Why would people work in your ideal system?

[Boojatta]

Do you consider it an outrage for large numbers of people to be working because they are afraid of going hungry?

What if large numbers of people are working to maintain a lifestyle of consuming luxury services? What if the services require an army of workers?

Please answer this question with a yes or no:

Are you outraged at the thought of millions of people in some parts of the world spending their days working to prepare delicacies while there is still hunger in the world?

If people shouldn't be working for necessities or for the obvious kinds of luxuries, then what should they be working for?

Perhaps people should be working for eccentric luxuries. For example, we could imagine a society where farmers, factory workers, shopkeepers, doctors, teachers etc. all live in very spartan homes and eat spartan foods and spend a lot of money to attend lectures about the latest discoveries in astronomy, archaeology, etc.

[skids]

1. Reality.

The reality is that hunger is not caused by human oppression. Human oppression only throws obstacles in the way of people trying to feed themselves. You could live in the Graden of Eden but if you didn't want to lift your arm to pick the fruit, you'd starve.

Some work has to be spent on survival, and some on regrettables (e.g. rebuilding after natural disasters.) It is no outrage that people work to eat. What's an outrage is that some people who are able, do not produce anything, destroy other things, and are in general a drain on everyone else's time and labor. Moreover that there are so many of them that we are where we are today.

[seriousstan]

2. If everyone gets the same house and food and goods no matter what

the job, I want the job of my choice.

[bryant69]

3. I don't know if you can make people feel a certain way

But ideally people should be motivated by charity and love for their fellow man. Also passion for obscure tv shows I think should be on the air but are floundering.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Boojatta]

4. Consider someone who works in a restaurant

Suppose a customer orders a burger and fries. The restaurant worker could ask, "Are you sure you wouldn't rather have something more nutritious?"

That could annoy the customer. One does not want to annoy people one loves.

Perhaps the customer is supposed to be concerned about creating a dilemma for the restaurant worker. So the customer could ask, "Is it okay for me to order a burger and fries or do you recommend something more nutritious?"

However, unless a particular restaurant worker and a particular customer are acquainted with each other, it's hard to imagine a typical restaurant customer being concerned that a restaurant worker would be concerned about the customer. Also, restaurant workers aren't typically experts in nutrition anyway.

[bryant69]

6. would w really be better if we were a nation of nags

always nagging each other to do the "right thing."

What if I go to the Record store and the guy says "Do you really need that Chemical Brothers CD? Wouldn't you feel better if that money went to africa to help people who really need it?"

And more to the point, if we really ran society along those lines, there probably wouldn't be any record stores to speak of.

Bryant

[Boojatta]

7. I tried to give a concrete example of part of your proposal

ideally people should be motivated by charity and love for their fellow man.

Did I misunderstand what you meant? Do you want to revise that answer?

[bryant69]

8. You understood - the problem is implementation

How do we get from imperfect people whos motivations are largely selfish to perfect people who's motivations are largely unselfish - this is one of the few times I feel like talking about religion - because obviously there have been various ways religions have tried to solve this problem.

Bryant

[Boojatta]

10. If person A tries to help person A, then

do you conclude that person A is selfish and imperfect?

If person B tries to help person A, then do you conclude that person B is unselfish and possibly perfect?

Since in both examples they have the same intention (to help person A), why come to opposite conclusions about the moral nature of their actions?

[StellaBlue]

5. answers

to your subject line:
To feed themselves and their families. Which could easily be done by everyone working about four hours per day, five or six days a week.

First question - yes, but that's the reality of living as an animal on the earth, so I can't be too outraged.

Second question - the luxury thing is what troubles me. I think we would all be happier working less and with less luxuries. Most of which are just distractions, anyway, and constantly changing just to keep us in thrall. We ARE the army of workers.

Yes or no question - YES.

[Selatius]

9. If you don't work, you will die in my society (that's true in all societie

If you work, you will get food on the table, shelter, clothes, and help if you need it medical or otherwise. The only exceptions would be where you are simply unable to work because of disability or because you're too old and anything else out of your control like a natural disaster.

That's how a society built upon democratic principles should work where workers own the means of production and decide what to produce, how to produce, and when to produce according to what the workers decide, what the workers need, and what the workers want. Ideally, the process would be done in as democratic manner as possible. Think of a society dominated by worker co-ops and partnerships instead of corporations controlled by a select few individuals.

If you refuse to work and are able to work, then nobody is under any obligation to help you at all. You live by the grace of individual charity from others, but that's pretty much it.

If we are talking about a major strike of some kind where hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands refuse to work, it is best to negotiate, but striking for a cause is different than simply trying to freeload the system.

Unfortunately, in the current order of things, you can work and work very hard, but you have no guarantee of access to food, clean water, or even shelter, and that's an injustice that should never be tolerated. Capitalism has never solved this injustice. Indeed, it perpetuates the injustice.