10 ms·

We can choose who we work for (sometimes), but we can't choose not to work at all. Our engagement in the capitalist labour market is mandatory; otherwise we sta

We can choose who we work for (sometimes), but we can't choose not to work at all. Our engagement in the capitalist labour market is mandatory; otherwise we starve to death. Doesn't sound like we have much control over our labour to me.

sparrish 4y ago
Visit any large city in the US and you'll find hundreds or thousands who have made that choice. They line the sidewalks and alleys. Yes, you have that choice; you may not like the lifestyle it provides but you have that choice.
- worldshit 4y ago
  but you don't have the choice of living like a hunter-gatherer, because all good lands have been swallowed up by capitalist megacommunities
  - badpun 4y ago
    There's plenty of hunter-gatherers in Siberia or Amazon rainforest.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      "Plenty"? What fraction of the world's population today do you suppose could feasibly choose to live as hunter gatherers?
    - worldshit 4y ago
      those in the amazon are being brought to extinction by bolsonaro. those in siberia are subject to putin's whim...
      - badpun 4y ago
        I don't think Putin gives a shit about them. Probably the state does not even have the means to track (public id document etc.) a lot of them.
vt85 4y ago
[dead]
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
I'm concerned my response will be taken poorly so I will try to phrase this well. I hope you take this in the manner I intend it - with love in my heart. We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. Now, we as people are also compassionate and we want the elderly to not starve and we want the infirm cared for. We have instituted social programs to cover these smaller cases. But, to believe that a normal human being can do nothing and that someone else will provide for them - wholesale across our country - doesn't seem very sustainable. I'm not sure what you want, or I may be mischaracterizing your view - if so I apologize. If you can explain better your point or who would provide for those who don't want to, I would appreciate it.
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  > We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. Make things equitable, born with nothing but you can scavenge yourself. > To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. You mean like "private property"? Your logic only makes sense in an equitable world, where everyone is born equal, but that's not the case. Just look at the wealth inequalities around the world, like 1% of people owns majority of all wealth.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    This is diving into a conversation that may be best not had on HNN. @Dang - delete this if you like man, no offense taken. I don't think the goal is equity but equality. At least, that is my goal. I want the lowliest shoeshine boy to have the opportunity to do amazing things. I make no apologies for the country I was born or the circumstances. I grew up on a poor farm in a broken trailer surrounded by my backwoods relatives. I chose to do something different. My view does not make sense only in an 'equitable world' - consider the inverse. If everyone decides not to work because they are 'owed food so as to not starve' then who will harvest the grain, who will sow the fields, who will till the earth. A policy that would require people to work and then give away all of their product is not equity its slavery.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Parasitism was a crime in the USSR. Venezuela for a time, maybe still, had compulsory field labor during the oil price crisis. Where exactly - "capitalist" or otherwise - can you choose not to work without having to submit yourself to extensive checks for actual means tested poverty to get guaranteed food/clothing/shelter?
- pxmpxm 4y ago
  This - the very same people that push far left collectivist ideas like the ones linked intentionally sidestep the fact that every single socialist set up had compulsory labor participation. The only difference is that with the latter set up, they get to fully control what you do. The reason why I saw no homeless people growing up is because the commies locked them all up.
choko 4y ago
Your need to work is tied directly to your need for food and shelter - in other words, biology. You can alternatively grow your own food and build shelter, but that's also work. Sustaining life requires work. Whether we engage in a market where we exchange some of our labor for vouchers that we can use to exchange for the fruits of someone else's labor or do the work ourselves doesn't change that.

sparrish 4y ago

Visit any large city in the US and you'll find hundreds or thousands who have made that choice. They line the sidewalks and alleys. Yes, you have that choice; you may not like the lifestyle it provides but you have that choice.

worldshit 4y ago
but you don't have the choice of living like a hunter-gatherer, because all good lands have been swallowed up by capitalist megacommunities
- badpun 4y ago
  There's plenty of hunter-gatherers in Siberia or Amazon rainforest.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    "Plenty"? What fraction of the world's population today do you suppose could feasibly choose to live as hunter gatherers?
  - worldshit 4y ago
    those in the amazon are being brought to extinction by bolsonaro. those in siberia are subject to putin's whim...
    - badpun 4y ago
      I don't think Putin gives a shit about them. Probably the state does not even have the means to track (public id document etc.) a lot of them.

vt85 4y ago

[dead]

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

I'm concerned my response will be taken poorly so I will try to phrase this well. I hope you take this in the manner I intend it - with love in my heart. We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. Now, we as people are also compassionate and we want the elderly to not starve and we want the infirm cared for. We have instituted social programs to cover these smaller cases. But, to believe that a normal human being can do nothing and that someone else will provide for them - wholesale across our country - doesn't seem very sustainable. I'm not sure what you want, or I may be mischaracterizing your view - if so I apologize. If you can explain better your point or who would provide for those who don't want to, I would appreciate it.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
> We, as humans, are only entitled to what we can ourselves provide. So then why do we have inherited wealth, why not ban that. Make things equitable, born with nothing but you can scavenge yourself. > To believe otherwise may be to hoist the black flag to take from others that which they did not earn. You mean like "private property"? Your logic only makes sense in an equitable world, where everyone is born equal, but that's not the case. Just look at the wealth inequalities around the world, like 1% of people owns majority of all wealth.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  This is diving into a conversation that may be best not had on HNN. @Dang - delete this if you like man, no offense taken. I don't think the goal is equity but equality. At least, that is my goal. I want the lowliest shoeshine boy to have the opportunity to do amazing things. I make no apologies for the country I was born or the circumstances. I grew up on a poor farm in a broken trailer surrounded by my backwoods relatives. I chose to do something different. My view does not make sense only in an 'equitable world' - consider the inverse. If everyone decides not to work because they are 'owed food so as to not starve' then who will harvest the grain, who will sow the fields, who will till the earth. A policy that would require people to work and then give away all of their product is not equity its slavery.

lr4444lr 4y ago

Parasitism was a crime in the USSR. Venezuela for a time, maybe still, had compulsory field labor during the oil price crisis. Where exactly - "capitalist" or otherwise - can you choose not to work without having to submit yourself to extensive checks for actual means tested poverty to get guaranteed food/clothing/shelter?

pxmpxm 4y ago
This - the very same people that push far left collectivist ideas like the ones linked intentionally sidestep the fact that every single socialist set up had compulsory labor participation. The only difference is that with the latter set up, they get to fully control what you do. The reason why I saw no homeless people growing up is because the commies locked them all up.

choko 4y ago

Your need to work is tied directly to your need for food and shelter - in other words, biology. You can alternatively grow your own food and build shelter, but that's also work. Sustaining life requires work. Whether we engage in a market where we exchange some of our labor for vouchers that we can use to exchange for the fruits of someone else's labor or do the work ourselves doesn't change that.