The Ethics of Employer-Employee relations
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. The terms of the employment can differ from place to place but the power in the relationship is always with the employer. To determine nearly everything about how the enterprise shall be run and what shall be done with the profits. The employee relies on the wage and is expected to complete whatever tasks are given to them while they are at work and although one's job is hugely important to them, they can be terminated by the employer at any time. Both from the perspective of the individual employee and society at large, the small minority of people, the owners and their representatives make all the decisions.
The decision making power of the employer-class results in wealth inequality, which things like "Democratic Socialism" try to address but is it inherently wrong that a minority has control over the workplace? Is this issue the defining point at which one determines whether capitalism should be reformed or replaced?
The decision making power of the employer-class results in wealth inequality, which things like "Democratic Socialism" try to address but is it inherently wrong that a minority has control over the workplace? Is this issue the defining point at which one determines whether capitalism should be reformed or replaced?
Comments (49)
Everyone today except the 1% is Tuco. :eyes:
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Judaka
I mentioned all of these.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
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.
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.
'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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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?
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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?
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?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting Judaka
This is for small businesses, not big ones. Public companies have boards of directors.
Quoting Judaka
Have you never met a shift supervisor or a manager?
"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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Judaka
Only by people who misunderstand it to be what the false capitalists tell them it is.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Judaka
One rule: Receive no product or service for free unless we collectively agree to charge ourselves, or others, to provide it.
My point is basically this: imagine that somehow magically everyone forgot what belonged to whom (including records on paper and computers etc). They still believe in property rights, they just can’t remember what is whose property, and have to figure that out anew. How would they figure that out, and what would the resulting answer look like?
I contend that the natural assumption would be that whoever is using a thing is its owner (residents own homes, workers own businesses, etc), and so the distribution of ownership that one would infer just from looking at the world with fresh eyes would be very different from what the legal records in the real world say it is.
That raises the question of how the law got and stays so different from the “natural order” so to speak. I contend that that has mostly to do with, first and foremost, straight up violent theft in the history of ownership that gave some people more than others; and secondly, terms of contracts like rent and interest (but not limited exclusively to those) that are morality invalid and serve to reinforce and perpetuate those differences in wealth, and without which those differences would naturally dissolve back to the “natural order” that one would expect when looking at the world with fresh eyes.
I was discussing this sort of thing with @Kenosha Kid in
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11135/the-ant-and-the-grasshopper-immediate-versus-delayed-return
About the move from egalitarianism to social hierarchy, about its inevitability when switching to a delayed return society from instant return. That is a better place to discuss the "natural order", not in 21st century capitalist society.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I honestly have no idea but I also have no idea how society works with your justification of use. No marketplace is going to function, the concept of money wouldn't work, getting people to do anything for you without a personal relationship seems unlikely. Perhaps a natural consequence of the inability to hold private property without using it would that it was community-owned and each person receives on the basis of need, or otherwise, communism. Why not advocate for communism instead of having private property operate in such a disorganised way?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Just status-quo capitalism and private property should be sufficient to change things over time, even with a reset, to get things back to normal. What we have isn't a product of history it is a product of capitalism. Capital is invested, and capital is uneven, investments perform differently and the winners get ahead and gains advantages that skew the playing field further and further until society is marked by those who own a lot and those who own very little. But the investment of capital isn't just a mechanism for maintaining social hierarchies, it's a process of importance, much of what we have today is a result of that process. The "natural order" is of absolute poverty where there's no property to bicker over. We need to manage our productive power to serve the majority, not dismantle that power because it's currently being used to serve the few. Thus, people argue about how to use our productive power but the "natural order" doesn't teach us this, do you have a model to propose?
Interestingly, the immediate-return hunter-gatherer groups discussed in the thread Judaka referred to have some interesting and diverse views. For instance, the owner of the arrow that shot the beast, not the archer, might have nominal ownership rights of that beast (largely irrelevant since the carcass would be shared equally with the group). If you owned a painting by Picasso, it might be one of his descendants you'd seek out to return it to.
