Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Joomfie Fetishization

Juniper

244,833 subscribers

21,522 views • 8 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The rampant fetishization of black men by white women might be worse than the fetishization of asian women by white men.

Sensitive content

The rampant fetishization of black men by white women might be worse than the fetishization of asian women by white men.

Ian Miles Cheong

177,652 views • 1 year ago

I don’t understand how more white people didn’t see this coming. This country is so deeply, deeply racist, with a fetishization of power. #RealityCheck

I don’t understand how more white people didn’t see this coming. This country is so deeply, deeply racist, with a fetishization of power. #RealityCheck

✭ 🅑🅤🅑🅑🅐 ✭

60,455 views • 8 months ago

Asain people fetishization of Black women is a form of objectification rooted in racism that reduces them to sexual stereotypes, focuses exaggerated, racial and physical features. of us as clowns and whores

Sensitive content

Asain people fetishization of Black women is a form of objectification rooted in racism that reduces them to sexual stereotypes, focuses exaggerated, racial and physical features. of us as clowns and whores

kevin blue

45,968 views • 10 months ago

A former child YouTube star made $2.9M on OnlyFans within 24 hours of her eighteenth birthday. The porn industry’s fetishization of youth is manifesting in our real world by grooming the sexual appetities of millions of men. We live in a pedophilic hellhole.

Sensitive content

A former child YouTube star made $2.9M on OnlyFans within 24 hours of her eighteenth birthday. The porn industry’s fetishization of youth is manifesting in our real world by grooming the sexual appetities of millions of men. We live in a pedophilic hellhole.

Ella Maulding

1,603,401 views • 6 months ago

“There's a sort of resigned anger [...] When I was writing it, it just felt like the world was telling me that only good women is a dead one.” Mitski on her song Dead Women the fetishization of dead women in true crime and how women are dehumanised even after their death.

“There's a sort of resigned anger [...] When I was writing it, it just felt like the world was telling me that only good women is a dead one.” Mitski on her song Dead Women the fetishization of dead women in true crime and how women are dehumanised even after their death.

mitski files

85,689 views • 4 months ago

Well this adds to the story. I didn’t know Zohan gave the only sane answer when asked where his first foreign trip would be. Zoomers don’t have the same fetishization of Israel as Boomers do. Given his Vivekian willingness to say literally anything, he knew what to say here.

Well this adds to the story. I didn’t know Zohan gave the only sane answer when asked where his first foreign trip would be. Zoomers don’t have the same fetishization of Israel as Boomers do. Given his Vivekian willingness to say literally anything, he knew what to say here.

ᴍᴇᴅ ɢᴏʟᴅ 🐒

69,281 views • 1 year ago

"It's an almost perverse fetishization of the suffering that people here in the west simply cannot understand because it is not a cancer of the west" Elica Le Bon is an Iranian Muslim activist, attorney, artist and social media influencer who believes in Palestine and their rights and that there is suffering BUT sees something in America that concerns her as much as anything.

"It's an almost perverse fetishization of the suffering that people here in the west simply cannot understand because it is not a cancer of the west" Elica Le Bon is an Iranian Muslim activist, attorney, artist and social media influencer who believes in Palestine and their rights and that there is suffering BUT sees something in America that concerns her as much as anything.

Christopher C. Cuomo

205,136 views • 2 years ago

This man's excellent response to being called a "sellout": True sellouts require equity to sell, most don't have it. He's transcended victimhood, rejecting poverty fetishization and using history as a reference, not a crutch. Builders create leverage, not excuses via racism. The idea of using racism to be unproductive in society is the clearest form of surrender, then claiming having intellect is acting white. Don’t let bullies trap you in stereotypes.

This man's excellent response to being called a "sellout": True sellouts require equity to sell, most don't have it. He's transcended victimhood, rejecting poverty fetishization and using history as a reference, not a crutch. Builders create leverage, not excuses via racism. The idea of using racism to be unproductive in society is the clearest form of surrender, then claiming having intellect is acting white. Don’t let bullies trap you in stereotypes.

