I don't care what system you implement, staying alive is going to require labour. We're nowhere near utopian sci-fi style post scarcity yet.
human labour is a matter of nature until and if post-scarcity is achieved, although I would argue it doesn't have to be "work". It can just be fun.
Wage slavery on the other hand, isn't. It's a human construct enforced through incredible violence.
I think there is an important distinction between what is required of a human to exist and what a capitalist society refers to as labor lol
We get closer to post scarcity everyday. Just depends on if society collapses or rather we get passed this great filter.
that's not the problem at all.
the problem is that you must do labor for a particular group of people who own all of the money, and you must do something that they want you to do.
so you end up selling bullshit that destroys the planet, made with slave labor, to abusive assholes.... also, no sitting allowed, no expressing your personality, no unusual tattoos or hairstyles or then you're only allowed to do the really shitty work.btw, we've fenced off all the land and you're not allowed to sleep anywhere or gather any food without money... so which, again, is almost entirely owned by a very small group of slave masters.
nice how you're pretending like the argument is about working vs not working at all...
and btw, we do live in a post scarcity society and universal basic income works just fine and is a huge benefit to society.
You must have learned a different definition for "utopian" and are very much stretching the definition of "post scarcity". We ain't there yet, and aren't going to be for the foreseeable future.
As for the first paragraph, the vast majority of western society doesn't work that way. There are a few major examples in the US that do (Amazon comes to mind) that are rightfully criticized for it (although I wish the criticism came with a side of actual consequences).
I mean, it turns out that if we all specialize in one type of labor or another we each become significantly more productive than if we all tried to provide for ourselves as individuals or even small collectives. If we use money as a rough way of storing the value of our labor, we can use that layer of abstraction to trade labor with each other at impersonal scales, benefitting even further from specialization and organization.
I, for one, am glad someone else has gotten super good at growing food and building shelter so that I can concentrate on other things as I desire. I could even become a farmer, if I wanted!
Not sure why you're bringing up specialization
Without specialization the effectiveness of trading labor doesn't go much beyond just doing favors for each other. I don't get much value out of having you do a task for me if I can do it comparably as well as you can. I have to weigh the benefit of having someone else work for me and building mutual trust against the cost of being indebted to someone else and the risk of them doing differently to how I would have wanted. If we each specialize, now other people can offer labor that I can't perform myself, and when they get good enough at their specialty it really starts to outweigh the negative sides of having someone else do the work for you.
He literally wrote a paragraph explaining why it's pertinent..
I mean, it would be an order of magnitude more work to grow all the food and build the (subpar in comparison) amenities I need to survive. But I guess then I would just be a slave to nature. You can't escape.
Separation of duties does not imply capitalist wage slavery
Nobody works in communism 🙄
Nobody works in capitalism 🙄
Exactly as valid a statement. I wish I could be as ignorant as you. Life would be so easy. Where do you even get that idea. Did the USSR make nothing? Surely they made something, right? someone worked.
They managed to make the first artificial satellite with a developing economy and much lower starting education, all without anyone working I guess?
