Meta-discussion on "employment is illegitimate" fallacies

[stsoc]

in that case, please be so kind as to explain how mutually voluntary employment contracts are fradulent, given two informed parties who consent to transact.

Inalienability of labor and employment

It can be said that from a socialist perpective employment is attacked of the grounds that hierarchy is wrong and that renting (means of production) is wrong. I’d like to post about the thirds ground that was formulated by David Ellerman, who accepts both renting (of means of production) and hierharchy (as a delegation of authority), and is about alienation of labor. I hope that, for start, everybody recognizes that science fiction is only that- fiction, and that human actions are de facto ina…

You’re assuming that any given individual capitalist has the power to deny any given individual worker the opportunity to make a living because if all capitalists teamed up then indeed they could deny that worker all opportunity to make a living. You don’t see how fallacious that it?

It isn’t because they do team up, that’s how capitalism works.

Why do you assume it’s so much easier to find new customers than it is to find new employment?

Being that the customers are everyone, and the capitalists are a minority that rules everyone else.

Providing the initial capital, paying the workers before the products are produced and sold, taking all the risk, and managing the company (you realize production involves more than working the machines?)…that’s nothing.

Yes, that is nothing. All that is not only possible, but would be done more easily in a socialist society.

Okay, so then what’s an “order” in your view? All this talk about hierarchy and you still haven’t really defined what constitutes unequal power relations.

You can check some questions here: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secBcon.html

But I’d recomend reading the entire section.

This kind of thinking is the legacy of John Stuart Mill

Yes, he was for worker self-management, but it’s not the legacy of Mill, it’s the legacy of enlightenment, Rousseau, Humboldt, Kant, etc, it’s central notion was that men are free and no man should be a machine under the command of another man.

According to you and your premises, but not them and their premises.

They can accept 2+2=5 all they want, but it’s 4. It’s 4 even if the only one in the world who says so, and that wouldn’t mean I’m schizophrenic, but that everyone else is brainwashed. But this kind of hypotetical sitation is as unlikely as the one you mention- someone in socialism accepting employment as not being fraud. Socialism being established will mean that the brain-washing machinery of capitalism is abolished, and just like today no sane person wants to sell themselves and be a tool used to enrich it’s owner, likewise in socialism no able-minded person will want to rent themselves and be a tool used to enrich it’s rentier.