poem for a mass resignation

We don’t get paid enough to work here We but further enrich the wealthy What have our managers done for us lately; why should *we* remain loyal? They did not make efficient use of our time during standard business hours, every meeting could have been an email, and they mistook us for family Nor did they pay time and a half for the overtime they thought we'd work to cover for their failure to plan; how is it our fault that they planned to fail? Our efforts went unrewarded save what Sisyphus found atop his hill and we have suffered enough to earn our pardons from this corporate Hell Like Atlas we bore the weights of all the little worlds they could not run, but we had found that like old scrivener Bartleby: *we would prefer not to* Thus we bid farewell to our silent suffering for nothing more than a paycheck that barely covers our bills Consider this our resignation Accuse us of disloyalty because we quit without notice, but you know damn well our bosses would fire us all just to save a buck; let's unionize Our bosses can all go fuck themselves Which of them will be the first to lick clean our unwashed assholes after they eat the peanuts out of our shit? Was this scatological turn too crude, a sentiment unsafe for work? Your sensibilities are no less tender than the rich; they taste like pork.

tetris

The pyramid of backs that our most worshiped Lords step upon is crumbling. This is both a good thing and a bad thing.

The Good: The ratio of exploited:unexploited is reduced because much of the work needed to carry out the whims our Lords is replaced with automated machines. That is, we're careening towards a post-work soceity.

The Bad: The previously exploited have nowhere to go. We don't own houses, we do not have the means to easily secure our own food production, and the laws are written in such a way that any attempt to secure a community effort for all of the above are shutdown pretty quickly. We're going to be fleeced, and then we're going to be left to die. It doesn't need to be like this, but somehow it is.

The Middle: Managers are becoming aware that the gap between them and their exploited employees is much much smaller than the gap between them and the Lords they serve. That is, they're becoming just as replaceable as we are, and they know it, and the fear drives them to treat us like peasants so that even if they're no longer useful to their Lords, they are hoping that their loyalty will at least be worth something (spoiler: it won't).

"...and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.” -- Steinbeck

starbreaker

Something I keep coming back to when I think about shit like this: if the law does not protect the people it binds, then why should the people bound by law be obligated to obey a law that doesn't protect them? In the face of such manifest injustice, illegalism seems almost reasonable.

tetris

I agree completely

inquiry

When I look in the mirror I see boss and/or "the wealthy" potential.

Methinks *that's* the problem in need of fixing.

starbreaker

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." --John Steinbeck

tetris

“American humorist Kin Hubbard said , "It ain't no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be". The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue... Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.

Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.”

-- Kurt Vonnegut

starbreaker

Yeah, this too. We aren't encouraged to love ourselves; if we realized that we were each complete in ourselves and not inadequate we might not waste so much time and money trying to buy shit we don't need and might not have wanted in the first place without private-sector psyops^W^W^W^Wadvertising.

inquiry

Wow, profoundly interesting/cool explanation.

starbreaker

I'm going to assume, for generosity's sake, that you weren't being sarcastic.

inquiry

I was not being sarcastic. I found Steinbeck's explanation fascinating, I suppose for it being the first time reading/hearing it.

I tend to want to couch it more like "Socialism never takes root anywhere there's a preponderance of selfish individuals", because I think ego easily explains so many social failures to connect. Say that, it doesn't seem a stretch to regard an ego as a "temporarily embarrassed millionaire".

But I also think it's important that being labeled proletariat doesn't fix the ego problem in such. As far as I can tell, most of the "proletariat" would become bosses/the-wealthy in a heartbeat if they could.

starbreaker

Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies for assuming bad faith on your part.

I must have been in a bad headspace yesterday because I immediately assumed sarcasm, but stepped back just far enough to consider the possibility of earnestness.

As far as I can tell, most of the "proletariat" would become bosses/the-wealthy in a heartbeat if they could.

I don't blame them, not when it so often seems like a binary choice between exploiter and exploited. There's a third option, rejection of the false dichotomy and refusal to be either a boss or a worker, but that's a *lot* harder.

inquiry

> I don't blame them, not when it so often seems
> like a binary choice between exploiter and
> exploited. There's a third option, rejection of
> the false dichotomy and refusal to be either a
> boss or a worker, but that's a *lot* harder.

Are you talking about suicide?

I don't disagree. But the faux mathematician in me fears the "a *lot* harder part" suggests so few are - or (perhaps) even could be - sufficiently self(ishness)-denying to ever collectively make meaningful difference at the societal level. They would simply appear to be "kooks" to the vast sea of proletariat/bosses/wealthy they were barely treading water in.

starbreaker

But the faux mathematician in me fears the "a *lot* harder part" suggests so few are - or (perhaps) even could be - sufficiently self(ishness)-denying to ever collectively make meaningful difference at the societal level. They would simply appear to be "kooks" to the vast sea of proletariat/bosses/wealthy they were barely treading water in.

For some reason this post reminds me of Gwern's article on subcultures.

The Melancholy of Subculture Society

Thus I can't help but wonder: what's wrong with being a "kook"? Why is self-denial necessary? The third option I was talking about is doing just enough to get by in mainstream society, and otherwise opting out and doing one's own thing. The ideal would be getting together a couple of million and being able to own a house and car outright while using investment interest to cover property taxes and thus face the world from the position of "fuck you", but that might not be realistic for most people.

YouTube: John Goodman in "The Gambler": the Position of Fuck You

Would this make a meaningful difference at the societal level? Not if only a few people do it. But as more people do it, mainstream capitalist society begins to crumble.

inquiry

> Thus I can't help but wonder: what's wrong with being a
> "kook"?

There was a time when being a "kook" seemingly had less real world consequences. Now I can imagine it being grounds for "cancellation". Never underestimate the speed at which murmuring, scarcedly-able-but-to-shout-slogans masses can whip out their torches, pitchforks, and clubs.

> Why is self-denial necessary?

It's not. But to me, without at least degrees of it people live predominantly for themselves, which I believe precludes living enough for society and/or other greater causes to flourish. So it's only necessary to the degree we want nice collective things.

> The third option I was talking about is doing just enough
> to get by in mainstream society, and otherwise opting out
> and doing one's own thing. The ideal would be getting
> together a couple of million and being able to own a
> house and car outright while using investment interest
> to cover property taxes and thus face the world from the
> position of "fuck you", but that might not be realistic
> for most people.

That's very doable (or was in my day..), but generally not until after decades of fairly consistent minimalism (especially during inflationary times), and likely enough unfulfilling labor to arrive at sufficient savings, but then quite possibly "arriving" with too much disillusion with the world - never mind far less energy than one had in the days of one's youth - to get the precious middle finger in the all important permanently gravity-defying position. :-)

And I'm not making that up. I'm 62 and roughly in the place you describe, but I'm physically and mentally noticeably lesser than I was a few decades ago.

> Would this make a meaningful difference at the societal
> level? Not if only a few people do it. But as more people
> do it, mainstream capitalist society begins to crumble.

I've difficulty imagining such a crumble leading more to a meaningfully positive difference in the near term. What I *can* imagine is people murmuring, gossiping, taking rumor to be truth, and ultimately mostly panicking in fits of self interest. Perhaps something more enlightened emerges from the subsequent rubble, but I'd bet against it despite wishing it could be so.