> But we still needed “office” workers who support other areas of enterprises. Legal, contracts, compliance, HR, financial, development, management, etc.
I precisely meant that society would be better off without all these "jobs". They are useless constructs required by capitalism and competition, but do not build anything useful for society, except maybe for compliance (if by that you meant quality assurance).
Moreover, i would argue that productive jobs don't have to be so many. When you have ten supermarkets selling the same shit, you need storage and logistics for all of them run by different people. If we lived in a society of cooperation not competition, each supermarket could probably be run on half the jobs currently required (if not much less).
Likewise for food production. If canteens were serviced by people who enjoy that and consider it a useful service to their peers, and not to ensure their basic survival through wage slavery, then we'd have overall less venues to feed everyone and much less food waste.
I'm not arguing against free initiative to start some project, i'm just arguing capitalism and its competition places very wrong incentives that wastes tons of human labor and actual resources that a mutualized/cooperative economy would save.
Consumerism is a problem in that it causes ephemeral and superfluous goods. From fast-fashion to overly large autos and search for fame (hollywood or tik-tok) and some of the ready-made options which we could do at home.
But...
The above probably described much of the "essential" workers. Capitalism is not the problem. Consumerism and advertising and the media are the creators of this artificial demand.
Communism or socialism would not fix things either. There you have no choice of what you will be in society. That is determined for you by your school and your connections. And because the economic demands are different, there is usually less automation, meaning more boring work. Now, sure, doctors and bricklayers may get more even compensation, though one may get a better apartment, but you're not in the driver's seat and you don't get to figure out your place in life (ala UBI dream), you get to do what the state (or if cooperative based, the cooperative) thinks they need you. You may ultimately become a parasite, but t will be where they want you as a parasite.
Communism/Socialism can usually do just as well as capitalism in terms of basic research (medicines, energy, etc), but tend to have a blind spot for other life-style centered improvements.
> Capitalism is not the problem. Consumerism and advertising and the media are the creators of this artificial demand.
Consumerism is a direct consequence of capitalism. Capitalism rests on private property and competition, so you need either structural monopoly or mind-control techniques (advertisement) in order to grow against your competitor.
In an economy based on cooperation where you life is not dictated by pieces of paper (property titles) and imaginary numbers (money) these things simply do not exist.
> Communism or socialism would not fix things either. There you have no choice of what you will be in society.
I don't think we have the same understanding of communism, though the confusion is easy because most people who advocate for "communism" actually promote "dictatorship of the proletariat" (as theorized by Marx and Lenin) which they view as a necessary step to build communism which is the exact opposite of that (classless society).
I'm guessing all countries you think of as communist (USSR, China?) have never been communist in fact, at least not according to marxist/anarchist definition of communism which means there is no class or privileges and everyone is free and equal. You may be interested to read "There is no communism in Russia" or "Trotsky protests too much" by Emma Goldman about how communism in USSR is a lie.
As an anarchist, my understanding of communism is that everyone gets a choice, which we don't get in this society. If we remove chiefs and profiteers, then suddenly we are all free to enjoy life and decide for everything.
And i should point out that this is not merely a theory. Anarchist ideas have rarely been applied on a grand scale (though they have historically, and continue to live to this day in the hearts of revolutionaries of Chiapas and Rojava), but i've been living most of my life in free communes where money is not a thing (except for interactions with "the outside world") and property is ruled by needs not paper (the house is yours because you live in it).
I precisely meant that society would be better off without all these "jobs". They are useless constructs required by capitalism and competition, but do not build anything useful for society, except maybe for compliance (if by that you meant quality assurance).
Moreover, i would argue that productive jobs don't have to be so many. When you have ten supermarkets selling the same shit, you need storage and logistics for all of them run by different people. If we lived in a society of cooperation not competition, each supermarket could probably be run on half the jobs currently required (if not much less).
Likewise for food production. If canteens were serviced by people who enjoy that and consider it a useful service to their peers, and not to ensure their basic survival through wage slavery, then we'd have overall less venues to feed everyone and much less food waste.
I'm not arguing against free initiative to start some project, i'm just arguing capitalism and its competition places very wrong incentives that wastes tons of human labor and actual resources that a mutualized/cooperative economy would save.