What we need are institutions that are neither statist nor capitalist. Both of these involve hierarchy, subordination, and the centralization of power and decision-making authority in the hands of a small few; which is then wielded against the many.
We need institutions that are entirely 1) voluntary, 2) cooperative, and 3) participatory
you just described markets.
It’s about how the market works. Capitalism is exploitation of people, in the same way statism is.
How’s that? Anyway, I said “markets” which meet your criteria. Please explain how voluntary, cooperative, participatory markets fail to satisfy the terms of your assertion.
We need institutions that are entirely 1) voluntary, 2) cooperative, and 3) participatory
that is capitalism.
Unless you want to go anarcho-socialist on us, I don’t think you’ve got anything.
Can we get a thread-merge here? I don’t see the point in having to wade through a page full of threads every time this one has a thought.
Explain how capitalism is exploitative?
Then we will talk.
Can we get a thread-merge here? I don’t see the point in having to wade through a page full of threads every time this one has a thought.
I agree, but in the name of “fairness” or whatnot, we should endure this firestorm of posts.
You know you’re boring when someone can look at the title of the thread and know that it’s you before even clicking on it. Same old same old. I’ll give you some credit and admit under some circumstances capitalism can be exploitative, instances where capitalism is exploitative, is usually because of some sort of government intervention which made things worse however.
" I’ll give you some credit and admit under some circumstances capitalism can be exploitative, instances where capitalism is exploitative, is usually because of some sort of government intervention which made things worse however."
Absolutely, but where this is the case it is socialism causing the problem. Ownership is control, socialism is state ownership of the means of production, even if EVERYTHING else in the economy were capitalist, and the government decides to intervene , in one tiny aspect it is controlling the means of production, which is the same as ownership, maybe not complete ownership, maybe just one tiny twig in the bundle of property rights, but it is still state ownership of that aspect.
This is why I hate the term Crony Capitalism, it should be called Corporate Socialism. It may be proper to call an entirely private cartel crony capitalism, but when it is government bestowing favors, that has nothing to do with capitalism.
The boss hardly does anything while his workers sweat for him. He makes the highest profit. How is that fair?
^^^^
The bosss asked workers if they would like to work.
No one was forced.
Anyways- are you sure the boss does nothing?
He invests, makes decisions, manages the factory, manages salary of his workers?
If you were dirt poor- Would you rather work at a iphone factory, or be dragged into prostitution or becoming a beggar?
Bill gates is rich. That greedy capitalist.
→ Cant you see how many products bill gates brought to the computing sector? Now we can all enjoy games, talk online, etc, etc.
Fuck nike they exploit workers.
→ Cant you see how they provide foot wear for a bunch of americans?
—> Cant you see how those factories provide a wage for the poor person? Would you rather be dragged into prostitution or beggary?
Even if it is less than 8dollars and hour, 3 or 4 dollars is quite a bit in else where.
Also look at my signature.
“Yeah! The workers would have been better off if he just kept his accumulated capital to himself for his own consumption instead of adding production to society. And don’t get me started on the consumers that would be better off without added production! OWS!!!1!!1”
I’m a little confused - at the beginning of your post you were basically describing anarcho-communism, stating that capitalism and statism is bad, and then at the end…you describe how free-market capitalism is just what we need.
By the way, I don’t understand how those greedy bosses you speak of “exploit” their workers, in the words of Marx. The workers aren’t slaves, they are getting paid, and I assume that they weren’t coerced into taking the job. See this is the thing - Marxism attempts to categorize people who were once part of that proletarian class who have worked hard to produce good stuff into this evil “bourgeoisie,” which automatically makes the working class hate the people who were able to rise up through hard work. It’s pure gold in the minds of power-hungry wannabe dictators who want an army of angry proletarians on their side to give them absolute power and continue to love them with the dellusion of good conditions.
That’s actually not true. For one thing, business owners don’t always make profit. Many times (in fact, most times) they make losses. But the workers still get paid. And then, if the business takes on so many losses, and the owner has two mortgages on his house, and still can’t keep things afloat and has to shut the business down, the workers get to go on “unemployment”, and get paid for doing nothing…while the business owner not only lost everything, but usually has no typical welfare recourse.
“How is that fair”?
And even when the business is in the black, the boss isn’t automatically sucking cigars and counting his money. He’s usually struggling to keep things running…trying to make sure he’s going to make the lease payments on the building, the loan payments on the vehicles and equipment and appliances…trying to make sure payroll is all correct, and every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed, because heaven forbid he not withhold the proper taxes and file the proper forms, else he may get completely shut down, and even face jail time. He’s trying to make sure he’s in compliance with every single arbitrary useless regulation, else he may be sued simply because some lawyer and some other asshole see their lottery ticket. He’s trying to comply with the literally tens of thousands of pages of tax code and business code, which forces him to hire as much of an army as he can just to handle all the paperwork…people who produce absolutely nothing the market demands nor values.
