You see in this world [neoliberal capitalism] there's two kinds of people, my friend – those with loaded guns [shareholders], and those who dig [non-shareholders]. You dig. — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Everyone today except the 1% is Tuco. :eyes:

is it inherently wrong that a minority has control over the workplace? — Judaka

There are two different things one might mean by "wrong" here.

One is about whether it has bad consequences. The answer to that is clearly yes, as any person being controlled by any other person thereby has less opportunity to make the circumstances around them the way that is most enjoyable to them, i.e. people being controlled by others makes it more likely that they will suffer.

The other thing one might mean is about whether all of the procedures involved in the scenario are just or legitimate. This is where what passes for "libertarians" in America will respond that this whole scenario is actually about making sure that nobody gets to control anybody else, because the employer is the rightful owner of the place of production and the employees all voluntarily agree to trade their labor for a wage, and to do anything to change that situation would be precisely someone (presumably the state, on behalf of the employees) controlling someone else (the employer, and what they get to "do", or rather allow or forbid others from doing, with "their" property).

But what that analysis crucially misses is the question of what rightfully belongs to whom, and why. IF we take it for granted that the employer actually is the rightful owner of the place of employment, and that the various obligations traded in employment contracts are within the power of the parties to them to create, then the "libertarian" analysis could hold up. But how exactly does rightful ownership get determined? And exactly what rights -- liberties, claims, immunities, and especially powers -- does ownership of something convey? If ownership is determined by use or convention, like meaning in language is, then it seems ludicrous to suppose that the workers who use the means of production are not either automatically its rightful owners because they use it, or that they (and we all, the mostly-workers of the world) truly agree to the convention that their employer is the rightful owner. And if it is not within the power of the employer and employees to create the obligations that are traded in the contract, then the contract simply isn't valid, regardless of who owns what.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is the contract made between a private citizen who owns a place of production with another private citizen to exchange labour for a wage. — Judaka

Less than a contractual relationship [and many workers do not have 'contracts' per se] the defining characteristic of capitalism is the accumulation of profit at the expense of the workers who produce all wealth in the first place.

Capitalist ethics? Bah! Humbug!

That interpersonal relationships within capitalist workplaces can be pleasant doesn't change the nature of exploitation of the workers by the company owners. Many capitalists are also "honest" people who behave "ethically" all the while exploiting for the purpose of getting richer.

Whilst much of what you said is true this is the reason why we have labour laws and employee benefits. Because whilst yes the boss has the power to decide how the enterprise shall be run it is most definitely restricted by law, health and safety.

As well as that the employers ability to fire an employee is only on the spot and immediate without monetary compensation for the first year or two. The longer an employee is committed to a company and has built their life around that reliable income the more costly it is to fire them as the employer has to pay compensation that is proportional to the time the employee spent there.

There will always be leaders and followers, bosses and employees, the powerful and the not so much. There’s nothing wrong with that necessarily provided two things are allowed: a). A follower can always become a leader/ a leader can assume follower status at any point in time. b). Leaders take care of their followers and followers enable leaders to do so.

If both those conditions are pursued then whatever establishment, enterprise or community it may be all the participants have little reason to disagree or become disenfranchised. Of course modern life is not an ideal and both of these requirements are often eroded or distorted in favour mostly of those in the leader position/ power. They forget themselves and who put them there.

All of societies problems come down to two things: a lack of gratitude and an over abundance of greed.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is the contract made between a private citizen who owns a place of production with another private citizen to exchange labour for a wage. — Judaka

Labor contracts are a feature of capitalism, but hardly the single defining one. In any case, a lot of work today is remote and online so this "place of production" is becoming an anachronism. Work often doesn't need to be done in an office. In many cases employees just need their own computers and network to get work done, this isn't a 1950s factory. Work is changing very rapidly and increasingly virtual. The worker may be doing work for an employer, but the worker is not always using the employer's "means of production" nor is he reliant on the employer to put a roof over his head.

but the power in the relationship is always with the employer. — Judaka

What if there's many employers and few employees? What if the employees are strongly organized? What if they're financially secure and don't need work? This is definitely not true. If the wages aren't there you're not going to recruit the right people. There are definitely certain labor markets where things are tilted in favor of the employee.