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể

52,522 views • 9 months ago

On an annual basis between 2007 - 2012, trans activist Nina Arsenault was invited to speak to students at York University about porn and the "sex work" he did to pay for his surgeries. Arsenault accidentally hits the nail on the head: plastic surgery in porn, done to women's bodies, contributed to the objectification and deconstruction of women inherent to gender identity ideology. It laid the groundwork for dissociation and the escalating fetishization of women's body parts, and served as R&D for their commodification - womanhood as a product that men can purchase.

On an annual basis between 2007 - 2012, trans activist Nina Arsenault was invited to speak to students at York University about porn and the "sex work" he did to pay for his surgeries. Arsenault accidentally hits the nail on the head: plastic surgery in porn, done to women's bodies, contributed to the objectification and deconstruction of women inherent to gender identity ideology. It laid the groundwork for dissociation and the escalating fetishization of women's body parts, and served as R&D for their commodification - womanhood as a product that men can purchase.

Genevieve Gluck

26,473 views • 3 years ago

ARE STUDS NONBINARY? What do y’all think? Today on “Outlaws,” Ts Madison is joined by actor, model, songwriter, producer, trans icon, Taylor Swift music video star, Drag Race Pit Crew alumnus, and Miss Mary’s celebrity crush… Laith Ashley‼️❤️ Laith and Madison get into it ALL, from early experiences with gender nonconformity, to studs, T4T relationships, decolonization, the fetishization of trans men, and how EVERYONE undergoes gender affirming transitions in some form. Tap in to YouTube to watch the full episode, or listen wherever you get your podcasts — then join the conversation! 🔮🍿 🎥 Is It On Action News💄 iHeartRadio #tsmadison #laithashley #trans #gender #nonbinary

ARE STUDS NONBINARY? What do y’all think? Today on “Outlaws,” Ts Madison is joined by actor, model, songwriter, producer, trans icon, Taylor Swift music video star, Drag Race Pit Crew alumnus, and Miss Mary’s celebrity crush… Laith Ashley‼️❤️ Laith and Madison get into it ALL, from early experiences with gender nonconformity, to studs, T4T relationships, decolonization, the fetishization of trans men, and how EVERYONE undergoes gender affirming transitions in some form. Tap in to YouTube to watch the full episode, or listen wherever you get your podcasts — then join the conversation! 🔮🍿 🎥 Is It On Action News💄 iHeartRadio #tsmadison #laithashley #trans #gender #nonbinary

"Outlaws" with TS Madison

43,594 views • 6 months ago

We've been mocked by two African actors: Barrack Obama, who played a Black American president, and David Oyelowo, who played thee Black American civil rights leader. Both were trojan horses ushered in by Oprah. However, we cannot let other low-level conspirators, like Lee Daniels and Ava DuVernay, walk away with clean hands. These types of individuals harness the collective identity and support associated with American "Blackness" to advance their careers, but once they achieve professional success, they no longer feel compelled to prioritize that same community. Instead, they elevate foreigners, placing a higher value on them than they receive even in the lands they ran from. It is a form of fetishization coupled with intra-community disdain disguised as picking the best candidate..

We've been mocked by two African actors: Barrack Obama, who played a Black American president, and David Oyelowo, who played thee Black American civil rights leader. Both were trojan horses ushered in by Oprah. However, we cannot let other low-level conspirators, like Lee Daniels and Ava DuVernay, walk away with clean hands. These types of individuals harness the collective identity and support associated with American "Blackness" to advance their careers, but once they achieve professional success, they no longer feel compelled to prioritize that same community. Instead, they elevate foreigners, placing a higher value on them than they receive even in the lands they ran from. It is a form of fetishization coupled with intra-community disdain disguised as picking the best candidate..

