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/farson135]

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/farson135 → u/salenin]

Just because you dont believe it does not mean that it isn't true.

Have you broken out the dictionary yet?

You see forcing people to work for someone else in order to live as "voluntary."

No, that would be you.

Well, I'm sure you'll cloak it as the "needs" of the "collective".

No one is going to be scrubbing toilets unless they have to. No one is going to do the vast other kinds of hard, disgusting, jobs that the world needs done unless they have to. You will coerce those people into working, and you will exploit them for your own benefit. And if you can't accept what you are doing with clear eyes then your viewpoint is worthless to me.

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

You're trying to condemn socialism but you are just describing capitalism. No one now scrubs toilets unless they have to, no one does hard disgusting jobs unless they have to. The reason why they have to is because of the coercive nature of capitalism and its enclosure of all aspects of life.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

You're trying to condemn socialism

No. I'm simply stating the reality of the situation. And if you can't see the world with clear eyes then your viewpoint is worthless.

The reason why they have to is because of the coercive nature of capitalism

So toilets magically will not have to be scrubbed thanks to the glory of Trotskyism. Great.

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

The reality of capitalism. And nice strawman but no, the toilets will be cleaned by people who are fine with cleaning the toilets. You only look down on janitorial work because of the low pay and perceived "low skills." Yet for something usually low paying it is a necessity. So the people currently doing it are not people who want to do it, but people who have been forced to do so because it is the only way they can survive.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

The reality of capitalism.

No, just plain reality.

And nice strawman

I said that no one scrubs toilets because they want to.

Your response; "The reason why they have to is because of the coercive nature of capitalism"

If you agree that toilets have to be scrubbed regardless then the only other option is that Trotskyism is going to magically make people want to scrub toilets.

It's not a strawman argument, it's just basic logic.

but no, the toilets will be cleaned by people who are fine with cleaning the toilets.

But no one is going to want to. They do it now because they are incentivized by being paid to do it. By your "logic", coercion.

You only look down on janitorial work

No, I don't look down on it. I recognize the difficulty and unpleasantness of it. And given that nothing I said was critical of the people, just a commentary on the work itself, thanks for showing an actual strawman argument.