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

[an anarchist]

I once said on this site that capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Then people responded saying "it's not voluntary because 'wage slavery'".

I've thought about it since then. I still remain unconvinced that capitalism is not voluntary. You don't have to work, you can roll over and die in poverty instead. So there is a choice. "That's no choice!" Well, why are you blaming your source of income, saying they are "enslaving you"? Even if it really isn't a choice, I feel like the blame and anger is misdirected entirely. Instead of being mad at the person who provides you income, shouldn't you be mad at the universe or "God" for giving you a physical body with daily requirements to stay alive? It is in no way the employers fault that if you don't work you are screwed. That's just the physical nature of reality. And in the end, you don't have to work for the employer. So it's not slavery. You do have a choice. Obviously, you are going to choose to work, but if you don't feel that is fair, blame god, not capitalism.

Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Certainly not slavery.

 

[Stevicus]

I once said on this site that capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Then people responded saying "it's not voluntary because 'wage slavery'".

I've thought about it since then. I still remain unconvinced that capitalism is not voluntary. You don't have to work, you can roll over and die in poverty instead. So there is a choice. "That's no choice!" Well, why are you blaming your source of income, saying they are "enslaving you"? Even if it really isn't a choice, I feel like the blame and anger is misdirected entirely. Instead of being mad at the person who provides you income, shouldn't you be mad at the universe or "God" for giving you a physical body with daily requirements to stay alive? It is in no way the employers fault that if you don't work you are screwed. That's just the physical nature of reality. And in the end, you don't have to work for the employer. So it's not slavery. You do have a choice. Obviously, you are going to choose to work, but if you don't feel that is fair, blame god, not capitalism.

Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Certainly not slavery.

I suppose in that sense, even a slave has a choice. The slave can try to run away or defy their master and take the consequences for that. In a few notable cases, some major slave revolts have taken place.

Likewise, no one is really forced to live under authoritarianism or tyranny, since people have the ability to revolt and overthrow their government at any time. In that sense, everything is truly voluntary.

 

[an anarchist]

I suppose in that sense, even a slave has a choice. The slave can try to run away or defy their master and take the consequences for that. In a few notable cases, some major slave revolts have taken place.

Likewise, no one is really forced to live under authoritarianism or tyranny, since people have the ability to revolt and overthrow their government at any time. In that sense, everything is truly voluntary.

I understand your point

However, I do think we can draw an important distinction between a slaver or tyrant, and that of an employer.

With the employer, you often have a choice of who you work for. Though I know it's not that simple (I live in a city that is about tied for worst unemployment in the entire USA, so like I get the feeling of being "trapped" at my current job, as there aren't that many available). But ultimately, the worker-employer relationship is usually a symbiotic and mutual one. I've walked out of many jobs in my youth, just being an angry kid. My only repercussion was that the employer no longer had a mutual agreement with me to pay me money. If I was a slave or under true tyranny, and I tried walking out, the repercussions would exceed that of simply ending the relationship. I would be punished.

 

[an anarchist]

Likewise, no one is really forced to live under authoritarianism or tyranny, since people have the ability to revolt and overthrow their government at any time. In that sense, everything is truly voluntary.

I love this mindset though! Like, if we decided collectively against war for example, we can voluntary end it. Ya know that John Lennon quote? "What if they had a war, but nobody showed up?"

 

[Brickjectivity]

I once said on this site that capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Then people responded saying "it's not voluntary because 'wage slavery'".

It is hyperbole.

I've thought about it since then. I still remain unconvinced that capitalism is not voluntary. You don't have to work, you can roll over and die in poverty instead. So there is a choice. "That's no choice!" Well, why are you blaming your source of income, saying they are "enslaving you"? Even if it really isn't a choice, I feel like the blame and anger is misdirected entirely. Instead of being mad at the person who provides you income, shouldn't you be mad at the universe or "God" for giving you a physical body with daily requirements to stay alive? It is in no way the employers fault that if you don't work you are screwed. That's just the physical nature of reality. And in the end, you don't have to work for the employer. So it's not slavery. You do have a choice. Obviously, you are going to choose to work, but if you don't feel that is fair, blame god, not capitalism.

