudalism is a separate system of resource extraction. Someone who owns the land basically just takes a percentage cut of your goods or earnings for being on their space and leaves you to do whatever you want as long as you survive .

        So arguably being something like a content creator on a platform or working for uber is closer to feudalism than capitalism.

        Capitalism is more the complicated system of landholders wanting to profit from selling, holding, leasing and developing land for profit as an investment good forcing people to perpetually earn to afford to live as individual family units.

        It’s a subtle distinction.

      • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -13 months ago

        Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top

        It doesn’t because the people with capital make decisions

        Christianity straight up opposes wealth, but it doesn’t play out that way because people with wealth make the decisions

        It’s the same for every system/ideology because a power vacuum will always be filled

        • @hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          33 months ago

          Capitalism is supposed to put the worker at the top

          No it isn’t. It’s supposed to put capital at the top. It’s right in the name!

          • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            It’s supposed to take money away from the owning class (lords) and give it to the working class (craftsmen)

            The idea is that no matter what you do, you are paid based on hours put into it

        • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          03 months ago

          You are assuming someone always has to be in power over someone else. Historically most communities where run without anyone in charge, but with direct democracies. It just became harder with bigger cities, because it was harder to communicate with everyone else. Perhaps we can change that with the Internet.

          • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Historically you are incorrect

            If you don’t put power over someone else then someone comes in and puts it over you

            The vehicle for change was just how easily that other person can get to you

            You can go back to bronze age kings to demonstrate how what you said was false in all of recorded history

            • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              03 months ago

              There is a good yt channel talking about egalitarian societies in prehistory called What is Politics

              • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                13 months ago

                If you want to go far enough back that we use theory

                Then we can say prehistoric nomadic humans still had fights with other clans and territorial disputes because our genetic ancestors (chimps/monkeys/apes) also have those

                And if you were there with a gun, would you be able to dominate them? If so then you are able to put power over people without a power structure

                • @olivebranch@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 months ago

                  Territorial disputes where only common after agriculture in humans, because territory wasn’t as important before as mutual aid.

                  • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    You can point to territorial disputes between non-agrarian humans to suggest otherwise

                    Hunting grounds and shelter were more important than mutual aid

                    You don’t even need to use humans, you can use other primates