Is "wage slavery" actually "slavery"? And is "capitalism" really "voluntary exchange"?

[Kfox]

I suppose in that sense, even a slave has a choice. The slave can try to run away or defy their master and take the consequences for that.

The master can physically harm the slave, the employer is not allowed to do that to the employee; big difference.

Likewise, no one is really forced to live under authoritarianism or tyranny, since people have the ability to revolt and overthrow their government at any time.

A single person is not able to do that by himself. A employee can quit his job all by himself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I once said on this site that capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Then people responded saying "it's not voluntary because 'wage slavery'".

No, that's a market economy. Capitalism is an economic system dominated by capitalists... i.e. wealthy people who seek profit by investing in trade and industry (as opposed to producing goods and services of value themselves).

Capitalism tends toward things like oligopolies, rent-seeking behaviour, and market manipulation... i.e. situations where the voluntary nature of exchange is compromised... or sometimes completely curtailed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"If you believe you need a government, then you are enslaved. "

I believe that I benefit from a government.

Capitalists claim that government in fact gets in the way of capitalism and production.

Good government is what separates the benefits of capitalism from the problems unregulated capitalism creates and makes a large middle class possible. The profit incentive causes people to harm other people, prevent monopolies, and despoil the air, land, and water unless laws are written and enforced to minimize that.

Do that, and people have to make a profit by providing something people want at a price that is greater than the cost of production, which promotes innovation, self-improvement (training and education), efficiency, and personal industry. All of these are good things.

 

[PureX]

Did you know that the federal minimum wage in America was instituted in order to keep blacks and other "undesirables" out of the workforce? It's the truth. The minimum wage was never intended to help, it was a eugenics convention.

But keep trusting your government's "good will".

A bit besides the point, but it's important to understand why the minimum wage exists in the first place. Government bad

I was discussing an ideological government, not the corrupted mess we currently have.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Tangent perhaps, but as an anarchist, I can't help but apply this thought to government.
"If you believe you need a government, then you are enslaved. " Because one of the arguments against anarchism is the supposed impossibility of anarchism and the supposed inevitability of the government. This coupled with the belief that government is indeed neccesary makes me view every statist as a slave to their government.

Only by a degree. I'd say today where I live its only 3% true. I'd say that we are 30% anarchist, too. In between I'd say there are 67% other kinds of arrangements. Marriage is, for example, a type of bonding between two people; and a lot of people get into these. A business relationship is a type of bond, too. For example if you have a business partner you are somewhat bound by their decisions. If you have debts then they are nearly inescapable, so that is another type of bond.

 

[Stevicus]

I understand your point

However, I do think we can draw an important distinction between a slaver or tyrant, and that of an employer.

With the employer, you often have a choice of who you work for. Though I know it's not that simple (I live in a city that is about tied for worst unemployment in the entire USA, so like I get the feeling of being "trapped" at my current job, as there aren't that many available). But ultimately, the worker-employer relationship is usually a symbiotic and mutual one. I've walked out of many jobs in my youth, just being an angry kid. My only repercussion was that the employer no longer had a mutual agreement with me to pay me money. If I was a slave or under true tyranny, and I tried walking out, the repercussions would exceed that of simply ending the relationship. I would be punished.

It wouldn't be the only repercussion, though. I won't quibble too much over whether wage slavery is the same as actual slavery. Obviously, it isn't, and there are differences. Even slavery might be somewhat conditional. A trusted slave in the Emperor's palace might have a more comfortable and secure life than a free man working as a laborer.

As long as other options exist, then people will avail themselves of them, so in your scenario, if the employee doesn't like his job, he can just quit and find another one. We all have freedom of choice, so it should all be good. By the same freedom, workers have had the right to organize and form unions, so that they could have greater bargaining power when dealing with employers over wages and working conditions. That, too, is part of the same voluntary capitalist system.

But when it's allowed to cross international borders, then it could become a problem. If capitalists find that they can't find enough workers for their factory at a certain wage they're willing to pay, then they'll close up and send their operations overseas, where they can pay the workers a pittance under a friendly and easily-corruptible government. Organizing the workers and unionizing them is out of the question, since many of these countries are fascist-ruled police states, so the workers don't have the same rights they would have in the West.

Businesses which aren't really conducive for going abroad take the alternate route of hiring underground, undocumented labor, which is against the law, but ostensibly worth the risk (and with light penalties if caught). Whenever there's political talk dealing with immigration, those capitalists scream the loudest, since they see the potential of their supply of cheap labor drying up.

