The only reason mainstream media is talking about this is because the anti work "movement" is not radical and does not threaten capitalism in any way.
Instead of a discussion on the nature of capitalism and how worker exploitation is central to it, the subreddit talks about why employers ideas need to change.
Zero historical materialist analysis. If i was smarter I'd think this is another one of those 3 letter agency funded programs to control dissent.
No kind of economic system will tolerate a large percentage of people who do not desire to be productive. It threatens all working economic systems.
No kibbutz, no socialist, no communist, no laissez faire, no capitalist, etc. They all need productive people to do things.
How long would these people last as bushmen or pastoralists? Do they think others in the group will put up with unproductive people who otherwise are able bodied?
When a revolution happens the result is nothing more than change of the elites. Things need to get done, the management style can only affect the efficiency and sustainability. You can’t suddenly have a society where everyone is a theoretical physicist, for example. You can pretend to achieve it only if you can label the cooks outsiders.
The Only true change is when technology changes something.
There was non-stop railing against capitalism and pro-socialism cheerleading in that sub, so your conspiracy theory is a poor one.
The reason the sub is getting lots of coverage is because it has exploded over the last year, and because it manages to present its ideas in as poorly a light as possible.
Serious question is is pro-socialism for people to complain that billionaires keep getting property tax breaks while normal working people keep seeing their property taxes go up in part to fund them?
Anti capitalism and pro "socialism" aren't actually hard indicators of marxism, believe it or not. There has been so much political distortion that circles who use those terms are, more often than not, filled with liberals rather than marxists.
And often times that's what some of us call the synthetic left. Groups of so called leftists lead by think tanks, NGOs or even historically by intelligence agency agents whose sole purpose is to spread disinfo, deradicalize or confuse people all while using a radical aesthetic.
If I had to guess, I'd say that grousing probably came before structural analysis historically too. But we don't have archived reddit comments from historical workers movements, only the published works that followed lots of discussion.
Almost all media is owned and controlled by corporations. So obviously the media will always be on the side of the employers. No 3 letter agency required for that to happen.
> Zero historical materialist analysis. If i was smarter I'd think this is another one of those 3 letter agency funded programs to control dissent.
I think it's a bit much to consider Marxism some inevitable conclusion that all who consider the problems with society eventually will arrive at. That's whig history at best.
It, first of all, requires you to identify with and accept the notion of classes as an part of an ontological category with agency.
It's perfectly reasonable to say no, classes only appear to have human-like properties in the same way a the sun or a thundercloud appeared to be a god with thoughts and wants to people of the past. That is to say, they only exist as idea, within the infinite realm of ideas, and it doesn't even make sense to say they aren't real.
Is it perfectly reasonable to say that? If you have evidence I'd be more than willing to go through it.
Most people do not control production and even the small amount who do control production make their decisions according to their material interests (not evil or twisted morals). Those who do not control production must work for those who do in exchange of money. These two groups' economic interests as a whole contradict themselves even though they are locked into a social relationship. These relationships change based on the development of production.
This is the basis of social classes in marxism.
Its not just imagination. No other theory has explained the progression of society in such a complete way. Some just talk about ideas, others about the qualities of great men but none can profoundly explain progress on a material basis.
I've seen both sides of the coin while it seems you've only imagined flipping it.
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."
Instead of a discussion on the nature of capitalism and how worker exploitation is central to it, the subreddit talks about why employers ideas need to change.
Zero historical materialist analysis. If i was smarter I'd think this is another one of those 3 letter agency funded programs to control dissent.