I want to define a distinction between two scenarios of wage labor. I intend for these to be fairly generic, but I'll overly define them later.

  1. Restricted labor mobility: Whatever job you are doing in exchange for a wage cannot be done somewhere else due to your material conditions. The reason for this restriction can be many things, a few examples include:
  • The type of labor is not valued in other locations. A historical example of this would be coal mining in the Appalachians.
  • You cannot afford to move to a new location. An example may be due to meager wages or could be due to healthcare accessibility.
  • Debt cycle where you must persist in your current location or incur some excess debt.
  1. Unrestricted labor mobility: this is basically the absence of anything covered in item #1. You have a high enough paying job that allows you to move to another location where your skills talents and abilities enable you to persist your material conditions to some generalized standard of living.

These two definitions are somewhat detached from your relation with the means of the production, but #1 will general not be a member of the ruling class, and #2 could be any class, but I generally want to focus on the Petite Bourgeoisie or PMC like relationship.

If you are a member of #1, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Your material conditions dictate that your duty is to survive because you don't have the resources to alter your material conditions in a meaningful way, which I would argue (generally) is a failing predicate to alter the material conditions of others.

If you are a part of #2, you have some ability to change your place of work and can therefore affect your material conditions. You can therefore likely affect the material conditions of others.

So another way to state the #1 vs #2 divide is as follows:

A. You cannot affect your own material conditions.

B. You can affect your own material conditions, but not those of others.

C. You can affect your own material conditions and those of others.

The extent to which you can enforce a change is of unspecified quantity, the point is you have some autonomy to make choices.

  • If you are a member of A or B you are stuck in a structural cycle that does not require you to consume ethically.
  • If you are a member of C, you have autonomy to improve the lives of others and failing to do so is unethical.

What are some examples of failing to do so as a member of group C?

  • If you have unrestricted labor mobility and choose to contribute to imperialism you are acting unethically. You definitionally have the opportunity to work elsewhere. A common response to this is that... If I don't work at Raytheon, somebody else will. That reasoning only applies to Group A or B. As a member of Group C you have the obligation to help others.
  • Excessive treat seeking. Use your money to help members of A or B, not to buy the sports package on your sixth car.
  • Hording wealth. When you die, you don't get to take your money with.

This post was inspired by: https://hexbear.net/post/246918

If you work in the valley and are part of group C, choosing to produce surplus value for any "big tech" company is permissible, so long as you take your money and help group A or B. Detaching from society while you contribute to the horrors of imperialism or neoliberalism does not make you a communist, it makes you a :LIB:.