Humans are the only animals in the natural world that work towards anything other than their direct good. Moreover, especially in the developed west, the reality is that humans generally work almost exclusively to their indirect good with the very limited exceptions of tidying up around the house, doing the laundry, and cooking, but even these later universals are associated with those that haven’t the means to oblige someone else to fulfill these tasks for you, the basic paradigm being that if one could acquire the necessary funds, which everyone must want and anticipate, they could forego all species care taking up to bathing and other physical hygiene.
This radically bizarre, yet often unconsidered, thought process is the exact product of wage based capitalism, whereby an individual comes to associate an arbitrary monetary value to a certain itemized task or series of tasks that they perform. They are conditioned into this relationship since infancy as a secondary nature of the social contract, in which, in addition to their individual human rights, the citizen foregoes the direct fruits of their labors in the interest of the superstructure attaining the increase of material wealth it requires to continue to manifest.
*If you don’t act like the state/economy is real, it ceases to be real*
In exchange for these sacrifices, the citizen humans are endowed with arbitrary rights, necessary units of trade (money proportionate to their position,) and the satiation of the hard work myth. One establishes their value according to how they and society perceive his work. He applies himself to it accordingly, and experiences the sensation of proportionate value as a consequence of its actualization.
Having traded his literal quantitative body and strength to near maximum (depending on the nature of his work and his physical and mental relationship to it) he feels an emotional justification in not wishing to exert anymore and the compulsion to use his trading units effectively to unburden himself accordingly. This, of course, detaches him from the literal (direct) relationships to work that a sort of homesteader feels and erodes his innate understanding of real value for a purely commodified and abstract understanding of it. It ceases to be important how well one can care for themselves/others, or even what they can create, and becomes exclusively what they can afford and of put, fostering a distinctly inactive (passive) sense of self.
The citizen human becomes primarily identifiable passively, associated to “hobbies” and “recreations” which they don’t lend value to on a real personal or social level, enacting them as time that is valuable precisely because it is devoid of creative purpose. Even worse than this, though, is the alternative common response, wherein a person becomes actualized through their indirect work, coming to see their value in what they can do arbitrarily. This response is worse, due to the sociological concept of the “good person” that it renders, who is “nice,” “hardworking,” and, above all, appreciates the established order on a deeper, more subconscious (unchangeable) level. This person will therefore feel greater vindication according to their indirect labors, again on a level of subconscious dogmatism, and will be heartily resistant to deeper self exploration and fluid consideration of arrangements and realities. This in particular is the mechanism behind the “middle class,” and it is precisely why they historically side with the oppressive in their paradigm, especially in America.
-“He” and “His” are here used for the authors inability to properly write. The sentiment is obviously not gendered.
-If you like this stuff, or think you do, you should follow me, because I’ve got notebooks full of it that I’ll be putting on here.
-If you’d like to talk to me about it, you should do that too.