Can You win an argument against me? A new series to challenge your debating skills.
In the last couple of days I was thinking about my future on Steemit quite a lot. Posting about my travels is fun and also yielded a steady stream of Steem (mostly thanks to @ats-david) but taking an honest look at the actual page views and superficial comments it's pretty discouraging. So let's try something new.
The world is full of crazy arguments. For every belief you hold, there is someone out there who passionately argues for the exact opposite. Yet few arguments are logically consistent and hard to refute. That's why I want to invite you to argue against me.
Every couple of days I'll post a statement that I want you to argue against in the comment section. Depending on the amount of engagement I'll give away parts of the post payout for the best arguments. I am looking for logic, eloquence, originality etc... So let's start.
#1 Capitalists exploit workers
'All working-class people are exploited by companies because they do not receive the full value of their labor. When a capitalist makes a profit, then only at the expense of the creators of all wealth: the workers.'
Can you make a good argument against this claim?
I disagree, people exploit other people. I does not really matter which (capital)-ism they are using to do so.
Yes. One the one side capitalism may exploit workers. Thats what it may look if you look at it from one side.
But capitalism is a system where the workers can still decide on their own what they do. Investors and employers can also employ workers on fair conditions. The situation can be win-win. Workers can do what they like to do and what they're good at. Its also a chance to get money for raising a family.
Just my thoughts. J
And followed you.
Looking at the comments, it's hard to pick just one to rebut, but they are pretty much all saying the same thing. I'll just make a comment for the agreeance side of things.
First, the definition of 'exploit' is both positive and negative;
I would agree with you in a world where there is no capital and the only creator of value is the human labor - in that case anyone working for person one would be stupid. But isn't it that companies dramatically increase the productivity of the workers by providing capital e.g. machines for producing a chair. In that case it's a win-win situation because the workers couldn't produce 10 chairs in an hour themselves.
Good point, but this may fall in with my "other factors" point.
The capital should benefit all who are involved, not just the boss. If the first person had hired the second for $80 a chair and, after a while, bought a machine with the exploited profits (from the second person) to allow the second person to make 10 chairs in the time it normally took to make one, who's money did they really use? The exploited money. Furthermore, in society now, the agreement probably wouldn't have been for $80 a chair, but $80 a day (and it takes 1 day to initially make a chair. There would probably be a quota or something). In today's world, would the second person now get $800 a day with the boss getting an extra $200 a day for doing nothing except supplying the new machine? Or would the second person get a small raise (to $100 a day) to make it seem like they get something, and the boss gets $980 extra a day?
It's most likely the second way. But either way, it all started with somebody being exploited for the boss to have enough capital to expand the business. The boss did take the risk to invest more in the production of chairs so he may be entitled to a bigger chunk of the profits, but the money he used to do that was exploited, initially.
You are absolutely wrong. You can call capitalists any bad things as much as you want, but they do not exploit workers. In a free market supply and demand determines the fair value of labor.
Workers fully agree when they enter into a contract with their employer. They are not force to do so in any shape or form. Workers agree to trade their labor and time for financial gains. Worker can walk away anytime they choose.
Workers are NOT creator's of wealth. Companies and economies create wealth. Workers are just one piece of the puzzle. Only labor cannot do anything on its own. You need technology, you need financial capital, you need resources, you need brilliant minds to make this happen.
Workers are simply physical or mental labor. That is it. If labor was able to create wealth on its own, then everybody would work for themselves and be their own bosses.
For me this is the best argument. Concise and hard to attack with little room for interpretation.
lol, I actually don't believe half of what I said. I agree with you workers are exploited. Because companies and politicians are in collusion most of the time, that leaves little or no power to demand what they deserve.
Thanks, it was good thought experiment. You should do more of these.
Thank you all for participating - I think this was a pretty awesome debate.
if there were no companies there would be no work lol :D
I'd say pretty spot on :-)
In general your statement is wrong. How do we define labor value? Suggest labor value = market price than you forget that in this market prices are the capitalist´s costs for insurance, rent etc. Furthermore there is the profit of the capitalist which is essentially the cost the capitalist takes for him to provide capital, which create jobs. That means the capitalist´s profit is the price for being employed.
Think about the wage-to-market price-gap as a price for distributing/providing capital. Take this every day example how people are being payed for distributing goods: You buy a chocolate bar at a retail shop. You pay the retailer for distributing the chocolate bar, because the wholesaler wants you to buy a minimum of 100 chocolate bars.
So workers are only being exploited if the wages are too low compared to market prices. If wages are too low respectively price for being employed too high depends on the situation. Manchester capitalism probably, poor countries probably. However, we have to address the problem of too high labour supply as well in these situations.
You might argue that the price for being employed is actually exploitation, but to get rid of that means to either live in a socialist society or that literally everyone works as an independent. The letter won´t work, because you need the big manufacturies in order to produce a high amount of goods which makes everyone more wealthy. The first will not lead to anything, because in capitalism the workers are able to save money, profit from deflationary tendencies of mass production and climb up the social hierarchy while in socialism the social hierarchy is fixed and manufacturies cannot react dynamically to changes in demand. Capitalism is only bad for workers if wages are too low, socialism is always bad for workers.
Furthermore why should everything have a price but being employed shouldn´t? Ultimately offering jobs is a service and we pay all kinds of services without complaining about being exploited.
Yes I agree that everything has a price (and needs to have) but I don't see the logical difference between poor and rich countries in terms of exploitation.
