I often daydream about how society would be if we were not forced by society to pigeon hole ourselves into a specialized career for maximizing the profits of capitalists, and sell most of our time for it.

The idea of creating an entire identity for you around your “career” and only specializing in one thing would be ridiculous in another universe. Humans have so much natural potential for breadth, but that is just not compatible with capitalism.

This is evident with how most people develop “hobbies” outside of work, like wood working, gardening, electronics, music, etc. This idea of separating “hobbies” and the thing we do most of our lives (work) is ridiculous.

Here’s how my world could be different if I owned my time and dedicated it to the benefit of my own and my community instead of capitalists:

  • more reading, learning and excusing knowledge with others.
  • learn more handy work, like plumbing and wood working. I love customizing my own home!
  • more gardening
  • participate in the transportation system (picking up shifts to drive a bus for example)
  • become a tour guide for my city
  • cook and bake for my neighbors
  • academic research
  • open source software (and non-software) contributions
  • pick up shifts at a café and make coffee, tea and smoothies for people
  • pick up shifts to clean up public spaces, such as parks or my own neighborhood
  • participate in more than one “professions”. I studied one type of engineering but work in a completely different engineering. This already proves I can do both, so why not do both and others?

Humans do not like the same thing over and over every day. It’s unnatural. But somehow we revolve our whole livelihood around if.

  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Money was invented before written history began.[1][2] Consequently, any story of how money first developed is mostly based on conjecture and logical inference.

    We don’t actually know when money started so it’s hard to say.

    But even before money the person with more stuff could acquire more stuff through barter. Even if they weren’t using money it’s still basically capitalism.

    • matcha_addict@lemy.lolOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Barter being the predecessor of money is actually false, and has never been supported with sufficient evidence.

      From what anthropology tells us, money was introduced by force, not by a natural tendency for humans to barter, and wanting a better way to do it.

      And no, that isn’t “basically capitalism”. No “capital” involved here in the sense of capitalism.

    • BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The invention of currency basically just introduced universal fungibility to a communities barter system by adding 1 additional step.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a good step. You need something else to trade if the guy that raises chickens needs medicine and the pharmacist doesn’t want chicken products.

    • jawsua@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes we do, money started around temple societies in the fertile crescent to control people and keep them centrally located.

      Also, there is no known historical example of a purely barter economy. What’s known now is everything tended to work on an informal gift/reputation economy.

      Until money came along, was typically forced upon people, and then if the money system failed, people fell back to a barter system. Neither money or barter are natural for the vast majority of human time and society