go to hell
(midwest.social)
lumpenproletariat
Memes of ProductionWhat happened to worker solidarity?
People gotta eat. But some jobs do call you to at minimum throw some sand in the gears. If you're not doing that then yeah fuck you.
Do you have solidarity with cops?
To some extent yeah. That doesn't mean I support what they're doing but they still workers.
And often they're pitted against workers on the side of the ruling class.
Doing a bullshit job to feed your family is defensible, doing an evil job is just stupid.
Just keep in mind your argument can be/ is used to defend brown shirt and military personnel commiting war crimes. We know memetically at this point that "just following orders" is not a valid defense. We need more people to actively choose not to become cops and not to become defense contractors.
Edit: just to push against the "sand in the gears" thing. We know that a lot of military actively hate their job and just believe they're doing the bare minimum/dragging their feet to get paid. But they still get work done and add credibility to the institutions they work for.
See, I think all jobs are evil. Just because you're not the one holding the gun doesn't make you less culpable. You're still serving the interests of capital and the state when you work, pay taxes, etc.
It's certainly true that evil work supports hierarchy and should be opposed. But contextually how do we oppose it? If we could achieve 100% solidarity and get everyone to refuse to support these systems, they would end instantly. But let's be real. If conscientious people isolate themselves from powerful positions in society, does that actually interfere with their fulfillment in any meaningful way? Or does it just fill those positions with people who are more ideologically invested in them and more likely to use that power against us?
First you have to win people over. And I think there is hope that even the fascist foot soldiers can be won over with the right messaging.
A lot of this comes down to a society that idealizes individualism to an extreme degree. We are focused on how we as individuals can evade moral culpability for our participation in an evil system, and that requires scapegoating someone we perceive as worse than us. But even if we convince police or soldiers or whoever to quit, that won't protect people from harm. Instead we need to focus on building new organizational power that can get as many people as possible to oppose that harm in a concerted way. And in fact at the right moment I think we will want police, soldiers, arms manufacturers, etc. to participate, because those people have power and we need that power to win.
I'd rather have solidarity with the people the bombs get dropped on than with the people building the bombs. Include war profiteers in your "solidarity" and shifts it away from class lines and into nationalism.
Solidarity with victims is important. But my personal view is that fighting the state requires a broad coalition that includes people within the state's social infrastructure.
War profiteers aren't generally interested in fighting the state. But even to your point, obviously if you want to convince such people to fight the state, you should be criticizing their role as war profiteers. If you don't call out what they're doing for the evil that it is, then why would you expect them to "throw sand in the gears?"
Well, the reality is that most people in all professions have little to no interest in fighting the state. But the flip side is that there are some people from all walks of life that will be receptive, so assuming such people can't be reached is locking important people out of the movement.
Criticism is important but I think it requires a different approach. If you tell people they're evil they will not listen to you. Almost everyone's worldview has "I'm a good person" at its foundation, and information that contradicts their foundational viewpoints will be rejected. So I think criticism should be focused on systems and organizations rather than this meme which focuses on individual responsibility.
I'm not "locking anyone out of the movement" by calling them evil war profiteers. If they want to join the movement, they can simply stop being evil war profiteers. I am simply telling the truth.
On the other hand, by welcoming and babying such people, you are alienating their victims. It makes it abundantly clear where your priorities lie. Why would a victim of these war profiteers want to be a part of a movement that whitewashes those who perpetrate or enable the violence they've suffered?
What is your vision for what "being part of the movement" would even look like for these people? Unless they're taking direct action to sabotage and support their industry (in which case they will likely be caught and fired), they are undoubtedly doing far more harm there than they could possibly offset by voting or attending some protest.
I'm not saying it isn't true. But I just think practically speaking, requiring all leftists to be morally pure nonprofit employees or whatever it is you think would be a more ethical way to survive under capitalism excludes a lot of people. Sure, they could theoretically still participate but if you treat them like shit they're not going to.
These are huge companies that often have little ideas of what their employees are doing. There are absolutely ways they could be sabotaging their activities without getting fired.
Even if that were true, you're simultaneously claiming that these people are willing to sabotage their company, and that they'd be alienated by saying that the work their company does is evil. That doesn't make any sense.
I totally feel the sentiment of this post but it raises an interesting question. Pretty much every job, especially nowadays, is linked up in some causal chain with helping a horrible company and/or horrible people do horrible things. At what point does it become acceptable? Is it about having more elaborate steps in between? What constitutes being further removed from doing harm?