This is a money problem, not an employee-employer problem - if you're poor you have less power. It's not about who the employer or employee is.

Labor contracts are a feature of capitalism, but hardly the single defining one. In any case, a lot of work today is remote and online so this "place of production" is becoming an anachronism. Work often doesn't need to be done in an office. In many cases employees just need their own computers and network to get work done, this isn't a 1950s factory. Work is changing very rapidly and increasingly virtual. — BitconnectCarlos

The "place of production" could be an internet site, a youtube channel, and many other non-physical settings but the principle remains unchanged. The business is owned by the employer, the employee offers the employer labour for wages.

What if there's many employers and few employees? What if the employees are strongly organized? What if they're financially secure and don't need work? This is definitely not true. If the wages aren't there you're not going to recruit the right people. There are definitely certain labor markets where things are tilted in favor of the employee. — BitconnectCarlos

Even if all those things were true, only the compensation the employee receives improve, the principles remain the same. The employer makes all the decisions about how the business runs and what is done with the profits. The employee may be satisfied or dissatisfied with their wage, they still have very little or no control over anything to do with the business that employs them nor over the type of work they'll be doing. The employee is compensated for their time and might be compensated well but during that time, the employee must do what is asked of them by the employer and never the other way around.

Yes, there are regulations and laws in place to protect the worker. "Democratic Socialism" retains the employer-employee organisational structure but creates social programs to compensate workers for these circumstances. Also, ensuring that a certain standard of working conditions is protected by the government. This is argued by many to be favourable over alternative options. Where do you live and how do you rate things currently? Or if you'd prefer could you comment on how things are going more generally in your view.


What are the defining characteristics of "exploitation"? Can the employer-employee relationship exist without any exploitation?

The business is owned by the employer, the employee offers the employer labour for wages. — Judaka

We shouldn't treat this rigid line about ownership like an inevitable feature of capitalism. I've worked for start ups where I have equity in the project which makes me a part-owner of it and some measure of decision-making power. Then again, yes, the bulk of the decision making power is going to come from the founders and the higher ups because they're actually the ones driving the project and they're doing a lot more work than me. They also know a hell of a lot more than me or the vast majority of people for that matter about the project.

The employee may be satisfied or dissatisfied with their wage, they still have very little or no control over anything to do with the business that employs them nor over the type of work they'll be doing. — Judaka

Well do they even want governance control? When I worked at a department store in college all I wanted was to collect a wage and leave. We shouldn't immediately conclude that everyone wants to spend extra time in meetings or learning about potential decisions or projects in the company (especially ones in other areas of the company where you're not involved.) If you are interested in something more you'll probably have to work your way up or talk to management.

In all organizations you get more decision-making power when you climb up the ladder. But you also take on more responsibilities which can be seen as restricting and will take up your time. The idea that workers must be entitled to strong governance authority simply upon agreeing to do work for the employer is ridiculous. How much decision-making power are we to give a complete newcomer who just joined up? Should his voice be equal to the founder? As a founder you're the one who started it and gets to make the general rules. If you want to start a business and make it a complete democracy where anyone you hire gets an equal voting opinion then go for it.