Malcolm Luther Vesey

11,142 views • 1 month ago

In 1990 #Abraham_Yayehe, a senior #TPLE member, outlined the then hidden agenda of the #TPLF to annex NW #Gondar [aka #Welkait ] & parts of northern #Wollo [aka #Raya] into #TPLF’s delusional future #Tigray republic. This fetishization is still very much alive among the #Dadabit goons. Any attempt by anyone to negotiate let alone handover these historic #Amhara lands is a direct declaration of war on the #Amhara people. Abiy Ahmed Ali 🇪🇹 Demeke Mekonnen Hassen🇪🇹 Daniel Kibret Neamin Zeleke Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 Martha Andargachew Tsege Ephrem Madebo Gizaw Legesse Girma t. Beyene Asqual ተፈሪ። 🟩🟨🟥 Wassy Tesfa Amhara Association of America (AAA) Amhara Prosperity Party /APP የአማራ ብልጽግና ፓርቲ Addis Maleda - አዲስ ማለዳ እስከዳር እምሻው 🇪🇹አስካለ ማርያም Amhara Media Corporation Sheba - PushStart 🇺🇸🇪🇹🇪🇷🇺🇸 Resteye Tesfay @WelkayitGondar @AdonisLo

In 1990 #Abraham_Yayehe, a senior #TPLE member, outlined the then hidden agenda of the #TPLF to annex NW #Gondar [aka #Welkait ] & parts of northern #Wollo [aka #Raya] into #TPLF’s delusional future #Tigray republic. This fetishization is still very much alive among the #Dadabit goons. Any attempt by anyone to negotiate let alone handover these historic #Amhara lands is a direct declaration of war on the #Amhara people. Abiy Ahmed Ali 🇪🇹 Demeke Mekonnen Hassen🇪🇹 Daniel Kibret Neamin Zeleke Yemane G. Meskel 🇪🇷 Martha Andargachew Tsege Ephrem Madebo Gizaw Legesse Girma t. Beyene Asqual ተፈሪ። 🟩🟨🟥 Wassy Tesfa Amhara Association of America (AAA) Amhara Prosperity Party /APP የአማራ ብልጽግና ፓርቲ Addis Maleda - አዲስ ማለዳ እስከዳር እምሻው 🇪🇹አስካለ ማርያም Amhara Media Corporation Sheba - PushStart 🇺🇸🇪🇹🇪🇷🇺🇸 Resteye Tesfay @WelkayitGondar @AdonisLo

Dawit

57,409 views • 3 years ago

Studying Marx made me a much better entrepreneur. The most vocal critics of a system (Nietzsche to Christianity, Schmitt to Liberalism) are often the best guides. Marx is no different. If you want to master the game of capital, you need to understand his penetrating insights on alienation, primitive accumulation, and fetishization. My guest Marcus Ryu is one such master. He built a $16 billion startup, Guidewire, in response to Marx’s idea of alienation. The way to have motivated, effective employees is to address the problem of “estranged labor” within capitalism itself. This response represents both a deep agreement and rejection of Marx’s ideas. Marx was, of course, not his only philosophical guide in his entrepreneurial journey. For the first 25 years of his life, Marcus seemed destined to be a philosophy professor: top of his class at Princeton and Oxford, nerdy, with no interest outside the most theoretical of questions. And yet, after an existential crisis towards the end of his PhD on Wittgenstein Marcus found himself in Silicon Valley. This interview catalogs the story of that radical transformation and how Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, and Wittgenstein shaped his approach to building startups. Timestamps: 1:55 How To Unalienate Your Labor 16:38 From Oxford to SF 25:28 Two Founder Types: Messianic Leader vs. The Hyperationalist 30:32 How Philosophy Harms You As a Founder 42:10 The Sociopathic Founder Type 52:38 The Inner Dialogue of a Philosopher 1:02:59 Scholars are not thinkers, employees are not founders 1:36:10 Philosophy as a Monastic Life 1:55:24 Human-Centered vs. Ruthless Leadership

