[bluGill]

The first step is being honest about if the problem is even solvable, and second if it is solvable would people really want what the solution means.

This article is dishonest in using a definition of work that excludes the vast majority of work people have done over history. The sexist view that women never work because watching kids, making clothing, washing clothing, preparing meals (all traditional things women did in various societies) was not real work, while the things men did (hunting, fishing) was real work.

[bottd]

You’re failing to separate work and labor.

[bluGill]

Correct - the distinction makes no difference in this discussion. Call it would you will, you have to do things and not all will be pleasant.

[jodrellblank]

> "you have to do things and not all will be pleasant."

This is arguing that there is no difference between being a slave and being a free human because both have to prepare food, chop wood, wash dishes.

"I own a house, I will put the bins out because I want my house to be rat-free and smell nice" is fundamentally different from "my master orders me to put the bins out and if I don't I will be punished" and from "my employer orders me to put the bins out and if I don't I will become unemployed, homeless, unable to get food, so I am coerced to do it and have no choice".

You are arguing that the choice is meaningless because labour and work and employment are all the same, and the author is arguing that the choice is everything.

[JodieBenitez]

> Call it would you will, you have to do things and not all will be pleasant.

Couldn't agree more... all this work/labor hairsplitting makes no sense.

[sdellis]

Can you quote the definition of work that the article uses and how it excludes women's labor? I don't think you actually read the whole article.

But in terms of steps, yes the problem of capitalist exploitation is solvable. Of course the 1% don't really want that solution which is why they try so hard to perpetuate the myths the author takes on.

[bluGill]

Between the bad layout and how obviously wrong it was in the early paragraphs I'll admit to not finishing. They were building up a strawman of capitalism to knock down, and I couldn't read it anymore.

Which is to say I can't quote their definition, but it was clearly leading to the sexist one. (elsewhere people are using a labor vs work distinction which I'm going to contend comes from the same sexism and isn't a useful distinction)