There is no logical difference. The differences between rich and poor countries are education, birth rates, property rights and their impact on wages.
In my original post I wanted to point out that the relationship between workers and capitalists is called exploitation, although we have similar patterns with other business relationships where nobody talks about exploitation.
Suggest an independent haircutter and you as a customer in terms of services. The haicutter cuts your hair. Your profit is a nice haircut, the haircutter makes a monetary profit. A capitalist hires a worker. The worker´s benefit is an income, the capitalist´s benefit is a monetary profit.
As a business they have to make money, with no money makes no jobs, the bigger the profile of the company would open more job opportunities giving more people chance at working to provide for their families. when a company employs its staff you are signed in to an agreement with that so said company and under their terms, you are working for the sum they are willing to pay you. the old saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer comes into mind.
with no company's to employ people at the gain for the company would this really be a business?
Though I am fully aware that there are two sides to this story and that there are pros and cons to the capitalist ideology, for the sake of an argument I will generalize and say that capitalism does exploit workers. In fact, I'd argue that what we are seeing today in many cases is a sort of predatory capitalism which not only exploits workers but which also exploits nations. We see this anytime there is NEWS of a company setting up its manufacturing headquarters in a third world country but then marketing its product towards first world consumers. In such cases the employees wages could not possibly be enough to purchase the very product that they are helping to produce. If that is not exploitation then I do not know what is.
We also see this when there is NEWS of a corporations moving out of its country of origin and setting up its headquarters on an island in the Atlantic where they do not have to pay taxes. In such cases we see that the corporation benefits significantly from the nations resources (including its human labor force) but then does not give back to that nation in the form of taxes which are meant to be distributed back to the nations people in the form of public services. In terms of wealth distribution we see that typically a small percentage on individuals at the highest points of a corporation tend to make upwards of 10-100 times that of its employees. I wont comment on this possible form of exploitation because its largely based on what the individuals definition of what is considered to be "fair."
I don't see how the human labor force is a nations resource. All workers are individuals that can make voluntary decisions if and where they want to be employed.
It's a nice sentiment to think that we as individuals have unlimited choice and freewill over their lives but all things considered, how much choice does an individual actually have in our society? To keep this argument simple, lets exclude homelessness and welfare programs and focus on employed individuals within society. That way I don't have to argue the difference between an individual being a positive or a negative asset in term of them being a nation resource.
Individuals are not free to use the public services within a society and they are certainly not free to live off the land - since the land is owned by the state. As such, public services, property ownership and the fulfillment of basic human needs require money first and foremost. So, in order to provide their most basic of human needs, an individual has to work if they want to survive. So in order to survive the individual has to take part within society's system which means that they are not free to exclude them self from the system. Since individuals are not free, they must be owned. So even though our chains are invisible we as individuals are remain owned by the state which makes us their resource. If someone can think of a scenario in which an individual can legally disengage from society and its laws while still providing for them self then I'll take back my argument.
In order to survive, an individual must work. However, the individual cannot simply choose where they work either. They cannot walk into any establishment of their choosing and receive employment. At best the individual can make themselves more marketable by going to College/University or by undergoing an apprenticeship. But after spending a few years in school the individual typically walks away with loads of debt which creates an unseen pressure and limitation over their lives (another invisible shackle). They now have to work not only for survival but also to pay off their debts. Furthermore, even with their newly obtained diploma the individual often still cannot find work within the industry of their choosing, and with no assets or collateral the bank will likely not give them a loan so that they can start their own business. Often individuals take the job they can get not the job that they want, in order to pay the bills. Even if we are optimistic and consider a scenario in which an individual obtains work within an industry that they are interested in and trained for, they still aren't able to pursue their own endeavors and their own dreams. Instead they are forced to do what they are told to do, so they also completely lack autonomy.
Though humans do have some choice in regards to their employment, considering all of the barriers and monetary pressures put on them, they are essentially coerced into employment. Furthermore, corporations with seemingly unlimited funds can also lobby governments and influence their very laws. This in turn, gives them extreme power over a given nation which further allows them to exploit the nations human resource.
I totally agree with you that as long as the state claims a coercive monopoly freedom is unachievable. See you in the next round arguing against/ in favor of the state :-)
First of all. We must admit that there are situations where a company's methods could be considered exploitative towards the workers. A good example of this is 3rd world countries where the power balance is way off, people's opportunities are pretty much nonexistent and they need to surrender themselves to exploitation in order to survive. But that being the case with every company as a principle, I don't agree with that.
The points that the market defines labors worth and mutual agreement to trade workers resources (physical/mental/time) for currency (or whatever the compensation might be) in form of a contract have already been made.
The (possible) extra profit that the company gains, can be considered as a reward for the risks and responsibility that falls on the company. Taking loans, investing in machinery, pr, marketing etc. are all risks that the company is willing to take in the hope that they will start making a profit at some point. The workers have no part in those risks.
Even if the company is not profitable yet and runs on debt, workers still need to be paid no matter what.
If we would want the situation to be more "fair", the workers should also take part of the risks onto themselves. For example. Would the workers be willing to lower their pay in times when the company is in financial trouble? Also, if the company fails and files bankruptcy, part of the possible debt would fall to the workers also. Of course, all this would need to lead to higher wages for the workers.
Although, If the company is in a state where it's stabilized and even a bankruptcy wouldn't screw the life of the owners, sharing risks is not that necessary anymore. This is a variable.
This is an interesting concept. Upvoted and followed.
Cheers~
I like your argument especially how you provide a possible alternative solution through worker participation.