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

[anotherneil]

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.

The way I see it, economic liberty and slavery are both subsets of capitalism. Capitalism isn't just one or just the other, but if we don't have complete economic liberty, then slavery exists.

Consider what "state capitalism" is, just another way of describing economic socialism, central planning, or a command-and-control economy - all are a form of slavery.

There's free trade, and there's trade that isn't free (people are coerced by the government to buy or sell something or to not buy or sell something, whether it's goods or services); either way, it's still capitalism. There's still capital involved in either case.

However, that type of slavery is what I would call "active slavery", or a harder form of slavery - people are compelled by the government to do something or not to do something. Antebellum slavery was one group of people using government to force another group of people (along with their descendants) to sell their services and to prevent them from receiving educational services. They probably weren't paid with any money, but the payment they received was in the form of some food, water, clothing, shelter, the privilege to live, or to not be punished for not working; it was inherently an unfair deal (whereas I would say that fair deals are only possible in free-market societies).

There's also what I would call "passive slavery", or a softer form of slavery. It's the false choice fallacy problem of free-market capitalism: either you choose to work for the man, or you choose to fall through the cracks. There's some difference between this and Antebellum slavery, but not that much.

There is an option being denied (unless you're born into a rich family, which is analogous to being born in a free family during Antebellum slavery), which is to neither work for the man nor fall through the cracks.

Everything in the world is owned or somehow controlled by society, so an individual who doesn't want to work for the man can't simply go off in the woods to hunt, gather food, get water, or build their own shelter from scratch (in other words, access to natural resources). Society practically walls them off from access to that lifestyle choice, effectively forcing them to fall through the cracks.

There has always been a very simple solution to this problem, yet for some reason I'm not sure of, society has been hesitant to allow it - just like society (in the US) had been hesitant to free Antebellum slaves.

That solution is simple, compatible, and consistent with free market capitalism: a dividend-based "UBI" (universal basic income). It has to be dividend-based, otherwise it's not economically sustainable.

It's not wealth redistribution, it's compensation in exchange for recognition of the right to prop up those walls that block access to natural resources.

If the economy is performing well, those payouts are higher (just like stock dividends), and if the economy is performing poorly, those dividend-like UBI payouts are reduced. In an economy that's performing poorly, both individuals who work and business owners have to tighten their belts & same for those who rely on UBI dividend payouts.

Now one can say that society isn't being subjected to a false-choice fallacy, because it's now getting compensated, and since that compensation isn't a fixed amount, the economy won't be unsustainable because of it - when the dividend payouts get too low, it's up to people who want more to either get a job (which may help prop the economy back up), or fall through the cracks - and in this case they can no longer blame a false choice fallacy for that.

 

[PureX]

This is actually very easy to understand if we are willing.

Slavery occurs when the value created by the labor of person 'A' is not going to person 'A', but is going to person 'B', instead. Person 'B' is a parasite, and person 'A' is it's host.

We make all kinds of excuses and justifications for this kind of parasitic abuse, but it is parasitic abuse nonetheless, and it is fundamentally socially destructive. It is not good for mankind to be engaged in it. And capitalism is absolutely and fundamentally exactly this kind of systemic parasitic abuse. It promotes it, enables it, and rewards it in every possible way.

We humans are being insanely self-destructive in our continuing to engage in the capitalist system of economics. And it is destroying us.

 

[Stevicus]

It's not wealth redistribution, it's compensation in exchange for recognition of the right to prop up those walls that block access to natural resources.

If the economy is performing well, those payouts are higher (just like stock dividends), and if the economy is performing poorly, those dividend-like UBI payouts are reduced. In an economy that's performing poorly, both individuals who work and business owners have to tighten their belts & same for those who rely on UBI dividend payouts.

Now one can say that society isn't being subjected to a false-choice fallacy, because it's now getting compensated, and since that compensation isn't a fixed amount, the economy won't be unsustainable because of it - when the dividend payouts get too low, it's up to people who want more to either get a job (which may help prop the economy back up), or fall through the cracks - and in this case they can no longer blame a false choice fallacy for that.

This might work. In a truly "free" economy, there would be no walls blocking access to natural resources, so everyone would theoretically have the right to go out and hunt, fish, build a cabin, and live their lives without interference from The Man. Of course, such a thing would be ridiculously unfeasible, since there are too many people and not enough wilderness left. Technology and modernization have reduced the amount of raw freedom existent in society. It's not "the government" which takes away anyone's freedom, but it's the circumstances of modern existence.

