Greatest Power: The State, The Church, or The Corporation?
The State, the Church, the Corporation
If forced to choose one institution, which would you choose as the most powerful in the world today? (Please see my disclaimer below.)
I'm using "church" to represent religion-as-dogma and the "corporation" as representing business.
My hunch would be that the average person would say the state (government) is the most powerful force, in that it has the most influence over the daily lives of millions of people through its creating and enforcing of laws. Very reasonable.
Others who are perhaps more nuanced (hate to make a value judgment, but there it is) would say the corporation. I'm more sympathetic to this choice, in the sense that the business world has essentially owned the government in most countries, especially the United States. I think most members of the forum wouldn't disagree at the characterization of the US as a plutocracy.
Given the above, it's with some reluctance that I would argue that it's the church, in the sense of dogma, that is the most powerful of forces in today's world. (In as far as this dogma has its roots in philosophy, it is ultimately philosophy that rules.) I have my reasons for this, of course, but rather than present a disquisition I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
[Very important disclaimer: again, I'm well aware this is ultimately a silly question with no definitive answer. It's on par with figuring out which is the most important part of an egg. Regardless, I think it's worth discussing as a path into the more relevant discussions about where to allocate our energies when tackling world problems. So for those who recoil at the simplicity: don't bother. No hard feelings, this thread isn't for you.]
[Edit: Added a poll to this thread.]
If forced to choose one institution, which would you choose as the most powerful in the world today? (Please see my disclaimer below.)
I'm using "church" to represent religion-as-dogma and the "corporation" as representing business.
My hunch would be that the average person would say the state (government) is the most powerful force, in that it has the most influence over the daily lives of millions of people through its creating and enforcing of laws. Very reasonable.
Others who are perhaps more nuanced (hate to make a value judgment, but there it is) would say the corporation. I'm more sympathetic to this choice, in the sense that the business world has essentially owned the government in most countries, especially the United States. I think most members of the forum wouldn't disagree at the characterization of the US as a plutocracy.
Given the above, it's with some reluctance that I would argue that it's the church, in the sense of dogma, that is the most powerful of forces in today's world. (In as far as this dogma has its roots in philosophy, it is ultimately philosophy that rules.) I have my reasons for this, of course, but rather than present a disquisition I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
[Very important disclaimer: again, I'm well aware this is ultimately a silly question with no definitive answer. It's on par with figuring out which is the most important part of an egg. Regardless, I think it's worth discussing as a path into the more relevant discussions about where to allocate our energies when tackling world problems. So for those who recoil at the simplicity: don't bother. No hard feelings, this thread isn't for you.]
[Edit: Added a poll to this thread.]
Comments (164)
You need to stop and think about how stability is managed when there's separation of church and state. Corporations are part of that.
I've been really focused lately on how a biosphere is interconnected. I hate mosquitoes, but it turns out they're a sign of health. Get rid of mosquitoes and other creatures also disappear, like humming birds and toads. Stop and think about what the thing you hate is actually part of.
We have to look to who has the monopoly on violence and coercion. That would be the state in nearly every case. No corporation or church can skim from my wealth or throw me in prison or regulate my activity. It is because they have this power that church and business often seek its favor and influence.
What about censorship on social media? And aren't corporations responsible for the wages they pay their employees? Maybe that isn't "skimming wealth", but corporations can decide whether or not you live in poverty - and many hard workers do merely because of the bottom line.
Then I guess we should tolerate mob justice?
I don’t disagree, but given the parameters I established I offer two points in response.
1) I’m defining “church” as dogma/ideology/system of beliefs, not as the Roman Catholic church. So while the historical analysis is correct and related, it’s not completely what I mean here.
2) You never quite answered the question.
Quoting NOS4A2
True, but if the state is owned by business, as it is, then it’s business that controls violence — as it basically does, with few exceptions. (As well as the laws that are enforced through violence and imprisonment.)
:up:
Isn't the state based on an ideology as much as the church? Why define one by its temporal presentation, but not the other?
Quoting Xtrix
Right now it's a global super wealthy elite. Obviously they don't bow to any government. They raid corporations indiscriminately, I think.
I guess Wall St has the most power.
But if you don’t like the parameters, you can refuse to accept the terms or move elsewhere. They cannot force you to stay and work, and you are the ultimate arbiter of your employment. The state, on the other hand, particularly the American state, can force you into slavery.
What if there is no better alternative? What if you have no education or qualifications for anything other than a retail job?
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh sweet Jesus - don't tell me you think forcing doctors to care for people who don't have money is slavery. Who is a slave to the US government?
edit: other than people who lick Biden's boots
Given the above, I'd say corporations.