I dropped the bomb
I built the bomb
I designed the bomb
I funded the bomb
I bought products from the company that funded the bomb
I gave a discount to a friend who buys products from the company that built the bomb
Etc.
Where do we start to consider employment ethical vs unethical? And to what extent? It seems like nothing will ever be 100% pure, but when do I get to stop feeling horrible about myself?
Not an abstract question, am job hunting
I have been thinking about something very similar for the last year or two now. Almost every white collar job I can think of has large portions of its workforce twisted into contributing to some fucked up aspect of the capitalist machine. The one that I think is really pernicious is the medical industry. I actually think it's worse than defense in a way.
With defense there is kind of an upper limit to how much a company can probably charge for their product because how much more dead can the device make someone? On the medical side of things though, their products save or prolong people's lives and the people in charge know that. They know that even if the improvement is only marginal, as long as there is one (and sometimes even if there isn't one), they can probably extract as much money from people as they have.
That is an interesting asymmetry. With death devices, the unlimited ceiling is more about the amount of deaths per cost, and other more subtle things like preservation of surroundings, etc. But, resisting the urge to go further down that rabbit hole for the time being...
Yeah, I really have no idea how to approach or measure this. Like, obviously to me, if someone is directly developing weaponry that they know will be employed against Iran, they're pretty much a jerk. But is the barista at Starbucks at jerk? Starbucks is a pretty bad employer and if only everyone would just not work for them for a little bit, they'd go right out of business. Both employees in both scenarios can have a dislike for the deeds of their company, but the weapon developer is clearly more accountable.
I think it just depends on a ton of specific situations. Like in this exact example, I can say that the weapon developer is a position that's much harder to replace, so the argument of "they just find someone else to do it" truly isn't as probably true as it is for a Starbucks barista. The weapon engineer also understands that their weapon is much more intrinsically harmful - that is, while it's true that Starbucks is a messed up company, a coffee company doesn't necessarily need to be messed up. But an arms company, well, I mean, you need those too sometimes (WW2 obvs), but it's a lot closer to doing harm in general.
I think it's kind of one of those things like judging your friends about having subscriptions to shitty services... You just kind of have to accept that everyone does what they can. Like maybe Alice cancels her Amazon subscription, but keeps her Spotify subscription, and Bob cancels his Spotify subscription, but keeps his Amazon subscription.... They both understand that really they both should cancel both of their subscriptions, but they're not going to hate on each other for not cancelling what they did, because they're trying to be pragmatic and understand that if we did ALL the right things in this world, we'd have almost no recognizeable life left.
So from this mentality of everyone doing what they can.... I maybe judge it based on the totality of how someone is living? Like, if someone is working for a really shitty, unethical company, doing really scary work, like developing weapons, then I'm going to expect that they're balancing that out by fully boycotting Amazon, whereas the Starbucks barista friend, I might give them a pass to still order things on there from time to time, just as a rough example. If I see someone just isn't making any sacrifices at all: Making bank at Lockheed, not donating to charity, not boycotting any companies, not supporting open source software, etc etc etc. Just NO actual activism outside of performative shit like social media posts and things that cost them no comfort, then no matter how much they dislike and disagree with their employer, I'm still going to consider them a supporter of it and frown on them accordingly.
And for my own job hunt, I guess this means that the more evil the company I work at, the more I have a responsibility to counterbalance that by giving up other comforts. And the real challenge is just to be intellectually honest with yourself and really ask if the sacrifices that you're making are worth the harm that you're doing, and if you could work somewhere else and do a lot less harm for only a little less comfort, something on that Pareto optimal frontier.
Are the people making weapons to defend Ukraine evil? Surely not, right? Hence working for a defense contractor is not inherently evil either.
Some are of course - like Peter Thiel's Palantir.
Lol. Lmao even. Snorting on jah.
My step son’s first job out of grad school for computer science was Raytheon. Paid well, got him his clearance (which basically guarantees employment as long as you have a pulse). I could tell it bothered him (as in, what they do), but he was very much trying to be a grown-up and pay his student loans and rent and all that. He’s 22, and very independent.
As soon as he got his clearance, he got another job doing things that aren’t directly related to killing people. Got a nice raise, too. He said the feeling of not working for Raytheon is better than the $10k sign-on bonus they gave him that he now has to pay back. “Worth it.”
They know what they're doing is wrong, and they're fragile as hell about it
I never defend the companies I've worked for ... that's what their PR departments are for. I don't see why people feel the need for it. I've had friends join MS, Google and such and the way they defend them astound me. I'm just like, why ...?
