• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
Slavery ended for two reasons. One was the growing moral outrage now available to a segment of the population that no longer needed the total enslavement of others to exploit their fellow human's labor. And the other is that it was cheaper to pay a factory worker a pittance and then let him fend for himself than it was to feed, cloth, and house them. The sheer numbers of people that were being exploited by industrial mass production made that very evident. Thus, wage slavery became the norm. And has been the norm ever since, with the exception of a few decades in the middle of the 20th century when the prosperity created by a man's labor actually went to the man doing the laboring. But the capitalists soon nipped that in the bud. And now we're back to the old wage slavery model, with all the prosperity going to the capitalists and the laborers being left to fend for themselves.
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.
What push-back? People whine and complain about it, but nothing ever changes. The capitalists are more arrogant and emboldened than ever. Prices skyrocket for no other reason than greed. One company does it and they all do it. No reason but that they can, because there is no one to stop them. No government to step in and do it's job protecting the people from the poison of capitalism. Because the capitalists have bought the government off. And turned us against it. Got us to blame it instead of them. And we fools just keep on falling for it while they keep on robbing us all blind.
 
Last edited:

Kfox

Well-Known Member
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 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.
So you agree with me that under today's laws, working a low wage job is not the same as slavery?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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'".

I've thought about it since then. I still remain unconvinced that capitalism is not voluntary. You don't have to work, you can roll over and die in poverty instead. So there is a choice. "That's no choice!" Well, why are you blaming your source of income, saying they are "enslaving you"? Even if it really isn't a choice, I feel like the blame and anger is misdirected entirely. Instead of being mad at the person who provides you income, shouldn't you be mad at the universe or "God" for giving you a physical body with daily requirements to stay alive? It is in no way the employers fault that if you don't work you are screwed. That's just the physical nature of reality. And in the end, you don't have to work for the employer. So it's not slavery. You do have a choice. Obviously, you are going to choose to work, but if you don't feel that is fair, blame god, not capitalism.

Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Certainly not slavery.
Do people who say such things don't realize that the same goes for employers (ie: self-employed people / enterpreneurs).

These are also people that work. And if they don't, they also don't earn money.
Do these people think that those companies just fall out of the sky and turn into cash-cows for them without them lifting a finger?

Your average enterpreneur who has employees will typically work double the hours of any of those employees....
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Bob can't live on $5/hr. He only accepts your offer because all you greedy capitalists have agreed to keep wages as low as possible. And as a good capitalist you don't care about Bob's life. That's not your concern. That's Bob's. All you care about is gaining a maximum profit from the capital you've invested in your "business". So the government, who's job it is to look out for Bob's well-beng and interests steps in and tells you that you have to pay Bob $10/hr. But you say you can't operate your business and pay that wage.

What you're failing to understand is that it is not humanity's purpose to serve the cause of capitalist greed. So if you capitalize a business that cannot PROPERLY serve all the humans involved in it (investors, laborers, consumers, and community) then we humans have no logical reason to engage in that commercial enterprise at all.

First, this seems to be completely ignoring the fact that starting a business is quite hard work and actually involves serious debt even only to get started. And then you still need to build that business into an actual success.

Having said that, so what profit is the enterpreneur who goes through all that allowed to make in your opinion?
How do you decide this?

You were too selfish to care about that because all you wanted was a fat profit from your investment capital, but fortunately, the government wasn't that self-centered. and so it did it's job.

Why do you assume this was selfishness? Why do you seemingly completely dismiss the actual possibility that the company simply doesn't have the funds to pay bigger wages, even only for the time being?


Another question which comes to mind here:
Why is it "selfishness" on the part of the enterpreneur to try and maximize his profits while it isn't "selfishness" on the part of the employee to try and maximize his wage?


These are all serious questions btw.
Sure, you can point to a few monsterously succesfull companies with bad reps like Amazone etc, but the VAST majority of companies out there aren't that succesfull or rich. It's not exactly fair to hold such companies up as "the standard" here. So try and take a step back when answering these questions.

You say, "but now Bob's got no job at all". But having a job that he can't live on wasn't really having a job. It was just a wage trap to keep him in poverty.

