Yes there is such a requirement, at least for the majority of people. The quote at the bottom by Kropotkin places it into perspective; under the name of free contract, huge numbers of people, I must say the vast majority of people, must either provide labour-time in exchange for wage, or die. I do not mean 'force' in the sense that somebody is putting a gun to your head, I meant it in the sense that there is a system set up and perpetauted by those who profit from it (the capitalist class) such that in order to live and indeed buy back the products which their labour gives value to these people are forced to work.

Do you think many people, especially the poorest or those in the least favourable jobs, would engage in such wage labour if they had the opportunity not to? No, they engage in it beacuse they are forced by the circumstance of the capitalist system. It is an impersonal force, but a human constructed social and structural force nonetheless.

I realise that there is a distinction between 'killing' and 'letting die', and it is philosophically significant, but most people would agree that a system in which 'letting die' is a fine course of action save for the intervention of the twisted charity of the State which defends the system is not an ethical one, nor a moral one, in a world in which it is certainly possible to do better.

Kropotkin's "analysis" is a nice soundbite, but it's just bashing a strawman and proposing a dream-like utopia to replace it with. Feudal times were nothing like capitalism. The capitalist "class" is fluid, unlike nobility - the surveys I've read put wealth churn at around 60-70% after just a couple of generations. There are people "stuck" in generational poverty, but they're not a "class" either - there's plenty of rags-to-riches stories, and there's no obvious system to uplift them all. Consider the situation in the US, where the people below the poverty line are richer than the lower classes of most other countries. Or how the US middle class is "eroding" into upper class citizens at a 2:1 rate(for every person dropping to the lower class, there's 2 rising to upper). Is this the "not ethical" "not moral" system that is "letting people die"?

Kropotkin's solution to the evils of capitalism is anarchism - a utopia where people would just cooperate and get along. This is a fantasy, and to substantiate it he day-dreams about the good old pre-feudal days(which never existed in the way he dreams of them). Just like communism, his proposals rely on fundamentally changing human nature - they are meant for a different species, not us. Your "certainly possible to do better" world is nowhere in sight, from my point of view.

We've had poets, sci-fi writers and activists speak about how we should do better, how we should find that utopia where everyone is equal(ignores intrinsic human variance), everyone is happy and getting along(ignores basic human nature), and no one is poor(ignores the relativity of wealth). In fact, the changes in human nature that these systems require would also change capitalism for the better - i.e. you don't need a system that fairly redistributes wealth, if everyone is as altruistic as Gates after his career.

That's precisely the point; we call the feudal system barbaric while it offers, at least in the respect he talks about, the same barbarism. However you are also right, the advancement of capitalism has brought many people to higher standards of living and continues to do so. The class system of the social Anarchists and Communists sets up all workers, from your SV programmer down to your Bangladeshi sweatshop labourer as proletarians, and this is the problem, it's nothing to do with riches or how much money you have, it's to do with the fact that people are alienated from their labour and still forced by necessity to sell their labour-power.

>Is this the "not ethical" "not moral" system that is "letting people die"?

Yes, none other than it. You'll notice that your point about raising standards of living is actually irrelevant to the deeper point I have made about selling one's labour-power for wage, which people must continue to do - it is this which I regard as the oppressive element, or rather, the Private property which ensures its existence. If mere standard of living were my concern, I'd be a social democrat, not a Communist.

>Just like communism, his proposals rely on fundamentally changing human nature

I love how unsubstantiated this argument always is. Is human nature unchangable, and to what extent can it be changed, and how can this change be examined? Erich Fromm examines this in Escape from Freedom, which is a psycho-social work. Marx comments:

>The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

>where everyone is equal

No. This is a severe misunderstanding of Communist theory. I am no Leninist (not by any means) but he replied to a man (a "liberal professor") who made a similar mistake to you, here:

> Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability. It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

>and no one is poor(ignores the relativity of "poorness")

Socialism does not promise that some will not have more than others; the relativity of poverty is accepted.

>i.e. you don't need a system that fairly redistributes wealth, if everyone is as altruistic as Gates after his career.

Again, I must correct you - it is not about redistribution, it is about workers owning the products of their labour and their free association. Capitalism guarantees neither (and in fact relies upon the infringement of both!)

I'll also finally note - it is extremely rare for my knowledge for the lowest wage labourers ("rags") to accrue sufficient capital via their wage, to support their family, etc. in order to become capitalists themselves. And if it does happen, there is still a huge number of people engaging in wage labour. Capitalism requires there to be more labourers than capitalists. So beacuse the injustice is a little smaller, it should be neglected, as you say? No, new people born every minute are destined to wage labour. The idea that it is possible ignores that for most people it really isn't possible. They still exist, and their state is a sorry one.

> Do you think many people, especially the poorest or those in the least favourable jobs, would engage in such wage labour if they had the opportunity not to? No, they engage in it beacuse they are forced by the circumstance of the capitalist system.

Many people could afford to live in very small homes, and live with about nothing but a bed and a shack and decide instead to have big cars, huge houses, big fields, 3 TVs and 3 smartphones, while they probably need none of those to live well. So "most people" are certainly not working just to sustain themselves, they are actively working to keep getting richer. That's what we see across the world, read any recent World Bank report explaining how poverty is decreasing everywhere and level of life is increasing (yet people still choose to work for more money, to buy more stuff when they can, not just be satisfied with what they have).