IF we take it for granted that the employer actually is the rightful owner of the place of employment, and that the various obligations traded in employment contracts are within the power of the parties to them to create, then the "libertarian" analysis could hold up. But how exactly does rightful ownership get determined? And exactly what rights -- liberties, claims, immunities, and especially powers -- does ownership of something convey? If ownership is determined by use or convention, like meaning in language is, then it seems ludicrous to suppose that the workers who use the means of production are not either automatically its rightful owners because they use it, or that they (and we all, the mostly-workers of the world) truly agree to the convention that their employer is the rightful owner. And if it is not within the power of the employer and employees to create the obligations that are traded in the contract, then the contract simply isn't valid, regardless of who owns what. — Pfhorrest

Isn't the status quo that the means of production are recognised by all relevant parties to indeed belong to the owner and the employees don't consider themselves to be the owners. If the business or its assets are sold, that all profit will go to the owner is everyone's expectation. The choice to do that is with the owner. The workers of supermarkets and stores don't see themselves as the rightful owners. Also, the terms of the employment are recognised by employer, employee, the government and all parties. It seems I don't understand what you're saying or I'm just missing the point

We shouldn't treat this like an inevitable feature of capitalism. I've worked for start ups where I have equity in the project which makes me a part-owner of it and some measure of decision-making power. Then again, yes, the bulk of the decision making power is going to come from the founders and the higher ups because they're actually the ones driving the project and they're doing a lot more work than me. They also know a hell of a lot more than me or the vast majority of people for that matter about the project. — BitconnectCarlos

You might feel it is better or justified that the decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of the owners and their representatives but it is not in their hands because of any other reason than the fact that they own the business. It's theirs to run into the ground incompetently or sell or do whatever they please with. If the business is better off this way then that's an argument you could certainly make.

Well do they even want governance control? When I worked at a department store in college all I wanted was to collect a wage and leave. We shouldn't immediately conclude that everyone wants to spend extra time in meetings or learning about potential decisions or projects in the company (especially ones in other areas of the company where you're not involved.) If you are interested in something more you'll probably have to work your way up or talk to management. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not really sure about that, I guess some would and some wouldn't but I couldn't guess what the majority of people would think was ideal.

In all organizations you get more decision-making power when you climb up the ladder. But you also take on more responsibilities which can be seen as restricting and will take up your time. The idea that workers must be entitled to strong governance authority simply upon agreeing to do work for the employer is ridiculous. How much decision-making power are we to give a complete newcomer who just joined up? As a founder you're the one who started it and gets to make the rules. If you want to start a business and make it a complete democracy where anyone you hire gets an equal voting opinion then go for it — BitconnectCarlos

I'm struggling to determine the tone of your message, are you saying it's a matter of earning your way, having the suitable expertise, the rights of the founder or something else?

For those who see the employer-employee dynamic as immoral, I guess they'd want to shut it all down, not just make their own business that does things differently. On what basis would it stop being ridiculous for a worker to have a say? What about after they've been at the company after a certain period of time or other pre-requisites for having a say?

but it is not in their hands because of any other reason than the fact that they own the business. It's theirs to run into the ground incompetently or sell or do whatever they please with. If the business is better off this way then that's an argument you could certainly make. — Judaka

Yep, it's their responsibility and their money to either win or lose. If things go south ideally - under normal capitalism - they'd be losing the most money. The worst that can happen to an employee is that they get fired, but if you're an owner you can just be underwater very large sums of money when business goes poorly.

I'm not really sure about that, I guess some would and some wouldn't but I couldn't guess what the majority of people would think was ideal. — Judaka

Yeah, some will and some won't. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone simply wanting to collect a paycheck and go home and spend time with their families. The problem is if that's all you're relying on for income it puts you in a vulnerable position. I will say from experience it's not easy to get people actually involved in governance decisions. People would rather be doing other things including selling their equity in that project for something more lucrative.

If you're poor and in a low-level position and looking to move up in a certain company/project, then have an honest talk with the management or your superior. Here the burden is on them to be honest about advancement prospects. That is capitalist ethics.

I'm struggling to determine the tone of your message, are you saying it's a matter of earning your way, having the suitable expertise, the rights of the founder or something else? — Judaka

I mentioned all of these.