 

[Unfettered]

They are all feeding at the public trough. The politicians and the capitalists that sponsor their political careers. And they swallow up so much wealth that there's nothing left to run the country. So then they borrow, and borrow, and borrow. And they ignore the consequences because all any of them care about is keeping their place feeding at the public trough.

And we keep electing and re-electing them as everything falls apart around us. Mostly because we're too afraid to do anything else.

Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result, they say, is the definition of insanity. So while it could be fear (or maybe they're not afraid enough of the reality they're choosing), it seems to me that the American partisans (the party voters) have lost their civic minds. Either that or they're blind. Or just plain stupid. Because they keep electing like-minded reps who keep spending the country into poverty.

 

[Unfettered]

This might work. In a truly "free" economy, there would be no walls blocking access to natural resources, so everyone would theoretically have the right to go out and hunt, fish, build a cabin, and live their lives without interference from The Man. Of course, such a thing would be ridiculously unfeasible, since there are too many people and not enough wilderness left. Technology and modernization have reduced the amount of raw freedom existent in society. It's not "the government" which takes away anyone's freedom, but it's the circumstances of modern existence.

That point argues a blind line. If we enjoyed freedom as per the rights we actually have, the same technologies and urban life would likely exist. The difference would be that even those who live in the city would own rural property, and would be leasing it for income (assuming they don't have the skills or desire to work it themselves). As it is, we are not free, as our founding documents assert. We do not get to enjoy even the slightest freedom until we have enough money to purchase some paltry property free and clear. Until that time, we have no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness; we are homeless and without any means whatsoever to subsist, except those we can rent from someone else. And even after we own property "free and clear," we're still not free, since we are taxed for the mere ownership of the land.

This human-rights abuse (homelessness by law) has been in place since the birth of the nation and will probably never be undone. The American people don't understand their own rights; but even if they did, they do not have the courage to see a change made. Most wouldn't even agree that they have a natural right to property. How can you exact a change with thinking like that?

 

[Revoltingest]

The way I see it, economic liberty and slavery are both subsets of capitalism. Capitalism isn't just one or just the other, but if we don't have complete economic liberty, then slavery exists.

Consider what "state capitalism" is, just another way of describing economic socialism, central planning, or a command-and-control economy - all are a form of slavery.

There's free trade, and there's trade that isn't free (people are coerced by the government to buy or sell something or to not buy or sell something, whether it's goods or services); either way, it's still capitalism. There's still capital involved in either case.

However, that type of slavery is what I would call "active slavery", or a harder form of slavery - people are compelled by the government to do something or not to do something. Antebellum slavery was one group of people using government to force another group of people (along with their descendants) to sell their services and to prevent them from receiving educational services. They probably weren't paid with any money, but the payment they received was in the form of some food, water, clothing, shelter, the privilege to live, or to not be punished for not working; it was inherently an unfair deal (whereas I would say that fair deals are only possible in free-market societies).

There's also what I would call "passive slavery", or a softer form of slavery. It's the false choice fallacy problem of free-market capitalism: either you choose to work for the man, or you choose to fall through the cracks. There's some difference between this and Antebellum slavery, but not that much.

There is an option being denied (unless you're born into a rich family, which is analogous to being born in a free family during Antebellum slavery), which is to neither work for the man nor fall through the cracks.

Everything in the world is owned or somehow controlled by society, so an individual who doesn't want to work for the man can't simply go off in the woods to hunt, gather food, get water, or build their own shelter from scratch (in other words, access to natural resources). Society practically walls them off from access to that lifestyle choice, effectively forcing them to fall through the cracks.

There has always been a very simple solution to this problem, yet for some reason I'm not sure of, society has been hesitant to allow it - just like society (in the US) had been hesitant to free Antebellum slaves.

That solution is simple, compatible, and consistent with free market capitalism: a dividend-based "UBI" (universal basic income). It has to be dividend-based, otherwise it's not economically sustainable.

It's not wealth redistribution, it's compensation in exchange for recognition of the right to prop up those walls that block access to natural resources.

If the economy is performing well, those payouts are higher (just like stock dividends), and if the economy is performing poorly, those dividend-like UBI payouts are reduced. In an economy that's performing poorly, both individuals who work and business owners have to tighten their belts & same for those who rely on UBI dividend payouts.

Now one can say that society isn't being subjected to a false-choice fallacy, because it's now getting compensated, and since that compensation isn't a fixed amount, the economy won't be unsustainable because of it - when the dividend payouts get too low, it's up to people who want more to either get a job (which may help prop the economy back up), or fall through the cracks - and in this case they can no longer blame a false choice fallacy for that.