You make it sound like it is some kind of conspiracy.
How is it a conspiracy if the company in question actually does not have the funds to pay more?

Anarcho-anything is just childish nonsense. Humans don't self-regulate.
I agree. And that goes both ways.

If you leave it 100% to the enterpreneurs, they will pay very low wages.
If you leave it 100% to the employees, they will pick the company clean.

I was an employee for +10 years before owning my own business. I was one of the latter. I too did nothing but complain about wages and paid leave and the "greed" of the bosses.

Now I am one of those bosses. And frankly I'm ashamed of my behavior back then.
Having seen this issue from both sides of the table now, I have a very very different perspective.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
What good capitalist wouldn't use slave labor if he could get it without any interference?

This one.

When was the last time we saw an "employer" willingly raise anyone's wages without a fight?
This one. Just last month, in fact. He didn't even ask for it.
We closed up the year, saw we did quite well and then followed evaluation meeting of the employees.
One of them performed exceptionally well and we decided to give him a raise.


This is what I meant in that previous post. You have this very dark idea of enterpreneurs as if they are all "out to get you".
No, I will not overpay people "just because". I'm not a charity.

What I pay people is determined by a combination of market conformity and performance.

Also, if I don't treat them well / pay them decently, they will just end up leaving and work for the competition.
Which, btw, is usually not an option for "slaves".
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
First, this seems to be completely ignoring the fact that starting a business is quite hard work and actually involves serious debt even only to get started. And then you still need to build that business into an actual success.
Well, actually you need a whole bunch of other people to help you build that business. People like your vendors, your customers, your community, and very soon, your employees. So let's not cry any rivers for this fictitious lone entrepreneur. Because there aren't any.
Having said that, so what profit is the enterpreneur who goes through all that allowed to make in your opinion?
How do you decide this?
It should be decided by all the people effected by the business enterprise. Because if your lone wolf entrepreneur decides for himself, he will of course decide that he should get all the profits. And anyone else involved should get as little as he can get away with giving them.
Why do you assume this was selfishness? Why do you seemingly completely dismiss the actual possibility that the company simply doesn't have the funds to pay bigger wages, even only for the time being?
If the business cannot stay solvent treating everyone fairly, then it does not deserve to exist. There is no reason for humans to engage in a commercial enterprise that does not benefit them all fairly.
Another question which comes to mind here:
Why is it "selfishness" on the part of the enterpreneur to try and maximize his profits while it isn't "selfishness" on the part of the employee to try and maximize his wage?
Because he is doing it at the expense of everyone else involved in the enterprise. Do you not understand what greed is?
These are all serious questions btw.
Sure, you can point to a few monsterously succesfull companies with bad reps like Amazone etc, but the VAST majority of companies out there aren't that succesfull or rich.
But they ALL want to be. And they are all doing whatever they can think of to make that happen. And what they all think of is keeping wages so low that most Americans are falling into poverty. And keeping prices so high that the cost of living is exacerbating that increasing poverty. Because not one of them wants to sell 10 widgets for a dollar if they can sell one widget for 10 dollars. And not one of them wants to pay one penny more in wages than they can avoid paying. And not one of them is pricing their product or service for the well being of the consumer. It's ALL about greed. It's ALL about getting as much as they can by giving as little as they can get away with. This is the capitalist's creed. And it's a creed that capitalism promotes, enables, and rewards at every turn, by giving the investor total control over the enterprise invested in. To keep it ALL about the money. Money capturing more money. Predatory wealth. That's capitalism in a nutshell.
You make it sound like it is some kind of conspiracy.
How is it a conspiracy if the company in question actually does not have the funds to pay more?

I agree. And that goes both ways.

