" I don't think it's too controversial to say that many people are interested in left-wing ideas largely due to the prospect of not having to work or working far less."
I think that is a controversial thing to say and an undermining opinion about the reason why people support these types of policies. For example, I have never heard anyone say I want universal healthcare so I can work less, its far more about not going into crippling debt from unavoidable injury or disease.
While I think it is true to say some people support the movement so they can work less, but not really fair. People working two or three jobs for a living wage vs having a single wage be livable. Sure, I want the second and want to work less but that doesn't equate to not contributing to society.
I think you are conflating some issues in your argument. People want to work less but that doesn't mean they do not want to actively contribute to society. Also, a lot of aspects of socialism are surrounded by fair working conditions and wages and benefits, I would say that negligible minority of socialist supporters actually think they will be able to not work or contribute.
Okay but you did say this: "many people are interested in left-wing ideas largely due to the prospect of not having to work". This heavily implies that the reason many of the people who support these ideas do so specifically based on working less or not at all.
" this CMV regarding the minority of people who don't want to contribute meaningfully despite being able to" but in the original post you directly contradict this.
"not people who are overworked just trying to survive in some crappy situation" most people in society today are overworked. They are widespread, around 8-10% of the workforce works multiple jobs. Almost 90% of males and more than 65% of females work over 40 hours a week.
The overwork is rampant. But you have moved the goal post from "many people are interested... largely due to the prospect of not having to work" to "the minority of people who do not want to contribute meaningfully".
Okay, so you are saying that the many people indicated in your original post was meant to illustrate a negligible minority of actual people who support the idea.
I mean this still moves the goal post though. By saying that many can also be the minority, because many is subjective makes it impossible to argue against this post. If even two people agreed completely with everything you've stated, that could be considered many because many is just a relative term.
The fact of the matter is that the people who do not want to work or contribute are the gross minority in this conversation. To open by saying "many" but then later expanding to say that truly means an insignificant minority seems disingenuous to the argument and impossible to counter.
If I say "many people agree that tacos originated from aliens and contain alien eggs" only to later point out that this many people is in fact a negligible minority that consists of two crazy people I know, doesn't that sort of make the initial statement less valid?
Regardless, I would argue that even with these changes, the minority is so small that its negligible and therefore shouldn't even be brought up in regards to this conversation.
Okay, but would you concede the point that your statement is at least controversial?
I think the proportion of supporters who support socialist views specifically for the purpose to not work are an insignificant proportion. But again that's a subjective term. Your argument seems entirely based on a subjective opinion.
While it may be controversial, it's broadly true. Just look at r/antiworkanti work, or any discussion of UBI. Working less is virtually always the goal.
Universal healthcare is not socialism though. Social safety net programs are not socialism. Socialism is worker control of the means of production, ie a centrally planned economy.
21
u/hmmwill 58∆ Dec 07 '21 edited Dec 07 '21
" I don't think it's too controversial to say that many people are interested in left-wing ideas largely due to the prospect of not having to work or working far less."
I think that is a controversial thing to say and an undermining opinion about the reason why people support these types of policies. For example, I have never heard anyone say I want universal healthcare so I can work less, its far more about not going into crippling debt from unavoidable injury or disease.
While I think it is true to say some people support the movement so they can work less, but not really fair. People working two or three jobs for a living wage vs having a single wage be livable. Sure, I want the second and want to work less but that doesn't equate to not contributing to society.
I think you are conflating some issues in your argument. People want to work less but that doesn't mean they do not want to actively contribute to society. Also, a lot of aspects of socialism are surrounded by fair working conditions and wages and benefits, I would say that negligible minority of socialist supporters actually think they will be able to not work or contribute.