"The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class." (Engels)
"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
The idea that you can "quit at any time" is a farce; you must then find employment under someone else in order to survive, or manage to amass sufficient capital, something which is not an option for most people, especially with family. An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops.
> An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops
Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are :
1. Starve to death
2. Work in a sweatshop
Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop
Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.
It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.
In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty
Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly
I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them.
>In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty
In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter.
The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism.
You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.
This surplus is profit, which is the motivation for setting up businesses. Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk
> They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily.
This is already allowed in a capitalist society
> They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them
Disagree. The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product
> In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter
Again, in slavery you do not own your labour. So the surplus of your wages ( or time ) cannot be invested, or used to create capital
> The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism.
What does this even mean ?
> You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports
Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work"
To me, it looks like the system you are proposing would be very much like slavery
I'm not arguing for businesses, I'm arguing for the destruction of capitalism. I hope that businesses currently around fail.
>This is already allowed in a capitalist society
Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes available (ii) workers would have to be paid much higher than in those firms that do not operate as co-operatives. These two facts mean that such an organisation cannot compete. A good analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxajtiRatg
It is not a viable option within capitalism to provide for the labour force in the interests of the labour force. Also, most people cannot be employed in a co-operative, so the problem still exists. As long as the problem exists for even one person, I view that as reason to fix the system.
>The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product
Wrong. Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit.
>What does this even mean ?
Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists.
>Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work"
Why is work unenviable? And within a Socialist society, the workers own what they produce by the end of the production process. They can then decide democratically how to distribute the products that they make among themselves, or choose to not distribute them at all. If you are trying to say that humans just sit around all day and do nothing, this is incorrect; in any system, one must work to survive. In a Socialist system, you are rewarded according to your labour, because you own what you make in a joint production process.
There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit, wanting to provide for your family and children, wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in, the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc.
It will be up to an individual to decide why he wishes to work, but in no circumstance will he forced to sell his labour-power for someone to make money from his labour without doing an hour of labour themselves.
If it is true that communist societies are superior they should not be bombable by capitalist societies. But if you are claiming that capitalist societies are inherently more unjust to favor people with capital, communist socieities as inherently more unjust in a way that favor people with political power
> Labourers sell their labour-time to the capitalist, and that commodity has the use value of creating labour, which is transferred to the products. The labour is crystallised inside the products which are made, and those are appropriated by the capitalist at the end of production. If the worker owned his labour, the products at the end of production which the capitalist re-possesses in order to sell would have no more value than when they entered the factory as raw materials and machinery. Therefore the capitalist could not make any profit.
This is pure nonsense on many levels.
What about the value derived from the risk taken by the enterpreneur ? What about the value derived from the work done by the enterpreneur ?
Also value is subjective. A hungry person will pay more for a piece of bread than a satiatated human being. This again is a source of profit ( and no, its not oppressive if there is competition to establish a fair price )
> Capitalism requires land and property owners; if those land and property owners cease to exist, capitalism must also cease to exist. As such, the system which creates the force for people to choose between starving and wage labour is perpetuated by the whole class of property owners, i.e the capitalists.
The difference, again, is that the wages paid can be used to climb out of this position. This option is not available in slavery. Employee-Employer relationship is mutually beneficial, not oppressive
> Why is work unenviable?
Do you work for Google ?
> There are various motivations for wanting to work, too; the desire for credit,
> wanting to improve the conditions of the society you live in
> the desire to help other people in your community, out of necessity for something you want to see finished, for mastery, as a hobby, etc
This does not ensure that the important and necessary work will get done. Also it does not ensure that the work which contributes maximum to the society is preferred over other useless work. I prefer to live in a world where important work gets priority even if it means I have to perform unenviable tasks for limited periods of time
The fact the entrepreneur was able to take a risk at all is remarkable by itself: without starting capital (often inherited), you simply cannot take any risk to begin with.
Want to reward risk-taking? Think how this very thinking perpetuates (perhaps even increases) inequality.
> What about the value derived from the work done by the enterpreneur ?
That work has value and should be factored in the final value of the products, then rewarded.
Make no mistake, slavery also requires consent: the slave can always kill himself at the very least.
Coercion (or lack thereof) is immaterial. And even if it's not, we could argue that there is a coercion of sorts: how come the employers don't offer better choices? Are they even talking to the government to help them offer better choices? Or do they just want to maximise profits, using whatever means necessary? Sure, their responsibility is much more diffuse and less clear cut than that of a slaver who would personally kill unwilling slaves. But from the point of view of the slave/employee, the result is the same: servitude or death.
Note that the sweatshop situation is dire enough that some people do chose death over the sweat shop. Enough of them that some shops have nets around them to prevent their employees from jumping off.
Rape is a thing, so I don't think this is a very good moral standard. Informed, active assent is the usual standard.
Many people can't. I mean, they can, but they can't afford it, unless they're willing to risk homelessness.