If you leave it 100% to the enterpreneurs, they will pay very low wages.
If you leave it 100% to the employees, they will pick the company clean.
That's why the only solution is to spread the control out among all those effected, so everyone can protect themselves from everyone else's greed and stupidity. Or we can create a fair business model and enforce it through government edict. Either way, it's the end of capitalism, and the beginning of socialism. Which is exactly why the capitalists absolutely hate socialism. And exactly why socialism is the only viable way forward for humanity. One way or another all this greed and selfishness and stupidity has to be reigned in. There are just too many of us now depending on each other for our survival for us to allow all this willful abuse.
I was an employee for +10 years before owning my own business. I was one of the latter. I too did nothing but complain about wages and paid leave and the "greed" of the bosses.
So you became one. And now you pay your employees as little as possible, right? Am I supposed to be impressed by this?
Now I am one of those bosses. And frankly I'm ashamed of my behavior back then.
Having seen this issue from both sides of the table now, I have a very very different perspective.
I'll bet you do.

It's like the capos in the death camps sidling up to and enabling their nazi murderers to save their own skin, and then telling themselves that their the smart ones because the nazis will kill them last.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
This one.


This one. Just last month, in fact. He didn't even ask for it.
We closed up the year, saw we did quite well and then followed evaluation meeting of the employees.
One of them performed exceptionally well and we decided to give him a raise.
My, my, what a benovent dictator.
This is what I meant in that previous post. You have this very dark idea of enterpreneurs as if they are all "out to get you".
No, I will not overpay people "just because". I'm not a charity.
No one elected you to play God in their lives, either. But thanks to capitalism, that's the kind of power you get to wield in a culture where people have to submit to commerce to survive. And it's exactly why our society is falling apart. Neither you nor any other human has the moral wisdom or courage to be in control of the livelihood of anyone else. And so that control gets abused. And the result is always a lot of suffering.
What I pay people is determined by a combination of market conformity and performance.
I really don't care what criteria you use. The point is that shouldn't be solely your decision to make.
Also, if I don't treat them well / pay them decently, they will just end up leaving and work for the competition.
Which, btw, is usually not an option for "slaves".
The "competition" is just a mirror image of you. They aren't really competition at all. They're just another greedy capitalist looking to gain as much as possible while giving as little as possible in return.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Slavery ended for two reasons. One was the growing moral outrage now available to a segment of the population that no longer needed the total enslavement of others to exploit their fellow human's labor. And the other is that it was cheaper to pay a factory worker a pittance and then let him fend for himself than it was to feed, cloth, and house them. The sheer numbers of people that were being exploited by industrial mass production made that very evident. Thus, wage slavery became the norm. And has been the norm ever since, with the exception of a few decades in the middle of the 20th century when the prosperity created by a man's labor actually went to the man doing the laboring. But the capitalists soon nipped that in the bud. And now we're back to the old wage slavery model, with all the prosperity going to the capitalists and the laborers being left to fend for themselves.

There was some moral outrage over slavery, as expressed by many ardent Abolitionists of the time. The division and national debate over slavery was dealt with by continual compromises, such as the idea of admitting one free state for every slave state - to keep the balance of power in the Senate. After the Mexican War, U.S. territory was spread across the continent. The outrage grew as slavery grew and expanded.

The industrialists ostensibly wanted more control over the Western territories and the cornucopia of resources they could acquire to feed their industries - and that's what seemed to be the tipping point.

After the Civil War, the Abolitionists seemed to accept notions of sharecropping and Jim Crow laws, just as long as there wasn't any slavery. In other words, racism and extreme exploitation were okay, but slavery was not. Likewise, the racist expansionism and forced resettlements in the West only sparked a modicum of national outrage which wouldn't really become noticeable on a national scale for another century.

But as long as slavery had ended on paper, then Americans could consider themselves as being impeccable paragons of virtue. The conditions of "slavery" and "not slavery" seem to be in the realm of legal technicalities than anything else.

What push-back? People whine and complain about it, but nothing ever changes. The capitalists are more arrogant and emboldened than ever. Prices skyrocket for no other reason than greed. One company does it and they all do it. No reason but that they can, because there is no one to stop them. No government to step in and do it's job protecting the people from the poison of capitalism. Because the capitalists have bought the government off. And turned us against it. Got us to blame it instead of them. And we fools just keep on falling for it while they keep on robbing us all blind.

