Submitted by DirtyOldPanties t3_zl0vmo in philosophy
AConcernedCoder t1_j0nqlkn wrote
I agree with what looks like the general consensus here that the use of "parasite" is at best uncharitable.
And it goes against any view which suggests that people generally desire to live well and to thrive at some fundamental level. In my opinion, thriving can require work, and yes it's true that hard work can help us to be happy, but that's where the industrialized protestant work ethic seems to want us to stop to suit capitalism's interests. In reality, when work starts to look like slavery, there is a point where thriving begins to end, and sometimes workers even die. Thriving may not always look like productivity, nor is it always a constant. In fact I'd go so far as to say that so-called "parasites" don't fail to thrive because they don't desire to thrive, but because they are denied the opportunity to do so thanks to an antiquated ideology which deliberately limits their capacity to thrive and seeks to use said "parasites" as a motivator to push everyone else to work harder.
But, to be a little more business-minded and less emotive, this still doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that innovation, creative works, etc, as a driving force that pushes a healthy economy beyond mere industry, relies heavily on people who sacrifice their time for little to no pay, and so to motivate these people to stop what they're doing and to work harder has got to be one of the most nonsensical anti-capitalist ideas that capitalism promotes.
Meanwhile, the priveleged few, infants really, have the red carpet rolled out for them to receive billions to run fraudulent pyramid schemes, revealing that it isn't very much about hard work at all. Our sacred system is not only broken, it's gangrenous and needs massive amputations. Is there any point where we may correctly conclude that we need something better, or are we effectively locked into going down with the ship by our sacred dogma?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments