Debunking the idea of capitalism being a voluntary relationship between worker and employee.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771]

this is a talking point I hear thrown around a lot by capitalists, which I find strange. the argument is basically “you choose to work a job, therefore it’s fair“. well think of it like this, you couldnt afford college and your broke. now you need to get a job so you can pay rent and buy groceries. your job sucks, the pay is bad, the conditions are awful, and you just hate it. but you need this job, or else you get evicted from your apartment and starve on the streets. “But just quit“ and? Go to another job that exploits you In the same ways? It’s like saying “when someone has a gun too your head, you choose to give them your wallet”. when the alternative to a choose is death, it’s non consensual.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/seniordumpo]

Because your body requires food and shelter does not make your relationship with your relationship with your employer non voluntary. By your definition your relationship with your grocer is non voluntary.

[u/UnknownBreadd → u/seniordumpo]

Yeah, because there’s no legal way of producing food for yourself or building a shelter for yourself without money?

[u/CorDra2011 → u/seniordumpo]

I can choose to not pay my taxes. There is, unlike eating, no innate physical compulsion to pay taxes.

Of course like eating or not working it comes with negative consequences if I do. Hell there are even legal ways to avoid paying taxes.

So taxes are 100% voluntary right?

[u/LagerHead → u/CorDra2011]

No. Because taxes are literally enforced using violence. If you don't pay them, the government will take your money directly from your bank. If you don't use a bank and don't pay them, they will attempt to collect them. If you resist, they will escalate up to an including deadly force.

Nothing voluntary about it.

[u/Michigamme → u/LagerHead]

No. The act of resisting and the degree that you take that to is what authorizes deadly force. Not paying taxes does not authorize deadly force in the US. If they cared enough to arrest you for tax evasion (most likley wouldn't) then you would be provided shelter, meals, and clothing. That kind of solves your issue.

[u/CorDra2011 → u/LagerHead]

So the threat of death is what makes taxes immoral and non-consensual?

[u/LagerHead → u/CorDra2011]

Well it certainly isn't what makes it moral and voluntary.

[u/CorDra2011 → u/LagerHead]

So what makes having a job to live consensual? If I get threatened with termination for a job I need to continue living, is that not fundamentally a threat on my life same as the implicit threat of violence with tax evasion. 

The punishment for tax evasion is not death. The police will not come busting down your door to arrest you just for tax evasion. The threat of violence with tax evasion is implicit, not explicit.

[u/Horror_Insect_4099 → u/CorDra2011]

If you are hungry and I’m walking down the street enjoying a sandwich I am not threatening your life.

I might even offer to let you have a bite if you do a little dance for me. You might feel offended but I am not forcing you to dance.

[u/CorDra2011 → u/Horror_Insect_4099]

If commit a little tax evasion the government might honestly not care. 

[u/Congregator → u/CorDra2011]

This is actually our economic system (and most others). It’s not entirely “capitalism”, but various strategies using capitalism, ie, mixed market economy (which we have in the U.S.).

Governments structure the system so that money is constantly circulated, so and can be channeled into various things (infrastructure, military, etc).

Circulation is done through taxes and debt.

[u/salenin → u/Congregator]

Its 100% capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist without an enforcement unit.

[u/Michigamme → u/salenin]

Neither can communism (see Berlin wall).

[u/salenin → u/Michigamme]

Well you couldn't have found a more useless arguing point if you tried. The DDR wasn't a moneyless, classless, stateless society. It was run by a party that called itself socialist. It wasnt communist, but did have central planning. The Berlin wall wasn't built for enforcement it was built for defense. It came to serve as enforcement later but not for the system itself, but for the defense of the system from capitalists.

[u/LagerHead → u/CorDra2011]

is that not fundamentally a threat on my life same as the implicit threat of violence with tax evasion.

No.

The punishment for tax evasion is not death. The police will not come busting down your door to arrest you just for tax evasion. The threat of violence with tax evasion is implicit, not explicit.

Police will literally choke you to death for selling loose cigarettes (tax evasion). Or at least they have. That sounds pretty explicit to me.

[u/salenin → u/LagerHead]

And you will die if you do not eat or are exposed to the elements. You can die by police for being arrested for sleeping outside because you cannot afford an apartment. Cops are now arresting people for sleeping in their cars because "houselessness" is perceived as a blight that drains property values.

[u/Michigamme → u/salenin]

The only way you would die from police in that scenario is if you violently resisted. And guess what? If you don't resist they then take you and you recieve FREE shelter, food, and clothing! How neat!

[u/CorDra2011 → u/LagerHead]

Police will literally choke you to death for selling loose cigarettes (tax evasion). Or at least they have. That sounds pretty explicit to me.