Quoting Pfhorrest
So far as I know, as Judaka says, harsh winters appear to be the reason we have social hierarchy at all, including non-egalitarian property rights and one person's authority over another (e.g. a husband's authority over his wife) which amounts to another kind of property right. Winter seems to be original bogeyman opportunists used to scare people into giving up on fairness.
[A] morally defending the status quo capitalist account of who owns what and why and what kinds of powers to contract people have,
[if A then B] saying that hierarchical and authoritarian social organization is an inescapable consequence of that, and saying
[not-B] that that hierarchicy and authoritarianism is morally bad.
Maybe your point in this thread is to highlight that as some sort of paradox? If so, the resolution to the paradox is to reject one of those: either that account of moral assignment of ownership and powers to contract is wrong because it leads to a bad situation, or it doesn't lead to that bad situation, or that situation isn't actually bad. I reject the first part.
But for clarity, note that I do not reject private property rights. I am hinting at the common socialist rejection of them in favor of "possession" rights, but I'm not directly endorsing that myself (except as the criteria by which the convention of who owns what is rightly established in the beginning). I am instead suggesting that if the distribution of ownership of private property (which I support) differs greatly from the use of that property, that's a warning sign that something wrong is happening somewhere.
The general reason for that is that there's no incentive to own things you're not using yourself -- they're literally useless to you -- unless owning them gives you some kind of power over other people; and people morally shouldn't have power over other people in general, so it shouldn't be the case that owning stuff gives you power over other people; so the apparent fact that people have incentive to own more than they can use themselves indicates that something wrong is happening somewhere.
That then raises the question of what exactly is happening such that owning more than you can use gives you power over others. The obvious answer is that you can trade people your excess capital for their labor, but that's a self-correcting problem: if you do that you end up with less capital and they end up with more and pretty soon you're equals again. That's what naive capitalists assume would happen in a free market; but it observably doesn't. Why not?
My answer is that certain kinds of contracts -- which NB are deontologically akin to legislation, they're exercises of deontological power that create obligations where they didn't exist before -- allow the creation of self-reinforcing practical power structures, such as where the people who are getting paid for their labor also owe for the use of capital that they don't get ownership of, so what gets paid to them comes right back to the ownership class and the worker class never accrue capital in exchange for their labor. If such contract were not enforceable, then instead of them we would see the simple trades of capital for labor, which would have that equalizing effect that naive capitalists expect from a free market.
So we'd end up with a distribution of private property ownership that closely resembles the patterns of use, not because whoever uses something automatically becomes its new owner, but because nobody has any incentive to own anything they're not using, because ownership doesn't give you any power over anybody else, except in a way that then diminishes your ownership and consequently that power itself.
Well, my position is focused on the employer-employee relation, and that is where I think most of the problems of capitalism come from. I'm not clear on your model either but to me, capitalism represents something that is exceptional at maximising various ends, to the detriment of others. Any criticism of capitalism should consider how recommendations for change can hurt what makes capitalism in many areas so effective. The basis for production in capitalism is the drive for profit, to create goods and services and property for selling at the market, to pay for the expenses of the production and a little extra to maintain growth for the business and profit for the capitalist. Capitalism is defined by the employer-employee relationship, which is different from the master-slave relationship, the employee is not property, exchanges labour for wages and participates in the marketplace as a buying consumer. If Socialism was defined by group ownership of enterprises, co-ops, then it would be distinct from capitalism by lacking the employer-class. But the removal of the capitalist doesn't mean an end to the immensely imbalanced resources held by enterprises that currently exists today, though the situation wouldn't be nearly as bad. The "capitalist" account of who owns what is not much different from the master-slave and co-op account of who owns what. Only that people aren't property and businesses are conjointly owned/run by the workers.
What I don't want to see is the employee being treated as an asset, rather than an end in themselves. To see production and labour through the lens of profit, as opposed to its workers' happiness, environmental costs of their business, impact on the local community and so on. Capitalist businesses don't reflect the values of their workers, they only reflect the drive for profit and the need to comply with (or not comply with if they can get away with it) various government laws and regulations.
Most of what you see, in dictating who owns what, how goods are exchanged in the marketplace, how capital functions in the economy, I am not trying to change. That is not to say that I have decided there is no better system, there is a lot to be said about how the marketplace and private property currently function is broken and unethical but I lack the confidence to promote a different system. I hope this explains my position but I will return to your criticism.
In a co-op, as an example, the workers do indeed own the factory they work at, they own the tools and materials they use. But what rightfully belongs to whom is still determined in exactly the same way as before, the workers conjointly own the business and these articles of property belong to that business. Is this kind of model something you could get behind?
As for land, capitalism has very little to do with how that's handled. Land could be nationalised and leased such as in Singapore, it's still capitalist. Help me to understand you. Currently, land is bought, rental properties are built and leased out, without any profit motivation to build these properties for sale or rent, who is going to build up these properties for people to live in?
Yes, that’s exactly the kind of ends I’m aiming toward. Everything else I’m on about is concerned with why things don’t end up like that already and what can be changed to fix that.
Quoting Judaka
Sales are perfectly fine on my account. What I want to see is capital being sold, rather than rented; because that has the effect of spreading ownership to the users of things who don't own enough yet, rather than concentrating it into the hands of those who already own more than they can use.
To perhaps better relate everything back to your primary concern about the employer-employee relationship: we can start off asking why abusive forms of such relationships exist. From the employer's perspective, the incentive is obvious: they can get more for less. But if these relationships are supposedly voluntary, why would the employees go along with that and not just walk away?
Because most of them need a job more than any job needs them: the jobs do need some workers or others, but there are lots to choose from, and most of them are desperate, so if one person won't accept the abuse, someone else will, and the person who didn't will just go broke and suffer even worse for it. That then raises the question of why the workers are desperate and more in need of a job than the jobs are in need of them.
And the answer to that is that the workers are categorically poorer than the business-owners. Which isn't to say that every business-owner is super rich, but if you're in a position where you can afford to start even a small business, you're better off than anybody who can't. (A lot of people who try to start small business are not actually in a position to afford it, and that's a large part of why so many small businesses fail, but that failure rate consequently means not a lot of people are working for those non-rich employers for long; most people are usually working for people much wealthier than themselves, because people as poor as themselves couldn't afford to employ them for long).
Which then brings us to the question of why there are so many poor people and so few rich people, which comes back around to general issues of why wealth doesn't actually "trickle down" from the rich to the poor as naive capitalism would expect, but instead the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, fewer and fewer end up rich while more and more end up poor. Which is where my analysis of rent and interest etc comes into play.
TL;DR: employer-employee relationships are abusive because employers and employees have unequal power because they are financially unequal. If people generally had more or less equal amounts of wealth then trading labor and capital between those equals would be all fine and dandy.
I think I'm being facetious here, not sure, but I toss this out because you should be ready to answer this when the opposition throws it at you: When it comes to publicly traded companies, the employees can own it if they buy stock. Then, we'll have to see where their morals lie when they are looking at quarterly dividends versus "doing the right thing" generally.
Okay, it seems we have the same values but tell give different explanations for why things should be the way we want and why things are the way they are. We both favour co-ops, but I see the employer-class as unethical and undesirable, I don't want a return to any "natural state", I want society to make an ethical and practical decision to rearrange things and abolish capitalism - or create a hybrid between capitalism and socialism where socialism is favoured and promoted. I don't think Democratic Socialism is enough but it's better than nothing.
Quoting Pfhorrest
While your analysis about how wealth inequality leads to further wealth inequality is correct, how employees aren't property but buying consumers and need buying power to live, the only way to get that buying power for the majority is to exchange labour for wages as an employee. It will always be this way in capitalism and the disparities can only increase. Technology similarly through increased efficiency, capabilities and automation can cater to ever greater numbers and a handful of companies, after defeating their competitors over and over again, rise to the top.