Capitalism isn't a choice, but its not chattel slavery either. Slavery involves the mindset: that one person needs another to own them. A child needs a parent and is somewhat born into slavery, even though legally it is not defined as such. To the degree that you believe you need to have a boss: to that degree you are enslaved. If you believe that you need a master, then you are enslaved. In particular if you believe you are inferior and therefore need another of superior type then you are enslaved mentally.

From this springs the notion that a mediocre public education enslaves the students, but to call us "Wage slaves" is still hyperbole. It is hyperbole but makes a point that our education is mediocre. Our degree is lower if we have not been prepared to live without a master. Unfortunately many students are taught that they should become educated in order to get jobs, which prepares them to have a boss. That is a slave mentality. Rather, students ought to be educated to do business for themselves.

 

[HonestJoe]

Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Certainly not slavery.

As a fundamental principle, I don't think capitalism is automatically voluntary or not. Unregulated capitalism would be controlled by whoever currently holds the key resources and even regulated capitalism generally allows for some people to be systematically disadvantaged or even excluded from the system.

I don't buy your angle of "don't blame capitalism, blame god", in part because I don't believe in any god but mainly because you seem to be presenting this thread as explicit support for (or at least defence of) capitalism, so I don't think you can just dismiss the very real imperfections of capitalism in the context of the wider world we live in (regardless of how you might believe that came to be).

No socio-economic system is perfect, which is why we use various combinations of them in practice, and denying the flaws that do inevitably remain prevents us taking steps to minimise the impact of them. Which is, of course, exactly what some wealthy capitalist want.

 

[an anarchist]

If you believe that you need a master, then you are enslaved.

Tangent perhaps, but as an anarchist, I can't help but apply this thought to government.
"If you believe you need a government, then you are enslaved. " Because one of the arguments against anarchism is the supposed impossibility of anarchism and the supposed inevitability of the government. This coupled with the belief that government is indeed neccesary makes me view every statist as a slave to their government.

 

[Audie]

Tangent perhaps, but as an anarchist, I can't help but apply this thought to government.
"If you believe you need a government, then you are enslaved. " Because one of the arguments against anarchism is the supposed impossibility of anarchism and the supposed inevitability of the government. This coupled with the belief that government is indeed neccesary makes me view every statist as a slave to their government.

Few of us have the luxury of doing
nothing.
Might as well call a farmer a " turnip slave".

Its an unfortunate thing to be go equivocating
words out of all meaning.

 

[Koldo]

Tangent perhaps, but as an anarchist, I can't help but apply this thought to government.
"If you believe you need a government, then you are enslaved. " Because one of the arguments against anarchism is the supposed impossibility of anarchism and the supposed inevitability of the government. This coupled with the belief that government is indeed neccesary makes me view every statist as a slave to their government.

The existence of a government is a necessity for pretty much any capitalist model of production. Unless by some chance everyone agreed with the same rules to live in harmony.

 

[an anarchist]

The existence of a government is a necessity for pretty much any capitalist model of production

I disagree, as an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalists claim that government in fact gets in the way of capitalism and production. Government is the parasite and the economy is the host. What good is a parasite?
Perhaps you can elaborate what you mean?
Like, if I offer fortune telling services, and someone pays me to read their fortune, that's capitalism. Where does the necessity of government factor in?

 

[PureX]

Slavery occurs when humans are forced by the rules of the culture they live in to work for the prosperity of others while being denied that prosperity to themselves. "Wage" slavery is just a term given to one means by which this "rule" is being enforced. And since it is the singular goal of capitalism to create this exact scenario we can say without a doubt that capitalism does result in wage slavery. And in fact it results in slavery, proper, to the extent that it can get away with it.

It's interesting to me how determined so many of us living under capitalism are at refusing to see this. I guess it's just too humiliating and hopeless acknowledging that we have been this bamboozled by our own greed and stupidity.

