/lit/ - Literature

>>22862677
>t. commie who supports suicide nets and 12 hour work day in china

>>22862677
Because I have to buy food. Any other questions, retard?

Bye jack

>Turned Against…
Ha! sweat-pledged proddy retard

>>22862677
what? are you saying you support this book? are you calling it a meme?
dont just fucking post a book with no context you fucking asshole

>>22862677
Interdasting.
For those too lazy to read the link, or to dive into what is said:

First she contends that our workplaces are authoritarian, and not in line with American’s idea of freedom. Way too much power is given to corporations that we have not historically accepted from even our own government.

Then she goes on to say that we have been conned by a misreading of the Puritan work ethic. She is saying is that the Puritan work ethic originally was meant to celebrate the humble and the hard workers as being as valuable or more valuable than those that they work for, and that Puritan’s criticism of laziness and poverty was, at that time, a valid criticism, because of the kind of work available, but is inapplicable in an industrial society that exploits and extorts work, and leaves no options for alternative ways of life.

She also says that the original Puritans used to equally criticize the idle rich and predatory capitalists, as well, but the purveyors of the myth now leave that part out. The point of the book, thus, is that this Puritan myth was then corrupted by the rich, by reversing the consequence and the cause, to say that, because they are rich THERFORE they must be working hard and are good people. She goes on to say that the Puritan work ethic is further corrupted by neoliberalism and racism to judge the poor, citing the example that, in the 1970s, welfare and government spending were blamed for the bad economy, when in fact most economists would blame both industrial flight, and horrific Fed policies under Nixon and Burns.

From Burn’s wiki “… Economists now recognize the Nixon era as Exhibit A in how the adoption of bad economic policies in pursuit of short-term political gain eventually turns out to be bad politics as well.[21]”
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

>>22862944
Other writers have already covered this subject, especially Foucault.

>>22862953
I agree, (but would not use Foucault as my "go to" example -- Marx come to mind first).

Nevertheless, these kinds of books bore me. They are nice to direct people's attention to the problem, but offer no solutions, because none of them knows what the problem is (including Marx and Foucault, or von Misses or Keynes...)

They either cover up the bad, or for those that acknowledge that the outcome is shit, focus on morality or other magical metrics, or simply try to say, "well it is better than (fill in the blank) as if misery is comparative, instead of being able to see the problem in the machine that creates the problems that the new machine then tries to fix... ad nauseam, until the original intent of working together is completely lost.

We just need the state to forceully enact heckin democracy in the workplace.

>>22863011
and your solution is...

>>22863076
Well....you will have to wait for my book!

Seriously, take heart. There is a solution.... I just need to get back to work....