Yes, but I’m using “church” as basically a synonym for ideology — or dogma, in any case.
But even if we use religion (say represented by Catholicism), it’s still far more about belief than about creating laws or making money. In that respect, as I’ll argue, it is ultimately the basis for political and corporate decisions.
Quoting frank
:up:
What if…?
By slavery I mean the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, which reserved slavery and involuntary servitude for prisoners.
You’re dealing with someone who voted for and continues to defend Donald Trump, and whose economic beliefs come straight out of Friedman and Ayn Rand. I wouldn’t waste too much time trying to figure anything out.
An important point. The void gets filled with varying sects of the church of nihilism: capitalism, scientism, etc. Nietzsche is good on this.
Put another way: what do the corporations fill the void with? What is their underlying belief system?
Tough shit. Then you have the freedom to starve to death. That’s NOS’s ideal world, anyway. Government is the problem, free markets are the solution. It’s done wonders the last 40 years— especially the Friedman Doctrine.
Money, or maybe you could say power/status ultimately, but profit is their way of getting that. They fill the void with whatever stories that make people want to buy their stuff.
Then you should care about the incarceration and torture of suspected terrorists without due process.
Trump on torture:
Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding.
I mean, would you like to be detained and water-boarded for being a suspected terrorist? If you don't want the state to have a monopoly on violence or coercion you should want Guantanamo closed down.
I know five-year-old's with more thought-out worldviews; at least they believe they should share their stickers with people.
I do want Guantanamo closed down, the patriot act repealed, the CIA and FBI abolished, along with every other federal agency. What about you?
In my ideal world we’d help members of our community instead of delegating that responsibility to the state.
That's interesting and a lesser understood part of a libertarians' worldview (if that's what yours is). Do you have a view regarding what help might look like?
Well, great! Maybe you have a moral compass!
Quoting NOS4A2
No, I do not want to abolish every federal agency, that is crazy talk - even though I consider myself a left-libertarian. Guns are okay, all drugs should be legal, free speech, etc. All of that good stuff.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, but people, especially the ultra-rich, have demonstrated that they have a willingness to do precisely everything but that. The state obviously needs to take care of people sometimes.
For instance: what about the severely mentally ill? Should we leave them to fend for themselves? Just live off of the pocket change they scrounge off of the pavement?
Yes. But liberalism is based on a Darwinian outlook, not a religious one. I mean Jesus was very anti-rich-people.
I think it is quite funny how liberalism started as a project initiated by the emerging commercial classes for the purpose of restricting the power of king and church and gaining more power for themselves.
The result is that we now seem to have rule by corporations. And as their power increases, the power of the people decreases. With modern methods of mass surveillance, manipulation, and control, it isn't easy to see a way out of it ....
As usual, you hit the nail on the head.
Quoting Apollodorus
What goes around, comes around.
We don’t need the rich when good, compassionate people such as yourself are around. Or do we? At any rate, delegating such a responsibility to a faceless institution full of power-seeking careerists is to refuse to help others.
I don’t think we should leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves. A vast campaign of deinstitutionalization has already helped free many of these individuals from state imprisonment, and it would be in our own best interest to help them.
Quoting Xtrix
I dislike right wing politics, but this is right:
Quoting NOS4A2
The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, but they can also choose to tax the corporations to help the poor and vulnerable in society, as Jeremy Corbyn believes in, and presumably Bernie Sanders on the other side of the pond.
Only when free of the "tender mercies" (any) Church.
Never figured you for a communist. Good to see you’ve had a change in heart.
Good summary. Agree.
Liberalism pre-dates Darwin, but regardless: I’d argue social Darwinism is a dogma.
Quoting Maw
Reasonable. Power isn’t only brute force, though.
If states did not grant companies patent rights, property rights, bailouts, international law defense mechanisms and so on, these very companies could not do what they do.
So at bottom, the state is the actor enabling this, it's also the entity that could restore order in the international arena. It all depends on what people are willing to accept from state action.
No, they can’t. That’s like saying the Pope can choose not to be Catholic. It’s possible, I suppose — but the point is that he wouldn’t be Pope if that were the case.
The government consists of people who make decisions. They’re almost all capitalists themselves. They wouldn’t be where they are without first internalizing certain beliefs. It’s no longer a choice. Maybe at some point you have the choice to believe what you’re taught, but it’s simply not so easy— any more than choosing a different religion.
True, but this is the current state of affairs. The bourgeois have won, and have brought with this win their worldview.
A liberal world called him a genius instead of burning him at the stake. He's their boy. Darwinism is definitely a dogma.