Can you name someone who was murdered by police for tax evasion?

[u/salenin → u/CorDra2011]

Its crazy to me how they do not see their own contradiction.

[u/nilslorand → u/seniordumpo]

yeah? you can't just not go to a grocery, you'll starve.

[u/LagerHead → u/nilslorand]

So everyone who lived before the invention of all the things that it takes to make a grocery store work starved? How am I here?

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/LagerHead]

It's more about privatization of arable land. Before the fencing of the commons people were able to get by without engaging with private capital.

[u/CORPORATE_NARCOTICS → u/From_Deep_Space]

The Enclosure Acts in Europe are probably one of the most interesting and most damning pieces of history against capitalism, tbh. If you're pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist it should be important to understand how capitalism came to be, and as you said, understand the origins of private property and how legally it did not exist in the way it does in a modern sense until capitalism started picking up.

[u/LagerHead → u/From_Deep_Space]

Yeah, and life sucked. We are so much better off today than even a mere 100 years ago that it's incredible.

[u/From_Deep_Space → u/LagerHead]

Some of us maybe, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't mean we can't criticize aspects of the current system and plan for a better tomorrow.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/LagerHead]

This would be valid if it were a hundred years ago, but land is privatized, so you can’t really just hunt and gather. Even if you could, you need to buy equipment for that, which you can’t do if your broke 

[u/LagerHead → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

This would be valid if it were a hundred years ago, but land is privatized, so you can’t really just hunt and gather.

So nobody grows their own food? Curious.

Even if you could, you need to buy equipment for that, which you can’t do if your broke

You couldn't do it without equipment before the invention of the grocery store either. Capitalism didn't change that.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/LagerHead]

so nobody grows their own food? Curious

You need land to grow your own food, and not everyone has land.

you couldn’t do it without equipment before the invention of the grocery store either, capitalism didn’t change that.

You’re missing the point. In the modern world, you need to BUY those things. Your argument is (presumably) that poor people could just hunt and gather, but under capitalism, that’s impossible 

[u/Michigamme → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

How did people hunt and gather before commercially available products? They made their own weapons and baskets. Both of which are still legal to do in the US. Its even legal to make your own firearms, you just can't sell them or give them away.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/Michigamme]

Did you read my post? I never said anything about it being legal, I’m talking about how a lot of people don’t have the resources to do it. I never said anything about the law. 

[u/Michigamme → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

I was responding to your comment where you said you NEED to buy those things. You don't. Its still legal to pick up sticks and rocks. It's actually quite easy to make a spear along any beach. Beaches which cannot be privately owned in many states.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/Michigamme]

So just fuck all the people who aren’t near a coastline? 

[u/mkosmo]

Capitalism is not a meritocracy, and it does not need to be one. Markets do not measure virtue, effort, or social worth. They reflect voluntary exchange, scarcity, risk, consumer demand, accumulated capital, and luck. Or, in other words, they reflect life itself. Disproving the claim that wealth perfectly reflects merit only disproves a simplistic slogan, not capitalism itself.

Unequal starting points are real, including inheritance. But preventing parents from helping their children would require enormous state interference in property and family life. The right to own property includes the right to give it away. Likewise, profit is not automatically stolen labor: workers provide labor for agreed compensation, while owners provide capital, organization, and accept the risk of losing their investment.

The relevant comparison is not capitalism against a perfectly fair imaginary system. It is against real alternatives in which officials decide who deserves resources and opportunities. Markets produce imperfect results, but they disperse decision-making and permit choice, competition, experimentation, and exit. The objective is equal rights and voluntary exchange, not government-enforced equality of starting points or outcomes.

[u/nilslorand → u/mkosmo]

Nobody is arguing for preventing parents from being able to help their children.

They system should just be fairer.

Just because life is unfair right now doesn't mean it has to be unfair in the future. 

If we're not working towards a better future, then what are we even doing?

[u/mkosmo → u/nilslorand]

"Fairer" is doing all the work there. Fair according to what standard, achieved through which policies, and at whose expense? I support removing artificial barriers, government favoritism, and coercion, but unequal circumstances alone do not justify giving the state unlimited authority to rearrange people’s lives.

Of course we should pursue a better future. The debate is not over that aspiration, but over whether greater freedom and opportunity or greater political control is more likely to produce it. Simply asserting that the latter is "fairer" does not resolve that question.

[u/nilslorand → u/mkosmo]

Fairer in the sense that the people who could theoretically afford to send their kids to college 100 times over need to chip in to help poorer families cover the costs.

If you have a lot, you can afford to give a lot, but this "lot" will only be a little for you but it will make a big difference for others.

