> That’s really just a reconfiguration of the same underlying problem.
so your problem is the human condition? Where for someone to exist, they have to work and produce something from which others in society would pay for?
My problem is this being framed as the human condition, as if some people doing labor for others to survive is some immutable fact from on high.
It’s a relatively new phenomenon, part of an economic system created by people who reap outsized benefits compared to their own labor. It’s also a system which has promised efficiencies which would reduce work, which it’s delivered but very unevenly and mostly inversely proportional to the people actually doing the work.
We already live in a post scarcity society for some, but the people who get to enjoy that are generally not the people who make it possible. My problem is that the people who make that possible don’t get to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and people who are actually disabled are totally at their mercy. All because we’ve collectively decided capitalism is some kind of unquestionable, perpetual compromise which never has had to make good on promises to anyone who wasn’t already wealthy.
> there's no "some" in post-scarcity - it's either for all, or we aren't in a post scarcity society.
No kidding, that’s why I want it to benefit more people who actually need to benefit from it.
> it's not unquestionable, but so far, no better system has been proposed that produces as much goods/services as capitalism has.
And it also produced artificial demand for labor and a claim that people working from home is bad if it doesn’t buttress this artificial demand or supplement it with some other demand. I don’t need to be a 19th century philosopher to know when something has run its course.
so your problem is the human condition? Where for someone to exist, they have to work and produce something from which others in society would pay for?