It never even occurs to them to pay people better wages. They just want the government to turn the blind eye to illegal immigration and other under-the-table practices. They also want the absolute freedom to outsource to any country they want, and they're vehemently opposed to tariffs on imports (that's the real biggie, look at how many people in power oppose tariffs).

If we don't want tariffs, then we shouldn't want international borders at all. Place all countries under a single government, with all citizens having equal rights - and the right to unionize - and then we'll see how much capitalists truly favor this "voluntary system" you speak of.

 

[Stevicus]

The master can physically harm the slave, the employer is not allowed to do that to the employee; big difference.

Under current law, this is true. However, in past eras, there were non-slaves who were often beaten and physically harmed by their employers. Sweatshops, factories, mines, and railroads didn't employ slaves, yet stories of beatings and other brutal treatment were common. Of course, some people did walk away - and others organized and demanded better treatment. It took a while and led to a lot of other political changes, but I'm merely pointing out that your statement regarding what employers are "allowed to do" to their employees has been a major point of contention for centuries.

A single person is not able to do that by himself. A employee can quit his job all by himself.

Not all by himself. If he needs money, he'll have to go to someone else for work. Or, if he chooses to work for himself, he'll need customers (and possibly employees to work for him). He can't really do anything all by himself.

 

[PureX]

I believe that I benefit from a government.

Good government is what separates the benefits of capitalism from the problems unregulated capitalism creates and makes a large middle class possible. The profit incentive causes people to harm other people, prevent monopolies, and despoil the air, land, and water unless laws are written and enforced to minimize that.

Do that, and people have to make a profit by providing something people want at a price that is greater than the cost of production, which promotes innovation, self-improvement (training and education), efficiency, and personal industry. All of these are good things.

And none of them are actually "capitalism". Capital investment is not capitalism. Free and fair markets are not capitalism. Innovation and efficiency are not capitalism. And certainly everyone benefiting from commercial enterprise is not capitalism. Capitalism is giving complete control over commercial enterprise to the capital investors, for the purpose of their gaining the maximum profitable return on their investment. THAT'S capitalism. And when we look at it in this light, we can begin to see how capitalism actually undermines and perverts all those other positive aspects of commerce that we WANT to instill. Which is why we then need the government to expend so much time and energy trying to reign capitalism in and protect everyone else from it.

So why not just eliminate the actual problem, spread the control around among all those being effected by it, and still keep all those other commercial aspects that we deem positive, like capital investment, free but fair trading, innovation and efficient production methods, quality control, environmental control, and so on?

 

[PureX]

Under current law, this is true. However, in past eras, there were non-slaves who were often beaten and physically harmed by their employers. Sweatshops, factories, mines, and railroads didn't employ slaves, yet stories of beatings and other brutal treatment were common. Of course, some people did walk away - and others organized and demanded better treatment. It took a while and led to a lot of other political changes, but I'm merely pointing out that your statement regarding what employers are "allowed to do" to their employees has been a major point of contention for centuries.

Not to mention that the "employers" were and are always trying to push back against those laws. Always trying to turn the people against each other, and against the government so as to weaken them. What good capitalist wouldn't use slave labor if he could get it without any interference? When was the last time we saw an "employer" willingly raise anyone's wages without a fight?

 

[HonestJoe]

Let's use minimum wage as a simple example. I agree to hire Bob for 5$ an hour and he likes the deal.

What if you're the only large employer in the area (or you've colluded with the other employers) so can offer $2 an hour, take it or leave it? Bob doesn't like it but he has no other choice... unless...

I should say " anarcho-capitalists" or as I call them, the "real capitalists". But these real capitalists will agree with me that government is unnecessary and even worse than that. Or else they ain't a capitalist in my book.

Then what's to stop Bob and his friends just beating you up and taking your stuff?

The very existence of government hinders the economy and capitalism.

How can you say that given that there's never been an example of a capitalist economy without some form of government. After all, however many it is, what are you paying Bob with?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Capital investment is not capitalism. Free and fair markets are not capitalism. Innovation and efficiency are not capitalism. And certainly everyone benefiting from commercial enterprise is not capitalism. Capitalism is giving complete control over commercial enterprise to the capital investors

What I described is regulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism combined with an admixture of socialism - taxation to support markets by building infrastructure as well as to provide a social safety net for citizens not able to successfully compete selling their merchandise, labor, or expertise - makes for a healthy economy for all. Investors and owners do NOT have complete control. Antitrust laws, labor laws, workplace safety laws, legalized unions, and minimum wages all help prevent robber baron capitalism, the extreme concentration of wealth, and a two-class society by supporting a middle class.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except, everyone is a capitalist and there is competition. There isn't just one group of mercenaries running the show per geographical region, there are competing parties. And competition is always good for the consumer, that's Economics 101.

