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

[Kfox]

I don't see that you're making any kind of argument here, so I'll just move on.

I asked the question because I'm trying to understand your thought process. Okay; let me rephrase. You said if we quit paying Capitalist, there would be enough money to go around for everyone; right? Who are these people paying capitalist, and why do they pay them instead of keeping the money for themselves?

 

[Stevicus]

If everybody were in the business of pulling their own weight, we wouldn't need this Universal Basic Income that you speak of.

I didn't invent the concept of Universal Basic Income, though I've heard it proposed a number of times. Such a thing would not even violate any particular tenets of capitalism either. Their property rights and their right to do commerce and trade would still remain as they've always been.

How does a person become a capitalist without doing any real work? Please explain.

"Capitalist" is not really a profession, per se. It's not a job. In a way, they're like gamblers. I'm not referring to workers who, for whatever reason, become owner-operators and run their own small business.

 

[Unfettered]

I've been following this discussion silently for the last couple pages. It seems to me that some things are getting lost in translation.

When I hear Stevicus talking about capitalists not working, what I understand is being talked about is a capitalist investing capital in some enterprise in which he never lifts a finger to do any labor, but others employed in that enterprise labor, and the capitalist receives a return off their labors.

When I hear Kfox and Relvotingest talking about capitalists working, what I understand is being talked about is a capitalist doing labor himself and receiving a return off his own labor.

Both are appropriate examples of capitalism; one with monetary capital, the other with labor capital.

It sounds, Stevicus (and you can correct me if I err), like you object to capitalism where someone uses monetary capital to obtain wealth on the labor capital of others. Is that accurate?

 

[Kfox]

"Capitalist" is not really a profession, per se. It's not a job. In a way, they're like gamblers. I'm not referring to workers who, for whatever reason, become owner-operators and run their own small business.

Okay; so when you say Capitalist, you mean people who invest their money in commerce; right? So who are these people you speak of who pay the capitalist to invest in commerce? And how is getting rid of capitalist going to provide more money for everyone else? How does this work?

 

[Stevicus]

Do you believe that goods & services will just
happen automatically with no business owner
creating them?

It's been known to happen. The workers do the actual "creating." Of course, there would still need to be someone to fulfill management and administrative functions, but they can be elected from among the workers. The state could also help to guide them.

For all intents and purposes, the function of "business owner" is essentially that of "business manager." The owner can always hire someone to run the business, which would make the manager, just another worker.

 

[Stevicus]

If capitalists were capable of getting rich without ever working, everybody (especially the working poor) would become capitalist. The fact that they don't should tell you something.

It tells me that life and human society are very complex and intricate, which means that problems in society can't be quite so easily explained by simple models and 18th-century thinking.

 

[Kfox]

It's been known to happen.

Without a business owner, how does this happen?

The workers do the actual "creating."

Without a business owner, who provides the funds necessary to create a product?

 

[Kfox]

It tells me that life and human society are very complex and intricate, which means that problems in society can't be quite so easily explained by simple models and 18th-century thinking.

Does this mean you are taking back your initial claim that if we just quit paying capitalist, there would be enough money for everyone else, and we can have your Universal Basic Income? Also; did "Unfettered" (post #123) articulate your views accurately?

 

[Stevicus]

It sounds, Stevicus (and you can correct me if I err), like you object to capitalism where someone uses monetary capital to obtain wealth on the labor capital of others. Is that accurate?

When it's too excessive and lopsided, yes. Who is to say whose contribution to a human enterprise is more valuable and more deserving of the greater share of the reward? I don't object to the basic idea of someone using monetary capital to obtain wealth, as long as the labor is treated with scrupulous regard as to their human rights.

I do object to the idea that the capitalist is somehow an indispensable component to a human enterprise or endeavor. I keep seeing people say "Without the capitalist, X would never get done." Humans are a versatile species; we can find any number of methods and systems by which we can organize, pool resources, create, and build something. From a historical standpoint, it's rather fascinating to see how one idea might feed another idea, which might yet inspire another idea later on. Capitalism is just one way of doing things, and to suggest that there can be no other way seems very narrow and unimaginative. That's what I object to.