Do you see any system where one
isn't somehow coerced to work, &
therefore become a "slave"?

 

[Kfox]

This is actually very easy to understand if we are willing.

Slavery occurs when the value created by the labor of person 'A' is not going to person 'A', but is going to person 'B', instead. Person 'B' is a parasite, and person 'A' is it's host.

We make all kinds of excuses and justifications for this kind of parasitic abuse, but it is parasitic abuse nonetheless, and it is fundamentally socially destructive. It is not good for mankind to be engaged in it. And capitalism is absolutely and fundamentally exactly this kind of systemic parasitic abuse. It promotes it, enables it, and rewards it in every possible way.

We humans are being insanely self-destructive in our continuing to engage in the capitalist system of economics. And it is destroying us.

If person B is a parasite, why do you suppose person "A" in your scenario will go through so much trouble to seek the opportunity (apply for the job) to allow a parasite to take advantage of him this way?

 

[PureX]

If person B is a parasite, why do you suppose person "A" in your scenario will go through so much trouble to seek the opportunity (apply for the job) to allow a parasite to take advantage of him this way?

He has to to survive.

 

[anotherneil]

This might work.

I don't see how this applies to the part of my post that you quoted, because it's basically just an aspect of my assessment regarding dividend-based UBI as a solution.

It isn't my intention for a dividend-based UBI to be perceived as something that might or might not work.

My intention is to simply point out an observation and make an assessment pertaining to when there is or isn't slavery in our capitalist society.

I don't want to make it sound like I think that my observation is accurate and my assessment is correct; I welcome any rebuttals and would like to hear them.

So - if you meant that it might work to prevent people from falling through the cracks, then yes it might work and want to explicitly assert that it might not work.

The idea behind a dividend-based UBI is not to guarantee that people would no longer fall through the cracks; it's only to eliminate the false-choice fallacy, which - in turn - results in the existence of (a "soft") slavery.

Expect for there to still be some individuals to still fall through the cracks, especially when the economy is performing poorly.

I think a good measure, and perhaps a true measure, of how well the economy is performing is how many people are falling through the cracks. If the count is 0, then the economy is performing perfectly. Right now it seems like the popular and conventional indicator of the performance of the economy is geared towards a cherry-picking approach of only focusing on how well the successful are succeeding and improving.

I'm not against successful succeeding and improving; I'm totally for it and opposed to anything that would impede this.

In a truly "free" economy, there would be no walls blocking access to natural resources, so everyone would theoretically have the right to go out and hunt, fish, build a cabin, and live their lives without interference from The Man.

Actually, in this situation The Man would manifest itself in the form of warlords who would interfere & block access to natural resources, for the reason you mention next.

Of course, such a thing would be ridiculously unfeasible, since there are too many people and not enough wilderness left.

Yeah - the conundrum is known as the "tragedy of the commons."

Technology and modernization have reduced the amount of raw freedom existent in society.

This is an interesting assertion; it seems ironic, if you look at it from the perspective of how dominant technology and modernization has played a role in enabling and greatly expanding freedom. Technology and modernization have given us more free time, increased our standard of living and quality of life, and made access to resources much easier; the underlying purpose of having a desire for freedom is to achieve such perks.

I don't exactly disagree with you, though, since it's a double-edged sword.

It's not "the government" which takes away anyone's freedom, but it's the circumstances of modern existence.

Taking away freedoms is the only purpose that government serves. It's good/acceptable/desirable that government takes away some freedoms (e.g. murder, mayhem, rape, theft/robbery, arson, fraud), but it's not for other freedoms, such as the ones covered in the US Constitution.

I think it can be argued that property ownership without compensation for those resources that are being walled off is unconstitutional in the US, since the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude (which would include that "soft" slavery I discussed earlier); along those lines, the 13th Amendment also gives congress the power to implement requirements for compensation in exchange for private property rights.

 

[anotherneil]

Do you see any system where one
isn't somehow coerced to work, &
therefore become a "slave"?

Nope, there are none in existence today that I know of. The Alaska Permanent Fund only goes part of the way, since it only utilizes oil and gas, and not all resources, as a financial source for such a dividend-based compensation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, there are none in existence today that I know of. The Alaska Permanent Fund only goes part of the way, since it only utilizes oil and gas, and not all resources, as a financial source for such a dividend-based compensation.