For those who see the employer-employee dynamic as immoral, I guess they'd want to shut it all down, not just make their own business that does things differently. — Judaka

:100: - and that's their problem. Shutting down the employer-employee dynamic is pure paternalism and its advocates imply that people are incapable of making their own decisions. Should I be forbidden from offering you a job or you offering me one? We can always negotiate the terms.

On what basis would it stop being ridiculous for a worker to have a say? What about after they've been at the company after a certain period of time or other pre-requisites for having a say? — Judaka

There's a difference between "having a say" - which the worker should always have, and e.g. deciding where to open the next branch or what we do with the corporate treasury. The decision-making process is simply going to come down to the corporation/governing body.

Socialism doesn't avoid this issue. In every society there's going to be more knowledgable people/better workers and less knowledgable people/less experienced or worse workers. You cannot avoid some measure of hierarchy.

The ability for an employee to be advanced into a position of authority over other employees doesn't resolve any employee's problem of being powerless within the enterprise relative to the employer. Nor does the employer stop making all of the important decisions in how their business is run. The employer may have many different roles available in his business and some roles may come with more decision-making power and freedom than others but all of his employees must obey all of his reasonable commands or risk being fired.

We might agree that within a political system, very few people would want to be responsible for debating or deciding political matters but is that a justification for authoritarianism? A nation like the US only had 60% of its population vote in the 2020 election and that was considered a record turnout. Does this mean we should get rid of democracy, seeing as so many have no interest in being involved? How do we decide whether it's okay to base our decisions on some people not being interested and determining that it is fine that the majority should have no say?

The owner is in their position by virtue of them being the owner, it is not a merit-based system. The owner may be more competent and knowledgeable than his employees or he may not be but once again. That the owner should be more competent at running his business than any one of his employees seems irrelevant. In a democracy, are the voters more competent than the politicians they vote for and if we determined they weren't then would that undermine the democracy? Couldn't most of your justifications for why the employer-class should have such authority over their employees be used to justify authoritarianism in the political sphere?

I understand where you're coming from.

Lets take an example and make things a little more concrete. Lets pretend you want to start a business, well in order to do that you need capital.

Lets say for instance that you make a $30k investment to start a small business and then look to hire an employee, lets say a web designer. Under normal capitalist conditions, the founder can just agree to a price with a web designer and the web designer will do the project for payment. However, the web designer doesn't get a say over how that $30k investment is to be invested unless they want to negotiate something extra.

But lets imagine this is a forced democratic workplace and if you want to hire that web designer you need to give him equal governance power. Now you're an equal to him and -- whoever he is -- he gets an equal say in how that investment is used, which was originally your money. Maybe his friend has a really cool investment idea and he wants to take $15k from the treasury and use it for that. He's an equal partner, why can't he do that? You're not the boss. You still want to start this business?

You may decide to make the web designer a partner, but that's a whole other issue.

Sorry the modern workplace isn't a democracy, but neither is a family.

Businesses are often created from the ground up at much cost and effort, and those who did so have every right to control the operation of their own creation as a matter of property rights. I can’t see anything inherently evil in this dynamic because it isn’t obligatory. One can, if she wants, create her own enterprise and run it how she sees fit.

I see evil wherever people beg those in power to force businesses to this or that end, whether it be wages, benefits, and the like. The idea that we should transfer power from the people at large to the state because we don’t want to work as much or want some sort of benefit is a greed of the highest order.

If we were to force workplaces to be democratic then we wouldn't have the same capitalist way of starting a business. Your example of starting a capitalist business and then hiring a single person and having it all be ruined is stupid. There are many, many ways that socialism could deal with the problem of new businesses being started but really, to contribute to that kind of discussion there needs to be an incentive, such as believing having employer-employee relations in the workplace is unethical. Without these or similar criticisms of capitalism, we wouldn't try to look for a better way of doing things, why fix what isn't broken. You are starting from the perspective that what we do now is the only option, rather than being open to any criticisms of capitalism. And if after you criticised capitalism, in this case, to say those relations are unethical, you could still, after noting there's no better alternative, conclude, that there's no better alternative. It's the price we pay for these benefits that you see. But trying to use a perceived lack of any alternative as a way to deny criticism of capitalism is wrong, you're doing things backwards.