Yes and what else would they do? They wouldn't say we stole most of this wealth. They have to justify to themselves what they do, so they make up ideologies of free markets or entrepreneurial genius.
But the system of propaganda thus developed must be even cynically appreciated in some sense. It's extremely powerful and persuasive. It's only lamentable that, aside from inequalities, they're burning the Earth. So they're winning now. In a few decades it won't matter much.
But I don't think this story is written is stone yet.
I can't avoid but think that the state, the church, and the corporations are social agreements reached by (human) minds (this is true for any existing social entity; those that do not exist certainly did not gain the approval of society - or have not happened). If these institutions are dependent on the sociality of human minds then it is the capacity of the human mind to reach social agreements that which is most powerful (this capacity being a quality of individual human minds living in society). We can see that all these institutions are similar in that they rely on common objectives (common among the participant individuals) to triumph. What are these common objectives? Do they differ among the institutions under discussion? Most importantly, what is that which allows humans to reach social agreements [what is that in the human mind that allows it to (somewhat) share an objective with other human minds?] Why such ability is part of human nature? These are not questions for you (or anyone) to answer (although I would like to know the opinion of whoever reads this); instead, I think these are the sort of questions we should ask before we ask about which institutions are more powerful; we cannot discuss their power without understanding the source of such power, in my believe.
The source of their power is, in my opinion, that which is more powerful. What is the source of their power?
What is the source of the common behaviour shared by the population that makes an institution?
Very interesting -- that humming birds eat a lot of mosquitos. News to me.
The Church / Religion is in a long-term power decline, but it is nowhere near to irrelevance.
On a bad day I loathe all three.
You have to be kidding. Or perhaps you've never visited Australia. The Church has about as much influence here as, I don't know, the Boy Scouts, or the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Every so often some Christian will put their head above the parapet to say something about [insert socially controversal issue] and have it blown off by the media. Speaking of which, the Murdoch media have disproportionately enormous influence here, where they run papers in every state and also a leading cable news outfit. They actively campaign against Labor and generally spout the Fox party line whenever they get the chance.
Depends on which metric of 'Power' you're using. There's two poles; the number of people you can influence, and the strength of that influence. Is an institution which can make a handful of people into slaves more powerful than an institution which can only have a weak influence on what car people drive, but does so to half a billion people? A pop singer can make billions wear a certain brand of shoe, but it's doubtful that they could make billions clean toilets. A government can make people clean toilets, but only the much smaller number of people in its prison population.
Do we just multiply strength of influence by size of influence, or is one a more important measure for you than another?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting Xtrix
As you have alluded to, this is the same for religion, and it will be the same for those running corporations. They all have the freedom to follow their desires (which is the compatibilist definition of freedom).
The state has the greatest potential for control, and will use it to satisfy its desires.
However, what is the precise origin and aim of the state's desires?
The state is supposed to represent the desires of the people. But it may only pretend to, or only partly do so, whilst in reality representing someone else's vested interests.
I think the success or failure of the state depends to a large extent on the success of the economy. And the economy depends on the commercial classes, the guys that control banking, finance, industry, natural resources and the media. Therefore, the commercial classes have some power in relation to the state.
This power can be exerted directly, by advising the state in economic and financial matters, or indirectly, through think-tanks, lobby groups, political parties, and media, funded, influenced, or controlled by the commercial classes.
Obviously, the state's main desire is to keep itself in power. But this is precisely why it must take other groups' desires into consideration. So, the question is, which group's desires and to what extent?
Quoting Apollodorus
This isn't necessarily true. Looking at Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary record going back decades he has a history of voting against his own party, even when they were in government, at the sacrifice of his own career, reaching his first position in government/shadow government only after decades of being an MP and being voted in by party members as leader after a rule change gave them the power. If he had won the election, and become Prime Minister, his priority would have been to put his principles into practise.
Quoting Apollodorus
The people have the greatest influence over the state.
In the UK people tend to vote for the party of business, so the desires of corporations and the people are in alignment. What's interesting is when there's a clash between the desires of business and the people.
During the UK's Brexit Referendum, business were overwhelmingly in favour of staying an EU member to avoid trade barriers, customs checks etc, and the people voted to leave the EU. When the previous Prime Minister Theresa May proposed a Brexit deal that would have kept many ties with EU to avoid trade barriers, customs checks etc, she went into a General Election and lost her parliamentary majority, and went on to resign as Prime Minister. The exact day May resigned Boris gave a speech stating that we would leave "deal or no deal", and he was subsequently elected as Prime Minister, and went on to win a General Election with a humongous majority giving the Labour party its worse result since 1935. The bulk of Boris's gains were the "red-wall" - the working class that voted Brexit.