Well, there's definitely a good deal of political dissension as of late, so something must be going on. I would call it "pushback," even if people are misled into pushing into wrong directions. The underlying anger and resentment among the masses are clearly being used by some in the political sphere. That much is evident. The other side of it is that there are some people who are virtually shutting down and "checking out" of society, doing the bare minimum, but without much incentive to be politically active or make any meaningful contributions to society. They just want to sit back and "watch the decline."
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There was some moral outrage over slavery, as expressed by many ardent Abolitionists of the time. The division and national debate over slavery was dealt with by continual compromises, such as the idea of admitting one free state for every slave state - to keep the balance of power in the Senate. After the Mexican War, U.S. territory was spread across the continent. The outrage grew as slavery grew and expanded.

The industrialists ostensibly wanted more control over the Western territories and the cornucopia of resources they could acquire to feed their industries - and that's what seemed to be the tipping point.

After the Civil War, the Abolitionists seemed to accept notions of sharecropping and Jim Crow laws, just as long as there wasn't any slavery. In other words, racism and extreme exploitation were okay, but slavery was not. Likewise, the racist expansionism and forced resettlements in the West only sparked a modicum of national outrage which wouldn't really become noticeable on a national scale for another century.

But as long as slavery had ended on paper, then Americans could consider themselves as being impeccable paragons of virtue. The conditions of "slavery" and "not slavery" seem to be in the realm of legal technicalities than anything else.



Well, there's definitely a good deal of political dissension as of late, so something must be going on. I would call it "pushback," even if people are misled into pushing into wrong directions. The underlying anger and resentment among the masses are clearly being used by some in the political sphere. That much is evident. The other side of it is that there are some people who are virtually shutting down and "checking out" of society, doing the bare minimum, but without much incentive to be politically active or make any meaningful contributions to society. They just want to sit back and "watch the decline."
There's planty of pushing and shoving, but there's no "push back" until we know where the poison is coming from in the first place. And so far we're blaming the government and each other, but never the actual snakes that are biting us. They keep themselves hidden and drive us into poverty from behind their closed boardrooms and their secret meetings with our politicians at private vacation resorts.

It's why we see the young people "checking out". They have no idea who to fight. Or how. And no one is helping them figure it out. Because we're all blaming and fighting each other. And the very government we need to get back on our side.

All I'm seeing is a nation dissolving into poverty and chaos while a few billionaires and multi-millionaires are swimming in everyone else's money.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
My, my, what a benovent dictator.

Lol, what the heck?

How do you expect to be taken seriously when say stuff like that?

No one elected you to play God in their lives, either.

Really? Why, thanks of you to inform me of that pointless statement.

But thanks to capitalism, that's the kind of power you get to wield in a culture where people have to submit to commerce to survive.

Is it?
Are you aware the we aren't living in the 1700s and 1800s anymore?
You never owned a company with employees, did you?

It shows.

And it's exactly why our society is falling apart.

Is it? How so?

Neither you nor any other human has the moral wisdom or courage to be in control of the livelihood of anyone else.

Good thing I'm not, then.

I really don't care what criteria you use.

I know. All you care about is your own warped beliefs.
It's kind of ironic that you say this to me, just after you tried to give me some goofy lecture in that other thread about how "closed minded" I supposedly am.

So ironic.

The point is that shouldn't be solely your decision to make.

It is and it isn't.

First, I'm bound by all kinds of laws in terms of worker rights: paid leave, sick leave, maternity leave, social leave, paternity leave, minimum wage, breaks, etc etc. And rightfully so.

Second, I need to keep job market into account also. There's competition there also. If my employees can get 20% higher wages with a competitor, I need to make sure I can compete in that job market to retain those employees.

My "wiggle room", so to speak, only really exists above that margin if I want my employees to stay. So no, it's really really really not my "sole decision" to make.

The "competition" is just a mirror image of you. They aren't really competition at all.

Another sign that you never had a company with employees.
A couple years ago, we did lose our top developer for exactly this reason: job offer competition.

We didn't have big budgets. And while the dude certainly was paid reasonably well, he got "stolen" from us with a job offer which entailed a 30% wage raise and a much fancier car. We could not compete with that. Result: the dude left. Good for him. Not so good for us.

