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."
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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 :-)