Many good answers here, but one also has to factor in that not all labour is socially necessary. With rising surplus value and extraction thereof, there follows also a rising inequality leading directly to more people becoming more or less servants of the capitalist class.

I would argue that labour of this type, whether that be managing contradictions arising from the capitalist mode of production or the placating of rich people’s whims and needs, is not socially necessary. At the very least the product of this effort ranges from insignificant to detrimental for the proletariat.

It’s generally true that technology improving actually increased work load for the working classes. Major concessions for leisure time came from active organization and resistance, as concessions to prevent revolt (especially when near the USSR, which was more advanced in social safety nets), or via imperialism, using the global south to subsidize the global north’s living standards.

This is all true of capitalism, but of course technological development within socialism can and does serve the working classes. The advancement of technology is critical to reduce work load and increase living standards, and as such socialist society needs to place an immense amount of effort on the technological front.

ever? Totally used to. Social movements fought for the 40h work week in the 19th and early 20th century in many countries. Then the post-WW2 era was defined by Keynesian economics, and economic growth in Western economies actually translated into higher wages.

Then came neoliberalism, peddled by fraud economists like Hayek and Friedman, enacted by politicians like Raegan and Thatcher. Unions were weakened, and the rich were free to appropriate all the productivity gains and growth.

I recommend reading “The Hidden Doctrine”, short and easy book.

Just to put credit back in here, without bringing more clicks to Twitter:

https://xcancel.com/orevazsn/status/2056666244300825043