posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:29 PM
Originally posted by paraphi
Our economic system gives huge choice, preceded by a free education. Someone has to do the “crappy jobs”, but one persons “crappy job” may be
another person’s ideal. People have to start somewhere and if that means a "crappy job" from their perspective, then so be it.
Then we must have a completely different definition of the word choice. Either that or you are simply naive to the reality of "choice".
I realise crappy jobs have to be done, but that really wasn't what I was referring too.
If you fully understood how it could be with worker ownership you would realise that under capitalism workers have very little choice.
The division of labour is essential if we are to progress and live in a more complex world. In feudal times it would be great to be in one of
the few professions where you were not desperately poor and living hand to mouth. The world of yesteryear was not some ripe apple with sun and
laughter – it was pretty “crappy” for the majority.
I disagree. Division of labour just makes production more efficient, it doesn't effect progress. In fact I could argue it slows progress.
Capitalism most definitely slows progress, unless you call an iphone progress? It's just an update to something invented decades ago. Why not work
on progressing energy production away from oil? Because it makes people too much money. Money is not progress, finding ways to make money easier is
not progress. A community taking care of it's self with worker owned industry based on the communities needs would be progress.
I take issue with this. People are lazy because being lazy pays. If there was not any cash for being lazy then people would suddenly find
reason to be motivated. If people cannot help themselves then why should I (as a tax payer) subsidise their lethargy.
Well it's a matter of opinion isn't it?
The problem is people can't help themselves in a system that doesn't offer the ability to help themselves. If people were educated to help themselves
with a craft, instead of being conditioned to except a system that is not in their best interest, then they could have at least a chance to help
But the capitalist system is not interested in making workers wealthy, it's about keeping the means of production in the hands of the few. If
capitalism made the workers wealthy the owners would lose their control. If jobs were in abundance private owners would have to continually increase
pay and improve conditions, because the worker would have the power to simply go find another job if they were not happy. So there is never going to
be enough jobs to go around. Lazy or not under capitalism there will always be an unemployed class of healthy workers, and it is in the capitalists
interest to keep them healthy.
As long as we have capitalism we will have the government we have, and we will have the liberal social-safety net we have. Like it or not it can't be
any other way.
If we had worker ownership it would end unemployment, and then there is no excuse to not work.
edit on 9/26/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)