In that case, the term "slavery" is so universally
applicable to the human condition as to be
without useful meaning.

 

[anotherneil]

In that case, the term "slavery" is so universally
applicable to the human condition as to be
without useful meaning.

This is completely wrong, as it doesn't follow at all from anything that I have posted on this thread; it completely disregards my post to which you originally responded.

I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian, and I don't get how you can respond to my post with such a thing while at the same time claiming - right under your avatar and name - to be a pragmatic libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is completely wrong, as it doesn't follow at all from anything that I have posted on this thread; it completely disregards my post to which you originally responded.

I looked again at the post I quoted.
I stand by my response.

I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian, and I don't get how you can respond to my post with such a thing while at the same time claiming - right under your avatar and name - to be a pragmatic libertarian.

Because I'm pragmatic.
Also not a slave.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't see how this applies to the part of my post that you quoted, because it's basically just an aspect of my assessment regarding dividend-based UBI as a solution.

It isn't my intention for a dividend-based UBI to be perceived as something that might or might not work.

My intention is to simply point out an observation and make an assessment pertaining to when there is or isn't slavery in our capitalist society.

I don't want to make it sound like I think that my observation is accurate and my assessment is correct; I welcome any rebuttals and would like to hear them.

So - if you meant that it might work to prevent people from falling through the cracks, then yes it might work and want to explicitly assert that it might not work.

The idea behind a dividend-based UBI is not to guarantee that people would no longer fall through the cracks; it's only to eliminate the false-choice fallacy, which - in turn - results in the existence of (a "soft") slavery.

Expect for there to still be some individuals to still fall through the cracks, especially when the economy is performing poorly.

I think a good measure, and perhaps a true measure, of how well the economy is performing is how many people are falling through the cracks. If the count is 0, then the economy is performing perfectly. Right now it seems like the popular and conventional indicator of the performance of the economy is geared towards a cherry-picking approach of only focusing on how well the successful are succeeding and improving.

I'm not against successful succeeding and improving; I'm totally for it and opposed to anything that would impede this.

True, the phrase "it might work" also implies that "it might not work." We won't really know what the ramifications will be until we try. For the most part, I agree with proposals for Universal Basic Income. It doesn't have to be a huge amount - but enough to pay for the basic necessities of living. It would be just another safety net, but another aspect is that it would truly test the mettle of capitalists. Regardless of what anyone chooses to call it - "slavery," "wage slavery," "soft slavery," or "not slavery at all" - we would have the opportunity to see if the capitalists can truly survive without some form of available workforce who would be willing to work for low wages under dismal working conditions. If the people comprising that workforce find that UBI is a better deal, then the number of people willing to work under such conditions would dwindle.

We've seen shades of that in the past few years since the pandemic, as a large segment of the workforce has seemingly checked out or just not as much into working as in previous years.

Actually, in this situation The Man would manifest itself in the form of warlords who would interfere & block access to natural resources, for the reason you mention next.

Yes, in the absence of any organized government or law enforcement mechanism, then humans will organize themselves along more natural patterns, not unlike street gangs or clan warfare - or possibly warlords, as you mentioned. But I can't see how anyone could be truly independent or free as an individual. They'd have to join some sort of group for their own protection and survival, at which point they're voluntarily submitting themselves to a government, whatever form it might take.

This is an interesting assertion; it seems ironic, if you look at it from the perspective of how dominant technology and modernization has played a role in enabling and greatly expanding freedom. Technology and modernization have given us more free time, increased our standard of living and quality of life, and made access to resources much easier; the underlying purpose of having a desire for freedom is to achieve such perks.

I don't exactly disagree with you, though, since it's a double-edged sword.

Theoretically, we should have more free time, but a lot of people in this day and age really don't. For many people, the 40-hour work week doesn't earn them enough to meet their expenses, so many take on extra jobs, thus reducing their free time even more. But even setting that aside, there's still a trade off. I would say that there are more distractions, more luxuries, more comforts, more entertainment and recreation. There are certainly many perks to our modern, technologically-advanced society, so I'm not necessarily knocking it. Although raw "freedom," in and of itself, is irrelevant to these luxuries and comforts. However gilded our cage may be, it's still a cage, or put another way, a technology trap. All these machines and technical marvels take energy and have to be constantly maintained, upgraded, replaced on a continuing basis.

If we don't have that anymore - or if we run out of energy and all the lights go out and the machines stop, then look out. Then we'll see what "freedom" actually looks like.

