The political postulates I start with are:
1. Everyone must deal every day with the possibility (or the reality) of an empty belly.
2. Food, in this society, is not free. In order to buy food the overwhelming majority of the earth's people must arrange a transaction with people who act as agents in the market of buying labor. By these arrangements people sell their labor in order to procure the food and other necessities that they need for the basic upkeep of their body. Beyond staying alive, all people share an organic desire to live a healthy, low-stress life.
3. Therefore, those people who sell their labor for their livelihood MUST find some kind of buyer of their labor, under threat of starvation.
4. This means that the buyers and sellers of labor are in fundamentally different positions -- the seller's ass is on the line, whereas the buyer's isn't. This erodes the seller's negotiating power, as s/he has a time limit on being unemployed. The buyer's position is not limited to employing any one particular person, whereas the seller is directly dependent on him/herself to be able to earn money through the labor market. Therefore, the claim that marketplaces enable even exchanges is totally fradulent for any kind of labor market.
5. Therefore, the worldwide system of paid labor -- labor as a commodity -- is a sham. Why would anyone in their right mind want to spend even a minute of their lives doing something they don't want to do, unless they physically had to?
6. Granted, the possibility of starvation does not work as a threat for millions of workers. Since workers are able to improve their negotiating position through the labor market (and through collective contracts especially), the buyers of labor have had to come up with ways to keep the price of labor from increasing. Employers have improved their negotiating position by using whatever strategies they can imagine to erode the negotiating position of the people they wish to employ, or do employ. Their strategies include, but are not limited to, violence from the state. Less desperate strategies all run along the basic idea of 'divide and conquer'. The more they can keep workers from combining, the less money they will have to pay to those workers. Strategies like racism, sexism, heterosexism, and nationalism affect the way workers see themselves in comparison to other workers. From a business point of view, these strategies have a tendency to keep workers from selling their labor together under common contracts, thus decreasing the overall price of labor.
7. If workers are truly interested in working less, working they way they want to, and working toward a human purpose, they should consider ways to collectively increase their negotiating power versus the buyers of labor. History has shown us that labor strikes are the most effective strategy in improving negotiating position. It makes business sense: As vendors of their own labor, workers have a business interest in forming cartels that limit competition. The stronger the arrangements among workers, the better off they all are in negotiating terms with the buyers of their collective labor. As long as the buyers of labor, a minority, are able to convince workers that they "own" some part of the planet's land, materials, or people, they will use that "ownership" to increase their negotiating position.
8. If workers, in large enough numbers worldwide, decided to remove themselves from the labor market, at about the same time, the buyers of labor would see such an increase in the cost of labor that the whole system of paid labor would become meaningless. Those laborers who decided to collectivize would be in a position to run the planet by their own standards, and not by the standards of the defunct buyers of labor. No war but the class war!