4 ms·
> where the analogy does not hold true: > 1. Voluntary participation Ten (or even five) years ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed that our current economic
by hliyan 1y ago
> where the analogy does not hold true:
> 1. Voluntary participation
Ten (or even five) years ago, I would have wholeheartedly agreed that our current economic system is entirely voluntary compared to feudalism.
But as of late, looking at the debt you have to go into to get into a qualified profession, the fact that that the majority of people will not own land for the majority of their lives (or at least until they pay off their mortgage), the fact that an unexpected health crisis could throw you into bankruptcy or homelessness, and that medical insurance can be tied to employment, that there are no public places you could occupy if you do not have a home, that you cannot participate in society (at least in the US) unless you own a motor vehicle, that you cannot effectively trade unless you are participating in the banking system (credit cards) and that your income stream can be terminated with very little notice or reason (at least in the US), I wonder whether the choice of participation is an illusion. Perhaps not too different if someone from feudal times argued that a person can always choose to go live in the woods.
- vjerancrnjak 1y agoThis is actually a very old observation. Wage labor (private tyrannies), consent under coercion (work or starve), availability of exploitative contracts, "free market" supported by corporate welfare, state, intellectual property etc. You've given examples for all of the points.
- 0thgen 1y agoIsn't "work or starve" just a fact of nature? In what system do people not have to work to survive? (aside from a system where robots do all the labor)
- vjerancrnjak 1y agoI meant "consenting" to a wage contract when the other option is to starve. Many social democracies almost provide an option where you don't have to participate in capitalism with universal healthcare, government welfare etc.
- 0thgen 1y agoI think the fact that people can pick and choose which contracts to engage in, can back out at any time, and in many cases if you live in a rich country, opt out altogether. Even if there are "pressures" (either socially induced or biological) to work in some form, "consent" seems like a perfectly reasonable word to describe modern conditions. Like, do we really, truly believe the current world is no different from the feudal past? Is that not hasty reductionism?
- vjerancrnjak 1y agoI believe it is different.
- jampekka 1y agoWork for others owning the means of production or starve is not a fact of nature.
- 0thgen 1y agoIn what type of society do I not have to do that? Even if I live in a society where everything is collectively owned, I’m still forced to work for the collective (of which I have one share among the population, essentially giving me about as much control as a “vote”)