Can't forget the terrible consequences of failing to meet "quota" (make enough to pay the bills).

But thanks for pointing this out, it really is similar, just with enough layers of abstraction to make the structure hard to see.

I imagine the people who actually think about how they are working just for basic needs are mostly a different group of people than those yelling about freedom.

I don't know how many conservatives wake up in the morning with the feeling that everything they do is just to make some rich guy richer until they eventually die. Because why would they be a conservative at that point?

Yeah the deal is, you do a sensible and helpful amount of work, and get taken care of in return, like (almost) everybody else.

If you work long hours, it's because it's thrilling and you choose to, even when money isn't involved.

The context is that there is enough wealth in most western countries that not everyone must work to survive. Working should be for having access to more things that just surviving, and not everyone should be required to work all the time just to survive.

Basic needs are basic, like food, shelter, and healthcare. If everyone had access to those basic things they would be free even if they need to work to attain more.

Surely there isn't an economic system in which people don't work for a top 1%, but for everyone, you could say a communal, or a social, economic system...

The alternative is all the wealth and resources hoarded by top 1% are shared among people so that everyone has access to basic stuff like food, shelter and healthcare regardless of whether they're able to work.

Which isn't to say this would be easy to achieve, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

It's called democratic socialism.

I agree, this is simply stating fact.

The problem isnt the work, the problem is you dont get most of the reward for it. It all sits in some nepo baby ceos bank account, probably overseas so they never pay taxes on it either. Every company does this, and competing with them is a risk with a 98% casaulty rate

Obviously work has to be done, but if the 1% wasn't hoarding all the value we're creating, we'd be able to work less AND be better off. How is it that in an era of technology and automation, we still have to work 40 hour weeks if not more, yet a large percentage of the population can barely afford the basics? Some will always be wealthier than others of course, but no person needs billions of dollars, especially not while others are starving.

It's pretty clear to me that the original theme was that capitalism can and will ignore your basic needs. In the US capitalism is the way our economy works and the way people provide for their basic needs. Yet, at the same time, we claim to represent freedom. The original point, I think, is the juxtaposition of freedom and capitalism. We have the illusion of freedom. Our true freedom is really just a choice to participate in the machine, to be a criminal, or to die.

The problem isn't that people have to do work. The problem is that we live in an economic system where the increase in profit created by technological advances is seized by business owners to make themselves richer, at the expense of the workers who they employ. This allows some to become billionnaires while others have to work multiple jobs or become homeless.

The goal isn't to be self-sufficient -- the goal is to continue to work with others, while abolishing the class of people who would happily seize profit created by your own labour to make themselves an easy buck.

We live in an economically connected world. An argument can be made that they're forced to subsistence farm in a backbreaking and cruel way due to the natural resources of their country extracted by oligarchs that don't even live in Africa.

Wherever poverty exists, rich people are involved by their sheer unwillness to share enough to meet everyone's basic needs.

Is every person in those communities required to work to eat and have shelter, or does the community take care of those that are unable to contribute labor due to health conditions/old age?

I can imagine by some stretch you can still blame the rich, maybe without the rich people they'd have more access to better farmland, cheap water, etc.

Rich people are very likely at fault, too, given that shitty countries are handy for cheap labour and materials, like coltan...

The lack of rich people doesn't imply freedom - people who are forced to hunt, gather, fish or farm for subsistence only with no reward beyond that are enslaved to the need to produce food and find shelter, but that differs from a society where there's sufficient food and shelter, it's just hoarded by those who have too much

Additionally the presence of rich people doesn't imply a lack of freedom - you could have a "safety net" system where everyone is guaranteed housing and enough grains and beans/similar to survive, and if they want more they can work for it (some of the taxes from this go towards compensating farmers and builders), giving people the freedom to not have to worry about survival, while also allowing for people to earn lots of money and buy nice things if they want and/or can