this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
1075 points (94.1% liked)

Memes

45729 readers
1157 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 83 points 8 months ago (4 children)

If you think about the brutality of nature, which we are mostly isolated from, then yeah, organisms in general do have to earn their right to life through overcoming and eating other organisms.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Which was the point of civilization. To isolate us from that hell.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Even in a civilization someone has to produce food so you'll survive. Civilization doesn't mean no one has to work.

If you do no work but because of civilization you still have food to eat, it means someone else is working to earn your living for you.

This bizarre meme implies work has no value, and was likely made by a wealthy university socialist that had everything paid for by their parents so doesn't understand the value of work.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago (14 children)

This meme does not state no one needs to work. It states you don't need to earn your place among the living. You've already done so by virtue of being born. I think that is a noble goal for a society to uphold. Higher ideals are, of course, what separates us from the realm of animal urges. Once you begin to mix laws of the jungle back into society the point of our isolation from it is subverted. If we truly are the greatest Earth has to offer, surely we can figure so.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 8 months ago

The nice thing about the society is that we don't need to give a shit about that

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 54 points 8 months ago (3 children)

We're always told the people at the bottom rung of society, the people doing "entry level" jobs just need to work harder and harder to earn a proper living...

But how does that work really? Unlike a lot of high level jobs, none of these jobs just exist for the sake of existing, most of these "entry level" jobs are essential to society (we saw that much during the pandemic).

Somebody has to do them or society just doesn't work, so don't the people doing these literally essential jobs deserve to be paid a fair living wage? They're working just as hard as the people above them, yet they're paid peanuts in comparison

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I would say most of them are working harder than the people above them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 47 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I said this on Reddit and they agreed that you don't deserve to be alive if you're not working, it's really a disease of the mind to believe this shit.

[–] Darkenfolk@dormi.zone 55 points 8 months ago

I mean it does make sense if you keep in mind that we traded having to hunt and forage for a system that let's you buy these things indirectly with currency.

You just need to leave out the whole thing of empathy and morality and reduce the whole system to a exchange of goods and services for money.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (6 children)

There is a difference between believing everyone owes a debt to the society and civilization you participate in to support those who cannot support themselves, and not deserving to live if you didn't fit into the rigid hierarchy structures we've built for work. But often these sentiments get mixed together.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s more like you haven’t earned the right for other people to do the work of keeping you alive.

Human life requires work to sustain. Someone has to do that work. The most fair system is one in which that responsibility falls on the person benefitting from it.

ie, to be alive, you must contribute work. Because your life requires work to maintain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

"Earning a living" doesn't state that people should die if the choose to be a grifter or a thief or some other dishonest person that takes from others and doesn't contribute to society. It just means those people didn't earn their living.

In a functional society everyone should contribute to better the society. "Earning a living" is a statement of pride in contributing to society value equal to or greater than the value you get from it. If someone is making a living through dishonest means so isn't earning a living, it can be something they should be ashamed of

Note that socialist societies have similar expressions like "from each according to their ability to each according to their need". The intent is the same, encourage people to contribute to society. What if I don't contribute according to my ability and just want to take what I need? Does that statement imply I'll be sent to a gulag if I don't contribute according to my ability? OMG socialism says I don't deserve to live!!!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago

I'm pro unconditional basic income, but I would argue that it's more about you having to make sure you have everything you need yourself. No one would say to someone who lives completely self-sufficient that he needs "to earn a living".

[–] cosecantphi@hexbear.net 32 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (27 children)

Talking to someone who justifies this kinda shit is always a trip. They'll say that people who aren't earning a living wage just need to work harder and pick up a marketable skill to improve their situation. But you can simultaneously get them to agree that many of these low wage "unskilled" jobs need to exist for society to continue functioning, so which fucking is it?

The answer is that the capitalist parasites and their horde of boot lickers believe it's totally acceptable for there to exist an underclass of human beings born to work until their bodies give out for the enrichment of their superior employer.

They can't afford to live a dignified life doing the shit I need them to do? That's fine, just toss 'em into the hole when they stop working and replace them with the next generation.

Honestly man, I'm getting real sick and tired of pretending to be above violent retribution when it comes to these people. My blood fucking boils each and every time I need to look my boss in the eye and pretend to smile as they say farcical shit like "we're all a family here" or "let us know if there's anything you need" while paying me exactly the minimum wage and hiring the exact number of employees it takes for them to avoid giving any of us enough hours to qualify for benefits.

Anyway, Stalin had the right idea with gulags, and we should bring those back. Thanks for coming to my TED talk

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 31 points 8 months ago

This is where the idea of "personal responsibility" is useful for liberals. Flatly admitting that they want a desperate underclass is too mask off for them to feel like good people so they invent a way of blaming individual victims rather than the economic system.

The poor has a theoretical opportunity to pull themselves up by the bootstraps so when they don't do that it's really their own fault. Of course that theoretical opportunity doesn't translate into actual opportunity for most people but that's fine, as there's enough window dressing of meritocracy to make the opportunity look real if you are careful not to go into too much detail.

This is also the reason why liberals hate discussing real-world examples. Their logic only works in abstract thought experiments where they get to control the variables. Saying that everyone has the opportunity to succeed is a lot easier than saying that Bob, who has a set of very concrete and undeniable material conditions, has the opportunity succeed.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Conyak@lemmy.tf 29 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

That is 100% true in a capitalist society. You are measured by your ability to produce.

Edit: Apparently this needs some clarification. You are measured by your ability to produce for your owner.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's also true in the woods, if you don't do anything useful you'll just die.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 29 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I mean if you think about it, the default of humanity is to die of thirst assuming we were to do nothing so 'earning a living' is just a realistic expectation for any society.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (11 children)

If able, you should provide enough to society to make it worth meeting your basic needs. They give you food, water, shelter, you give them back enough to compensate them for that effort.

At its root, this is what cash should be, a measure of what society owes you. You make other people's lives X much better, and they do the same for you.

We should really be trying harder to get cash to meet this goal. A person making 60k a year for 45 years is $2.7 million dollars. You can buy a person's lifetime of effort for $2.7 million.

Bill Gates is worth $131 billion. That's the lifetime effort of 48,500 people. He hasn't improved our lives that much. Something is clearly out of sorts. There's nothing one person can do to deserve the lifetime effort of a thousand people.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Actually, "earning a living" is an example of an idiom, and it is not meant to be interpreted literally. It just means aquiring the income necessary to pay for the basic expenses of modern life. You may also notice that people rarely find themselves inside of pickles or with butterflies in their stomachs, but before you get angry that someone is suggesting you should break your leg, remember that figurative speech is fairly common.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 18 points 8 months ago

Thank you Mr. Skeletor. It is important to get the occasional outside perspective on living from an undead evil villain. Nyeh.

[–] Coldgoron@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Epicmulch@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago (25 children)

You need to consume to live. This means you need to manipulate your surroundings in order to survive. So you need to work to have your basic needs meet. You don't just get to live with zero effort.

[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is the natural order, yet paraplegics live, why? Because we live in a society that attempts to circumvent the natural order in many ways, for the good of all.

You should take a broader materialistic look on society, who does the work (the working class), who benefits from the work (the owner class), and instead of focusing on amping up people to devote their lives to serve the interests of capital, instead focus to reframe the goals of society to serve the interests of workers, which includes working less, or even not at all. Work is not labor.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Youths of today discovering idioms of yesteryear going, "mm technically, this implies..." as if that wasn't the obvious, intended implication to begin with.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And yet we get born. Motherfuckers!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›