Eh… There’s a difference between utilizing or societally benefiting someone else’s labour and exploiting someone for their labour. Exploitation in an economic sense generally requires you to capitally monopolize a persons excess production value for personal gain. You can’t really be considered exploitive unless you own the means of production. Basically unless you are a business owner or employ someone you aren’t really participating in capitalism in an exploitive manner.
I guess I didn’t drill down into the exploitation aspect, yeah. The people actually doing the jobs I don’t know how to do–mining, farming, sewing, etc.–are at this point almost entirely disadvantaged people in other countries, who are being woefully underpaid and subjected to terrible conditions. (A lot of farming is also done here, but it’s still by exploited foreign workers, so…) And a bunch of that relies on other systems too, like farming being done by as few workers as it is depends on fertilizers from the petrochemical industries, which are hurting people EVERYWHERE. I wouldn’t be able to afford anything if it weren’t discounted in this way. Even if there was no actual apocalypse, and only the exploitation went away, it’s not at all clear to me that I would have a way to keep myself alive.
Oh for sure, capitalism is built on exploitation, and it makes everyone rely on the system of exploitation that it creates. My main point is that you as an individual are not really responsible for that exploitation. The reason you are reliant on cheap imported labour in the first place is because you yourself are likely a worker being exploited by a person capitalizing on your labor.
only the exploitation went away, it’s not at all clear to me that I would have a way to keep myself alive.
Just because exploitation theoretically disappears doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be another system of labour and resources organization to replace it. Every form of labour is equally important so long as it fulfills a need for society. There can only be so many farmers or minors.
Eh… There’s a difference between utilizing or societally benefiting someone else’s labour and exploiting someone for their labour. Exploitation in an economic sense generally requires you to capitally monopolize a persons excess production value for personal gain. You can’t really be considered exploitive unless you own the means of production. Basically unless you are a business owner or employ someone you aren’t really participating in capitalism in an exploitive manner.
I guess I didn’t drill down into the exploitation aspect, yeah. The people actually doing the jobs I don’t know how to do–mining, farming, sewing, etc.–are at this point almost entirely disadvantaged people in other countries, who are being woefully underpaid and subjected to terrible conditions. (A lot of farming is also done here, but it’s still by exploited foreign workers, so…) And a bunch of that relies on other systems too, like farming being done by as few workers as it is depends on fertilizers from the petrochemical industries, which are hurting people EVERYWHERE. I wouldn’t be able to afford anything if it weren’t discounted in this way. Even if there was no actual apocalypse, and only the exploitation went away, it’s not at all clear to me that I would have a way to keep myself alive.
Oh for sure, capitalism is built on exploitation, and it makes everyone rely on the system of exploitation that it creates. My main point is that you as an individual are not really responsible for that exploitation. The reason you are reliant on cheap imported labour in the first place is because you yourself are likely a worker being exploited by a person capitalizing on your labor.
Just because exploitation theoretically disappears doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be another system of labour and resources organization to replace it. Every form of labour is equally important so long as it fulfills a need for society. There can only be so many farmers or minors.