But "we enterpreneurs" are the bad guys ha?
Yeah, we "deserve it" because the only reason we are enterpreneurs is because we are "greedy" and because we enjoy "exploiting" people to "maximise our profits".

Off course, if it wasn't for us "evil" people risking it all to get something going, none of you complaining self-entitled perpetual employees would have a job to begin with. But nevermind.

I wonder what you think is a better alternative then.... no private companies and everything run by the government instead?
They did that experiment. It's still running in North Korea.


So tell me... if being an employee is so horrible for you... then why don't YOU start your own business?
Are you too lazy, too chicken or do you just enjoy complaining too much?

They're just another greedy capitalist looking to gain as much as possible while giving as little as possible in return.

You know.... I'm just going to assume that you are trolling at this point.
I feel like I would be insulting your intelligence to assume otherwise.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There's planty of pushing and shoving, but there's no "push back" until we know where the poison is coming from in the first place. And so far we're blaming the government and each other, but never the actual snakes that are biting us. They keep themselves hidden and drive us into poverty from behind their closed boardrooms and their secret meetings with our politicians at private vacation resorts.

It's why we see the young people "checking out". They have no idea who to fight. Or how. And no one is helping them figure it out. Because we're all blaming and fighting each other. And the very government we need to get back on our side.

All I'm seeing is a nation dissolving into poverty and chaos while a few billionaires and multi-millionaires are swimming in everyone else's money.

It is definitely a precarious situation we're in, but the consequences of such mendacious, myopic mismanagement can not be avoided indefinitely.

Oftentimes, revolutions happen not because of some massive, spontaneous uprising by disgruntled masses, but because the vast majority really have no real stake or interest in defending the ruling class. There's no basis for loyalty anymore.

By gutting the middle class of America, the ruling class have chosen to undermine and sabotage their would-be support base. As an example, the military and law enforcement agencies have been reporting lately that they can't get enough recruits and they're facing potential shortages in manpower.

As we agree, a lot of young people are checking out, but history has shown that when young people (particularly young men) are confused and full of angst, then someone will come forth and "help them figure it out." We see someone like that on the scene already. Yet, Trump and his minions are staunchly pro-capitalist, yet decidedly anti-government and tend towards some of the more bizarre conspiracy theories out there. However, it's apparently other capitalists who are the most worried about Trump, more so than what appears evident to those at street level. That's why the current political divide is, in my opinion, capitalist vs. capitalist. That may also be why some people step back and just want to watch the capitalists tear each other apart.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, actually you need a whole bunch of other people to help you build that business. People like your vendors, your customers, your community, and very soon, your employees. So let's not cry any rivers for this fictitious lone entrepreneur. Because there aren't any.

LOL!!!!!!!

You think the average starting company starts out WITH a bunch of employees??
How do you think these people are paid with a revenue of exactly ZERO?

Let me tell you a story about a large company here in Belgium which is a distributor of optical lenses. Today it is worth more then 100 million dollars.
They started out some 20-ish years ago. Their storage facility was the basement of their crummy house. Their distribution vehicle was a crummy volkswagen. Their employee list was.... the two founders. They got up at 2 in the morning and toured flanders to supply opticians with their products. With the earnings they bought a truck. With further earnings they moved to a wearhouse. With further earnings they hired a truck driver. And so on.
Their own wages the first 5 years was a few hundred bucks. TOTAL. They burned through all their savings.

This is what self-made enterpreneurs look like. You need to let go of this silly utopian sillicon valley idea where every company starts out with 5 million in the bank from investors or from good old daddy.

Self-made enterpreneurs (which is the vast majority) start out with nothing and work their way up by working 100-hour weeks and burning through their savings.


Here's another fun fact for you: do you know who earns the least in my company? ME.
Sure, I own a big portion of it and as the business grows, so does my "wealth" on paper. My money is locked into those shares. Off course, as our reserves / surplus grows, I give myself a raise from time to time. Most of the time however, it goes right back into the company as investment: giving raises to employees, providing additional training to existing employees, hiring new employees, etc.