Concluding that it's totally fine for these relations to exist and concluding that it isn't fine but it's a price we have to pay as it's the best of bad options may amount to the same thing of maintaining the status quo but are very different conclusions. The discussion following each respective conclusion should be incredibly different. To either determine whether it's actually ethical or not and to determine whether it's the best option or not, are very different questions.


How do you feel about worker co-ops or similar alternatives to state ownership?

How do you feel about worker co-ops or similar alternatives to state ownership?

I'm all for people starting whatever associations they wish so long as it is of the voluntary variety. These co-ops and the like can then serve as shining examples for these types of associations. Ironically it is only possible to do this if they embrace rather than reject capitalism.

Is this issue the defining point at which one determines whether capitalism should be reformed or replaced? — Judaka

I just read a post on Green New Deal:

"Slavery really got these capitalists messed up. The fact that there's a minimum wage means they'd pay us less if they could. Business owners & corporations really don't want to pay us at all. They wouldn't if they didn't have to." Miss Shawn

And another, in response to the conservative statement "Nobody want to work anymore."

"Nobody ever wanted to work at all. We wanted to be more productive, be creative, be part of a community, be supported, be validated, and have the time and space to truly rest. No one actually wants to trade in hours of their life to 'earn' necessities." Emylyne Museaux.

I don't think we need to replace capitalism, but we do need to correct the intentional mischaracterization of capitalism by self-identified "capitalists", and restate what it actually is. All people who choose to remain in, live in, or avail themselves of the benefits of society must subordinate themselves to it. They must be deemed to be people within the purview of the human resources department, and not above or separate from it. That does not mean they don't get "more" that then rest of us; it just means they have to prove they are entitled to it by doing more for it. This is done through trickle up, not trickle down. Put on the harness and work for it MFrs, just like everyone else. If you are so smart, so strong, or have such a sterling work ethic, we will reward you nesting-doll yachts, and mansions, etc. But you don't get to not contribute unless you leave.

The gold standard of ethics
'In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets'
It is interesting to put the golden rule into a power relationship context, such as employing someone or parenting kids.
I believe employer-employee relationships can be both ethical or non-ethical. Non-ethical is when either party abuse their relative power to behave in a way they would not like to be treated, if they were in the other's position. This is of course much more likely to be the case for the employer, who has usually far more power. Employees either have little or no power at all, or only relative power in that their contribution cannot be substituted without significant cost to the employer (finding and building a new employee with intermittent loss of productivity for the company). In situations of relative power, and employee can sabotage his employers targets by willful idling or willful wrong advice/consultation, in which case the employee would also act unethical.

If we were to force workplaces to be democratic then we wouldn't have the same capitalist way of starting a business. — Judaka

Ok, explain to me how businesses get started then. Give me a better model.

I can't think of any organizations where total newcomers can join and be regarded as equals with equal governing/decision-making power with 20 year veterans.

Your example of starting a capitalist business and then hiring a single person and having it all be ruined is stupid. — Judaka

Why is it stupid? Did I misrepresent your position somehow? Does your employee not deserve equal representation? Tell me what was wrong with it.

Isn't the status quo that the means of production are recognised by all relevant parties to indeed belong to the owner and the employees don't consider themselves to be the owners. If the business or its assets are sold, that all profit will go to the owner is everyone's expectation. The choice to do that is with the owner. The workers of supermarkets and stores don't see themselves as the rightful owners. Also, the terms of the employment are recognised by employer, employee, the government and all parties. It seems I don't understand what you're saying or I'm just missing the point — Judaka

You're right that everyone has those kinds of expectations. My point is that many if not most people are unhappy with those things that they expect and, if they could have any say about it, would say it should be differently. That those expectations continue to be borne out despite that indicates that the people are thus deprived of having a say about it -- because the state exists to defend that status quo with force as necessary (and increasingly with propaganda to make explicit force less often necessary).