Studying Marx made me a much better entrepreneur. The most vocal critics of a system (Nietzsche to Christianity, Schmitt to Liberalism) are often the best guides. Marx is no different. If you want to master the game of capital, you need to understand his penetrating insights on alienation, primitive accumulation, and fetishization. My guest Marcus Ryu is one such master. He built a $16 billion startup, Guidewire, in response to Marx’s idea of alienation. The way to have motivated, effective employees is to address the problem of “estranged labor” within capitalism itself. This response represents both a deep agreement and rejection of Marx’s ideas. Marx was, of course, not his only philosophical guide in his entrepreneurial journey. For the first 25 years of his life, Marcus seemed destined to be a philosophy professor: top of his class at Princeton and Oxford, nerdy, with no interest outside the most theoretical of questions. And yet, after an existential crisis towards the end of his PhD on Wittgenstein Marcus found himself in Silicon Valley. This interview catalogs the story of that radical transformation and how Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, and Wittgenstein shaped his approach to building startups. Timestamps: 1:55 How To Unalienate Your Labor 16:38 From Oxford to SF 25:28 Two Founder Types: Messianic Leader vs. The Hyperationalist 30:32 How Philosophy Harms You As a Founder 42:10 The Sociopathic Founder Type 52:38 The Inner Dialogue of a Philosopher 1:02:59 Scholars are not thinkers, employees are not founders 1:36:10 Philosophy as a Monastic Life 1:55:24 Human-Centered vs. Ruthless Leadership