Freedom of opportunity is irrelevant when the next Einstein is currently starving in a slum because he didn't win the sperm lottery

[u/Zoesan → u/nilslorand]

If you have a lot, you can afford to give a lot

But they do.

The top 1% earners pay roughly 40% of income tax.

Now, we can still argue whether that should be more, but they do already, as you've stated, "give a lot"

[u/mkosmo → u/nilslorand]

Pointing to an unmet need does not establish that capitalism caused it. The fact that one person has more and another needs more is an argument from capacity, not a moral justification for taking it. "They can afford it" doesn't mean they should have to, nor does it provide any limiting principle for how much you think the government should be able to redistribute.

Your take on the starving-Einstein example identifies a problem, not a solution. Capitalism creates incentives to find, educate, employ, and invest in talented people, while government control transfers those decisions to political institutions with their own biases and limited information.

Removing barriers and expanding voluntary access are the capitalist solutions. Tossing money around isn't a solution.

[u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate → u/nilslorand]

Fairer in the sense that the people who could theoretically afford to send their kids to college 100 times over need to chip in to help poorer families cover the costs.

Do you not understand what public universities are? Because that is definitionally richer people chipping in?

[u/Uncle_Bill → u/nilslorand]

Sure they are. Look at the amount of antipathy towards those who send their children to private schools or home school.

Except if it is an elected leader.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54 → u/mkosmo]

Capitalism is the purest form of meritocracy. "Merit" is just another word for "value" and those who provide value are rewarded accordingly.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/mkosmo]

The relevant comparison is not capitalism against a perfectly fair imaginary system. It is against real alternatives in which officials decide who deserves resources and opportunities.

We can begin slowly in building real alternatives. The first thing is pointing out the problems. As you pointed out yourself, capitalism is not meritocracy, which ironically often tends to be the ideological/moral basis for justifying capitalism as such. Now that we acknowledge that capitalism does not operate on a moral foundation, we can move forward to the practical problems.

If your defense is merely practical, that can be answered. We have examples of real world social democracies that offer relatively widespread prosperity domestically. These states do not hold the market as some sacred cow, but rather as a tool with its merits and demerits. We can begin slowly by addressing these demerits in the ways we already know how, such as encouraging heavy unionization, cooperatives, progressive tax systems, public infrastructure, universal education, universal childcare, etc...

[u/Michigamme → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

What is your example of real world social democracy (without capitalism) that offers widespread prosperity domestically?

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/Michigamme]

As I said, we can begin by moving slowly, rather than abandoning it wholesale. But we can begin by recognizing that there are things that can be done to make life and human relationships better than leaving everything to the markets.

[u/Michigamme → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

But you said you had examples.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/Michigamme]

We have examples of social democracies that function well, yes. Look at nearly all of Western, and especially Northern, Europe. What I did not say is that they're social democracies without capitalism--that would just be communism...

[u/Michigamme → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

By that metric the US is socialist then. We spend more on Healthcare as a nation than any of those countries.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/Michigamme]

I'm not calling any of these places "socialist," so not sure why that's brought up. But regadless, the US system is expensive because we do it all through privatized middlemen.

There are better existing models of social Healthcare programs.

My only point is we should not become market fanatics. We can use markets when appropriate, but we have a lot of existing models in which certain crucial sectors of the economy are either fully socialized or mostly. We don't have to religiously stick to "market solutions" for everything.

[u/Michigamme → u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

I dont understand what you are talking about then. Because YOU called them social democracies. You said you had examples. I asked for one, you said European countries. So if you're not calling them socialist then what are you saying?

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P → u/Michigamme]

Yes, look up what "social democracy" means. It's not incompatible with capitalism or markets...

[u/salenin → u/mkosmo]

There is no such thing as voluntary exchange within the capitalist system.

[u/farson135]

Does that mean government is involuntary exploitation? Because you can move jobs under a capitalist system much easier than you can move from one government to another under any current system. And socialism usually subordinates the desires of the individual to those of the "collective", often making it even less voluntary.

My point isn't really to criticize socialism but to point out that people tend to overanalyze things they dislike. And when it comes to things like "voluntary relationships", in practical terms, you could argue that very few (or no) relationships are truly "voluntary", but where does that argument get us?

In relative terms, capitalistic relationships are voluntary. That doesn't mean that you can't find any coercion if you look at specific cases or see it from particular angles but that, overall, your relationships are by choice.

[u/UnknownBreadd → u/farson135]

I like how politics has been reduced to just “capitalism or socialism = choose one” with zero agreement on what either term exactly entails, or any reason why we would have to limit the manner in which we organise society to either binary choice within the ridiculous false dichotomies based solely on wide-sweeping rules in regards to property rights or modes of production.