I’ve only ever seen communists coerce, imprison, and kill members of their community. I wager you’d turn me into the stasi as soon as you could.
Yes, but it doesn’t follow that the state has no desire to stay in power.
What you are saying seems to refer more to particular political parties and the position of individual politicians within those parties.
By state I meant more the organizational superstructure consisting of executive, legislature, judiciary, armed and police forces, etc., i.e. the thing that stays in place whilst governments or ruling parties keep coming and going.
In the Brexit example, Prime Minister David Cameron called the referendum under pressure from the electorate and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
However, (1) he was under no obligation to do so, and (2) he agreed to a referendum because he thought that the Remain camp would win.
So, arguably, it all started with Cameron’s miscalculation.
Corbyn is a different matter. There is no way telling what he would have done if elected. He operated in tandem with trade union leader Len McCluskey, an old-style Marxist who may have chosen to go for Remain.
In the event, Labour’s Marxist left wing was ousted by the Fabian Socialist right wing that was pro-EU and pro-Remain. And that was the end of Corbyn’s left-wing takeover.
Edit. But I agree that business were overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the EU - both during and after the referendum.
Perhaps try reading what you quoted. Apparently you missed the “in the sense of dogma” part. I’m not referring to the Catholic church or Christianity generally.
No those are called capitalists. They’re also destroying the prospects for human life. But keep worshiping them by all means.
The bourgeois, in Marx’s language. The 1% in ours. This is who the state represents. This is why when people choose business (corporations) I think they’re absolutely correct.
Studies have shown that the 0.1% get nearly everything they want, and the population’s desires have almost no effect on policy. That tells you all you need to know.
You are probably right there. I think what tends to happen in so-called "liberal democracies" is that politicians come to power on certain promises that they make to win elections. In some cases they may even be serious about the promised policies.
However, for a variety of reasons, those promises are not always kept and even if they are, there is no guarantee that no other policies are implemented that represent the interests of groups other than the electorate, e.g. multinational corporations or political organisations with an ideological agenda.
The state can get away with evils you or I or a corporation or a church cannot. They can plunder your wealth, skim off every purchase, break into your home, steal your property, and imprison you. The lesser evils, the everyday slights, denials, red tapes, wage garnishing, ticket-giving, are just facts of life now. Even if Jesus Christ took power, none of those evils would dissipate.
Corporations are largely private enterprises. You or I could start one and direct it to do good, but no statist seems interested in even trying. Much better to aggrandize the state while shrinking our own power.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, and if you sue them for breaking their own rules, they can use your money taken under threat of force to outspend you to save face, and/or carry on with unsavoury policy. The majority are okay as they have the power to un-elect them, but it's the minorities that suffer in a democracy.
I even heard the other day that the United State's legal costs in their case against Julian Assange are being subsidized by the UK taxpayer. The corporations and church would have to pay out of their own pocket.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, government isn't intrinsically bad; if you have people with the right principles at the helm, the country would be a better place than without government.
I can appreciate your faith in mankind. Insofar as the state represents the conversion of social power into state power, though, I see the state as a fundamentally anti-social institution. Even if all political careerists vying for positions of state power had the right principles, the motives of the state, it’s machinery, and its functions remain: the exploitation of the people, the confiscation of their wealth and power, and the regulation of their activity. To its core, the state is little more than a grand scheme of forced labor.
There are far more people in government that act to serve the population than there are CEOs and board chairs that do. By far. Why? Because the state is still somewhat democratic, and so the population can have some say -- less so as you get higher in rank, but still some.
Corporations are not democratic -- at all. No democracy whatsoever. They're private tyrannies. A few people at the top call all the shots, the people in the middle and bottom take the orders. It's the newest and fully legal (state-supported) system of slavery. The people at the top decide what to do with the profits that the entire company produces. That's how it works, by design. Some are nice people, some aren't. Some treat their employees well, some don't. But that's not the point. The point is that they're private tyrannies designed to make a profit, and have zero democracy.
So you can't even fault corporatists for "not even trying," since that's not the name of the game. The name of the game is to make money at any cost. You have no responsibility to the community or country in which you're based, nor to the employees, and the employees have no vote anyway. You do what makes the company the most money, or you're out.
You berate one more so than the other, and as usual have it completely inverted. Let go of the "government is the problem" propaganda and trickle-down economics you were fed when you were younger, for Christ's sake.
It's as if you don't realize you're describing CORPORATIONS, not "states." This is the structure of corporations. They're the great system of exploitation in the world -- by design.
