• scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It is a super weird and self contradictory thing. Because yeah, the notion is that labor’s important because labor is how anything gets done, and without things getting done, how does anyone get to live a life at all? Entropy is real after all. So people who would do no labor yet get support from the rest of society are seen as execrable parasites.

      And yet… the big goal is to become wealthy so that you can live on the labor of others. The whole enterprise of business is about playing the system so that you can get more for less personal labor. And the highest form of this is to work not at all yet receive even more than mere support: total indulgence.

      So how are people at once shat upon for doing no labor but wanting basic support, while others are idealized for doing no labor but wanting total indulgence?

        • lath@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Stockholm syndrome was supposedly debunked recently.

          What it actually looks to be is a stripped out and twisted version of meritocracy.

          “I’ve worked for my achievements and earned my rights, everyone else should do the same or not share in my privileges.”