This is an argument I've seen used many times by anarcho-capitalists, libertarians and, God help us, objectivists. In their endless pursuit of arguments for the "natural hierarchy" they say is born out in capitalism, they often point to the indisputable reality that no one can survive without putting in the work.
source: Free SVG
When idealists like myself point out that we live in a technologically advanced world where the idea that everyone should work for a living is outdated and obsolete, they laugh and tell the story about a lone individual stranded on an uninhabited island; "you won't survive if you don't go out to catch a fish or pick some fruit, build yourself a hut or make a fire with some flint-stones, so yes, everyone should work for a living, that's just natural." And then they go on to say that in a community some will be better at catching fish, so if one individual catches 100 times more fish than the rest, it's only natural that he or she reaps the benefits by trading their fish for labor, goods or other perks; the magnificent fisherman "naturally" gains a position of authority and power. "That's capitalism man! It's beautiful!"
No it isn't. And it's wrong as well. In every community there are individuals that can't work at all, most obviously the children and elderly. When industrial capitalism was on the rise, child labor was normal, with children working 60 hours or more per week. The very idea that every individual must work to live is preposterous; even the most primitive tribal communities provide for the members that can't work. Overproduction is necessary and has always been the case, as the young, strong and able members of the tribes have always gathered and hunted enough food for everyone. Nowadays, if we just scratch all the unnecessary and bullshit jobs, and then equally divide all necessary work between all young, strong and capable members of society, we could produce enough of everything needed for a decent living for everyone, and work-weeks would be a day or two. Overproduction is a fact, the only difference between the community spirit of yesteryear and the individualistic mindset of today is that all the benefits of that overproduction land at the feet of society's biggest parasites; the capitalists.
They use their stupid theory, which is believed by far too many people still, to say that we should be thankful to the capitalists as they are the masterminds, the architects of the technologically advanced wonderworld we find ourselves in. And we should be grateful that they grant us jobs, so we can perform our duty in the natural hierarchy by working for a living. That's stupid. For every machine, every factory, every rocket-ship and every great idea or invention is made by workers, not the CEO's. Every last bit of wealth on this planet is built by workers. Kings, Queens and CEO's had nothing to do with that. Sure, there's a function for management, organizing and bookkeeping, they're not completely worthless, that's not what I'm saying. But for them to claim that they deserve their extreme wealth, or to say that we should be grateful for the jobs they provide, is ludicrous. They claim that working for a living is part of a free and voluntary agreement, but that's nonsense; "work or die," remember?
But here's where the anarcho-capitalists, libertarians and objectivists become extremely defensive; "there's no coercion here! You're free to leave and find another job!" Sure, we're free to trade one dictator for another. We're free to leave one place where everything's decided for us for another equally oppressive place. What joy! What freedom! I heard this magnificent counter-argument the other day, to use against these libertarians. Let's say you fell from a cliff, but you were able to grab a branch, so you can just hang on with one hand. And let's say you have a couple of thousand dollars in your pocket. And let's say I pass by, reach out to you for you to grab my hand... Oh wait! I retract my hand and ask if you have any money on you, and that I'll help you if you give me the money you have on you. Are you curious to know if a libertarian would then admit there's at least some coercion in play in that scenario? For the answer to that question, watch this hilarious phone-call, which also includes all the tired old arguments I've described above...
Libertarian Takes Sam To Coconut Island
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Cornerstone |
|---|---|
| Unreal | Criminal Of The Year |
| Bittersweet Victory | The True Meaning Behind Bitcoin |
| The Elements | Self-Help? |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.