3 ms·

We don't struggle "for existence" because high tech manufacturing has made production highly reliable and regular and abundant. We struggle for _inclusion_ in

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

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.