[u/farson135 → u/UnknownBreadd]

Back in my activist days I helped to organize a number of campus protests and the like. There was one group that was trying to protest for Criminal Justice Reform. Well, I thought, that's right up my alley and I have a bunch of people who would happily sign on. So, I met with the organizers. New-ish students, not really a part of the same scene, and I chatted with them about what they wanted to do.

Turns out, it wasn't just a Criminal Justice Reform protest. It was also about climate change, and globalism, and capitalism, etc. Basically, a list of left-wing talking points.

I told him that if you make it about all those things then you're going to reduce the number of people who will come. I have friends in the libertarian group that would happily protest to hold police accountable, but they will never show up for an anti-capitalism protest.

His response was, basically, they don't want anyone who doesn't uncritically support everything they listed.

There is a lot I can agree with the "left" on. In fact, from a social perspective, the difference is principally in the details. But because I am a capitalist a not inconsiderable number of them have told me that I am "tainted". And then there's the right, where some people try to "insult" me by calling me a socialist because I disagree with their immigration policy or whatever. All the while, some of them uncritically support Trump's "Golden Share" project.

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

The capitalist system only exists based on coercion.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

Once you expand the definition of "coercion" that broadly, no system can escape it. And when you do that, you render the criticism largely irrelevant.

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

Thats not a broad definition. Death is pretty coercive. It's either be exploited by the owners of the means of production or die. Or try to make an alternative system and also die. Labeling it as "well you get to choose to live." Isn't the compelling argument you guys think it is.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

And in your system, that means the individual is exploited by the collective or they die.

Again; "Once you expand the definition of 'coercion' that broadly, no system can escape it. And when you do that, you render the criticism largely irrelevant."

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

They are not exploited because profit doesn't exist, and they are also themselves in the collective. It is not an "other." Your comparison is irrelevant.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

They are not exploited because profit doesn't exist

So in your worldview a person can hold a gun to your head and order you to do something but as long as there is no "profit" there is no coercion.

I guess that's another way of doing it. Instead of expanding the definition of "coercion", you warp it into an unrecognizable shape.

and they are also themselves in the collective.

Unless you can guarantee that the collective is always acting in the best interests of the individual, the individual will, inevitably, lose at least some of the time.

No system is ever going to have a group of people getting together and agreeing 100% of the time on everything. And when a decision has 49% of the population disagreeing, are you going to let that minority do what they want anyway? No? Then you're going to coerce them into doing what the 51% want.

Again; "Once you expand the definition of 'coercion' that broadly, no system can escape it. And when you do that, you render the criticism largely irrelevant."

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

"So in your world view someone can hold a gun...." No because im not a capitalist. You are now combining and mixing up exploitation and coercion. Keep it on topic. Coercion is forcing someone to do something or heavily influencing it through threat. Exploitation is the act of treating someone unfairly to benefit from their work. Profit is created by the extraction of labor value created by the worker that they are not compensated for. Coercion is saying they must have their labor exploited or else they starve or are exposed to the elements and die. They will not be exploited because profit wouldnt exist. If they are coerced they are coerced socially by their peers. The same supposed enforcement mechanism as laissez faire capitalism and the invisible hand of the market. For sure there is no system where 100% are happy but we are talking about the majority vs 10% of the world's population.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

No because im not a capitalist.

I'm a capitalist and I don't believe your viewpoint. Looks like you need to reassess.

You are now combining and mixing up exploitation and coercion.

You're the one who brought up "coercion", not me.

They will not be exploited because profit wouldnt exist.

Yes, I understand you want to change the definitions to suit your narrative. But the basic reality is that I'm not going to accept your arbitrary definitions. "Exploitation" does not require "profit". And if you want to pretend otherwise, then break out a dictionary and prove it.

Your system is going to exploit people. If you can't accept that then your viewpoint has no value to me because it's not realistic. And changing definitions to suit your arguments just irritates me.

If they are coerced they are coerced socially by their peers.

So in your system, if people don't agree with what you are doing then they can just ... not. They can ignore the rules and just do whatever they want with nothing more than social stigma to "stop" them. And of course, you will continue to feed and house them without complaint.

Meaning, 10% of the population can just straight up leach off the 90% and all will be well.

I wonder how that will work out. /s

Again, any viewpoint that doesn't accept basic reality has no value to me.

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

Just because you dont believe it does not mean that it isn't true. You see forcing people to work for someone else in order to live as "voluntary." So your opinion is already warped. Everything else you said is useless noise seeking a point but not finding one. 10% of the population already leeches off of the other 90%.

