this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
775 points (92.3% liked)
Antiwork
3651 readers
61 users here now
A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.
The new place for c/[email protected]
This server is no longer working, and we had to move.
Active stats from all instances
Subscribers: 2.1k
Date Created: June 21, 2023
Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads
Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.
- The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (1985) | listen
- On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber (2013) | listen
- In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell (1932) | listen
c/Antiwork Rules
Tap or click to expand
1. Server Main Rules
The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/
2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments
Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.
Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.
3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved
Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.
4. Educate don’t attack
No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.
If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.
5. No Advertising
Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service
6. No factually misleading information
Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.
7. Headlines
If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.
8. Staff Discretion
Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.
It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.
Other Communities
Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a larger issue of paltering within the previous statement in that it artificially limits the time span under scrutiny and to the headline famines (rather than sum totals) to railroad a specific political inference in service of an anti-collectivist meme.
I'm just trying to support cooperation with the idea of starting small with our friend who isn't ready to think big about it yet. I think people need to experience immersive demonstrations to understand the amplification power of cooperation.
That's certainly commendable but it ignores the power of easily repeated lies.
There is great value in earnest discussion. It, however, requires all sides to be ingenuous. If someone's opening gambit is calculated artifice then all you are doing is giving them soapbox from which to bend pliable minds to their regressive agenda. By all means try to draw them into open discussion but only within a framework of honest representation.
I'm not agreeing with op but for this meme it does make sense to limit the timeframe. Production and worldwide logistics have only recently given us the ability to feed everyone on earth reliably and consistently.
Two hundred years ago a surplus in Argentina couldn't easily be applied to a failed crop in Bangladesh. The world as a whole now produces more than enough food and we have the ability to transport it from anywhere to anywhere. We just don't do it. In the past hunger sometimes couldn't be avoided, now it could.
It's true that the transport system is much faster and reliable now than the 1840’s but you didn't need a Prime subscription to lift a famine. Transport back then was still fast enough.
The conditions that cause famines lasted multiple seasons/years and they didn't drop in over night either. Famine struck areas slide into scarcity slowly as the price of the cheapest food available rises above what is affordable by the poorest in that society.
In some areas, such as the Irish potato famine in the 1840’s, there was still a surplus of food being exported to markets that could afford it. Aid, when it eventually arrived in Ireland came from Britain, USA, Indian Ocean, France, Canada, West Indies, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, south America, Russia, Latin America, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Portugal and other British Dependencies. The world was much more connected back then than you may be aware.
Thank you for the links.
It does make sense to limit at least when there's socialist states if you want to compare capitalist states to socialist ones.
Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there's some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.
It just doesn't make sense to compate two completely different timeframes as-is.
On the contrary. There is no cognizant reason to limit the timeframe other than to bury relevant facts unfavorable to anti-left rhetoric.
I thought the point was to compare the two. Wouldn't make sense to give one a much longer timespan in the comparison.
That would only make sense if there was some tangible link between the occurance of famines and the passing of time. But there isn't really. There is to things like war, drought, flooding, epidemics, vermin infestation, mis-management, a country's degree of development etc etc. If you want to make some qualitative comparison between systems of government then use those not some superficial framing set to prejudice the outcome.
But when we're comparing occurrences numerically, of course time matters into it. In comparable time and preferably situations, how many occurrences you'd have.
Skewing the comparison by using two totally different time frames seems just weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result
Skewing the comparison by using totally different countries with totally different situations seems weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result.
Russia and China both had an unfortunate history of famines before any pesky revolutionairies popped their heads up. Examining a longer time period reveals this highly relevant fragility. Also the facts that both of these huge countries were badly underdeveloped at the time of their revolutions: And the period you wish to limit it to had both of the world wars and the extended periods of international instability associated with them: And both countries suffered invasions and other unusual external pressures over a long period of time. These are relevant factors.
Limiting the time frame for a comparison based solely on a summation of deaths is a leading, manipulation of the study of the phenomena of famines.
Preferably you actually would use the same countries and times, if you could. I'm not sure how you think comparisons usually work lol. You'd try to keep the comparison as similar as possible.
I'm sorry but I feel like you're trying to arrive at a certain conclusion rather than doing an honest comparison.
Limiting by time period and a crude summation of deaths is a dishonest framing for any discussion regarding how one political system may be more the catalyst for famine than another. It is basic correlation vs causation. By all means make a cognizant argument that shows how these limits can promote a fair comparison of the political factors that influence a countries descent into famine. I would like to hear something from you that amounts to more than some article of capitalist (bad) faith. I feel that you will struggle to do so because you are not interested in making an earnest effort to understand famine just in weaponising contrived stats.