 

[Audie]

I disagree, as an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalists claim that government in fact gets in the way of capitalism and production. Government is the parasite and the economy is the host. What good is a parasite?
Perhaps you can elaborate what you mean?
Like, if I offer fortune telling services, and someone pays me to read their fortune, that's capitalism. Where does the necessity of government factor in?

Govt gets in the way, meaning what
exactly?
"Capitalists say" ?
All of them about all govts?
Everything govt does hinders capitalism?
All laws and regulations are bad for capitalists?

Many questions doth arise.

 

[an anarchist]

Govt gets in the way, meaning what
exactly?

Let's use minimum wage as a simple example. I agree to hire Bob for 5$ an hour and he likes the deal. But the government comes in and says I need to pay Bob 10$ an hour. Now I can't afford Bob and both me and Bob are out of luck. The government interjects itself in agreements between individuals, adding stipulations to contracts.

Capitalists say" ?
All of them about all govts?

I should say " anarcho-capitalists" or as I call them, the "real capitalists". But these real capitalists will agree with me that government is unnecessary and even worse than that. Or else they ain't a capitalist in my book.

Everything govt does hinders capitalism?

The very existence of government hinders the economy and capitalism.

 

[Koldo]

I disagree, as an anarcho-capitalist. Capitalists claim that government in fact gets in the way of capitalism and production. Government is the parasite and the economy is the host. What good is a parasite?
Perhaps you can elaborate what you mean?
Like, if I offer fortune telling services, and someone pays me to read their fortune, that's capitalism. Where does the necessity of government factor in?

Capitalism revolves around private ownership of the means of production (tools, machinery, land, materials...). More than that, the striking characteristic is the private citizens' capacity to amass capital. To amass capital though, someone (or something) has to uphold their claims of ownership. Without anyone to do that job, other people would, according to their convenience, grab whatever goods and land they wanted, ignore contracts and so on. Therefore, to protect their capital, the capitalists would need to hire mercenaries to impose whatever rules they wanted and this would turn them into rulers. Thus the inevitability of a government showing up in a capitalist world.

 

[an anarchist]

Therefore, to protect their capital, the capitalists would need to hire mercenaries to impose whatever rules they wanted and this would turn them into rulers. Thus the inevitability of a government showing up in a capitalist world.

Except, everyone is a capitalist and there is competition. There isn't just one group of mercenaries running the show per geographical region, there are competing parties. And competition is always good for the consumer, that's Economics 101. In our current statist system, we have one armed group of thugs (government and their military/law enforcement) per geographical region (country). This one group of "mercenaries", "thugs", or "government" calls the shots.

What you are supposing and fearful of might happen in an anarchist society is already the status quo for our statist society. I wish statists applied the criticisms they have towards hypothetical anarchist society to their own preferred society, one we currently live in, a statist world.

 

[Audie]

Let's use minimum wage as a simple example. I agree to hire Bob for 5$ an hour and he likes the deal. But the government comes in and says I need to pay Bob 10$ an hour. Now I can't afford Bob and both me and Bob are out of luck. The government interjects itself in agreements between individuals, adding stipulations to contracts.

I should say " anarcho-capitalists" or as I call them, the "real capitalists". But these real capitalists will agree with me that government is unnecessary and even worse than that. Or else they ain't a capitalist in my book.

The very existence of government hinders the economy and capitalism.

You overexplained your example,
but lets look at it.
Theres regs that are ill considered, mainly
serve to hinder, sure.
But minimum wage is part of a larger picture.

It may hinder joe, or put him out of biz.
But "no regulations" or inadequate ones
hurts everyone's business, no sane
capitaliststs wants a return to Dickers' era England.

Its kinda nice to have courts to settle disputes,
too.

I think your book / your definitions could
apply only to small tribal societies.
Pre- contact Eskimos, say.

