Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
261–270 of 419 posts
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible Which ones?
Many indigenous cultures. The Iroquois native Americans might be one example. There was no notion that a minority got rich off the labor of others.
How can a system be both agrarian and strong enough to survive contact with non-agrarian systems? How do you stop 10 people from secretly working hard and producing an extra ration of gruel right under your commie nose?
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's communism that reduces one of the notable downsides of communism, the social loafing aspect, due to reliance on machines instead of your fellow man for productive effort(labor equivalent).
It's a little hand-wavey though. Who services the machines? Are the machines centralised in mass-manufacture-scales and products distributed (as they are now); or de-centralised but also less efficient (wrt manufacture and supply chain) as a result. What would the raw materials be, and how are they powered (given the carbon-crisis). I'd also ask what specifically are the essentials. Food? Shelter? ok. What about heal…
I did try to answer one of your questions: the machines are serviced by the members of the collective. In any plan for a society education must be considered. But much the same way that any halfway technical person can learn how to fix a 3D printer, these machines should be designed with repair in mind and along with open source designs there would be freely accessible repair guides.
Production should be somewhat decentralized so there should be many places manufacturing motors etc. but when it comes to putting the machines together I’d expect that different collectives would focus on certain machines and they would trade with people near them. Remember that you can always fall back on “people use money to exchange goods and services” I’m just imagining a model where that isn’t really the dominant way people manage their day to day survival.
I am not sure that decentralization is less efficient.
Getting the raw materials is one of the more serious questions. Generally falling back on non-automated things, firms should be cooperatively run. Also raw material consumption would arguably go down for westerners who move to this model, as there would be minimal waste and the machines would all be designed for repair.
Health care is to me essential but these things would vary from region to region based on cultural ideals and material conditions.
I am an engineer and I love to fix machines. I would rather spend my days fixing machines than working a corporate job to enrich a few executives. People who want to be Doctors or teachers often feel similarly. They need their material needs covered so they can do what they value most - helping others. I basically just think we can really streamline the whole production side of the economy and design things so everyone benefits and actually stops needing to work 40+ hours a week forever.
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This has worked in other human societies before so this should be possible Which ones?
Many indigenous cultures. The Iroquois native Americans might be one example. There was no notion that a minority got rich off the labor of others.
Northern Iroquois Slavery
https://www.jstor.org/stable/482790Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "capitalist propaganda". There's a reason humanity moved in this direction, away from feudalism and subsistence farming. It sucks. More people today enjoy a higher standard of living than even the wealthiest could have dreamt of in the time period discussed in this article. Your life does not hinge on a good growing season or getting mysteriously sick with no cure. You don't have to know how to hunt, forage,…
Literally this article is about how on several important metrics, we don't overall have a higher standard of living. People didn't move into the factories from the fields for the higher standard, they moved there because they never owned the fields, and the industrial revolution pushed them out with increased automation, so they moved to the only place that would employ them even though it was a step backwards in sta…
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a theory that we can eliminate 90% of the required labor in our economy with the following strategy: End “consumerism” behavior where every problem is perceived to have a solution in the form of a quick product you can buy - much of that is a psychological trick played by marketers and rarely solves the real problem. Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. Des…
>Take note of the goods and services we really need. Things like food, shelter, shoes, etc. I assume someone must be in charge of determining what products are essential and what products are frivolous consumerism. I assume you have someone in mind for the job. Yourself perhaps? I'm a big girl. I can make my own decisions on what is essential and what is frivolous in my own life.
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t a dig against you, but isn’t this just an idealized view of a communist society?
...and/or idealized socialism. i agree that consumerism is an issue, but the solution isn't 'end consumerism', as that's just completely unrealistic. it'd be more realistic to think of ways to redirect our esteem-giving activities toward people who produce real and essential goods, and the rest would balance out much better as a result. that's diametrically opposed to our corrent system of giving esteem to the wealth…
Seems like you want to take freedom of association away from the rest of humanity and put it into your own hands. It's hard for me to imagine a mentality that is more self-centered and more selfish than that.
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#268I would take a 10 hour day in almost any job in the 21st century over an 8-16 hour workday for a 14th century farm laborer mowing hay with a scythe or plowing behind a team of oxen. I get meal and rest breaks too, and even though they may get more days off than I do, what are they doing on those days off? Chopping wood? Thatching their roof? Hauling water from a well? The amount of labor done in a day by peasants in…
I'd take a 0 hour day in the 21st century over a 10 hour day in the 21st century...I genuinely don't get the point of your comment.
My point is that you can't compare the life of an ordinary worker today to the life of an ordinary worker in the distant past, because the kind of work being done is so different. Working more hours and days today is easier than working fewer hours and days in the past.
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Age difference is important here. Physical labor jobs will work better for young people than old.
Here I sit, at my local farmers market working a stall. Looking around at the farmers and how hard they work, I don’t know many young people that could keep up. Above a certain age and physical condition, maybe. But I know both men and women pushing late 50s that would put a lot of young people to shame.
Aside from that is the matter of physical characteristics. I am over 6 feet, naturally scrawny but bulky due to lots of strength training. There are many jobs in which I would not last because my body is not made for it.
One of the worst jobs I ever had was making concrete walls that would be shipped around the west to make big buildings. We were working at a windy area, which would sometimes blow the walls around when moving etc. People died every now and then when accidents happened and they would get crushed by a wall. It was cold and physically grueling, much of the workforce were illegal immigrants who would call in sick almost once per week. At one point a foreman told me how much he appreciated how much I showed up for work - I was calling in sick once per month because I couldn't take it.
There was guy there who had been doing the work for 20+ years, he was in astounding shape. He was probably 5 feet tall, extremely wiry, and could walk along a thin concrete wall hanging 20 feet up in the air by two chains without hesitation and if need be walk onto another wall, pick up a tool, turn around and walk onto the hanging one to do something. We would watch him in awe of his abilities. But of course he had done 20+ years of training for this, and had the body type that made him a perfect fit for the job. The other guys who had been there for 20 years worked as hard as him, but they were less well suited to the job than he was.
Re: Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's (1991)
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the opposite is the interesting factor here: late-stage capitalism has demonized the ‘grinding poverty’ and ‘unremitting hardship’ of these earlier ages, to keep our present-day noses to the life-destroying grindstone. Yet, no one chooses life of subsistence farmer if they are able to choose.
Really? Who has that choice available to them? I certainly don't - land tax necessitates profits (and $$$$$/acre to buy arable land in the first place!). The diggers and levelers certainly didn't seem interested in being forced off their land.
You can also join Amish communities, if you are religious.
You won't have access to pre-modern supply chain, but you are probably eligible for social security and foodstamps, so you can exchange them for new scythe or something like that.