The classic example scenario is "why don't the factory workers just continue operating the factory and not give any of the money to the boss?", and the answer is that they know they wouldn't get away with that because the boss has men with guns (the police) who will haul away and lock up whichever worker was supposed to have cut the boss that check, and possibly everyone else as co-conspirators if they were all in on it together.

How do you define voluntary? Can't power dynamics potentially pervert the spirit of any mutual agreement? Also, do you disagree that the employer-employee dynamic is necessary for capitalism? Why would that be necessary for socialist forms of organisation such as a co-op?


Don't you think capitalism suffers from survivorship bias? We hold up a success story as though "anyone can do it" but this kind of success can only be enjoyed by a few. It resembles a pyramid scheme, but we know that the top of the pyramid needs the bottom of the pyramid to be a much larger group. There to be need millions of workers at say, Walmart but there's no space or need for millions of owners of Walmart. So how we treat the bottom and mid-tiers reflect how we treat the majority, but they have no control over the businesses they work in and they're paid based on whether the employers can make a profit for themselves. I think most people know what you said but how should things be improved? Do you lean towards Democratic Socialism then?

Ok, explain to me how businesses get started then. Give me a better model. — BitconnectCarlos

You and I could discuss alternatives but there's no point to that from my perspective. You missed my meaning in my last comment. What are your priorities? How do we measure success? What is your stance on the ethics of employer-employee relations? Should employees be entitled to some control over the businesses they work in? And many more questions need to be answered to know what a better model is. Socialism maximises different outcomes, has different priorities. Many of which make no sense if you don't agree with the criticisms of capitalism that they're operating under. If employer-employee relations can be that the employer has absolute control and authority and agency and the employee is just there to receive a check then that's how we might arrive at the conclusion of B) in:

A) The status quo is fine
B) Democratic Socialism is the way to go forward
C) Other

Because for B) you see that there are some problems, just not the problem this OP is talking about. This is basic, no successful business would operate this way. You acknowledge problems and then you brainstorm solutions, what problem are you asking me to solve? You want to work backwards. Brainstorm solutions and then figure out what the problem is. Do you not see how impossible that is?

Why is it stupid? Did I misrepresent your position somehow? Does your employee not deserve equal representation? Tell me what was wrong with it. — BitconnectCarlos

You know why it's stupid, don't give me that. You're not stupid, why do you keep acting like you are? You described an incredibly dysfunctional system that no sensible person would advocate for and declared "checkmate". All you did was reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about, which makes me even less inclined to discuss it with you. I want to discuss the ethics of the employer-employee relation, not correct whatever misunderstanding of socialism you can conjure up.


All the materials in the factory and the factory itself belong to the owner, the police would protect the private property of the owner and that should happen regardless of whether of what the property is being used for. Capitalist culture and logic are mainstream, I suspect it'll take nearly a hundred years before anything of significance happens to overthrow this norm. It seems obvious that you think employer-employee relations are inherently unethical, I lean towards this conclusion as well but unless such a conclusion is reached by the majority, then your examples sound rightly illegal. I do believe private property should be respected, I don't think the slaves should have been entitled to own the land they worked on either, just that the master-slave relation was unethical and needed to be outlawed. Wouldn't things work similarly for a condemnation of capitalism or is there something else that takes precedence for you?

Do you lean towards Democratic Socialism then? — Judaka

I call myself a push-back socialist, which is really just a true capitalist who is fed up with the self-described capitalist who deceive others (including themselves?) about who and what they are. A true capitalist internalizes among parties to a contract all the costs of all their activities. No cost can be externalized onto any who do not willingly accept those cost in an arm's length, negotiated agreement. A true capitalist also pays taxes to government.