The employer could have more or less wealth than the employee but the power imbalance is inherent in their positions. The employee exchanges wages for labour, nothing more, what wages and what labour, are the only questions. The employer owns his business, makes all decisions regarding the businesses direction, chooses how his business will operate, promote, demote, fire his employees. Should the business care about the environment? Should it care about the community? Should it do anything? Only the capitalist decides, the employees have no voice. That is why it doesn't matter if we're talking about high-level employees or low-level employees who make nothing, we're only talking about the ability of an employee to negotiate or resign in opposition more easily. The profit drive is to pay for expenses, enable the business to grow and enrich the capitalist. The employee only exchanges labour for wages, they're not involved in what happens to profit. In every single situation, about everything, the employer has near-absolute command and his authority is in-built into capitalism. It's not dependant upon his wealth, status or connections, the employer-class simply has these authorities over employees and that's how capitalism works.
So, I contend it's the very system, rather than the specifics or specific people and the unethical employer-employee relation which is by itself, a class-based system. The unequal resources are a product of the unequal system, the inequality of the relationship goes deeper than that for me.
I'm going to use this opportunity to respond to these comments about how an employer might treat his employees, publically owned companies and employee agency.
Firstly, with regards to how employees are treated, really by other employees or employers, can be viewed through the lens of common decency and respect. That should be promoted and is but it doesn't address the underlying problems. It is not exceptionally different from how a master might treat his slave well. My point isn't to compare employees with slaves, just to say, if it can be true in a situation that is much, much worse, then it can be true here. Slavery is a problem regardless and I contend employers are a problem regardless, the relation is inherently unethical.
Quoting James Riley
I don't actually expect employees to always be doing "the right thing", I expect them to view their interests beyond the scope of what makes sense from the perspective of capitalists or investors. Giving themselves better working conditions, protecting their local environment and community, all while making a profit, people are often just talking about making things better for themselves. They are the local community and exist in the local environment. They are the workers. If workers choose to screw the environment for profit, that's a separate problem. We can look at existing co-ops to see how this might work, not how capitalist structured publically owned businesses run. Employers, employees, investors, they're all just people, how they act depends on the situation you put them in.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
By necessity, the employer must delegate tasks but how these tasks are performed and judged, the authority and resources they have, are all things he decides. I'm not interested in democratising the power of a shift supervisor, the decisions they make don't interest me. What's your game here anyway Carlos? Why do you care so much about capitalism that you're willing to resort to these absurd tactics to defend it?
Quoting James Riley
No, true in this contexts refers to ideological interpretation, it's no different than dictating what a "true" patriot does, as though, a patriot's interpretation of their patriotism must conform to certain rules. It is not objective, it's just a different and more oppressive form of "good". Capitalism has innumerable variations but most of them do not pervert the basic system. I don't know if any one variation has a monopoly on the term, you just need to meet the basic requirements. If one variation is a failure, another can still be a success. That is why I am not interested in arguing what is the "true" capitalism, it is a distraction, a pedantic discussion, which does nothing but change the meaning of a word. Capitalists can kill their golden goose, they can tax evade, externalise costs. Especially since I'm saying that the employer-employee relationship is flawed, I am largely uninterested in these variations, though I recognise a hierarchy.
I don't know exactly how you want to calculate the externalised costs, I presume you don't stop at subsidies but environmental, health, business costs and so on? Or is it just businesses receiving money from the government that you care about?
Capitalism has so many problems, and given what I've read from you, I'm surprised to hear that your only problem with capitalism is on this single issue. An issue which could actually affect socialist organisation such as co-ops and so isn't even a solely capitalist issue. It's more of a governmental issue than anything else. Externalities is a fine topic that demonstrates a flaw in capitalism, the capitalist weighs up the profit motive for a decision but only includes costs that the capitalist needs to pay for. That a community, society, person - whoever has to pay an extra financial, emotional or cost to their well-being isn't factored in. You're talking about such problems, yes? Or just government subsidies?
If your only concern is government subsidisation, why? If it's not, how can this not be included in capitalism? How can cost externalisation possibly be calculated and paid for by the capitalist? Is this less complex than I'm making it out to be? That you think this should be the norm, how does it work?
That all sounds like the same thing I want, so now I'm just more confused about where any disagreement lies. I'm wondering if it's just the talk of "natural state" in my earlier post that's throwing things off: if so, all I meant by that is that ownership and usage coinciding is what we would ("naturally") expect to happen if nothing unethical was going on, so the fact that we have separate owner/employer and user/worker classes is a sign that something unethical is going on.
