Poverty is the default state of any society. To survive and thrive specialisation is needed to grow productivity. If a field doesn't produce people working on it would starve and die.
In primitive societies old and sick were not treated well at all. To care for the "non-productive" members there should've been enough resources for them too. If you don't have enough to eat, the weakest usually died or in some circumstances left behind on purpose.
So to take care of these members you need productivity to create enough resources for them. Productivity grows from specialisation and tools. When a carpenter builds a house he can't grow the food for his family. So he needs to swap his work for food. Bartering is easiest done via a proxy medium like money. The most efficient bartering is when the two parties voluntary swap goods and services. This is the free market. Keeping your stuff is "private capital ownership" and owning your tools to produce is "ownership of tools of production".
This is the way groups of people get wealthy and have enough for all members of society. Free market capitalism creates the wealth for that, because of the ruthless market forces that penalise useless work for which no one is keen to swap their own work/products/money. This is why capitalism produces enough to share around if/when society decide to do so. All other systems have so much inefficiencies that they can't produce enough and there is nothing to share.
> There is no reason, beyond ideology, that human worth should be measured in productivity. We could work less. We could value care as much as capital. We could build a world in which art, learning, and rest are not treated as indulgences, but as fundamental parts of life. The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to.
I don't even know what vague nonsense this person is even in favor of. It's weird reading this leftist (re: conservative government tag) drivel. I'm a singularitarian for sure. Post scarcity and all that.
What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny."
What kind of insane value inversion is this? You don't want to come to the office. You don't want to interview. You don't want to work.
> What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny."
So we should round up and discard all of the disabled, sick, elderly and children? Purposefully missing your point for fun - I know you don't believe that, right?
IMO, the conclusion you quoted isn't arguing that people shouldn't work at all. It's arguing about the very definition of "work" in capitalism. Why are certain things which take a great deal of time and effort not considered work? Why are some types of work not valued when they clearly provide value? Of course the answer is the recipient of the value needs to have money. If they don't have money, they are immoral for not having money and unworthy of receiving the value.
Using your definition:
> Work is just doing something for someone else they like.
Let's rewrite it to be more accurate:
> Work is just doing something for someone else <who has money> they like.
Human worth is not measured by productivity. Human productivity is valued as an exchange good. These are completely different things. The entire missive concludes with this straw man you quote.
So to answer your question... Yes, that is literally what that blog post is saying. "Gimme." Just with elevated language: "The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to."
Poverty is the default state of any society. To survive and thrive specialisation is needed to grow productivity. If a field doesn't produce people working on it would starve and die. In primitive societies old and sick were not treated well at all. To care for the "non-productive" members there should've been enough resources for them too. If you don't have enough to eat, the weakest usually died or in some circumstances left behind on purpose. So to take care of these members you need productivity to create enough resources for them. Productivity grows from specialisation and tools. When a carpenter builds a house he can't grow the food for his family. So he needs to swap his work for food. Bartering is easiest done via a proxy medium like money. The most efficient bartering is when the two parties voluntary swap goods and services. This is the free market. Keeping your stuff is "private capital ownership" and owning your tools to produce is "ownership of tools of production".
This is the way groups of people get wealthy and have enough for all members of society. Free market capitalism creates the wealth for that, because of the ruthless market forces that penalise useless work for which no one is keen to swap their own work/products/money. This is why capitalism produces enough to share around if/when society decide to do so. All other systems have so much inefficiencies that they can't produce enough and there is nothing to share.
> There is no reason, beyond ideology, that human worth should be measured in productivity. We could work less. We could value care as much as capital. We could build a world in which art, learning, and rest are not treated as indulgences, but as fundamental parts of life. The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to.
I don't even know what vague nonsense this person is even in favor of. It's weird reading this leftist (re: conservative government tag) drivel. I'm a singularitarian for sure. Post scarcity and all that.
What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny."
What kind of insane value inversion is this? You don't want to come to the office. You don't want to interview. You don't want to work.
Is it literally just "gimme"? are you a child?
> What the hell is the talk of "human worth" supposed to even mean. If you can't even feed yourself, you're a fucking joke. Work is just doing something for someone else they like. What is the argument here. "I should be free to be completely parasitic and useless, anything less is tyranny."
So we should round up and discard all of the disabled, sick, elderly and children? Purposefully missing your point for fun - I know you don't believe that, right?
IMO, the conclusion you quoted isn't arguing that people shouldn't work at all. It's arguing about the very definition of "work" in capitalism. Why are certain things which take a great deal of time and effort not considered work? Why are some types of work not valued when they clearly provide value? Of course the answer is the recipient of the value needs to have money. If they don't have money, they are immoral for not having money and unworthy of receiving the value.
Using your definition:
> Work is just doing something for someone else they like.
Let's rewrite it to be more accurate:
> Work is just doing something for someone else <who has money> they like.
Yeah.
Human worth is not measured by productivity. Human productivity is valued as an exchange good. These are completely different things. The entire missive concludes with this straw man you quote.
So to answer your question... Yes, that is literally what that blog post is saying. "Gimme." Just with elevated language: "The question is not whether Britain is working. It is why we are still expected to."
M-C-M'