Johnathan Bi

42,563 views • 9 months ago

Everyone is exhausted. This is not a metaphor or a generational complaint. It is a clinical and measurable reality that spans every culture and every economic class. In China, young people call it tang ping, or “lying flat,” a deliberate withdrawal from the achievement treadmill. In Japan, karoshi is a legally recognized cause of death, meaning “worked to death.” In Korea, fertility has collapsed to the lowest rate on earth because an entire generation has decided the grind is not worth reproducing into. In America, deaths of despair have driven life expectancy backward for the first time in a century. Quiet quitting. Let it rot. The Great Resignation. These are not trends. They are symptoms of a global labor force that has reached the end of its tolerance. Capitalism is not satisfied with the limitations of human flesh, and our bodies are in open revolt. Something fundamental is breaking, and it is worth naming plainly. For the past two centuries, labor has been the primary mechanism by which modern economies distribute resources to households. You work for a firm, you receive wages, you use those wages to participate in the economy. This arrangement was never a law of nature. It was a system designed to solve a particular problem at a particular moment in history, and it worked reasonably well for a long time. It is not working anymore. Wages in the United States decoupled from productivity growth in the early 1970s. Since then, economic output has continued to climb while median household income has remained essentially flat. The gains have flowed to capital owners while workers have absorbed the stress and stagnation. Meanwhile, automation has steadily displaced human labor across sector after sector. Manufacturing employment peaked decades ago. Retail is hollowing out. White-collar work is now facing the same pressure from AI that blue-collar work faced from robotics. This is not a policy debate about whether automation is good or bad. It is an observation about a trajectory that is already underway and accelerating. The reason we struggle to talk about this clearly is that we have inherited a set of beliefs about labor that have nothing to do with economics. We have been told that work is sacred. That labor builds character and idleness corrupts the soul. That anyone who does not want to work is morally defective. These ideas feel like common sense, but they are not ancient wisdom. They are the residue of a specific theological tradition, namely the Protestant work ethic that emerged in the 16th century and fused with capitalism over the following centuries. We have mistaken a historical artifact for a natural law. It is time to stop fetishizing labor. It is time to stop sacralizing the sacrifice of our time, our bodies, our health, and our sanity to enrich others. Young people are already rejecting this. “I do not dream of labor” has become a widespread sentiment, not because this generation is lazy, but because they can see what older generations have rationalized away. The deal is bad and getting worse. The fetishization of work as a moral good serves the interests of those who benefit from cheap and compliant labor. It does not serve the people doing the work. Before any productive conversation about the future can happen, this fetish has to be named and dismantled. The difficulty is that both the political left and the political right remain committed to defending labor, even as the ground shifts beneath them. On the right, the defense takes the form of bootstrap mythology and warnings about welfare dependency. Work builds character. Idle hands invite trouble. A strong society requires productive citizens, and productivity is measured in hours exchanged for wages. This position treats labor as a disciplinary institution as much as an economic one. On the left, the defense is more sympathetic but equally stuck. The focus falls on dignified work, living wages, job guarantees, and union solidarity. These are responses to the genuine brutality of labor under capitalism, but they share an underlying assumption with the right. Both positions treat labor as the foundation of economic life, something to be reformed or protected rather than transcended. I call this shared ideology laborism. It is the belief that human labor must be preserved as an economic necessity, a moral virtue, or a foundation for identity. Laborism spans the political spectrum. It unites people who agree on almost nothing else. And it has become the primary obstacle to honest thinking about what comes next. Once automation reaches the point where machines can perform most human labor better, faster, cheaper, and safer, the laborist position becomes untenable. At that point, insisting that humans must continue working is not a defense of dignity. It is a demand that people perform unnecessary suffering for ideological reasons. I am proposing something simple. L/0. Labor-zero. The elimination of obligatory human labor. This does not mean the elimination of work. It means the elimination of compulsion. People will continue to create, to build, to care for each other, to solve problems, to pursue mastery. What disappears is work performed under threat of deprivation. The difference between chosen work and coerced work is the difference between exercise and forced labor. One is life-enhancing. The other is a condition we have historically recognized as a form of bondage. We call it “wage slavery” for a reason. The goal of L/0 is a world where no one has to work to survive. Where contribution is voluntary and intrinsic rather than extracted through economic desperation. This is not a utopian fantasy. It is a design problem with identifiable components and measurable progress. The coalition for this goal already exists. It just does not recognize itself yet. Consider who actually wants labor to end. On one side, you have capital. Corporations have spent the last century trying to reduce labor costs through every available means. Offshoring, automation, gig classification, union suppression. The ideal business from a pure capital perspective has zero employees and infinite output. