-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of 123hop at comcast.net Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 10:54 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Agency and Capitalism
I understand. But it seems strange to say that a worker chooses to work.
Can we say that one chooses to work or to starve?
Joanna
=====
It's still a choice. And you are focusing on the individual worker. If the individual decided to become a beggar or grab purses until he/she got 'comfortable' lodgings in prison, the job he/she refused would still be filled.
Contrast that with the slaves in the ancient gold mines as one ancient writer whose name I forget described it.
The story of the man who thought that at the moment opium put him to sleep he understood the secret of the universe, but could never remember it. Finally he succeeded in scribbling it down before lapsing into unconsciusness. Awake, he eagerly inspected his message: "A strong odor of petroleum pervades throughout."
"Agency" and "choice" pervade throughout. But they never matter! (Individually)
Carrol
P.S. And Milton grasped this when it was still embryonic:
Som natural tears they drop'd, but wip'd them soon; The World was all before them, where to choose Thir place of rest, and Providence thir guide: They hand in hand with wandring steps and slow, Through Eden took thir solitarie way.
What Milton left out was that the HAD no choice but to choose! The worker who chooses a job over starvation nevertheless still chooses because he is forced to choose. I cointed the phrase "compulsory free choice" for use in my Milton article. This freedom to choose might be seen as the chains which are all the workers have to lose.