tiktoks-we-like:

(via conorthebarbarian-deactivated20)

owlygem:

These are so good!

(via flapper-queen)

eco-socialism:

left-reminders:

left-reminders:

abcoconut:

third-nature:

Ok, but yeah. I want to work more than 15 hours a week. I genuinely love the challenge with what I do. 15 seems, oddly tiny? Where did this number come from?

This is a good response to that question, in case anyone wanted the q&a paired together. 15 would be the social average — some people might work more, some less, but that would be up to them. This is also presupposing a change in the way the economy effectively functions, in the sense that 15 hours would be the social average for necessary labor, and after that point you’d probably see tons of people participating in “unnecessary” labor out of interest. There’s an idea in socialist theory that basically says once you reach a point far enough along after capitalism you’d just start seeing a blurring of the lines between what’s defined as “work” (or as “a job”) and what’s defined as “a collective activity”, especially with regard to the arts, science, etc.

At the very least, a transition towards (eco)socialism will require a vast shortening of the workweek and a reduction in overall advertising/consumption, whether that mean a 15-hour week or a 20-hour week. The main point is that people are overworked, we can meet everyone’s needs feasibly with less hours anyway, and the over-emphasis on extraction and accumulation (which is in part fueled by a tediously long workweek) is having disastrous effects on the planet. We can both accomodate the needs of the planet AND expand the political horizons for the great majority of the population, but it will require the fundamental defeat of capitalism and the establishment of a new ecological workers’ democracy. It’s a big project, but so worth it in the long run.

The 15-hour week presupposes a change in the economy first. Obviously capitalism requires long hours for people to survive, but in terms of pure stats it’s not necessary for society to be working that much. There’s enough resources for everyone, and so much work is pointless bullshit that only exists to line the pockets of the rich. The ecosocialist project demands a new way of looking at and distributing work. Get rid of the bullshit jobs, divvy up the necessary jobs, and we’d free up people’s time immensely to engage in pursuits they actually want to do to contribute to society.

Also, food and housing and such would be guaranteed in an ecosocialist society anyway, so it goes beyond simply reorganizing work. People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those will never be achieved for the great majority in a capitalist society.

These were really good additions so I wanted t add them onto the cumulative post

This assumes a reduction in consumption. Ok, how? The problem with (modifier)-socialism is it ignores human nature. People have different wants. They also have different work ethics. Someone mentions “why spend money on wasteful R&D on competing products when everyone can just make the best product they can.” I’m sorry, but that is naive. Compare the cars that the USSR was making to what GM, Ford, and Honda were pushing out in the 40′s-80′s. Are you saying that Ladas were the best possible cars that could be made? Japan, USA, and the USSR had access to the same technology and materials but Japan and the USA were making far more comfortable and reliable cars than Russia was. In short, Japan and the USA were making were the best possible cars that could be made because they had to sell. 

An example is given about making a washing machine that you don’t have to replace every 10 years. They already have a way to make appliances last. It’s called appliance repair. People who cannot afford a new appliance can pay for the repairs until the repair no longer makes financial sense.  Most people do not purchase something new because the old one breaks. They purchase something new because there is an improvement they deem significant enough to pay for. Compare a washing machine from 20 years ago to today and you will notice that they new ones use less water, electricity, and detergent. So while yes you would less inputs to produce a new washing machine you will not reduce the inputs needed to wash clothes. There’s no net gain. 

This also ignores economics. An example is given about a person who wants to be an entertainer not having to bother with working a lot. If that person wants to create content that people are going to want (that will be acceptable today) they are going to need a camera, computer, recording equipment and software, etc. All of which, under capitalism, have become cheaper and cheaper over time while quality has improved over time. Under a (modifier)-socialism government you would have the time to create but not the means. Because fewer pieces of equipment will be produced, the price will increase drastically. 

How (modifier)-socialism is still kicking around when we’ve seen poverty rates around the world decrease as more nations develop their capitalist economies. The communist manifesto describes full blown communism as the ultimate form of any of the (modifier)-socialism systems. Because anything besides full blown communism fails on it’s face. So no matter where you start, or the intentions, it  will always end up at communism. That shit does not work. The entire reason why the manifesto demands communism be embraced on a global scale is so that people have no choice except to embrace communism and it’s awful bounty. The manifesto also mandates a violent overthrow of the government because the entire system must be brought down in order to set the new system up. So if you’re good with millions of people dead then go ahead. But keep in mind that you might be one of them. 

Capitalism is not perfect. It never has been and anyone who says so is glossing over some really big flaws. But just because something has flaws doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

(via dooplissss)