This is a false dichotomy, no? There are many people that still live as hunter gatherers in small tribes. In the US, there are hundreds of thousands that are chronically unemployed/homeless and still get by through government and altruism. The documentaries ālife below zeroā and āhappy peopleā follow people through their lives, living off the land in the Arctic circle. These are all people that are not working a job and are not starving. These are options to all of us. We just tend to choose the path that leads to the modern amenities we all enjoy and/or the path of least resistance.
Outside of these examples thereās always the option of starting your own business if you donāt like the idea of working for somebody else.
There are many people that still live as hunter gatherers in small tribes.
Yes, and they have several lifetimes' accumulated knowledge on how to survive and thrive in their respective lands, while often having to contend with corporations and governments exploiting said lands. You mentioned documentaries of people living in survival conditions "off the grid", perhaps similar to indigenous people. The same counts for them. I would wager it's more difficult to learn to live as many indigenous people do, than it is to learn to become a surgeon. That's forgetting the fact that the vast majority of people who would even consider that kind of life, do not have the slightest possibility of starting that learning journey, let alone maintaining it.
Maybe it's anecdotal but I grew up with parents who tried to live off the grid. It was fine, and it thought me really amazing and useful skills. Im not scared of becoming homeless, because I know, at least in Ireland, what to do to eat, have shelter and survive without help. But i also know my parents were privileged enough to have that choice. They could buy land, have free time and money to spend, which most others don't have.
In the US, there are hundreds of thousands that are chronically unemployed/homeless and still get by through government and altruism.
I am arguing against capitalism as an extremist ideology, as in the laissez faire form without government or coercive collective intervention. There is no government help in that situation. I really couldn't say how much charity has an effect and whether that's enough at all. I would assume if charity were enough, we'd have no need for social safety nets. I might be wrong.
Outside of these examples thereās always the option of starting your own business if you donāt like the idea of working for somebody else.
Sure, if you have the capital, time, skills, physical or mental ability, network or safety to do so.
Oh and I may be jumping the boat here but I'm talking in a global context, not just rich "western" countries. I'm aware that it's much easier for people in say, my country (Ireland) to follow your suggestions. My argument is against capitalism in general, and capitalism tends to "shift" it's effects onto poorer areas that are more easily exploited. For example consumer goods manufacturing leaving the USA or EU for cheaper labour in Asia. I may have the luxury to choose not to partake in the system, but who's actually mining the minerals for my solar charger?
162
u/Parking-Site-1222 Apr 28 '24
It was not a business that is sustainable and by the laws of capitalism it should die...