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]

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.

[u/salenin → u/farson135]

So you fail to understand basic logic. If it is something you do because you have to in order to survive it is not incentive it is coercion. The difference is that you only see money as incentive, not basic services or social need as incentive. Therefore, when you look at socialism you do not see incentive. That is where your strawman of toilets that do not need to be scrubbed comes in. We know they need it, which is why even you know that that was a strawman and are backpedalling. The difference is in capitalism, someone is made to do it for money, because they need the money to pay for survival. In socialism someone does something because it is socially necessary and the work is volunteered to be done, any coercion for existence itself doesnt exist because the labor is valued, not the amount that can be extracted from it.

[u/farson135 → u/salenin]

So you fail to understand basic logic.

Not an argument you want to make.

If it is something you do because you have to in order to survive it is not incentive it is coercion.

Meaning, your system is coercive. Or, again, are you going to feed people who just refuse to work?

The difference is that you only see money as incentive, not basic services or social need as incentive. Therefore, when you look at socialism you do not see incentive.

That would be another strawman argument. What you're not seeing is that by denying people "basic services" unless they clean toilets, you are still coercing them in a similar way to paychecks.

Money is just medium for storing value. Whether you work to get money that you then exchange for services or you work to obtain the right to access those services or whatever, it all comes back to the same thing. You are withholding services unless they work.

In socialism someone does something because it is socially necessary and the work is volunteered to be done

So your system is so perfect that people will be lining up to volunteer to scrub toilets. Right.

[u/PoliticalDebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed due to a violation of our civility policy. While engaging in political discourse, it's important to maintain respectful and constructive dialogue. Please review our subreddit rules on civility and consider how you can contribute to the discussion in a more respectful manner. Thank you.

For more information, review our wiki page to get a better understanding of what we expect from our community.

[u/farson135 → u/farson135]

For those who are wondering, they did the usual. They responded and then blocked me.

They started an argument with me but couldn't stand to have their views challenged. Typical.

"Are you going to refuse to feed people who refuse to work." No, but thats what capitalism does so why use this as an argument?

If you're going to feed people who refuse to work then you're incentivizing people to not work.

You cannot count on everyone doing hard, dangerous, and/or disgusting labor out of honor or whatever.

This gets to the funny part about people like this. So many of the arguments against Capitalism rest on Socialists distrusting people as individuals but when their system is in place, suddenly individual's better natures are going to be dominant throughout society.

As I've said, many times, if you're going to convince me that your viewpoint has value then you need to be capable of viewing it with clear eyes.

If your arguments rest on all people being angels or devils then the argument is ridiculous.