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the explicit optimization target of every efficiency-focused enterprise. On the other side, you have workers. Not the abstract proletariat of Marxist theory, but actual burned-out humans who fantasize about quitting, who dread Monday mornings, who experience their jobs as something to be endured rather than enjoyed. The lying flat movement, the antiwork forums, the quiet quitting phenomenon. These are not expressions of laziness. They are rational responses to a system that extracts maximum effort for diminishing returns. Capital and labor are usually framed as adversaries. But on the question of whether human labor should continue to exist as an obligation, their interests converge. The capitalist does not want to manage humans. The worker does not want to be managed. Both would prefer a world where the machines do the work and humans do something else. The conflict between capital and labor is real, but it is a conflict over the terms of the transition, not the destination. Who captures the gains from automation? How is ownership distributed? What happens to the people displaced in the process? These are genuine fights worth having. But they are negotiations within a shared frame, not a war between incompatible visions. Here is the opportunity that L/0 names. Neither side wants this marriage anymore. Capital does not want the overhead, the liability, the HR departments, the labor disputes, the inefficiency of human workers. Labor does not want the compulsion, the precarity, the alarm clocks, the performance reviews, the quiet desperation of trading irreplaceable time for replaceable wages. We are ready for a divorce. Let’s get this acrimonious arrangement behind us. The productive move is to acknowledge this honestly, sign the papers, and start negotiating the separation agreement. The fight over wages was always zero-sum. Every dollar paid to workers was a dollar not captured as profit, and vice versa. But the negotiation over ownership of automated production is positive-sum. Capitalists need consumers with money to spend or their markets collapse. Workers need income decoupled from employment or they starve. Both sides get what they want if the transition is designed correctly. This is not idealism. It is alignment of incentives. The path forward is not mysterious. Economists have understood for decades that the answer to technological unemployment is broadened capital participation. If wages are no longer the primary mechanism for distributing economic gains, then ownership must take their place. Instead of trading hours for dollars, households participate directly in the productive capacity of the automated economy. This can take many forms. Sovereign wealth funds that distribute automation dividends to citizens. Expanded employee stock ownership plans. Universal basic capital grants. Public equity stakes in AI and robotics firms that use public infrastructure and public data. The policy mechanisms are not speculative. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund worth over a trillion dollars that provides direct benefits to its citizens from oil revenues. Alaska has distributed oil dividends to residents for decades. Singapore has a system of mandatory savings and public investment that gives citizens a stake in national prosperity. These are not radical experiments. They are proven models operating at national scale. And there are thousands of such programs around the world. What is missing is not economic theory. What is missing is the political will to implement these mechanisms, the narrative infrastructure to make them seem inevitable rather than radical, and the coalition to demand them. That is what L/0 exists to build. This is an invitation. If you are building the automation and wondering who is thinking about the social transition, this is for you. If you are burned out and know that “find a better job” is not a solution to a systemic problem, this is for you. If you have been called lazy for refusing to pretend the treadmill leads somewhere, this is for you. If you run a company and understand that your future customers need income even after your company stops hiring, this is for you. L/0 is not a political party or a policy platform. It is a coalition and a direction. The work is ongoing through the Post-Labor Economics project, which addresses the specific mechanisms of transition. The conversation is happening in public, and it is open to anyone who understands that the current arrangement is ending and wants to participate in designing what comes next. The goal is simple. Eliminate obligatory labor. Distribute ownership broadly. Let humans do what humans do when they are not forced to sell their time to survive. Liberate humanity from drudgery so that we can all reach our maximum potential.