If I had my way, the Administrative Procedures Act would be repealed and all parts and pieces of the quasi-judicial system under the APA would be moved over and under the Article III court system. And that system would also see a huge boost in funding, continuing education and independent ethical oversight.

Receipt of corporate status would be conditioned upon certain concessions and the concept of "personhood" of corporations would be limited to the ability to sue and be sued. The ability to pierce the corporate veil would be easier if any of the concessions were violated. Joint, strict and several liability would be on the table for shareholders of a corporation that ran afoul of concessions.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, we would have a true capitalist system overseen by a democratically elected government of, by and for the (non-corporate) people. There would be lots of bonds posted.

Do you mean a "good" capitalist? Why is your adjective "true"?

You want the state to ensure businesses abide by certain standards, but these standards are just to make living conditions for workers more tolerable, the capitalist doesn't see workers as ends in themselves but just as a means to make a profit. That is true capitalism, that is how capitalism operates. Minimise expenses wherever possible including taxes, of course, capitalists have an obligation and necessity to reduce all expenses including taxes to a minimum. I dislike it when people slap "true" on something and then insert their ideals as if the status quo is a perversion rather than the norm. Has capitalism been misunderstood? What problems can be truly ascribed to capitalism and which constitute a perversion?

Isn't it inherently true that within the business, the employer must be given extensive rights to do with his business as he sees fit for capitalism to function correctly? How many regulations and rules can be effectively enforced and to what extent do they really change anything?

All the materials in the factory and the factory itself belong to the owner — Judaka

On what grounds, besides that the police say so?

It's not the police that says so, it's the recognition of the transfer of ownership that occurs through the marketplace. If someone buys a rental property, or a factory, or a website, then they become the legal owners of that property. Living in a rental property doesn't make it yours, working in a factory doesn't make it yours, using the tools provided to you at your place of work doesn't make them yours. I'm sure you're aware of this, your interpretation of ownership would have radical implications for the world in which we live. You know what the status quo is, you know it's not dictated by the police, it's the law and I'd argue a part of the law the vast majority of people accept and want to keep.

What are your priorities? How do we measure success? — Judaka

My priorities are just to have a functioning system where small businesses started by individuals can get off the ground and some number of them are successful. I really just want you to present a functioning alternative if employee-employer relations are immoral as you've been saying.

I would be strongly against a system which banned individuals from starting businesses.

If employer-employee relations can be that the employer has absolute control and authority and agency and the employee is just there to receive a check then that's how we might arrive at the conclusion — Judaka

The employer is paying the employee for a job. If I offer you a job for $100/hr to watch my dog am I being oppressive? Would I be making you my slave now? Is that how jobs work? I'm sure there's a job to be a slave out there but most aren't. I feel like you're talking about low-level jobs here, is that it? You're talking about the type of jobs.

I feel like part of this is that you just don't like how certain employers treat their employees which is natural; employers can be dicks! Not all are though.

If your priorities are to retain the exact business structure of capitalism then capitalism is the only thing that can deliver that. How can a single person start a business with their own capital, with their own vision, to control what happens in their business and employee people as the business grows, at their leisure and call that socialism? At best, you could have a hybrid system that aimed to convert or forced businesses to convert to socialism after meeting a certain set of criteria. Thus retaining this element of capitalism, where a single person can start their own capitalist business.

The employer is paying the employee for a job. If I offer you a job for $100/hr is that me being oppressive? Would I be making you my slave now? Is that how jobs work? I'm sure there's a job to be a slave out there but most aren't. I feel like you're talking about low-level jobs here, is that it? You're talking about the type of jobs.

