Quote from: BitterTea on March 03, 2011, 01:17:01 AM

There is at least one case when this argument is valid - when you're talking about state capitalism (rather than free market capitalism). In state capitalism, the capitalists pay the politicians for favors, which they redeem to tilt the labor market more in their favor. Minimum wage laws, licensing regulations, tax except employer health care... all of these things sound good, but put up barriers to entry to the market. This means that the "exploited" employee must remain exploited, because it costs too much to start a competing business.

Capitalists inevitably support the state because it helps to increase and secure their profits. Up and coming capitalists, who want to topple the state, just want to have an easier time competing with the legacy capitalists who currently enjoy state support. The up and coming capitalists will eventually create a state, in one way or another, as newer capitalists and the indignant masses come to threaten their profits.

State capitalism is actually communism, wherein the state controls the capital and acts as everyones employer.

Quote from: ryepdx on March 03, 2011, 01:21:11 AM

Quote

No. He could trade his produce for an actual house from Adam, not for a month's stay in one of Adam's houses.

But if he doesn't want an actual house, if he only wants a month's stay, then what? You're going to end up having a landlord/renter situation no matter what, unless Bob gives away his basement. Whether he gives it away or not, it's Bob's choice and I cannot assign morality to his decision to rent unless I know more facts about the situation. Is Bob putting himself and his possessions in peril by housing Adam? Then I couldn't blame him for charging a fee. If he suffers damage and Adam flees without helping repair the damage, then at least Bob has his fee. But will Adam die for want of shelter, and has Adam come to a want of shelter through no fault of his own, and will housing Adam do no harm to Bob? Then I would say it would be right for Bob to offer his basement on more lenient terms, perhaps for free. It would be wrong of Bob to leave Adam to die.

But you argue that the landlord arrangement itself is exploitative. You argue about straw men and abstractions that have little to do with reality. In a certain situation, yes, Bob's charging of Adam would be exploitative. If he raised his rent simply because he knew Adam needed it badly, and especially if his hike in rent locks Adam into his impoverished state, then yes, that is certainly exploitative. It is wrong in the same way that stealing from a baby is wrong. It is the gratuitous taking of what I do not need from someone who cannot afford to lose what I am taking and who is powerless to stop me. That is exploitation.

If Adam, however, is simply a wanderer by choice and wishes to lodge in Bob's basement for a time, and if Bob chooses to charge him for that, and if Adam accepts, then I see no wrong. From a certain perspective this is akin to charging Adam for shelter without which he would die: in both cases I am putting a barrier in the way of what he wants. And I think this is what you mean by exploitation, Father McGruder: putting a barrier between a person and what they want. Perhaps you would add the qualifier "needless" to the word "barrier," but I would have to stop you there. Because who is to say that Bob's need to accumulate capital by renting out his basement is any lesser than Adam's need to accumulate experience and contacts by wandering from town to town?

Your arguments work in the clean-room of idealism, but they cannot stand when they meet reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked according to their ability and received according to their need. Unfortunately we live in a world of scarcity. Once that scarcity is gone, or far enough removed so as to be unknown to anyone first-hand, then we may begin talking about the even distribution of wealth. Even now we might be at the cusp of being able to talk about the even distribution of life's necessities.

But really, I would rather human labor be removed from the equation before we start spreading the fruits of that labor. Once we automate farming and have food coming from fields where no human need ever have set foot, once by the simple motion of the sun and machinery we find food on our tables, then let the distribution be equal.

You confused Adam and Bob somewhere in there. It was Adam who had the house with a basement, and Bob who needed shelter, wasnt it? Also, you quoted me a little bit out of context.

If Bob only need shelter for one month, then Adam can shelter Bob for one month, assuming that Adam has the ability and desire. The problem arises when Adam attempts to exploit Bobs need for shelter by charging more than the costs associated with Bobs stay. Adam has done no extra work to deserve the extra fee. For Adam to force anyone to overcompensate him is rotten. I understand the scarcity of housing. It rightfully enables a builder to sell a house for a given price, but to collect without transferring ownership is abuse. Thats the reality. Your landlord is screwing you. Your employer is screwing you. Your lender is screwing you.

Quote

Quote from: FatherMcGruder on March 02, 2011, 07:23:46 PM

Quote from: kiba on March 02, 2011, 02:21:16 AM

Do you hate the capitalist who is the only person who is willing to employ you and in exchange, he will provide you with warm bed and food?

There's two choice, really: work or die.

At that point, the notion of exploitation is irrelevant. The capitalist is saving my ass. In return, I have to work in his sweatshop.

Sounds like your life is at the mercy of your employer. Your labor belongs to him, too. You are a slave, and he is your master. We should not tolerate such relationships.

No no, he said work or die, not be employed or die. Though I guess he did imply the latter, didn't he? But really, usually there's nothing to stop a person from becoming their own employer or from banding together with other workers to make a living. Sure, it'll take a lot of work, and sure, you might have to work at something you don't really care about, but at least nobody's employing you, right?

Yes, we must work for food, shelter, and fun, but why should my work provide those things to employers, lenders, and renters? Perhaps the exploitation we experience forces some of us to become exploiters, too, but we ought to band together and cease to tolerate it.

Quote

Um... actually, poverty is a choice.

Sure, just as much as it is a choice for a slave to flee the plantation.

Quote

And it's not the only one. We can always become our own employers. If you desire emancipation from a regular paycheck, then learn a skill people will pay you for directly, or make something you can sell.

With what means? Capitalism compels us to either appeal to a lender or exploit someone else.

Quote

Software is the best thing to sell, since you only have to make it once and can then sell it many times. (Bill Gates was smart about that one.)

Dont get me started on intellectual property.

Quote

And hiring people? How's that exploitative?

Because you are living off their labor, instead of yours. Because despite the fact that they contribute most of the labor to the business, you retain all of the ownership.

Quote

If you pay fair wages, or if you give what you can give at the very least, then I can't find fault. The cooperation of a group to bring in greater wealth is still cooperation, even if the leader is somewhat autocratic.

The only fair wage is the ownership of that which you produce.

Quote

Anyway, sorry about the dissertation! I get carried away sometimes, once I start typing.

Its cool.

Quote from: emansipater on March 03, 2011, 02:12:53 AM

At the end of the day, no outside force is going to make the "more equal" behave one way or another. But if they want to face their own consciences there's really no avoiding that they have to be the ones working to keep exchanges mutually beneficial.

+1

Incidentally, if one wants to live without employing, lending, renting, or otherwise exploiting others, he will have to work.