While yes i don't want to slave away most of my time by effectively working 10hrs in my 40hr work week.
yet- he who does not work shall not eat.
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
1196 points (95.4% liked)
Political Memes
9618 readers
2495 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We overproduce an abundance of food.
There are people who cannot labour or be materially productive members of society, they are no less important or worthy of basic humanity.
A persons value is not limited to what you can extract from them.
i know my claim sounds confrontative, of course we should provide people with access to our abundand resources and some people are mentally or physically unable to work - you can't expect them to provide something to society as they rely on us to survive.
but everyone who's able should provide something.
no the abundance doesn't come from 40-80hr wage slavery done by billions.
BUT the abundance comes from actual work done by billions.
Abundance comes from advancement of tech and tools, not just from labour.
If only the "40 hours a week" people deserve to live outside poverty then this exclude many other people who are without a doubt productive for society and even capital.
Many scholars never got money from their contributions, they didn't even get recognition within their life. They for sure contributed positively to the society. Yet their works was not included in "40 hrs work week".
Housewives also provide labour without which the society can not function, they are also within this categories.
Open source devs also don't get paid for their work. Yet their hobby does in fact lead to productivity.
By restricting our definition to "40 hrs work week", we overlook many of these segments.
look i think i am just bad with words. i agree. i don't consider work as "beating hammers for 5hrs" but as contributing something. labour is labour. open source devs do work, scientists do work, mothers do work. everything is work in some form, as long as it contributes to society.
the 40hrs are an arbitrary time window while a lot of people only use a fraction of this time productively.
I am a Leftist and agree with the Leftists take but the Liberal in this meme has a more effective message. The majority of people have issues neurologically with truly caring about things they can't at least imagine affecting them and there are a huge number of people working their asses off 40+ hours a week while struggling to get by. Not that we should abandon the elderly or disabled but we should be diverse in our messaging and who it targets.
The leftists have the easiest message, it’s provide for everyone. It can literally effect anyone.
The liberal messaging muddies the message up, making it unimaginable that it could effect people outside of the narrow scope it presents
Liberals: We should compromise with the fascists and blame trans people for our incompetence
Leftists: DOWN WITH FASCISM AND DOWN WITH BIGOTRY
I feel like you hear the top line because those specific liberals are trying to convince independents, moderates, conservatives, and people on the right to agree on at least something. Many of the people they’re trying to convince would give a big “NO” if they didn’t include that 40 hours part.
The fact that there isn’t even a “YES” with the 40 hours part caveat is the bad sign.
I don’t think most of the people labeled as liberals would disagree with what the people labeled leftist are saying, but their trying to convince the other people that aren’t even bought in to the first step.
This is also an issue where the people that don’t want to help others have over 50% of the power in the US federal government currently.
Our energy should be focused on bringing these progressive help options to everyone at the state level right now to have the greatest chance of getting these programs implemented.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This misses the point. The point is no one, especially someone who has given back to society by preforming labor, should be left out in the cold.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not "make money" (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of "people who work" is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
...even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.
Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don't do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).
load more comments
(1 replies)
someone who has given back to society by preforming labor
These are two things that are often lumped together but don't really have anything to do with one another.
You can be employed and give absolutely nothing back to society (tbh, probably the majority office workers are in that category). You can even be employed and take from society (looking at you, people working in e.g. the tobacco industry).
And you can be unemployed and massively give back to society. Just look at the people who do voluntary work or at the millions of moms and dads who are raising the next generation that will keep society running, all completely without compensation.
I spend all day sitting in front of a PC so that numbers on the screen of some investor go up. That's not giving back to society.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. But the first sentence is the core of everything.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Why especially?
Why 'why especially'?
especially someone
This word is the issue that is grinding gears and it's carrying a heavy weight.
What's your take on handicapped people?
Is someone who has worked 20 years in a factory and got run over by a forklift and lost both legs somehow worth more than someone who was born without legs to begin with?
I believe a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest member. Or the actual quote:
the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members
None of this prohibits anyone from making more money by working harder than others.
The moment when a society starts arguing over who is more eligible for welfare, that's when that society moves down to the lowest level that it's willing to offer.
Youre dismissing the actual need to appeal to an audience. Even those who do not share your particular philosophy.
Its simply an appeal to the capitalist or blue and white collar workers alike.
Some have a living wage. Some take full advantage of the current system and have no qualms.
If your point is that we shouldn't attempt to appeal to them because its fruitless that is fine. Just understand, the message was not for you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But that would require empathizing with them and just ewe... /s
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›