A company is not a money fountain dude. The hope, off course, is that it becomes one. But not at the expense of anyone. Instead, as a reward for the thousands of hours of work, tears, blood and sweat I put into it. Is that allowed for you? Yes? If I work double the hours of my average employee, is it then okay that I get double the pay out? Yes? If I burn through my savings and "risk it all" to make the project succeed, is it then okay for you that I get a proportionate pay-out if and when it succeeds? Yes?

For my employees, it doesn't matter if the company does well or not. Their wage is on their bank every single monthy.
I'm the one who loses sleep over business growth and finding new customers. They just have to do their 9 to 5 and get paid every month. No risks, no hundreds of hours of unpaid overtime, no burning through savings, ... Just show up, do the work, get paid, go on vacation.



It should be decided by all the people effected by the business enterprise. Because if your lone wolf entrepreneur decides for himself, he will of course decide that he should get all the profits. And anyone else involved should get as little as he can get away with giving them.

That entrepreneur will be unable to retain his workforce and his company will be seriously hampered, if not go bankrupt.
Again: a company is not a money-crap-machine.

If the business cannot stay solvent treating everyone fairly, then it does not deserve to exist.

Newsflash: almost every company in existence will have had a period where it struggled to stay solvent - or become solvent.
On average, a company needs 3 to 5 years of continued and consistent growth to even become solvent.


Because he is doing it at the expense of everyone else involved in the enterprise. Do you not understand what greed is?

The same is true for the employee.
More money for employee A = less money for employee B, the founders / shareholders, the company itself (re-investments etc).

You really do think that money grows on trees in business, ha?

But they ALL want to be.

And the same goes for employees.
What, employees don't want to be rich?
They don't want to be overpaid?
An employee would refuse getting 1000 bucks per hour instead of 40?
If an employee COULD get 1000 bucks per hour instead of 40, that employee wouldn't do what he must to achieve that?

And they are all doing whatever they can think of to make that happen. And what they all think of is keeping wages so low that most Americans are falling into poverty. And keeping prices so high that the cost of living is exacerbating that increasing poverty. Because not one of them wants to sell 10 widgets for a dollar if they can sell one widget for 10 dollars. And not one of them wants to pay one penny more in wages than they can avoid paying. And not one of them is pricing their product or service for the well being of the consumer. It's ALL about greed. It's ALL about getting as much as they can by giving as little as they can get away with. This is the capitalist's creed. And it's a creed that capitalism promotes, enables, and rewards at every turn, by giving the investor total control over the enterprise invested in. To keep it ALL about the money. Money capturing more money. Predatory wealth. That's capitalism in a nutshell.

I just informed you that your idea of the average enterpreneur is horribly wrong.
Another exercise in futility.

Bottom line is that you think that doing what you can to maximize your earnings is "greed" when the enterpreneur does it, but "normal" if the employee does it.
Clearly you hold a double standard here. And the only way you seem to try to justify that double standard is by claiming that somehow all enterpreneurs are evil sociopaths who are only enterpreneurs because somehow they enjoy exploiting people.

It's a very weird way of thinking.

That's why the only solution is to spread the control out among all those effected, so everyone can protect themselves from everyone else's greed and stupidity.

Then what's the incentive for me to start a company, if I have to relinguish control to others and / or aren't allowed to profit from my hard work and risk taking for some reason?

Okay, fine if we spread the control. But then we spread EVERYTHING and not just the control.
NO more 9 to 5. You can work on sundays also, just like I do.
NO more all the risk in my lap. We'll burn through YOUR savings also. We'll also take YOUR car, and perhaps house, if the company goes bankrupt.
NO more 38-hour work week. You can work +80 hours just like I do.
NO more guaranteed wage every month. If there isn't enough money due to bad sales the previous month, you don't get the full amount anymore.


And sure, if the company does well, you'll get a piece of the pie also.

Deal?

Or is this another case of wanting all the priviliges and none of the responsabilities?

Or we can create a fair business model and enforce it through government edict. Either way, it's the end of capitalism, and the beginning of socialism.

