ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 6
th, 2013 at 2:57am:
Thanks Vuk but this explanation is about buying and selling, What possible relevance does it have to producing and manufacturing. The question is do capitalists exploit workers. But this example says nothing about workers or the people who employ them to work. And I tell you why I find this so troubling. Because you said it was for this reason and the next reason (which I will get to in a moment) that you believe "on balance" (or words to that effect) that workers are not exploited by capitalists and yet your explanation has nothing to do with workers or their masters. Very troubling. I think you need to do a reassessment of yor position since your first reason is irrelevant.
Thanks for the reply, I can see how it's a bit strange the way I worded it.
With voluntarism that was merely an example explaining the idea it isn't limited to a buy seller situation. It can easily be expanded to customers/business but as you point out more importantly workers/employers. The thing to remember is the meaning: Voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit. So it's free of coercion/force and both parties perceive a benefit that they find more beneficial/appealing than not interacting. Apply this to an employee, they see a greater benefit in working for this person than not and vice versa.
However this is where I agree with you guys and I'll explain the issue, remember I advocate free market capitalism. First off would you agree that there are two inescapable costs of living, first is the need to survive (nature imposes that on us) and the necessity to pay a monetary cost for life. This is what I take issue with, you are literally forced into working a job, because no matter where you live governments claim ownership over every square inch of land on earth. This means you cannot escape taxation and monetary costs even if you "own land" which is never truly owned. What this means is you are FORCED into the market, this is not voluntarism.
In free market capitalism without the state you remove that forced monetary cost and leave only the need to survive, this allows you to; be self sufficient, be charitable of others free of charge, work with others in co-operatives, work for people. get people to work for you. Basically you have the option to opt out and do whatever you feel necessary in order to live, however most would agree that engaging in trade ie buying/selling working/owning a business is more beneficial due to the division of labour and risk than not. (ie you don't have to make your own food, water, clothes, house, electricity etc etc it's traded for with your productivity)
Quote: Yes thank but you paint a very pretty story that bares very little relationship to the real world. Surly you must see that. Again its troubling because you say this is the second reason why you think workers are not exploited by capitalists and yet the picture you outline is like a movie fantasy. It doesnt exist out there in the real world. You talk about voluntariness and say nothing about the power imbalance between employer and government on the one side and worker on the other. You say nothing about the laws that stop workers from withholding their labour. You take every opportunity to embellish and exaggerate the contribution that the employer makes and say next to nothing about the workers contribution. All things that you would need to discuss if you are serious about examining whether the worker is being exploited or not. How much is he getting paid for how much time he is working, how much is he getting paid for how much he is producing. How much is he getting paid for how much the thing is selling. You talk about the employers risk for which he gets profit. But you said nothing about how often workers take pay cuts in the bad times on a promise of an increase when things get better (and then promise is never kept) . All these things and many more that I have not mentioned are relevant but conveniently ignored in your pretty linear little fantasy you have created. Again since its one of the linchpins of your reasons for saying workers are not exploited I would have thought they at least needed a mention. [color=#0000ff]
[/color]
Yeah exactly right, the power imbalance between the average consumer and the state + corporate I've mentioned above because you are literally forced into the market to pay inescapable costs, as I advocate a free society when you have no state you have; no corporations as well removing both of those that create the imbalance. This leaves business' of course but they are now responsible and they are people so it leaves people all with opportunity to increase their lot in the world as best they can.
Though I think the examples still stand, I don't know how you can say these examples aren't looking at the real world, is a pizza shop not a real world example? Do workers not receive a pay for a contribution which is one of many ? Do business owners not provide a lot of equipment in most cases, do they not pay for the building, the expenses do they not do up business plans and organize? All I'm saying with it is the worker logically does not own the entire pizza, due to time preference they have one contribution among many, and given the choice voluntarily accept an agreed wage now then the full profit later by doing it all themselves.
Forum
Pages: 
Does Capitalism Exploit Workers? (Read 59494 times)
