= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Moss_Piglet comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
Because the Third Option is being left out: independent living off the commons. This is what disappeared with the Enclosure Movement and thus signalled the rise of capitalism. Wal-Mart is the entity withdrawing this worker from subsistence on the commons, and also partially responsible for the elimination of the commons, therefore they are responsible for "beating" the Commons Offer.
I have to concur with Ms Lebovitz here; what do you mean living off the commons?
Talking about enclosure strongly implies farming/herding on public land, but that seems like an unlikely argument for you to make. What common goods have been privatized by Walmart in this situation, and how were people living off of them before?
Edit: Oops, replied to wrong comment. Was meant for the parent.
Ok, let's see. Firstly, the enclosures were a completely English, not even Anglo-American, phenomenon; nobody else even had any commons. Secondly, the commons were just about sufficient to support something like 10% of a population of around 10 million. Thirdly, wow, I would much rather have a Walmart wage than try to scrape together meals from the land that nobody cares about enough to claim for themselves. To suggest that this is a viable alternative all over the world and in industrial times is silly.