Quoting Judaka
I agree with all of this too, except your claims that how much wealth the employer and employee have relative to each other is irrelevant. The person who is the employer (call him Bob) is always going to be the person with the more wealth, because the only reason the other person (call her Alice) works for Bob is that Bob owns the stuff needed to do the work and Alice doesn't. If Alice did (or could) own the stuff needed to do the work herself, she could go into business for herself, and not work for Bob. She might still choose to work for Bob after all, but because she would have the easy option to not work for him without any great loss, he wouldn't be able to be abusive of her, since she wouldn't need him; it'd be more like she worked with him, than for him.
Quoting Judaka
I agree that it's a systemic issue, not anything about specific people. My contention though is that it's the inequality of wealth that creates and perpetuates those class differences that underlie the employer-employee relationship. That some people own the means of production and others don't is why those others have to work for the first class. I don't see how you would go about fixing the abusive employer-employee relationship without freeing the employees from their dependence on the employers, which dependence comes from their unequal wealth.
The usual state-socialist solution is just to take wealth from the owners to give the the workers, "manually" fixing the problem. I don't have a strong objection to that as a band-aid at least, a way of ameliorating the symptoms of the problem, though it's not a perfect solution as it depends on state force backed by violence to accomplish. I'm much more interested in the cause of the disease in the first place: what is it exactly about the specific system of legal rights and obligations that underlie capitalism that makes it the case that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and so we end up with these owner and worker classes and the exploitative relationship between them?
The usual anarcho-socialist answer to that question is that it's the state protecting private ownership of things that other people are using that's at fault: if the government just stopped acting like the apartment building is the property of some guy who doesn't even live there, instead of the property of the people who live there, then the people who live there could just keep their rent money for themselves and not have to pay that other guy just to keep living where they do. (And since they wouldn't owe that rent anymore, they wouldn't need as much money from a job, and so could walk away from an abusive employer much more easily; never mind saving up the rent money they would have been spending to just buy some means of production of their own so they don't have to work for anyone but themselves anymore.)
But you and I already agree that that's not the best solution. So I have my other proposed solution that I've already described, instead; the one about contracts of rent and interest.
This isn't about capitalism, this is about how organizations work. Any organization. The boss cannot know and does not know all the features of those little jobs making the bureaucrat the de facto expert there. The further down the chain the more clueless the boss is. I was in the military for 6 years -- an insanely hierarchical organization - and I can tell you that there is no way the Colonels or the Generals (who are far from the real bosses anyways, the real boss is Biden) have that close daily understanding of what's going on in offices. The day-to-day management is enacted and enforced by the equivalent of middle-management and there's layers of authority even within that. Yes, these middle management have strong ad hoc authority and they can make your life hell without even speaking with a Colonel. That's power.
Look into the de facto/de jure distinction.
Middle management and supervisors control how tasks are completed.
It is about capitalism, this is but a single justification of yours, which isn't a justification at all but a distraction. Authoritarian governments delegate power, so what? Hitler, a dictator? Not really, there were many German commanders, lieutenants, officers who had authority in Germany! Except that's not how we define what a dictatorship is, it's not how we define democracy, the natural consequence of the necessity for delegation is not a way to equalise every political and economic system. Your point is moot, it is another low bar set for capitalism, but my question is why? Why are you trying to make things so easy for capitalism by giving it hoops to jump over like slavery and authoritarianism?
I was making an explanation since you seemed to be under the impression that the boss controls how all tasks are done.
My point was that in these delegations of power - even under Hitler - people within those ranks of bureaucracy have latitude and real decisions to make. Middle management are not mindless automatons mindlessly following orders. The way you phrase things is like only the head boss has agency and everyone else just follows his orders. It's not reflective of reality at all. An order or a regulation is far from actual performance and execution.