And even if he gets through all that, and still manages be able to open his doors the next day, he’s still not guaranteed any take home pay.
I could line up “boss” after “boss” to show up at your door and tell you how they sign every single check for every single one of their employees…and their own income is lower than all of them. “Of all the checks I write for all my employees and contractors, mine’s the lowest.” That’s a direct quote, from one of these “fatcat” “bosses”.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. And if being an employee is so unfair, quit. After all, if working for someone else is so horrible, and being a business owner is so easy, you fucking do it.
If it’s so EZ Street, why the hell are you still working for someone else?
The workers aren’t slaves, they are getting paid
Slaves are paid by their owner in kind. Also slaves could save money and “buy their freedom” from ancient to modern times. Doesn’t change the fact that slavery is illegitimate.
and I assume that they weren’t coerced into taking the job.
There are three types of slaves- by birth, by being taken as a PoW, and by selling oneself. Third one is voluntary. Doesn’t change the fact that the self (body and it’s actions) are inalienable (making slavery, serfhood and employment illegitimate).
which automatically makes the working class hate the people who were able to rise up through hard work.
Or through inheritance. Even if it’s hard work, I don’t see how my hard work makes your ownership of self alienable.
Papirius, you believe that the self is inalienable, I agree with this. You further believe that selling oneself into slavery is illegitimate, which I always found odd, allow me to explain why. (The oddity is in describing employment as “selling” oneself.) If I own myself, you own yourself, then we should be able to do whatever we like with ourselves, for if we couldn’t then we wouldn’t truly own ourselves. If you own a car, which you no longer want, and no one wants to buy it, then you should be able to destroy the car if you so desired. Granted a car doesn’t have the same “owned” status as your body. But if a person wishes to commit suicide, seeing as how they own their self, they should be allowed to kill themselves, even if we personally believe they are wrong, we have no right to tell them they can’t, because they own themselves. Claiming a person can’t kill themself, would be akin to saying the person doesn’t own theirself, resulting in a contradiction, since all people own themselves.
Bob wants to “sell” his self into slavery, his brother doesn’t approve, and he stops Bob from doing so. Jeff, Bob’s brother, doesn’t care what Bob wants, he firmly believes that Bob will be making a terrible mistake. Bob may actually be making a mistake, just like a person who commits suicide, but stopping Bob from doing what he wants violates Bob’s self-ownership. Bob, owning himself, has the right to choose to do whatever he likes, whether others approve or not. Slavery, the kind found in Ancient Greece, Rome, and in America’s early years, obfuscates a important point. Bob, having chosen to “sell” himself into slavery, can’t surrender complete control over himself, Bob still has control over his body, even if he’s doing what his master wants. In a way Bob never sold himself, it is more like rent than selling, when it comes to one’s body, because one can never surrender complete control over oneself. Just like a rent contract, it can be terminated, the master can’t force Bob to stay in the arrangement, doing so will be violating the NAP. Thinking about it in terms of rent, you can see how the same applies to employment, you aren’t “selling” yourself, you are renting yourself out, and can terminate the rent arrangement at any time. (Note: If the person has paid you up front and you later chose not to fulfill the agreement, you would need to first pay back any cash you were paid, however.)
You may further consider “renting” yourself out illegitimate, but again, it doesn’t matter what we think, it matters what the person choosing to “rent” himself out thinks. If he chooses to “rent” himself out in the form of employment, he has every right to do so, we can’t stop him, I’d even go so far as to say he can’t pass moral judgement on him, in that his actions are only affecting himself and no one else, seeing as how he owns himself it his his right to do whatever he likes with himself just as he is free to do whatever he likes with his car. It would be absurd to say that Bob can’t destroy or damage his own car after all. (We can say it would be unwise but that’s all that can be said on the matter.)
I hope this has cleared this issue up.
eyeroll
How many times. Do I need to make a meta-thread just for this single topic alone?
If I own myself, you own yourself, then we should be able to do whatever we like with ourselves, for if we couldn’t then we wouldn’t truly own ourselves.
This starting premise of yours is a contradictory line of reasoning because self-ownership is an axiom. How is it contradictory? Because the rejection (in practice selling or renting) of self-ownership is being justified by self-ownership, and if you reject self-ownership you have rejection the very justification for your rejection, making the situation contradictory. With property of external things this is not the case, because it follows from ownership of labor, which is a part of self and thus falls under self-ownership, but because self-ownership is an axiom, it is not based on something more fundamental then it, but is itself the base and the fundament, and it has to be inalienable because if you reject or deny it in any way, it collapses in itself leaving nothing. As I said a few times on this forum- rejecting or denying an axiom is neither applying nor confirming it, to say otherwise is a most obvious contradiction.