 

[Kfox]

When it's too excessive and lopsided, yes.

So when a capitalist gives his money to a corporation (buys shares) and that corporation uses his money for payroll, buy materials, research and development, and other business ventures, Do you have a problem with this?

Who is to say whose contribution to a human enterprise is more valuable and more deserving of the greater share of the reward?

The person who owns the product before it is sold decides.

I don't object to the basic idea of someone using monetary capital to obtain wealth, as long as the labor is treated with scrupulous regard as to their human rights.

The person investing his money in the corporation buying shares has nothing to do with labor pay or treatment; that’s the manager’s job.

I do object to the idea that the capitalist is somehow an indispensable component to a human enterprise or endeavor.

If the business owner doesn’t have enough money, what’s wrong with him getting it from the capitalist?

I keep seeing people say "Without the capitalist, X would never get done."

Often that is the case.

Humans are a versatile species; we can find any number of methods and systems by which we can organize, pool resources, create, and build something.

What’s wrong with getting resources from capitalist in exchange for company shares?

From a historical standpoint, it's rather fascinating to see how one idea might feed another idea, which might yet inspire another idea later on. Capitalism is just one way of doing things, and to suggest that there can be no other way seems very narrow and unimaginative. That's what I object to.

But nobody is making the claim that you are objecting to.

 

[Unfettered]

When it's too excessive and lopsided, yes. Who is to say whose contribution to a human enterprise is more valuable and more deserving of the greater share of the reward?

In a free-exchange system, that is determined by the parties involved, which is why I think it's inappropriate for any outsider to meddle or cast judgment.

I don't object to the basic idea of someone using monetary capital to obtain wealth, as long as the labor is treated with scrupulous regard as to their human rights.

I agree that no business relationship ought to be allowed where there is a human rights imbalance.

I do object to the idea that the capitalist is somehow an indispensable component to a human enterprise or endeavor.

This I do not understand. Capitalism and freedom are yoked by default. Perhaps you are thinking of corrupt capitalism, where mechanisms are superimposed on the relationship between parties, creating an inequity that favors one over the other? If so, I would also object to such capitalism.

I keep seeing people say "Without the capitalist, X would never get done." Humans are a versatile species; we can find any number of methods and systems by which we can organize, pool resources, create, and build something.

Right, but coming together as you describe is part of the freedom of capitalism. If one man envisions something and sets out to do it alone, or if a dozen people envision something and pool their resources to pursue their vision—both are capitalistic ventures. In one case the capitalist is one person, in the other it is a group of people. All capitalists.

From a historical standpoint, it's rather fascinating to see how one idea might feed another idea, which might yet inspire another idea later on. Capitalism is just one way of doing things, and to suggest that there can be no other way seems very narrow and unimaginative. That's what I object to.

Thank you for taking the time here. What non-capitalism way of doing things are you thinking of, where a people are free to engage in productive ventures and where everyone's human rights are scrupulously secured against infringement?

 

[Stevicus]

I asked the question because I'm trying to understand your thought process. Okay; let me rephrase. You said if we quit paying Capitalist, there would be enough money to go around for everyone; right? Who are these people paying capitalist, and why do they pay them instead of keeping the money for themselves?

As a legal matter, the owners of a business enterprise have operational control of all monies and accounts of that business. They decide how much they'll pay their workers and how much they'll keep for themselves.

 

[Stevicus]

Without a business owner, how does this happen?

Without a business owner, who provides the funds necessary to create a product?

As I said, humans are a versatile species and have achieved some magnificent things, even without the luxury of having a "business owner" on hand to wave a magic wand and make it all happen.

 

[Kfox]

As a legal matter, the owners of a business enterprise have operational control of all monies and accounts of that business. They decide how much they'll pay their workers and how much they'll keep for themselves.

So are you changing it now? At first you said we need to quit paying capitalists, now you seem to be saying capitalist pay themselves and their workers.

