Look around your house.
Consider the things you want.
They're commodities. They are objects subject to exchange, if for no other reason than the basket of goods you want in your house is different from the basket of goods I want in my house. So we have to engage in exchange to get to the basket of goods we need.
Of course people want to do work simply to contribute - the basis of society is reciprocal altruism - but they do also want their needs met. And so they offer to satisfy the needs of others (writing books, working at a computer factory, and, yes, even having sex) in exchange for the means to get what they want. It's not an evil thing. For reciprocal altruism to work, there has to be reciprocity.
Why do you insist that producing commodities is evil?
boddi
On 9/27/06, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 3:42 PM -0700 27/9/06, boddi satva wrote:
>
> >The tragedy is that
> >people want to work - want to be productive in exchange for their
> >needs -
>
> Wanting to be productive and wanting to be productive in exchange for
> their needs can be two different things.
>
> In fact the latter is somewhat illogical, its a bit like arguing that
> people want to have sex in exchange for being paid. Isn't it rather
> the case that people want to be productive and contribute to society
> full stop?
>
> > and find no opportunity. It's tragic that people *want* to
> >provide for each other and are denied the means because they lack even
> >small amounts of capital.
>
> If people want to provide for each other, then why do you insist that
> this can only be done through exchange of commodities?
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>