3 ms·

> The only way to avoid struggle is to be rich - and that's because the rich had set it up that way. Ummm, no? Not really? You think "the rich" could just magi

by edanm 5y ago

> The only way to avoid struggle is to be rich - and that's because the rich had set it up that way. Ummm, no? Not really? You think "the rich" could just magically end the need for work if they chose? We live in an age of abundance relative to the past, but not to the point where we don't have to struggle for our existence, at least somewhat. (Though to be clear, I am personally incredibly well placed in this society, and though I have to work, my profession is way easier than many other people's and my compensation far greater, as is true of many people on this forum)

DarylZero 5y ago
We don't struggle "for existence" because high tech manufacturing has made production highly reliable and regular and abundant. We struggle for _inclusion_ in the institutions that allow is to consume from this fountain of wealth. Production is reliable, but inclusion is always precarious.
- romwell 5y ago
  And who would that royal "we" be? The "we" that doesn't have to pay rent? The "we" for whom food is free? The "we" whose student loans were paid off by someone? The "we" that doesn't know that being homeless is, essentially, illegal? The "we" that doesn't realize that there is no alternative to inclusion in the system of institutions? Seriously, what do you think "exclusion" here is. The only way out is 6 feet under, otherwise you are still a part of the system, and the "struggle" is an inherent part of it. This is where the socialists and libertarians agree, by the way. Except the Libertarians imagine there's a way to be sort of outside the system (while, somehow, still getting the benefits), and the Socialists aim to improve the system instead. Regardless, either would agree that the struggle of existing within the system is an artificial, and purposeful effect of the way the system was structured.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Really confusing response. Must be some miscommunication. > Seriously, what do you think "exclusion" here is. Exclusion from any of the social institutions of income distribution. Whether private or state. Whether a job, a government pension, an unemployment check, or a dividend from a private fund. > The only way out is 6 feet under, otherwise you are still a part of the system The system is a system of exclusions (or a hierarchy of exclusivity) used to enforce rules against or create incentives for the included. Prison is a kind of exclusion, and so is unemployment.
romwell 5y ago
>Ummm, no? Not really? You think "the rich" could just magically end the need for work if they chose? Yes[1]. And it's not that I think so, it's that the likes of Bertrand Russel have observed it to be the case[2] back in the 50s. If you think it's impossible to ensure that every citizen has access to food, shelter, education, transportation, and healthcare regardless of their employment status, you seriously underestimate how everything we do is struggling to fight over crumbles. Of course it's possible. Most people will choose to work, still. Right now, it's not a choice. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income [2]https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/ https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/

by edanm 5y ago

DarylZero 5y ago

We don't struggle "for existence" because high tech manufacturing has made production highly reliable and regular and abundant. We struggle for _inclusion_ in the institutions that allow is to consume from this fountain of wealth. Production is reliable, but inclusion is always precarious.

romwell 5y ago
And who would that royal "we" be? The "we" that doesn't have to pay rent? The "we" for whom food is free? The "we" whose student loans were paid off by someone? The "we" that doesn't know that being homeless is, essentially, illegal? The "we" that doesn't realize that there is no alternative to inclusion in the system of institutions? Seriously, what do you think "exclusion" here is. The only way out is 6 feet under, otherwise you are still a part of the system, and the "struggle" is an inherent part of it. This is where the socialists and libertarians agree, by the way. Except the Libertarians imagine there's a way to be sort of outside the system (while, somehow, still getting the benefits), and the Socialists aim to improve the system instead. Regardless, either would agree that the struggle of existing within the system is an artificial, and purposeful effect of the way the system was structured.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Really confusing response. Must be some miscommunication. > Seriously, what do you think "exclusion" here is. Exclusion from any of the social institutions of income distribution. Whether private or state. Whether a job, a government pension, an unemployment check, or a dividend from a private fund. > The only way out is 6 feet under, otherwise you are still a part of the system The system is a system of exclusions (or a hierarchy of exclusivity) used to enforce rules against or create incentives for the included. Prison is a kind of exclusion, and so is unemployment.

romwell 5y ago

>Ummm, no? Not really? You think "the rich" could just magically end the need for work if they chose? Yes[1]. And it's not that I think so, it's that the likes of Bertrand Russel have observed it to be the case[2] back in the 50s. If you think it's impossible to ensure that every citizen has access to food, shelter, education, transportation, and healthcare regardless of their employment status, you seriously underestimate how everything we do is struggling to fight over crumbles. Of course it's possible. Most people will choose to work, still. Right now, it's not a choice. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income [2]https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/ https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/