I've come up with a scenario and would appreciate if any of the "rent/profit is exploitation" people could answer the questions that follow.

Alice, after working for the same employer for 10 years, saved $50,000 to start her own business designing and creating extravagant widgets. She purchased widget making machinery, materials and set up a small production area attached to her home. The first year, business was slow and she spent half of her remaining savings keeping the business operating. The second year, some publicity brought in new clients, a tickle at first, then a flood. Soon, she did not have enough time to both design and produce the widgets alone. She decides to bring in one or more additional people to handle the manufacturing process.

Alice has clearly put much work into her business. If she needs to someone to merely operate a machine, why must she be morally obligated to reward the newcomer as highly as herself? If her business fails, she loses her savings, the results of the time expended up until this point, and all of the equipment and materials purchased (capital). On the other hand, her employees lose nothing but a guaranteed salary, which they can find elsewhere, or start their own business.

Assuming nothing about the labor market (it could be that employment is high, which means business fight for employees, not the other way around), why is it that an agreement between Alice and her new employee Bob is exploitative? Alice made Bob an offer for compensation, and Bob either accepted or negotiated a higher price, but it is still a wage. If Bob agreed to it, how can it be bad?

I feel that this is important
It seems that the main point of contention between our ideologies is one of causality. My belief is that once there is no state, there will be a fundamental change in business. Your belief is that once there is a fundamental change in business, there will be no state. We both seek the end the prominence of violence in human relationships, though we may each see certain relationships as violent that the other does not. What if instead of arguing about those aspects on which we disagree, we work together to change minds about those aspects on which we agree?

For instance, as has been said before, a society that reflects market anarchist principles would have a place for communes, syndicates, or whatever your favorite brand of non exploitative business arrangement. It would also have a place for some form of capitalism, though I happily accept that it will look nothing like what we know as capitalism today, since I have no particular fondness for this kind of capitalism. On the other hand, however, a society that reflects anarcho-socialist principles would have no place for any other type of business arrangement, even though there would be some individuals willing to participate in alternate arrangements.


To be fair, McGruder has stated that he does not advocate violent revolution. Similar to myself, it seems, as an anarchist (voluntaryist/market anarchist) that does not advocate violent revolution. Though, he does seem to think that such property taking would be justified. Though, if employment and rent are considered exploitation, is such revolution truly violent?