Anyway, back to an earlier question: Is it immoral for me to offer you a job? Is it abusive?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I seemed to you to think delegation doesn't exist or you are just making nonsense points to distract from criticisms of capitalism? Your "point" is noted. The employer makes all the important decisions, they wield absolute authority - similarly, Hitler wielded absolute authority, delegation for either role doesn't change how much authority either has. I factored all of this in when arriving at my conclusion, but it's not good enough, delegation of power isn't a substitute for democracy or any of the other things I value, nor should it work that way for you.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not interested in discussing the morality of employers, only the ethics of the system.
Please clarify this. Who are you talking about? The founder? CEO? The person interviewing you for the job? The hiring manager who approves the applicant? Or are you talking about just the entire company as an abstract entity? Maybe the board?
Quoting Judaka
Well "the system" starts with a job offer in a free market.
You might be right, I understood you to be arguing in favour of something bizarre but it appears those concerns were invalid. Perhaps if we discussed libertarianism, we would disagree more but it seems we agree on most things here.
Quoting Pfhorrest
The transfer of the means of production would be sufficient, that's what I think. At worst, what I want is the democratisation of workforces, even if the workers do not own the means of production, simply having them be able to decide things and have leaders accountable to them would be preferable to this. There is a range of acceptable solutions though some are more ideal than others.
I don't know my preferred solution to rent currently, it's something on my list of things to think about and research. So, I'll discuss it another time.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The owners or their representatives, aka not employees.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And a tsunami consists of droplets of water.
I remember your definition of oppression, you mean "unfair", right? "Unjust"? You're asking whether offering someone a job is unjust? You've already shown your proclivity for allowing dumb exceptions to save your positions, if you want to talk about what you know, the literal employer of a business, give me an example and we can explore it.
Are you talking about the CEO? How about the board of directors? The board of directors act on behalf of investors. This is not totalitarianism where the owner can do whatever he wants.
I stopped reading there, and did not continue in consideration of anything else you had to say, or in contemplation of any questions you may have asked. I think something needs to be cleared up. I will then be leaving, not because you are not worthy of engagement, but because I tire of TPF and would like to take a break of undetermined length. On the contrary, I find your intellectual curiosity to be sincere and I enjoy reading your posts. For now I will simply say:
True capitalism has some fundamental, foundational constituents, the absence of which makes for something that is not capitalism. I don't care if self-identified capitalists, or their opposition, want to paint a system as such, or a variation on it: If these constituents are not present, then capitalism has been left behind:
1. Property ownership;
2. Voluntary or negotiated payment in exchange.
Here I am setting aside, and capitalism itself often overlooks, how ownership was originally obtained, whether the obtaining was legal, ethical, moral, voluntary or negotiated. There are a plethora of legal principles, some fiction, some real, which permit a baseline from which ownership is stipulated. I'm not going to lay all those out for you at this time. But suffice it to say, one can own their body, their labor, a widget, an acre, an idea, a breath for their lungs, the food in their mouth, their personal space, their dignity, the integrity of their being, a legal or Constitutional or regulatory right, etc. ad infinitum.
If at any time that which is yours is taken from you outside of #2, then you do not have capitalism. You have something else, but you do not have capitalism. I don't care how anyone spins it, you do not have capitalism. It's not me making this shit up as I go, or creating artificial prerequisites to support my own bias. It simply is what it is.
All you have to do, Judaka, to attack the people that you and I both think are FOS, is to call them out and hang them on a petard they pay lip service to, but do not actually abide. I understand your frustration, but you are letting them define the terms of debate, and pervert capitalism to what they want it to be, in convivence of their own pursuit of greed, and in an effort to shut you down. They are availing themselves of nuanced version of socialism, where they privatize the profits and externalize (socialize) the costs. That is not capitalism and it's not a flavor of capitalism. It's not even a perversion of capitalism. If you take something without paying what is asked, you are a fucking thief. You are not a capitalist.
I could go on with how government fits in to all of this (corporations are a creature of the state), and how we entice capital into the markets outside of capitalism, and how we agree to externalize costs onto all or a few in furtherance of what should be the common good (if the people actually owned their government, which they don't, because it's been stolen). But alas, I tire.
I wish all the best to all of you. Have fun.
I'm reading a fun book recommended to me by Tim Wood and it's stimulated my writing bug, so I'm off to that. Peace.