Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
I don't hate my job. I also don't care for capitalism.
Neither of these are why I don't like Mondays.
I work in IT support, and Mondays are always one of the busiest days of the week.
It's like y'all just save up all your IT problems to submit them as critical issues at 8AM on Monday because you like to watch me suffer. If your shit breaks on a Sunday or Friday, or whatever, please, for the love of God, don't wait until Monday to put in a ticket.
You're killing me here.
I too work in IT support and this is so true... But I do hate capitalism.
You might be talking about me here, but I drive a lot of sales and keep us going.
Tell me where to send the donuts, I got you guys covered.
Idk... I don't even work on Monday and I still hate it.
This is dumb. I've had jobs I love, and jobs I hate. When I hate Mondays, there's something I dislike about my job at the time.
Also, it's natural to dislike the day back to work after time off, assuming you've got a lot of work to do.
Also, it's the job you hate, not the economic system. People living in a feudal society also hated Mondays, the difference being that they hated Saturdays too because they worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. They even worked on Sundays, but it was just a lighter form of work -- mending garments instead of plowing fields.
Until the Replicator makes the world post-scarcity, some work is going to be inevitable, so there will be days of working, and days of no work. The first day back after a break will always be annoying.
We don't hate "capitalism."
We hate being farking exploited.
Tomato Tomato
Garfield
"Mondays are fine. Its your job that sucks"
Alternative version
Thats like saying you dont hate feudalism you just hate your feudal lord
Which I mean could’ve been a valid thing to say. If you felt your feudal lord and was fair and all that. Ofc the problem is the fuck all you could do if they weren’t
People will also say "benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government" without a hint of irony. ._.
Yes and no.
I absolutely hate capitalism.
But i also hate mondays so bad i have gone out of my way to find a work structure allowing me to skip mondays every week.
Now Tuesday is my monday and while i dont hate Tuesday itself and i no longer hate the day that used to be monday i do hate the Monday part of my Tuesday because capitalism is still dictating my work hours and i hate it.
would the popular conception of mondays, ie. the start of an oppressive five day work week still exist if capitalism is abolished?
I guess it depends on what alternatives are sprung up in its place.
If capitalism is abolished, we're most likely going to be forced back to Feudalism. Mondays in Feudalism last 12+ hours and the work week continues until Saturday night.
I can only speak for myself that i am very motivated to work for the sake of growing humanity as long as my primary needs are unconditionally met.
The work week would be gone for me and personal/work projects would blend more into one. There will be weeks where i am working around the clock to Finnish a project because i am passionate about them. And weeks where i just lay in bed because i feel off.
Each according to their needs and abilities. The best coworker is a motivated and mentally healthy one.
Capitalism is when you rolls dice Garfield.
Capitalism is when iPhone in sick on Mondays.
in all capitals too. nice
Can someone educate me on this one? I understand people hate their jobs and would rather be doing something else, and maybe under socialism there are more opportunities to do stuff you enjoy, but there still is work to be done. Would the work not still have start times and end times throughout the week?
Like, ditch the shitty corporate job and make art or something fulfilling. But you'll still have to go to work on Monday? (Okay, maybe art is a bad example because that would be more contract based and you'd work as needed, but the question still stands)
When someone profits from your labor, it's in their interests to make sure that you labor as much as possible.
In a politically and economically egalitarian society, not only do you need to work fewer hours to meet your basic needs, but society as a whole will be much more interested in "the asymptotic abolition of work", through investment in automation technology and other means.
Under capitalism there is significant conflict over automation (see the current discourse over AI, for example), since the benefits go primarily to the capitalists, who are willing to let everyone else starve if they can get away with it.
In a politically and economically egalitarian society
So, in a fantasy? It's nice in theory, but such a society has never existed, and probably will never exist until humans are no longer recognizable as humans.
Doesn't need to be perfect, just needs to be better.
If you just want better, why not just aim for well regulated capitalism? That's better than badly regulated capitalism, and it's much easier to achieve than a brand new political and economic system that has yet to be tried.
Sure, let's "regulate" capitalism by outlawing absentee ownership of land and capital.
I would say that wouldn't be capitalism anymore, but you can call it what you want.
It still sounds like capitalism to me. It's just more traditional capitalism. I'm pretty sure that the first mechanical looms were in factories where the owner was actually present in the factory, trying to make sure the machines kept working.
I'd even argue that ownership of land isn't really capitalism anyhow, it's more similar to feudalism. Capitalism involves buying capital and using that to transform raw materials into a finished product that can be sold at a profit. Feudalism involves charging someone rent for occupying land you own. Capitalism involves competing with other capitalists for more efficient processes, more cost-effective machines, and so-on. Landlords can't have "more efficient" land. A capitalist has to use their machines to generate profits. If the machines are idle, they don't make money. A landlord does nothing at all, then collects rent money.
So yeah, ban rent, or severely limit it. Require that a capitalist owner is actually physically present and involved in day-to-day operations, and you'll completely eliminate billionaires, probably even centi-millionaires.
I call it mutualism.
The "still sounds like capitalism to me" part is the reason that I think it's the most practical way forward. It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that's used to capitalism.
Socialists, generally speaking, want people to have ownership of their homes and workplaces. State socialists (think USSR-style) want this to be indirect, with the state owning everything on the behalf of the workers. Anarchists and other libertarian varieties of socialist want people to have this ownership directly, without the state as an intermediary. It's in this sense that mutualism is a form of socialism.
I included land in the absentee ownership prohibition because it's important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission. Whether one thinks of it as part of capitalism or not, the threat of homelessness (since all land is already owned) is part of what enforces our current economic hierarchy.
It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.