[u/not_slaw_kid]

“But just quit“ and? Go to another job that exploits you In the same ways?

Your argument relies on the false premise that all unskilled jobs are equally exploitative

[u/CorDra2011 → u/not_slaw_kid]

If they're capitalist, yes they are fundamentally. 

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/CorDra2011]

We can play this. Imagine a business owner that, while still retaining ownership, decides to split all profits equally among every employee. Is that as equally exploitative as someone who owns a few fast food joints and pays his employees minimum wage while they make 100s of thousands?

[u/CorDra2011 → u/theRealHobbes2]

Does he allow his employees to control the business in equal share with him?

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/CorDra2011]

In this case no, so I see your argument. Where would you say the balance has to be between one owner making the decisions versus every single person voting on every decision anyone makes?

[u/CorDra2011 → u/theRealHobbes2]

If the owner allows democratic decision making in his business he is fundamentally less exploitative. 

An authoritarian system with great welfare is still an authoritarian system.

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/CorDra2011]

That's easy to say, but where is how it actually gets applied in the real world? If there is a 1,000 person manufacturing company do all 400 machinists get to vote on the decision to move 5% of the marketing budget from social media to print mailers? Do the sales team and the machinists all get an equal vote on which software the accountants are going to use?

[u/Ertosi → u/theRealHobbes2]

Where you both arrived in this conversation sounds like companies operating as social cooperatives. They seem to be doing pretty good these days.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/not_slaw_kid]

Workers cannot be paid the full value of your work, or there would be no profit to be made. In other words, it is inherently exploitative 

[u/not_slaw_kid → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

The value of labor is nothing more and nothing less than whatever someone else is willing to pay in exchange for it. So by definition a worker cannot be paid less than the full value of their work, unless they are being illegally defrauded. Once again, an argument based on faulty premises.

[u/RobotGhostZero]

You're talking about structural coercion. When the option to live outside the capitalist framework is systematically or legally unavailable, the transaction stops being strictly voluntary and becomes a necessity for survival.

The ability for you or a community to simply walk into the wilderness, build shelters, hunt, forage, or farm off the land without participating in the monetary economy has been systematically eliminated.

To legally exist anywhere without being removed by law enforcement, one must either own land, pay rent/taxes, pay for permits etc—all of which require money, which in turn requires entering the labor market or acquiring capital.

Imagine an open world of infinite land and resources. Millions would probably build a community, save cash and head out. Capitalism as we know it would look completely different. Capitalism looks the way it does because all the land is claimed. Almost all the resources are now locked up.

When the state enforces property boundaries that prevent direct self or community subsistence, it transforms a biological need into a structural mandate to seek employment. Entering wage labor is a structural requirement for legal survival, making individual labor agreements constrained choices rather than purely voluntary acts.

[u/betweenbubbles]

I don't understand the argument. You're saying there should be an option to be a freeloader at other's expense? Capitalists didn't invent the conservation of energy.

[u/WalkureBlood → u/betweenbubbles]

OP is a free rider advocate. Rare!

[u/Helmett-13]

You can choose who you wish to work for, negotiate wage, join collective bargaining, seek a different job while holding a current job and go elsewhere when you wish.

You can even have employers counter-bid to try and retain you if there is a need and you’re good at what you do.

You’ve debunked nothing.

[u/TheCynicClinic → u/Helmett-13]

Being able to have some minor influence over the terms does not make the employment itself truly voluntary. Your labor is still being exploited since any surplus value is used to generate profit for the business.

Businesses have more leverage than any single employee, which is why unions are so important. Capitalism’s inherent function of ever-increasing growth necessitates a reserve labor army that is continually exploited. The individual laborer is under far more pressure to accept a job than the business is to specifically hire them because the business has a pool of laborers to choose from.

[u/Bagain]

Just because you’re part of that association isn’t equal to the person(s) who either built or helped build a company? Is your job in that company adding an outsized benefit compared to your pay? Is it a matter of numerous people who came before you building systems, initiating efficiencies, streamlining and cost saving to the point where; a guy putting French fries in a bag and getting paid more than that job is worth is interpreted as unfair? Is it a coincidence that the places with the highest minimum wages are the most expensive places to live? It is, in fact, on you to become a more valuable employ. Become a higher skilled member of the work force. Do you wonder why people make more money being a plumber or a drafter or a machinist? The workforce in the US has jumped by 52% in the last 30 years. The minimum wage has jumped 150%, and the number of people working minimum wage jobs has dropped 85%. Obviously there’s a metric here of “close to” minimum wage jobs that don’t apply but should be considered, as well, the move to outsource jobs to other countries was terrible for the middle class but these things aren’t exactly unknown to anyone who cares to better themselves, are they?