You must have taken a different Econ 101 than I did. Mine covered natural monopolies.

 

[Heyo]

Tangent perhaps, but as an anarchist, I can't help but apply this thought to government.
"If you believe you need a government, then you are enslaved. " Because one of the arguments against anarchism is the supposed impossibility of anarchism and the supposed inevitability of the government. This coupled with the belief that government is indeed neccesary makes me view every statist as a slave to their government.

"If you believe you need an employer, then you are enslaved."
No self-respecting anarchist would work for other people in an anarchy.

 

[Heyo]

I love this mindset though! Like, if we decided collectively against war for example, we can voluntary end it. Ya know that John Lennon quote? "What if they had a war, but nobody showed up?"

Nope, that's not from John Lennon. It's also not from Bertolt Brecht, as I thought, but from Carl Sandburg.
Stell dir vor, es ist Krieg und keiner geht hin. (German source)

 

[Stevicus]

I disagree, as an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalists claim that government in fact gets in the way of capitalism and production. Government is the parasite and the economy is the host. What good is a parasite?
Perhaps you can elaborate what you mean?
Like, if I offer fortune telling services, and someone pays me to read their fortune, that's capitalism. Where does the necessity of government factor in?

Capitalists ostensibly depend upon the enforceability of patents, contracts, and property rights - among other things. So, they have an absolute need for governmental-level force, even more so than their lower-level employees (no matter if one calls them "slaves" or not).

The main reason government became bigger and started to get in the way of capitalism was more a matter of national priority.

 

[Stevicus]

Not to mention that the "employers" were and are always trying to push back against those laws. Always trying to turn the people against each other, and against the government so as to weaken them. What good capitalist wouldn't use slave labor if he could get it without any interference? When was the last time we saw an "employer" willingly raise anyone's wages without a fight?

I agree that capitalists would never voluntarily give up or peacefully negotiate away their advantage - especially if they see themselves in a stronger position. The capitalist mantra can be summed up by a quote from Al Capone: "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

Slavery ended as an institution largely because it just wasn't economically viable in anything but primitive, agrarian, plantation economies - which invariably became weaker and more vulnerable than the industrial economies. The results of the Civil War proved that conclusively. It wasn't that capitalists suddenly developed a conscience or just became more liberal out of the goodness of their hearts. But they also had to face certain practical realities where they saw liberalism and progressivism as the "lesser evil" (from their POV) than socialism.

As a result, they spent the better part of the 20th century focused on wanting to discredit and defeat socialism - and they believed they succeeded when the Soviet Union collapsed. Hooray for capitalism! "We won the Cold War!" Since that time, they've been slowly but surely reverting back to their old ways of thinking, but now they're facing some serious pushback which has them worried. They're starting to lose their advantage and position of strength they once held. They're getting weaker, and the sharks are smelling blood. The evidence of this is rising domestic instability at home and rising geopolitical tensions abroad.

 

[Revoltingest]

If "slavery" is broadened to mean anything
that's compelling to survive, then even
hunter gatherers are slaves (to their food
sources, to shelter, to tools). This makes
the term "slave" utterly useless.

"Slave" should be limited to people forced to
labor under threat of violence, ie, real slaves...
not people who just hate their job or working
for a living.

 

[Stevicus]

If "slavery" is broadened to mean anything
that's compelling to survive, then even
hunter gatherers are slaves (to their food
sources, to shelter, to tools). This makes
the term "slave" utterly useless.

"Slave" should be limited to people forced to
labor under threat of violence, ie, real slaves...
not people who just hate their job or working
for a living.

Well, there are differences between literal meanings and figurative meanings. When people speak of "wage slavery," the phrase is understood, and most reasonable people would not literally interpret it as actual chattel slavery which is now illegal under U.S. law. As long as it's understood and there's no deliberate intent to use language to deceive, I don't see why it should pose a problem to use the word in this context.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, there are differences between literal meanings and figurative meanings. When people speak of "wage slavery," the phrase is understood, and most reasonable people would not literally interpret it as actual chattel slavery which is now illegal under U.S. law. As long as it's understood and there's no deliberate intent to use language to deceive, I don't see why it should pose a problem to use the word in this context.

But when people seriously think of themselves
as "slaves", I arrive to correct them.

 

[PureX]

Did you know that the federal minimum wage in America was instituted in order to keep blacks and other "undesirables" out of the workforce? It's the truth. The minimum wage was never intended to help, it was a eugenics convention.

That's just irrelevant nonsense made up to try and distract from and/or justify capitalist greed.