Taking away freedoms is the only purpose that government serves. It's good/acceptable/desirable that government takes away some freedoms (e.g. murder, mayhem, rape, theft/robbery, arson, fraud), but it's not for other freedoms, such as the ones covered in the US Constitution.

I think it can be argued that property ownership without compensation for those resources that are being walled off is unconstitutional in the US, since the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude (which would include that "soft" slavery I discussed earlier); along those lines, the 13th Amendment also gives congress the power to implement requirements for compensation in exchange for private property rights.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say how this argument would be received from a legal standpoint, although it sounds interesting.

I don't agree with the idea that "taking away freedoms is the only purpose that government serves." Or at least, I don't think it's as simple as that. Governments evolved politically and culturally. Humans are social animals, and we have a tendency to band together. A "state" or "nation" can be defined as simply as a number of families living side by side. If no government existed, people would form one anyway. Being social animals, that means we are also political, and despite however much people hate politics, it's an absolute necessity in human society - no less important than our ability to use language and understand mathematics.

Of course, the processes and systems in which politics are conducted, with government being the forum for those processes, it seems humans have gone through a great deal of trial and error to try to get it right. It's not unlike the ever-elusive "better mouse trap" that people keep trying to build.

And nowadays, because the aforementioned technology and other advancements, we're in a similar "government trap" just like the technology trap. As long as those in charge of government obey the Constitution, as they are sworn to do, then that may be the best any of us can hope for. However, what also seems to be often the case is that governments typically wish to survive, which requires political stability, which can also be tricky to maintain.

 

[PureX]

Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result, they say, is the definition of insanity. So while it could be fear (or maybe they're not afraid enough of the reality they're choosing), it seems to me that the American partisans (the party voters) have lost their civic minds. Either that or they're blind. Or just plain stupid. Because they keep electing like-minded reps who keep spending the country into poverty.

The "reps" aren't representing the people they're supposed to be representing. They're representing the oligarchs that pay for their campaigns for public office, and hire their family members for high-dollar do-nothing jobs, and hire them when they leave office to corrupt their successor in office, and that pay for lots of expensive vacations and perks. It's bribery, by any name but. And they are ALL on the take. The whole nation is a giant money pump for the rich. Which is why the wealthiest nation on Earth is perpetually in debt, and can't afford basic health care or infrastructure repair. And why half of it's population live on the brink of poverty and homelessness.

Greed is boundless. The parasites will kill their own host and even destroy themselves in te process because they can't limit their own greed. No mater how much they get or how much it harms others it's never going to be enough. And yet humanity still hasn't lerned this lesson. That the people that engage in this behavior HAVE TO BE STOPPED.

 

[Unfettered]

The "reps" aren't representing the people they're supposed to be representing.

I agree. They're still hired by those people, though. Hence, the position I took.

And yet humanity still hasn't lerned this lesson. That the people that engage in this behavior HAVE TO BE STOPPED.

In the US, the people can stop them anytime they want. With each election cycle, though, they show that they don't want to stop them. The question is, "Why don't they want to stop them?" Or maybe the question is, "Why don't they want to stop them more than they want their 'representation?'"

 

[PureX]

I agree. They're still hired by those people, though. Hence, the position I took.
In the US, the people can stop them anytime they want. With each election cycle, though, they show that they don't want to stop them. The question is, "Why don't they want to stop them?" Or maybe the question is, "Why don't they want to stop them more than they want their 'representation?'"

There are a lot of reasons.

I think the biggest one is that they don't see how, and they don't trust each other to act together.

The how is to vote out every incumbent in every election regardless of party affiliation until we get someone in there that is actively fighting to end the wholesale legalized bribery. Because until that is stopped, we will never get any form of representative government for the people. THEN we can debate about further reforms.

But to do this we have to be willing to trust each other to do it and to keep doing it until the politicians get the message that if they do not clean up their act, they will not keep their place at the public trough. And in the end, they will do whatever they have to, to keep their place at the public trough. We all know this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In a capitol

In a capitalist system taxation can be a form of slavery to the entity of the state who is the “master”.

Imo, that's as stupid as saying that a shop owner is a slave of his customer because his customer pays the shop owner for the services he provides.

 

[Colt]

Imo, that's as stupid as saying that a shop owner is a slave of his customer because his customer pays the shop owner for the services he provides.

Using your analogy, in a parasitic state the customer not only pays for his goods but is forced to pay for other customers who could have otherwise paid for their own such as student loans.

 

[Kfox]

He has to to survive.

Parasites are not necessary for survival.