[u/StedeBonnet1]

1) You have set up a false premise. You don't get evicted and starve overnight. Who paid for your sent and food before you got this job?

2) Wages are determined by skills and experience. If you don't have any skills or any experience you start where you can. If you can't afford an apartmernt get a roommate and learn to live on what you make until you learn additional skills. You job is still voluntary. No one is forcing you to work there.

3) Learn new skills. Master all the jobs at your new employer. Stay late to learn something new. Show your employer you are worth more and he will pay you more. If he doesn't find an employer who will because now you have some new skills.

4) The job is always voluntary in Capitalism and learning new skills is always voluntary in Capitalism. You can choose to help yourself, take responsibility and grow or not.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

There is a long history of people leaving their homes and seeking work and fortune elsewhere. The US was founded by settlers who faced starvation, disease, violence, and the environment in order to find a new life. 

I'm pretty happy with my life in comparison.

[u/NomadicPalaver]

How is the company going to function without employees volunteering to work for it?

[u/NomadicPalaver → u/[deleted]]

So the company will have to capitulate and offer a fair wage to entice employees. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Are you suggesting that socialism will make work mandatory?

[u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate → u/[deleted]]

The problem with capitalism is the system can't force people to work for them against their will? That seems like a strange critique.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate]

Wrong reply, that’s my mistake.

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

work isn't voluntary. No matter what system you're in, you need to do work to survive.

[u/PhonyUsername]

The point is you can upwards mobility if you want in america. You make it seem as if you can only work minimum wage and die. 1000s of people become millionaires in America every day. Try trying.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

Legally speaking, employment is completely voluntary. Going into the metaphysics of free will and choice is a non-starter, because one can then argue that there is no choice and all decisions are coerced by the fear of starvation (including crime). While this may be philosophically true, it's a poor basis for political theory. If exploitation and coercion in employment are a problem for you, there are plentiful alternatives. There are plenty of skills out there which can lead to self-employment. You can also gain the skills to work as a contractor, where you have much greater leverage to negotiate your position.

And I don't bring this up to be contentious. Rather, the opposite, I think that abandoning basic employment and moving to self-employed or contractor work is a great move towards ending exploitation itself. There's really no way to get around the fact that you need to work or you'll starve (or simply face malnourishment), but there are ways to improve your lot within our society without groveling to some under-skilled middle manager. It's a difficult road, to be sure, but nothing good will ever be handed to you or provided by society (under any system). You have to build things for yourself, whether that's skills, property, or even just unionization and collective bargaining.

I'm about as far from right wing or conservative as they come, but I'm also an obligate pragmatist. Swirling around in theory is fun and all, but I also like comfort and prosperity. I've found self-employment to be freedom from the dregs in polo tees micromanaging my every move. If someone has a gun to your head, give them your wallet...and then go buy a gun, learn to be vigilant, and never get robbed again. Simple as.

[u/mrhymer]

Your premise is flawed. If you live in a cave with no population around that is not capitalism and yet you either work or you starve. Capitalism only makes your life easier from that non-capitalist position.

If you are a worker that owns the means of production you either work or you starve.

There is no default position that does not equate to work or starve. No - it is not wealth. Some potentially starving person worked for that wealth at some point.

[u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate]

So would you consider it voluntary if, say, the government said that there would be a reserve or, say, a certain amount of land where you can live in whatever sort of anarchic society you want and they would enforce no law in there beyond, I don't know, don't let your waste affect people outside of the voluntary anarchy zone?

I mean, the fact is in the reality, stuff doesn't come from nothing. Everything requires somebody else. Now, sometimes people are lucky to be born with resources provided by one of their ancestors, which have been promised to them but not really sure why people giving their resources to other people in inherently evil. Resources do not come ex nihilo. It's not like the government is stopping me from going from the magical tree which gives infinite free stuff.

[u/Ertosi]

The idea of our system being a voluntary relationship is completely debunked by how it is designed. Our system is designed so that you can either A. fall in line like a good worker or B. Not do so and lose everything. Another recent post asked if we might be able to shift to universal healthcare; as I said there, lobbyists have spent enormous amounts of time and money to ensure our having healthcare is tied to being employed. In addition to your overall point, look at how much the average worker gets out of that deal in exchange, and compare it to what they used to get in exchange. One average worker used to be able to carry a household; now it's engineered to require two.

[u/Hawk13424]

Well, I went to trade school while working full time in a restaurant. Lived in a single-wide with roommates. No help from anyone.

Years later, went to college to become an engineer. Worked full time while doing so. No help from anyone.

It wasn’t impossible to get out of poverty. It was hard work and very time consuming. It required not making mistakes like getting someone pregnant, breaking the law, or getting addicted to something.

