Surviving Capitalism (Not) : Indignity of not-work?

We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Friday, January 13, 2017

Indignity of not-work?

Click here to access article by economist David Ruccio from Real-World Economics Review Blog.

Mainstream economists and economic commentators continue to invoke the so-called “dignity of work” to criticize the idea of a universal basic income.

It’s an argument I’ve dealt with before (e.g., here and here). As I see it, there’s nothing necessarily dignified about most people being forced to have the freedom to sell their ability to work to a tiny group of employers. The idea may be intrinsic to capitalism—but that doesn’t mean it contributes to the dignity of people who work for a living, especially when they have no control over how they work or what they produce when they work.

Quite to the contrary. Working for employers is subjecting oneself to the indignity of a wage-slave by working for bosses (masters) who have essentially complete control over you while at work; and increasingly nowadays for middle managers with the introduction of cellphone technology to their jobs, this kind of relationship often extends beyond normal work hours.