Everyone is exhausted. This is not a metaphor or a generational complaint. It is a clinical and measurable reality that spans every culture and every economic class. In China, young people call it tang ping, or “lying flat,” a deliberate withdrawal from the achievement treadmill. In Japan, karoshi is a legally recognized cause of death, meaning “worked to death.” In Korea, fertility has collapsed to the lowest rate on earth because an entire generation has decided the grind is not worth reproducing into. In America, deaths of despair have driven life expectancy backward for the first time in a century. Quiet quitting. Let it rot. The Great Resignation. These are not trends. They are symptoms of a global labor force that has reached the end of its tolerance. Capitalism is not satisfied with the limitations of human flesh, and our bodies are in open revolt. Something fundamental is breaking, and it is worth naming plainly. For the past two centuries, labor has been the primary mechanism by which modern economies distribute resources to households. You work for a firm, you receive wages, you use those wages to participate in the economy. This arrangement was never a law of nature. It was a system designed to solve a particular problem at a particular moment in history, and it worked reasonably well for a long time. It is not working anymore. Wages in the United States decoupled from productivity growth in the early 1970s. Since then, economic output has continued to climb while median household income has remained essentially flat. The gains have flowed to capital owners while workers have absorbed the stress and stagnation. Meanwhile, automation has steadily displaced human labor across sector after sector. Manufacturing employment peaked decades ago. Retail is hollowing out. White-collar work is now facing the same pressure from AI that blue-collar work faced from robotics. This is not a policy debate about whether automation is good or bad. It is an observation about a trajectory that is already underway and accelerating. The reason we struggle to talk about this clearly is that we have inherited a set of beliefs about labor that have nothing to do with economics. We have been told that work is sacred. That labor builds character and idleness corrupts the soul. That anyone who does not want to work is morally defective. These ideas feel like common sense, but they are not ancient wisdom. They are the residue of a specific theological tradition, namely the Protestant work ethic that emerged in the 16th century and fused with capitalism over the following centuries. We have mistaken a historical artifact for a natural law. It is time to stop fetishizing labor. It is time to stop sacralizing the sacrifice of our time, our bodies, our health, and our sanity to enrich others. Young people are already rejecting this. “I do not dream of labor” has become a widespread sentiment, not because this generation is lazy, but because they can see what older generations have rationalized away. The deal is bad and getting worse. The fetishization of work as a moral good serves the interests of those who benefit from cheap and compliant labor. It does not serve the people doing the work. Before any productive conversation about the future can happen, this fetish has to be named and dismantled. The difficulty is that both the political left and the political right remain committed to defending labor, even as the ground shifts beneath them. On the right, the defense takes the form of bootstrap mythology and warnings about welfare dependency. Work builds character. Idle hands invite trouble. A strong society requires productive citizens, and productivity is measured in hours exchanged for wages. This position treats labor as a disciplinary institution as much as an economic one. On the left, the defense is more sympathetic but equally stuck. The focus falls on dignified work, living wages, job guarantees, and union solidarity. These are responses to the genuine brutality of labor under capitalism, but they share an underlying assumption with the right. Both positions treat labor as the foundation of economic life, something to be reformed or protected rather than transcended. I call this shared ideology laborism. It is the belief that human labor must be preserved as an economic necessity, a moral virtue, or a foundation for identity. Laborism spans the political spectrum. It unites people who agree on almost nothing else. And it has become the primary obstacle to honest thinking about what comes next. Once automation reaches the point where machines can perform most human labor better, faster, cheaper, and safer, the laborist position becomes untenable. At that point, insisting that humans must continue working is not a defense of dignity. It is a demand that people perform unnecessary suffering for ideological reasons. I am proposing something simple. L/0. Labor-zero. The elimination of obligatory human labor. This does not mean the elimination of work. It means the elimination of compulsion. People will continue to create, to build, to care for each other, to solve problems, to pursue mastery. What disappears is work performed under threat of deprivation. The difference between chosen work and coerced work is the difference between exercise and forced labor. One is life-enhancing. The other is a condition we have historically recognized as a form of bondage. We call it “wage slavery” for a reason. The goal of L/0 is a world where no one has to work to survive. Where contribution is voluntary and intrinsic rather than extracted through economic desperation. This is not a utopian fantasy. It is a design problem with identifiable components and measurable progress. The coalition for this goal already exists. It just does not recognize itself yet. Consider who actually wants labor to end. On one side, you have capital. Corporations have spent the last century trying to reduce labor costs through every available means. Offshoring, automation, gig classification, union suppression. The ideal business from a pure capital perspective has zero employees and infinite output. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the explicit optimization target of every efficiency-focused enterprise. On the other side, you have workers. Not the abstract proletariat of Marxist theory, but actual burned-out humans who fantasize about quitting, who dread Monday mornings, who experience their jobs as something to be endured rather than enjoyed. The lying flat movement, the antiwork forums, the quiet quitting phenomenon. These are not expressions of laziness. They are rational responses to a system that extracts maximum effort for diminishing returns. Capital and labor are usually framed as adversaries. But on the question of whether human labor should continue to exist as an obligation, their interests converge. The capitalist does not want to manage humans. The worker does not want to be managed. Both would prefer a world where the machines do the work and humans do something else. The conflict between capital and labor is real, but it is a conflict over the terms of the transition, not the destination. Who captures the gains from automation? How is ownership distributed? What happens to the people displaced in the process? These are genuine fights worth having. But they are negotiations within a shared frame, not a war between incompatible visions. Here is the opportunity that L/0 names. Neither side wants this marriage anymore. Capital does not want the overhead, the liability, the HR departments, the labor disputes, the inefficiency of human workers. Labor does not want the compulsion, the precarity, the alarm clocks, the performance reviews, the quiet desperation of trading irreplaceable time for replaceable wages. We are ready for a divorce. Let’s get this acrimonious arrangement behind us. The productive move is to acknowledge this honestly, sign the papers, and start negotiating the separation agreement. The fight over wages was always zero-sum. Every dollar paid to workers was a dollar not captured as profit, and vice versa. But the negotiation over ownership of automated production is positive-sum. Capitalists need consumers with money to spend or their markets collapse. Workers need income decoupled from employment or they starve. Both sides get what they want if the transition is designed correctly. This is not idealism. It is alignment of incentives. The path forward is not mysterious. Economists have understood for decades that the answer to technological unemployment is broadened capital participation. If wages are no longer the primary mechanism for distributing economic gains, then ownership must take their place. Instead of trading hours for dollars, households participate directly in the productive capacity of the automated economy. This can take many forms. Sovereign wealth funds that distribute automation dividends to citizens. Expanded employee stock ownership plans. Universal basic capital grants. Public equity stakes in AI and robotics firms that use public infrastructure and public data. The policy mechanisms are not speculative. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund worth over a trillion dollars that provides direct benefits to its citizens from oil revenues. Alaska has distributed oil dividends to residents for decades. Singapore has a system of mandatory savings and public investment that gives citizens a stake in national prosperity. These are not radical experiments. They are proven models operating at national scale. And there are thousands of such programs around the world. What is missing is not economic theory. What is missing is the political will to implement these mechanisms, the narrative infrastructure to make them seem inevitable rather than radical, and the coalition to demand them. That is what L/0 exists to build. This is an invitation. If you are building the automation and wondering who is thinking about the social transition, this is for you. If you are burned out and know that “find a better job” is not a solution to a systemic problem, this is for you. If you have been called lazy for refusing to pretend the treadmill leads somewhere, this is for you. If you run a company and understand that your future customers need income even after your company stops hiring, this is for you. L/0 is not a political party or a policy platform. It is a coalition and a direction. The work is ongoing through the Post-Labor Economics project, which addresses the specific mechanisms of transition. The conversation is happening in public, and it is open to anyone who understands that the current arrangement is ending and wants to participate in designing what comes next. The goal is simple. Eliminate obligatory labor. Distribute ownership broadly. Let humans do what humans do when they are not forced to sell their time to survive. Liberate humanity from drudgery so that we can all reach our maximum potential.