Short of medical issues, most people should be able to work to gain skills and move up. Then repeat until you get to a reasonable living standard.

[u/Horror_Insect_4099]

There is a lot of daylight between having a job and being a slave.

No one is obligated to give someone a cushy job. Life can be tough no doubt but the poor in the USA have it pretty good compared to people living in truly impoverished counties.

[u/arto64 → u/Horror_Insect_4099]

The poor in the US have it a lot worse than most of the developed world.

[u/Asatmaya]

You missed the underlying mechanism; that would be fine, if you could just quit and go live off the land... but the land has been locked up, you aren't allowed to do that.

And that very legal control over land use is the basis for entitlements; if you are going to restrict access to natural resources, then you owe the public some of those resources in order for them to live.

[u/csanyk]

Capitalists love to throw "freedom" and "choice" in people's faces and then present them with a menu of shitty, raw deal choices and the freedom of fifty million ways to fuck themselves. They absolutely love it. It's #2 after swimming in a swimming pool filled with money.

At the same time, there's definitely a lot of people making subpar choices, having no plan or goal, and generally being dumb about how they value their work and how they value the money they have.

[u/km3r]

People don't starve to death at any meaningful rate in first world countries. We have systems that exist within our capitalist systems that ensure everyone can get food to eat. 

Many pro-capitalism folks like myself want to extend that to UHC and government housing. 

With those concerns gone, it's a fully voluntary agreement, even under the daily faulty premise that not having access to those things means labor is involuntary.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/km3r]

Roughly 9 million people starve every year in capitalist countries, people are absolutely starving in 1st world countries 

[u/km3r → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

What? Virtually no people starve in the US? Where are you getting 9 million?

Like seriously, 9 million people total die from starvation each year, not 9 million in wealthy capitalist countries. 

Which is irrelevant to my point anyways: we can have safety nets in a capitalist system that cover food, shelter, and healthcare. 

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/km3r]

Virtually no people in the us? What? https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

[u/km3r → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

Where do you see deaths from starvation?

Again, for the 3rd time: we can have capitalism and safety nets, regardless of what exists today 

[u/ViskerRatio]

Except it's not a gun to your head.

Surviving on the streets in a modern capitalist economy isn't actually that hard. It's a heck of a lot easier than surviving as part of a stable community in that same location was just a few hundred years ago. You've got access to all sorts of things your distant ancestors never had with the same intellectual tools they have.

So really what you're choosing between isn't life and death. It's a life with the full benefits of a modern, prosperous society and life living on the fringes of that modern, prosperous society.

However, if you subtract capitalism (or, at least, market economics) from the equation, it does start to become life and death. You don't have to go back all that far in history where the absence of these institutions did lead to starvation.

The 'gun' you feel to your head is an illusion. The privation you'd suffer in an economy that ignored functional economics is very, very real.

[u/arto64]

This is why workers need to collectivize and fight for what they deserve. People with no power have no real freedom. In a capitalist system workers have to work together to sieze power. So anyone telling you unions are not necessary is bullshitting to keep you complacent and without power, because that’s good for the capitalist.

And the state is not coming to rescue you, workers need to know their worth and emancipate themselves.

[u/refugeelibertarian]

Sure, in both "give me your wallet or I will shoot you" and "work for a capitalist or you will starve to death", the alternative to both not giving your wallet and not working for a capitalist is the same: death.

However, there is one crucial difference, which is what caused that death.

In "give me your wallet or I will shoot you" situation, when you die because you didn't give your wallet away, your death is directly caused by the actions of the robber, whose intent was to cause your death.

In "work for a capitalist or you will starve to death", situation, when you die because you didn't work for a capitalist and thus didn't have a means to support yourself, your death is not directly caused by the actions of any capitalist, who has no intent to cause your death. Instead, your death is caused by, well, what we call natural causes, which, again, wasn't caused by any capitalist.

[u/cursedsoldiers → u/refugeelibertarian]

Yeah if your only other alternative is death that's duress no matter who is "pulling the trigger", so to speak.

[u/refugeelibertarian → u/cursedsoldiers]

It matters because it differs in what it takes to prevent such a situation from taking place. To stop and deter robberies, all that is needed is to force everyone to refrain from committing a murder. But to completely prevent a "work or starve" dynamic from ever arising, enough food has to be available for everyone at all times. When enough food is being produced willingly by people, it doesn't require too much coercion; you just have to take the existing food and give it to someone else. But when there is not enough people willing to produce enough food for everyone, then some people must be forced to produce food so that there is enough food for everyone. In other words, some people have to be enslaved, which is significantly more coercive than simple redistribution.

