somewhere to work without the threat of poverty or deprivation.

[Darkover]

the modern work system as exploitative and dehumanizing, particularly when it involves low-wage, precarious jobs that offer little in terms of personal fulfillment or security.

In capitalist societies, the means of production (land, factories, resources) are owned by individuals or corporations rather than by the community as a whole. This concentration of ownership leads to economic inequality, as those who own the means of production accrue wealth, while those who sell their labor are often paid just enough to survive. This structure necessitates that people sell their labor (work) in exchange for wages, which they then use to purchase the necessities of life (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.).
The necessity to work arises because without income, one cannot afford these essentials. The market-based economy doesn't provide these for free, so individuals must participate in the labor market to survive.

Most societies operate on a social contract where individuals are expected to contribute to the economy, often through work. This contribution is seen as a fair exchange for the benefits provided by living in a structured society (infrastructure, security, etc.).
There's also a cultural expectation that work is a fundamental part of life, contributing to one's identity, social status, and self-worth.

Low-Wage, Precarious Jobs: Many jobs in capitalist economies are characterized by low pay, insecure contracts, and poor working conditions. These jobs often lack benefits, job security, and opportunities for advancement, leaving workers in a constant state of anxiety about their livelihoods.

Lack of Personal Fulfillment: Work that is repetitive, monotonous, or disconnected from an individual's interests and values can feel dehumanizing. When jobs do not provide opportunities for creativity, growth, or contribution to something meaningful, they can become purely transactional, reducing the worker to a mere cog in a machine.

This concept centers around creating conditions where people can work not out of necessity for survival, but out of a desire to contribute to society, pursue personal fulfillment, or engage in meaningful activities.

 

[untothedepths]

the problem is, is that many people arent paid enough just to survive and there are a finite amount of jobs to go around. People who are so pro-capitalist claim its still better than trying to solve those issues to just outright saying its the best way to weed out those who "dont make it". The politics of not really caring about stability, solving issues at its core, or compassion. Its every rich man for himself, even if all he does is sit on his ass. Its astounding humanity allows this exploitive social construct without trying to balance any of it. it is arguably one of the biggest the reasons why we have so much suffering as we do.

 

[Hvergelmir]

This concentration of ownership leads to economic inequality...

Some capitalist presented a pretty good argument, way back...
Why can't cooperatives exist within capitalist framework? ...and, there are indeed quite a few coops where the laborers are owning the means of production. Some of them also turn a good profit.

This concept centers around creating conditions where people can work ... out of a desire to contribute to society,

Those conditions do exist locally, at various places. I think the core issue is modern connectivity and scale.
If I were to improve the condition of my home village, and clearly see my contributions having a positive effect on people and my surrounding, that would feel meaningful. In many modern jobs, the contribution goes into convoluted systems (companies or socialist institutions). It's virtually impossible to know where the contribution ends up.
If my hard work results in 0.3% increased yield of a large plantation in a neighboring country, after going through four different companies, that is very significant. But it wouldn't feel like it. We're simply not wired to appreciate such scales. In it's place we have corporate propaganda...

Its astounding humanity allows this exploitive social construct without trying to balance any of it.

It is continuously being balanced through state intervention and legislations, both on national and international levels. This is what prevents capitalists from fielding armies and writing their own laws, among other things.
To me capitalism isn't an ideology, but more of a natural phenomena. Concentrated pockets of power are seen in all social systems. Free market ideology just happen to concentrate a lot of power in production, which is a comparatively good place.

Common solutions tend to attempt to move power from producers to consumers, which harms production, and subsequently harms consumers. What you likely want is to turn consumers into producers.
I personally think any meaningful change will be cultural, rather than political. As long as the majority willingly sells as much freedom they possibly can for the chance to consume more in the moment, things will not change. It's not something common people can compete with, without doing the same.

 

[DarkRange55]

Ranked: The Most Dangerous Jobs in the United States

Some jobs are inherently riskier than others, but which ones were the most dangerous in the U.S. when it comes to fatal work injuries?

www.visualcapitalist.com