David Shapiro (L/0)

63,911 views • 6 months ago

🔥 NOW: President Trump just WALKED OFF field after crowning Spain the victor of the World Cup in NJ as he prepares his return to the White House Massive success for our nation! 🇺🇸🇺🇸

🔥 NOW: President Trump just WALKED OFF field after crowning Spain the victor of the World Cup in NJ as he prepares his return to the White House Massive success for our nation! 🇺🇸🇺🇸

Eric Daugherty

123,834 views • 5 hours ago

Communist China is NOT our friend. They ARRESTED my friend Jimmy Lai and put him in solitary confinement only because he stood up for DEMOCRACY. They steal organs from their own citizens and CONSTANTLY undermine America. The Communist China regime is absolutely DESPICABLE and MUST be held ACCOUNTABLE.

Communist China is NOT our friend. They ARRESTED my friend Jimmy Lai and put him in solitary confinement only because he stood up for DEMOCRACY. They steal organs from their own citizens and CONSTANTLY undermine America. The Communist China regime is absolutely DESPICABLE and MUST be held ACCOUNTABLE.

Rick Scott

33,462 views • 2 months ago

The question in 2026 is, do we put Americans first or Israel? It’s literally that simple. This is the difference between an Israel Lobby funded candidate (Haley Stevens) and one that is NOT (Dr. Abdul El-Sayed)

The question in 2026 is, do we put Americans first or Israel? It’s literally that simple. This is the difference between an Israel Lobby funded candidate (Haley Stevens) and one that is NOT (Dr. Abdul El-Sayed)

GenXGirl

19,207 views • 12 hours ago

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m very disappointed in NATO. Now all of a sudden they want to send us things, but they said it loud and clear at the beginning that they would rather wait until we won to help.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I’m very disappointed in NATO. Now all of a sudden they want to send us things, but they said it loud and clear at the beginning that they would rather wait until we won to help.

Department of State

351,320 views • 3 months ago

Unfortunately, there is a shortage of anti-ballistic capabilities – a shortage of Patriots – while Putin still intends to “vanquish” residential buildings rather than end his war. We have been discussing licenses for the production of Patriots with the U.S. Administration for a long time already. I thank all the countries helping through the PURL program, which enables us to purchase interceptors for Patriots. However, to reliably protect lives, we need our own production. European production here in Ukraine, or jointly with our partners, would also support the U.S. in operations whenever needed. We hope for a positive response from President Trump to protect lives. I also thank everyone who has expressed condolences to Ukraine today, everyone who has not remained silent and condemned Russian terror.

Unfortunately, there is a shortage of anti-ballistic capabilities – a shortage of Patriots – while Putin still intends to “vanquish” residential buildings rather than end his war. We have been discussing licenses for the production of Patriots with the U.S. Administration for a long time already. I thank all the countries helping through the PURL program, which enables us to purchase interceptors for Patriots. However, to reliably protect lives, we need our own production. European production here in Ukraine, or jointly with our partners, would also support the U.S. in operations whenever needed. We hope for a positive response from President Trump to protect lives. I also thank everyone who has expressed condolences to Ukraine today, everyone who has not remained silent and condemned Russian terror.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський

591,299 views • 17 days ago

A FIGHT BREAKS OUT between Silky and Damii at Streamer University, forcing YourRAGE to step in and break it up 😭🥊

A FIGHT BREAKS OUT between Silky and Damii at Streamer University, forcing YourRAGE to step in and break it up 😭🥊

RageUpdates (fb?)

60,051 views • 4 days ago