Comment by x3haloed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by x3haloed | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I feel Ike the feeling of being served on our society has everything to do with economic equality. There are professions that pay more or less, and people with professions that pay more are able to afford services that people with lesser paying professions can provide. Using words like "profession" and "service" tend to imply that these are normal, usual things that happen in "free" societies, a.k.a. capitalistic societies. If I'm not mistaken, this is essentially the exploitation of the working class that Marx was talking about.

If everyone earned the same living, then there would be very little serving happening, because everyone's time is effectively worth the same amount, and thus it wouldn't make sense to give away all your money to people to perform services for you that you could have done yourself if you didn't have a job.

The reason that people serve other people in our society is that we're unequal, and there are socio-economic reasons for that. I believe it has more to do with economic inequality than Nietzchean slave morality.

"If everyone earned the same living, then there would be very little serving happening"

So, if lawyers and surgeons' compensation were similar, lawyers would do their own operations, and surgeons would represent themselves in court?

You seem to be arguing that, if all specialisations have equal market value, then there are no/few gains from specialisation.

No. And that’s a good point. But:

1. I don’t think that fits into the category of servitude that the other was talking about. 2. Why would one put in the effort required to go through specialized school and certification processes if there wasn’t a huge payout waiting for them? I think only the most passionate would bother.

Re #1, you're probably right, they were probably talking about serving where the one doing the serving is less well off that the customer. But in a world where everyone earns the same, this category by definition doesn't exist. So it's not a meaningful point.

I may be wrong about what they meant, in which case the preceding paragraph may be attacking a straw man.

There are still economies of scale i.e. it's a lot easier for me to make 100 lunches than for 100 people to make their own lunch. That's aside from how good I'll get at making lunches after making 100 every day.

Good point

Hmm... Maybe I've been stuck by a realization: there is no such thing as a free society, only societies where you can or cannot choose your master.

You are mistaken. Exploitaition supposedly occurs because of unequal workplace relationships that lead to workers producing above what is the market value of their labor. Marx did not deny a free and equal labor market, although he treated the notion with some contempt. The closest thing you're referring to is the notion of commodity fetishism, but applied to labor as a commodity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com