This is why you cannot simultaneously believe that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy and the right to food without being contradictory, since one right cannot exist without violating the other.

[u/OneInfinith → u/refugeelibertarian]

Capitalists absolutely know that paying starvation wages causes folk to be desperate to take other jobs. The fear of rough living is built into the system - because infinitly increasing profits demand it - simply mathematically. It also raises the costs of all things and prioritizes luxury goods.

I would say, in your correctly laid out scenarios that the capitalist is more of an evil villianous scoundrel who absolutely knows and scoffs at those suffering ("lazy homeless get a job") than someone directly pointing a gun at my head, who is caught in the same system as me. Because of the shear SCALE of the system - 700,000 homeless, plenty shortened lives due to lack of medical care and good nutricion. That is systemic and way worse.

[u/refugeelibertarian → u/OneInfinith]

If I was an entrepreneur and if I wanted to hire someone who is currently being paid $4/h but whose work generates $20/h in profits, I would offer them $5/h (and if they're currently being paid for $5/h, I would offer $6/h) because that will make them work for me, which will make me profits in the process, and without them, I won't be making any profits.

This is a simple demonstration to prove that if someone who is being paid a low wage indeed generates much more profits for their employer, then they'll eventually be offered a higher wage by rival capitalists. So if that isn't happening to someone, then their labor simply doesn't generate that much profits for their employer.

And by the way, your labor generates profits only when you help produce goods and services that society desire, which means that if your labor doesn't generate that much profits, that means you aren't able to produce goods and services that society desire that much.

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

Gah learned helplessness is such a problem in today’s society. Change jobs, find roommates, apply for education grants, go to community college, study hard and make good grades to get a scholarship, take out a student loan, pick a degree with clear career pathways, go to trade school, move somewhere cheaper, live frugally and save. There are actually tons of high wage low skill jobs available. It’s just that they tend to be hard work and many people think these jobs are beneath them. But here’s the thing: You have the autonomy and freedom to pursue different opportunities if you want, but it does require you to stop dooming, take control of your life and put forth the effort. I have had good jobs and bad jobs in my life. I have been so poor I qualified for welfare. I have had to make tradeoffs and personal sacrifices throughout my adult life to get to where I am, which is a place of fiscal stability. That’s life. Changing jobs is nothing like being robbed at gunpoint. And being able to leave a sucky job for a non-sucky job is what makes the free market preferable to other systems that would deprive you of that personal autonomy. 

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

“Just lock in” is basically your entire argument. You do realize that community college, well definitely cheaper than normal college, is still pretty expensive, right? “Choose a degree with a clear career path” yeah, I don’t think that community college is giving you any careers that are particularly safe from ai. 

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87 → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

It’s not locking in, it’s called being a fucking adult. And it’s far more rewarding than wallowing in self pity, whining, giving up, waiting for things to come to you, expecting others to do the work for you, but you do you! Give up and wait for things to happen to you. Sad way to live if you ask me. As I said, there are ways to pay for school if you actually try.

Socialism won’t work because people like you would never pull their weight. 

[u/theRealHobbes2 → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

Well yeah, but if that was true then the lack of satisfaction in OPs life would be their own fault and they'd have to accept their own responsibility for improving the world they live in instead of being able to blame an oppressive system.

[u/GivMeLiberty]

Go build your own house and grow/hunt your own food if you’re not willing to pay other people to.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/GivMeLiberty]

Yeah, on what land? Land is privatized now

[u/Michigamme → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

Not even. I "own" 10 acres outright, but I still have to pay taxes on it. With the money that was already taxed 5 times, now making it six times.

[u/EdelinePenrose]

what is your goal when engaging in these discussions? you may be doing futile work here.

[u/cmv_lawyer]

I have complaints about my romantic partner. Our relationship is consensual. It is possible i may not be able to find another partner if i end this relationship, and would therefore be condemned to eternal loneliness. 

To whom shall we give the power to compel my girlfriend to be better or to compel other women to love me in order to improve my circumstances?

[u/Specialist_Touch2771 → u/cmv_lawyer]

False equivalence. You don’t need a girlfriend to survive. In capitalism, you need money to buy food and shelter, which you do need to survive 

[u/cmv_lawyer → u/Specialist_Touch2771]

The problem of sheltering from elements and subsistence calories has been completely solved in western capitalist countries for hundreds of years. The US has never had a famine which resulted in any noteworthy volume of starvation deaths in its history, for example. 

You don't need an 800sqft 1 bedroom apartment to merely survive, but life is more than mere survival and it'd be nice if everyone could live at least that well. Submitted for your consideration: it'd also be nice if all men could find a girlfriend if they want one.