|
|
|
|
|
|
by titanomachy
27 days ago
|
|
|
I also wouldn't reduce a human to a "worker". Perhaps your relationship with the world is that you reluctantly labour so that you have money which you can exchange for the things that you want. Many people relate to the world this way, but not all of them. The most joyful moments of my life are things like hiking with friends, or good conversation, or spending time with family, not purchasing commercial goods. And conversely, my work often gives me opportunities to help people, which I find fulfilling. If I didn't need the money (and I don't, probably) then I would still spend at least some of my time doing something work-like. The economic lens is only one (incomplete) way of viewing human activity. Don't get so attached to that lens that you diminish your view of yourself, and your own potential. |
|
|
Yet, it's done routinely in public communication and portrayed as something noble.
> Many people relate to the world this way, but not all of them.
So? Is the distinction even economically relevant? The fact that you hate or love your chains has no bearing for the slavemaster.
> The most joyful moments of my life are things like hiking with friends, or good conversation, or spending time with family, not purchasing commercial goods.
That's great. I never said that being a consumer is joyful or the whole picture of human existence. Only that that's where the poor people are most economically powerful and that this should politically embraced, promoted and protected.
> The economic lens is only one (incomplete) way of viewing human activity.
Sure, but we were talking about economy and associated politics.