OW! So you want to live in a species of Soviet Russia, where the government owns everything?
Right, then there won't be any exploiting of the "employees" for sure! :joycat::joycat::joycat::joycat::joycat::joycat::joycat:

Which is exactly why the capitalists absolutely hate socialism. And exactly why socialism is the only viable way forward for humanity. One way or another all this greed and selfishness and stupidity has to be reigned in.

Says the guy who seems to have nothing but a rant about how he wants a peace of the wealth of succesfull enterpreneurs.
Again, I bet you don't want a piece of the debt....


Sorry, you can't have one with the other.


So you became one. And now you pay your employees as little as possible, right?

I just explained to you how I don't.

All my employees earn far above the minimum wage level.
In fact, they all earn more then ME

:facepalm:

Am I supposed to be impressed by this?

You seem to only be impressed with yourself.


Go start your own company and make it grow into something that can actually pay 10 employees fairly and still make a profit.
Let's talk again then. Let's see then how "evil" you are or supposedly would become.

It's like the capos in the death camps sidling up to and enabling their nazi murderers to save their own skin, and then telling themselves that their the smart ones because the nazis will kill them last.
Ow, now I'm like a nazi murderer. Yep. I own a company, therefor I'm evil like nazi's running concentration camps.

Yep. Makes total sense.

Yep, that's not insulting at all.





For crying out loud........................
You should be ashamed of yourself.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
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.
With some forms of government we get some say in who has power and what they can do with it. With no government we have zero say, but people will still have power over us.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
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'".

I've thought about it since then. I still remain unconvinced that capitalism is not voluntary. You don't have to work, you can roll over and die in poverty instead. So there is a choice. "That's no choice!" Well, why are you blaming your source of income, saying they are "enslaving you"? Even if it really isn't a choice, I feel like the blame and anger is misdirected entirely. Instead of being mad at the person who provides you income, shouldn't you be mad at the universe or "God" for giving you a physical body with daily requirements to stay alive? It is in no way the employers fault that if you don't work you are screwed. That's just the physical nature of reality. And in the end, you don't have to work for the employer. So it's not slavery. You do have a choice. Obviously, you are going to choose to work, but if you don't feel that is fair, blame god, not capitalism.

Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Certainly not slavery.
If land were not capital-gated, I would agree. So on paper, capitalism could be said to be nothing more than "voluntary exchange." In reality, however, it falls on the slavery spectrum just as does every other economic system imposed on societies by their respective governments.

I'll take capitalism over any of its other, also-faulty cousin systems any day of the week, however.
 

Unfettered

A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
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
Gah... minimum wage. Don't even... I mean, you have to be so ignorant in economics to support it. And any candidate for office who champions it is either grossly uninformed or an unabashed flatterer. But Representative Barbara Lee in California wants to raise the minimum wage there to $50 per hour. Yeah, that'll work great. Push the gross payroll burden of a small business with a half dozen full-time minimum wage earners another $35,360 per month. Then tax that increase. I mean, every small business in California has an extra $5,893 per min-wage employee per month, plus taxes, to toss around.

Pure idiocy.

Minimum wage... sigh.
 
Last edited:

libre

In flight
Staff member
Premium Member
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'".

I've thought about it since then. I still remain unconvinced that capitalism is not voluntary. You don't have to work, you can roll over and die in poverty instead. So there is a choice. "That's no choice!" Well, why are you blaming your source of income, saying they are "enslaving you"?
I don't think that definition accurately describes what capitalism emerges as historically and how it exists as a system.

You are not wrong that capitalist employment is different from slavery, the proletarian has the option to voluntarily select their 'master' from a set of available employers, instead of being condemned to a life of servitude to one master. As Engels put it, the slave is sold once and for all, the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. This IS a meaningful difference, however the state of servitude is a constant.

It is in no way the employers fault that if you don't work you are screwed...
You're right. The singular employer is not responsible for the entire system, but the capitalist is the one who benefits from the workers apparent misfortune, so the animosity can be expected.

Human beings need to work to survive, that is an undeniable fact of reality. It would be wrong to presume that this means there must be one class of human beings who work tirelessly for the profit of an owning class, who do not labour.
 
Top