• LemmysMum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not quite. Think beyond class antagonism as being between the owner and worker class, and retrofit it to consumer and existor classes.

    As long as resources (existors) are finite exploitation exists because life’s (consumers) consumption limits the potential for other consumer’s consumption. Consumers inevitably must exploit existors for survival, our consumption is temporary and unsustainable, we will consume each other, entropy will claim us all.

    Yes, I understand that goes a bit out of scope of base ‘economics’, but you’re right in saying that doesn’t mean we can’t reach some semblance of inter-human exploitation free society, though that will be something for future generations to enjoy while it lasts.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exploitation is understood as describing effects from social relationships.

      Other terms, such as utilization and extraction, describe processes of humans interacting with inanimate matter, including ecological resources.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Here’s the simplified scenario.

        There is 100% of resource, I take it all, you have none. I have exploited your weakness and incapacity for survival. You die.

        This is the selfish survival model.

        There is 100% of resource, I take it all, you have none. I give you 50% of the resources despite exploiting your weakness and incapacity for survival. We both live.

        This is the selfless survival model.

        These are the two base conditions for the continuation of life.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The essence of your scenario is the protection of private property.

          I identified as the overarching objective the abolition of private property.

          Scarcity of natural resources is intractable, yet we still seek, for the social systems through which they are managed, those that best support our shared objectives.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But you can’t abolish private property. I take ergo you cannot. Private ownership is inherent to the consumption of limited resources.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Private property is a social construct, and no more.

              Some societies hold the construct, others lack it.

              Interaction with the natural environment requires simply agency and activity, not any particular social construct or system.

              Some system of management is required for members of society to benefit collectively from the same resources, but private property is not required.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. Sorry.

                  Private property is not a concept that coherently describes the behaviors of rats.

                  Private property is a social construct that occurs in some but not all human societies.

                  Modern society, organized by the capitalist mode of production, produces the class disparity through private property.

                  Socialists seek the abolition of private property, and thereby, the eradication of the class disparity.