Yeah, that's important. It also doesn't require a revolution to attain, just reforms of the current system. Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn't have to be bloody. I think some people who have never questioned the economic and political system in which they grew up can't even conceive of anything other than capitalism. Other people who have thought about it would worry that any attempted revolution might fail and we'd fall backwards into something much more like feudalism if not outright tyranny.
it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission
Yeah, as bad as Feudalism was, at least serfs couldn't be kicked off "their" land. They were tied to the land, so they weren't allowed to leave, but the manor lord also couldn't kick them out.
As for all land being owned, it is, and it isn't. In commonwealth countries there's a lot of crown land. In the US there's a lot of government owned land. In cities there are a lot of city parks. In a sense all that land is owned. But, in another sense, it isn't. It's land that nobody's allowed to build anything on, unless we collectively (via our reps) decide they are. In practice it's not that simple, but in theory it's effectively land that isn't owned, at least by individuals. I've often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.
Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn't have to be bloody.
Yeah, hopefully. If you're effective enough at pushing for change though, those that are threatened by that change are likely to attack you with whatever resources they can muster, and you'll need to successfully defend your movement. Landlords and big corporate shareholders aren't going to be real keen on having their money spigot turned off.
I've often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.
Not having their camps bulldozed and all of their possessions confiscated and destroyed by the government every few months would definitely be an improvement for homeless folks. Being able to have a rigid structure with a locking door would be even better. But yeah, leaving it at that still isn't ideal.
If we could bring wealth inequality down significantly, that would mean fewer people going homeless in the first place, and also society's altruistic resources wouldn't be stretched as thin. That might be enough to get everyone into better housing, at least out of safety hazard territory.
I am an anti-capitalist.
To get rid of capitalism, you don't have to abolish absentee ownership of capital. A worker coop can lease capital from third parties and remain a non-capitalist democratic worker coop. Abolishing capitalism just requires abolishing the employment contract and common ownership of land and natural resources. Without the employment contract, everyone is either individually or jointly self-employed, so every firm is a worker coop
I prefer mutualism to Georgism, but I prefer either to capitalism. ¯\(ツ)/¯
I am a mutualist as well. I just use the term, economic democracy as David Ellerman calls it, instead because mutualism doesn't seem as clear. Also, mutualism has anarchist connotations, which I am sympathetic to, but I believe the movement to abolish capitalism should be broader than anarchism.
In other words,
anarchist economic democracy = mutualism
Yeah, that's fair. I think it's important to promote anarchism too, but it is a harder sell.
Overall, I think we just need to remind people that political and economic hierarchies are mutually reinforcing, and keep pushing things in a libertarian-ish direction.
Bakunin had said that everyone would be obliged to do manual work under socialism(I think I read that in Statism and Anarchy, don't quote me on it, but it makes sense, someone has to do that, might as well all of us contribute), which is fair.
Also you can never get rid of logistics and factory related work imo, because concentrating the production means and scaling up factories is proven to be overwhelmingly more efficient in producing goods than producing them locally and independently. Producing flour in a big factory reduces the manual labour hours by tens and hundreds of times. So as I see it, these jobs will still be there.
The fundamental difference would be that people would actually work these jobs for like 2-3 hours every couple of days or so. This is because we have the capacity to cover everyone's needs several times over, that's how immensely huge our economy is. The west has to scale down a lot the economy cause we are producing way too much, that's how much we produce. We would be able to cover our needs with so much less work than now.
Since this meme mentions anarchism, I’ll take an anarcho-communist perspective. This is obviously an oversimplified idealistic view. There is so much variance in ideas for organisation, distribution, and association of labour in anarcho communist societies you could fill libraries with all the different sub movements.
A few reasons why in an anarcho-communist society, the concept of “hating Mondays” might not really apply at nearly the same extent it does in current capitalistic society:
So, instead of dreading Mondays, people might look forward to contributing to their communities in ways that align with their passions and values!
In a truly anarchist society with voluntary free association, you could even change your “commune” or move to somewhere that aligns more with your values.
Ah that makes sense! The anal nitpicky part of me would still say, "well, the feeling of Mondays would still be there in some cases." But I understand the jist. Thanks!
Well there wouldn’t really be a monday. You work when you want to. Of course mechanisms such as peer pressure would push you towards contributing to your society. But the whole concept of the week and weekend wouldn’t necessarily exist in an anarchist society.
Mondays aren't real 🏴
It's not capitalism it's the forced work. People hated Mondays in the Soviet Union too.
Any system that concentrates power in the hands of the few is bad for the many.
Capitalism is just what most of the world calls it at the moment.
Capitalism and authoritarian Marxist-Leninist states are not the only alternatives. There are other alternatives like Georgist economic democracy. In such a system, everyone would be either individually or jointly self-employed while receiving their share of the value derived from natural resources
"But hey guys, there's this other kind of social order that was also bad!"
I mean, yes? Maybe we should try to build a society that minimizes the amount of work that needs to be done. In order to do that, we have to recognize that capitalists would fight against our efforts, because they profit off of our labor.
And yes, the rulers of a USSR-style authoritarian socialist society would also fight against that kind of change, so maybe let's not go that route.
I hate every day I live under capitalism
creating jobs for graffiti cleaners to please the ceo of the cleaning company?
Why not both?
Why would you hate Mondays if it didn’t mean you needed to start your soulless week of work?
In my line of work, there is no such thing as a weekend or "working hours". People that are retired are also in a similar situation where technically there is no difference between a weekday and weekend.
The problem is that others have decided that Saturday and Sunday are days of rest. The genesis of this being religion. So, whether you work or not, Saturdays and Sundays are significantly quieter. In my case, they are much more peaceful and productive. Come Monday, other people's bullshit (especially the one left unattended for two days) floods my inbox and blows up my phone.
TL;DR: Mondays suck anyway, thanks to religion. (/s...but just a little)