You just don't like how certain employers treat their employees which is natural; employers can be dicks! Not all are though. — BitconnectCarlos

A slave has no political or economic agency or autonomy, they are property, which is quite different from an employee's position. Is slavery the bar that teaches us right from wrong? If an employee isn't a slave then thus we know there's nothing further to be discussed? Yes, the employer gives the employee a wage for labour, that's the basic principle of capitalism. If you offered me a job for $100/hr it'd be because you believed it'd help you make a profit, that is also a basic principle of capitalism. The employer has absolute authority to determine what he does with his business and what shall be done with the profits, again, a basic principle of capitalism.

Your position is coherent, you support the capitalist system 100%. The wage for labour is a fine system, it's fine for the value to be determined in negotiations and in the marketplace. It's fine that employees don't get to make any decisions at the companies they work at, ideal even. Your reasoning is that "it's not slavery, get over it". Can't really argue with that, your values are "ensuring individuals can start capitalist businesses", and that certainly needs capitalism to happen. I'm not going to argue against your values and your application of them is sound, I suppose, lol.

If you offered me a job for $100/hr it'd be because you believed it'd help you make a profit, — Judaka

Who makes that rule? Capitalism? Who says I can't hire you for any number of reasons? Maybe I just like you and want to offer you an awesome, easy job. Maybe I'm due to die in a year and am looking to spread out my wealth. Or maybe I'm mad at my dog and want someone else to watch him ASAP. In a capitalist society people are free to spend their money how they like. It may be because I'm making $200/hr elsewhere but not necessarily.

The employer has absolute authority to determine what he does with his business and what shall be done with the profits, again, a basic principle of capitalism. — Judaka

This is for small businesses, not big ones. Public companies have boards of directors.

It's fine that employees don't get to make any decisions at the companies they work at, ideal even. — Judaka

Have you never met a shift supervisor or a manager?

Do you mean a "good" capitalist? Why is your adjective "true"? — Judaka

"Good" is subjective, whereas "true" is objective. I use "true" capitalist to distinguish from the lying POS who socializes his costs onto the backs of innocent third parties who had nothing to do with the subject activity, or the one who thinks he (or the others who hold him out as having ) pulled himself by his own bootstraps with no help, or who avails himself of all kinds of government services while denigrating that same government for helping others.

That is true capitalism, that is how capitalism operates. — Judaka

No, it is not. It is self-interest. Self-interest is greed. Capitalism is enlightened self-interest. You know, where you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg just because you feel like eating goose.

I dislike it when people slap "true" on something and then insert their ideals as if the status quo is a perversion rather than the norm. — Judaka

I did not slap "true" on to capitalism. I distinguished capitalism from the socialism that so many self-identified "capitalists" avail themselves of and pursue through their ownership of government. If you dislike hearing the truth about a status quo perversion of it (even when the perversion is the norm), then the fault is yours. Don't allow self-identified capitalists (false capitalists) to tell you what capitalism is. They are liars. Don't allow liars to define the terms of your conversation.

Has capitalism been misunderstood? — Judaka

Only by people who misunderstand it to be what the false capitalists tell them it is.

What problems can be truly ascribed to capitalism and which constitute a perversion? — Judaka

Those are two different questions: 1. Capitalism is a tool and problems lie not in the tool itself, but in the users thereof. 2. The perversions of capitalism have been laid out for you. I could go on because they permeate our society like a metastasized cancer. Or, as you said, they have become the norm.

Isn't it inherently true that within the business, the employer must be given extensive rights to do with his business as he sees fit for capitalism to function correctly? — Judaka

Those extensive rights are checked by his inability to externalize costs. It is only when he is allowed to externalize costs that capitalism is prevented from functioning. One example is a gallon of gas. It costs so much more than what we pay for it at the pump. To the extent it does, we are externalizing costs every time we fill up. We are being subsidized by those and that which pays those costs without having negotiated the terms and agreeing to assume them. Subsidy is not capitalism.

How many regulations and rules can be effectively enforced and to what extent do they really change anything? — Judaka

One rule: Receive no product or service for free unless we collectively agree to charge ourselves, or others, to provide it.