You must be defending them at least internally if you've been able to justify working there. I live in a van and roam the country committing Robin Hood style crimes 😇
Pfff. Van? I travel by foot, eat vegan but only out of dumpsters, and use a flint and steel to burn down the houses of people who test on animals (after I make sure any pets they live with have been safely evacuated). I also spread wildflower seeds native to whatever region I’m in to boost the pollinators. Suck it petroleum simp! 😘
Dan, the company man, felt loyalty to the corp
After 16 years of service, and a family to support
He actually started to believe the weaponry and chemicals were for national defense
Cause Danny had a mortgage and a boss to answer to
The guilty don't feel guilty, they learn not to
Look.
The creative urge is also the destructive urge. Right?
And one cant really be held responsible for what other people choose to do with the things one makes. Alfred nobel was trying to make mining safer instead he ended up ushering in a new and terrible era in war. Fritz haber invented the haber process to feed germany, not build bombs! The people who built the early internet are all horrified by what it has become.
Thats just an unfair standard of judgement. Do you think we should never build new things? Content ourselves with fire, perhaps bags knives and wheeled carts if we want to edge things? Even anprims think lean-tos are worth building.
So this last month ive spent designing the restraint system and tactile feedback mechanism for our new r1488 rape missile comissioned by the idf is just cool engineering work. If i didnt do it somebody else would. Somebody else might get it wrong. You know our department lead didnt even consider sensitivity differences in circumcised vs uncircumcised penises for the pilot feedback mechanism? Nobody else considered that an AFAB person might wear the feedback suit. You need a woke kinky queer in here to prevent sub-optimal pleasure for the end user–to prevent hurting more people.
Plus, as an engineer, im special and deserve special treats a six figure salary affords. How dare you suggest i live like a normal person. How DARE you!
Have you considered renaming the rape missile
Marketing has considered calling it the 'skorzeny' rape missile rather than the R1488 rape missile but theres a lot of tension internally on which name is better. Most of our customers love both names of course, but internally were still optimizing with focus groups.
Im just an engineer, not marketing or client relations. Not my department.
Edit: Now if youll excuse me, i need to finish this guidance for the teledildonics standard were using internally the new generation of semi-autonomous rape-reapers were putting out. Aggregating the feedback of a swarm for a single end user's pleasure a general president or minister is very difficult. A lot of our engineers still arent considering the possibility of AFAB users. Would you really rather women be meaningfully excluded from these roles?
Yes it's now the superrape missile, thanks for your time
“Sexual assault missile” is too many words. Woke has gone too far.
while I can't speak on most of this, I will say the most relevant words I ever heard on the subject.
"If you can't predict what some one will use your ideas for to harm another creature. you should never share it as you cannot mitigate it by design". no matter what you make, some one will turn it into a weapon as the desire for weak, small people to supplement themselves through violence is ever present through human history.
greatest weapon of all time was the pen. it's not mightier than the sword at violence, but can silence a sword in a single stroke.
I think it takes at least a few strokes in every case.
Swords, also, are pretty good at silencing pens. Usually in one stroke/thrust.
Pretty much how I feel about anyone in tech working for Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta.
You need the paycheck, fine. I'm not going to judge your circumstances.
But you sold your soul, and please don't try to pretend otherwise.
I would say those are much worse to work for than a defense contractor
In what universe? As shitty as Amazon is, it's still way better than being a war profiteer.
Amazon is absolutely a war profiteer. As far as I can tell the military industrial complex isn't taking quite as direct an approach to dismantling our democracy and promoting fascism as the big tech companies. Just because they don't literally make guns and bomb (which they might actually do for all I know) doesn't make them any less evil.
Just because they don’t literally make guns and bomb doesn’t make them any less evil.
It actually does.
I told a friend group that all that shit needs to be shut down and he cried on about how many jobs they create. He’s deeply Christian btw…
He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
But what about the jobs??
And you, young engineer, you who dream of improving the lot of the workers by the application of science to industry - what a sad disappointment, what terrible disillusions await you! You devote the useful energy of your mind to working out the scheme of a railway which, running along the brink of precipices and burrowing into the very heart of mountains of granite, will bind together two countries which nature has separated. But once at work, you see whole regiments of workers decimated by privations and sickness in this dark tunnel - you see others of them returning home carrying with them, maybe, a few pence, and the undoubted seeds of consumption; you see human corpses - the results of a groveling greed - as landmarks along each yard of your road; and, when the railroad is finished, you see, lastly, that it becomes the highway for the artillery of an invading army.