 

[Ebionite]

"it's not voluntary because 'wage slavery'"

In England the 'wage slaves' were known as villiens and knaves because of their diminshed status in feudal society. They were lower in rank that freemen, who were landowners. Eventually this diminshed status became the norm as titles to land became titles in fee rather than freeholds.

 

[PureX]

Let's use minimum wage as a simple example. I agree to hire Bob for 5$ an hour and he likes the deal. But the government comes in and says I need to pay Bob 10$ an hour. Now I can't afford Bob and both me and Bob are out of luck. The government interjects itself in agreements between individuals, adding stipulations to contracts.

Bob can't live on $5/hr. He only accepts your offer because all you greedy capitalists have agreed to keep wages as low as possible. And as a good capitalist you don't care about Bob's life. That's not your concern. That's Bob's. All you care about is gaining a maximum profit from the capital you've invested in your "business". So the government, who's job it is to look out for Bob's well-beng and interests steps in and tells you that you have to pay Bob $10/hr. But you say you can't operate your business and pay that wage.

What you're failing to understand is that it is not humanity's purpose to serve the cause of capitalist greed. So if you capitalize a business that cannot PROPERLY serve all the humans involved in it (investors, laborers, consumers, and community) then we humans have no logical reason to engage in that commercial enterprise at all. You were too selfish to care about that because all you wanted was a fat profit from your investment capital, but fortunately, the government wasn't that self-centered. and so it did it's job.

You say, "but now Bob's got no job at all". But having a job that he can't live on wasn't really having a job. It was just a wage trap to keep him in poverty.

I should say " anarcho-capitalists" or as I call them, the "real capitalists". But these real capitalists will agree with me that government is unnecessary and even worse than that. Or else they ain't a capitalist in my book.

The very existence of government hinders the economy and capitalism.

Anarcho-anything is just childish nonsense. Humans don't self-regulate.

 

[Koldo]

Except, everyone is a capitalist and there is competition. There isn't just one group of mercenaries running the show per geographical region, there are competing parties. And competition is always good for the consumer, that's Economics 101.

Do you think no group is going to become significantly stronger than the other in a region to the point they would achieve de facto monopoly? Why would a very strong mercenary group accept a smaller group doing business in their region? And what group is going to come out stronger if not the ones that have the backing of the wealthiest?

In our current statist system, we have one armed group of thugs (government and their military/law enforcement) per geographical region (country). This one group of "mercenaries", "thugs", or "government" calls the shots.

What you are supposing and fearful of might happen in an anarchist society is already the status quo for our statist society. I wish statists applied the criticisms they have towards hypothetical anarchist society to their own preferred society, one we currently live in, a statist world.

But that's exactly what I criticized: An anarcho-capitalist society would resemble ours in that aspect, it would still have a government ruling over us. Anarcho-capitalism is feudalism v2.

 

[an anarchist]

Bob can't live on $5/hr. But you're a capitalist so you don't care about Bob's life. All you care about is gaining a maximum profit from the capital you've invested in your "business". So the government, who's job it is to look out for Bob's well-beng and interests steps in and tells you that you have to pay Bob $10/hr. But you say you can't operate your business and pay that wage.

What you're failing to understand is that it is not humanity's purpose to serve the cause of capitalist greed. So if you capitalize a business that cannot PROPERLY serve all he humans involved in it (investors, laborers, consumers, and community) then we humans have no logical reason to engage in that commercial enterprise at all. You were too selfish to care about that because all you wanted to a fat profit off your investment capital, but fortunately, the government wasn't that self-centered. and so it did it's job.

You say, "but now Bob's got no job at all". But having a job that he can't live on wasn't really having a job. It was just a wage trap to keep him in poverty.

Anarcho-anything is just chldish nonsense.

Did you know that the federal minimum wage in America was instituted in order to keep blacks and other "undesirables" out of the workforce? It's the truth. The minimum wage was never intended to help, it was a eugenics convention.

But keep trusting your government's "good will".

A bit besides the point, but it's important to understand why the minimum wage exists in the first place. Government bad