As I said, humans are a versatile species and have achieved some magnificent things, even without the luxury of having a "business owner" on hand to wave a magic wand and make it all happen.

Can you give an example of such enterprise taking place without a business owner?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Included in the gross margin of the goods / services is an amount for the energy, cleaning crew, rent, display design, ...
All of which is to make the shopping experience of both you and the other customers more pleasant.

Your taxes are for everyone. Including yourself and your own children.

I don't get people who rant about "taxes". It's as if they think that all government services and societal infrastructure just magically appear by themselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Capitalists think they deserve to get something for nothing. They're dead weight anyway, so if we don't have to pay them anymore, there'd be plenty of money left over for the people.

Huh?

Care to expand on the reasoning behind this bizar statement?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Workers are always needed, but the matter of starting it, running it, managing, etc. - those can also be considered workers' functions -

You have just proven to yourself the work that "capitalists" do.

except for the financing, which can just as easily come from the state.

Yeah sure. Money falls out of the sky for governments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's been known to happen. The workers do the actual "creating." Of course, there would still need to be someone to fulfill management and administrative functions, but they can be elected from among the workers. The state could also help to guide them.

This would be detrimental for competition, which in turn would kill innovation and disruptive tech.

Starting a company, especially in spaces where companies are already operating, is very risky business. The state wouldn't just hand out money to anyone with an idea. This money is taxpayer's money and the state is expected to handle that with care. They would not just hand it out to any person with some risky idea. Especially not if they face an uphill battle in terms of competition.

If you want to start a new car manufacturing brand, the state would consider that too risky + they'll say "we already have tesla, ford, general motors..."
But if you have a billionaire investor, or are a billionaire yourself, you can go ahead anyway with your private funds and enter that competition and innovate.
That in turn, if you do a good job, keep tesla and the others on their toes as well... Because they'll need to make sure they stay ahead in whatever innovation you can come up with and be sure to stay competitive.

This is how capitalism drives innovation and progress.

If your starting and operating capital comes from the taxpayers, the state isn't going to be very forthcoming to take such risks.
It would be a conflict of interest also. Because when they hand out money, they become a stakeholder in that company. Now a competitor comes along and ... the state becomes a stakeholder there also? So if one outcompetes the other, no matter which one, either way the state loses money...

This is why things are not practical and detrimental to competition and innovation.
This is why the free market and private funding is so important.

The only reason the US won the tech race to the soviets, is precisely because the economic system of capitalism motivates competition and innovation, while more communist style systems tend to prefer the status quo, or at least move a lot slower in terms of progress - they don't have this drive to make sure to stay ahead of competition, because there is no competition.

For all intents and purposes, the function of "business owner" is essentially that of "business manager."

And risk taker and financer.

The owner can always hire someone to run the business, which would make the manager, just another worker.

The owner would first require good amounts of money to do that.
And even then, the owner would not just let everyone do their thing without being involved.
He'ld still keep an eye on everything and steer the direction and whatnot.

If you would start a company and burn through a bunch of cash to do so, would you then just step aside and just assume the people you hired will keep it afloat and profitable? I sure wouldn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's been known to happen. The workers do the actual "creating." Of course, there would still need to be someone to fulfill management and administrative functions, but they can be elected from among the workers. The state could also help to guide them.

For all intents and purposes, the function of "business owner" is essentially that of "business manager." The owner can always hire someone to run the business, which would make the manager, just another worker.

Yours is quite an imaginative world.

 

[Colt]

Thats just it, y

Included in the gross margin of the goods / services is an amount for the energy, cleaning crew, rent, display design, ...
All of which is to make the shopping experience of both you and the other customers more pleasant.

Your taxes are for everyone. Including yourself and your own children.

I don't get people who rant about "taxes". It's as if they think that all government services and societal infrastructure just magically appear by themselves.

Thats the problem, you guys don't get it! Its not the basic taxes for necessary infrastructure, its excessive taxes imposed by a greedy totalitarian state.