The state doesn't hold a candle to the corporation, at least in a democracy. If you're against tyranny, turn your attention to the institution in which most people have to work most of their lives -- taken orders and having zero vote. Plenty to criticize the government about, but come on.
I can see you back in the 1800s arguing about how awful the government is as your fellow citizens are working 16 hour workdays in the mills for private companies.
Capitalism and business is never the problem, according to the propaganda/dogma you abide by. It's always the state. Like a good little parrot of corporate-sponsored ideology.
Yes -- check out Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson. Lays it out nicely.
Quoting Apollodorus
All of those players are picked either directly or indirectly by the executive and legislature, at least here in the UK.
Quoting Apollodorus
Correct, I was just saying it's not fair to say desire to stay in power is its main priority when there are sometimes principled people that stand for office.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, although weaker than the examples I gave, this is another example of the government acting on the will of the people. The government could have done nothing about the political pressure.
Quoting Apollodorus
C'mon, decades of voting against his own party and government, sacrificing his career, he was bound to be a PM guided by his principles.
There is a stark contrast between the 2017 General Election where May lost her majority and the 2019 General Election where Boris got a historic result, destroying the red wall. The history surrounding this shows it was about Brexit.
This being said, the majority of Corbyn's MPs voting no confidence in him and attacking him in the media for years all the way up to the elections certainly helped the government. I think he could of won the 2017 GE if not for his own parliamentary party working against him, I remember seeing an article that just a few thousand votes in some swing seats and he would have been Prime Minister. Some of those in his own party that smashed him in the media, were later made Lords by the government.
What about Universities? Hospitals? The Western philosophical tradition? They're also part of what was left by 'The Church'.
I would think that this is a mirage thanks to the peaceful times we live in. People could have argued that corporations hold the most power prior to WW1 as the World back then enjoyed nearly similar globalization as now. In fact, I would argue that corporations are actually the weakest and most fragile institutions when compared to states or religions (churches). In the end corporations or companies are just written contracts, legal entities, that can be dissolved easily by a judge or by bankruptcy or simply by some other corporation buying them. Then all the those who worked in the corporation or who owned it's carry on as if nothing: the people look for other work and the owners either take new stock or cut the losses (in a bankruptcy). Brands come and go. Who remembers now the most powerful corporation, Standard Oil?
(An old cartoon of Standard Oil. Nothing new under the sun.)
A corporation is just a job for some and and an asset for other people. Job and owning a stock go just so far. Yet being a citizen of a state or being a member of a religion defines people differently. And even if you wouldn't care at all about just what your nationality and you would be a total atheist, the outside World does categorize you by your nationality is and by the religion you were born to. No company cannot create brands like that. And no judge in Texas can decide that let's say the country of Iran is illegal and should be dissolved. A lot of Iranians would still think they are Iranians.
I would agree with that religion is waning in the West, Nietzsche got it all correct, yet I wouldn't count it out. The same goes for ideologies: they can make a comeback with people wholeheartedly taking on a mission.
:up:
People quite often devote a lot of time to the care and feeding of non-profits, like Planned Parenthood, Medicine Sans Frontier, Masons, gay softball leagues, local festival organizers, and so on. Service organizations are often where people express their identities as responsible adult actors, they are almost always non-profits. (Sometimes they are not only non-profit, they can be altogether unprofitable for everyone concerned, yet go on for years and years.).
I'd opt for all three. Let them be at each other's throats, that'll keep them busy and out of our hair! :lol:
No slavery I know has at-will employment, where both employee and employer can terminate the relationship whenever they choose and for whatever reason. No slavery I know allows bargaining between both parties. No slavery I know permits a slave to be an employer himself. In slavery one is forbidden to leave, has no say in the relationship, and is subject to the arbitrary whims of their master.
It’s weird to me to expect democracy from a corporation, with votes and such. Democracy is a form of government, not a business model. More than that, running a company is also work, and owners are workers. They accept more risk, acquire the means of production, the property, pay the overhead, build the clientele, and employ human beings. He runs it because it’s his project, his property, the fruits of his own labor. Without him there is no opportunity to participate in it.
Nonetheless, there is “workplace democracy” out there. Any worker can become an owner. Anyone can start a company and run it as he chooses, even to the point of letting his employees oversee everything from wages to vacation pay. The question is, to those who lament the corporation and business men, why won’t you do that? fundamentally changing the system?
We know why. Confiscating the means of production is the path of least resistance, and a coup d’état is easier than a proper revolution.
Well, the fact that one guy is "principled", doesn't really show that a party, government, or state is not motivated by the desire to acquire or maintain power. Certainly as far as parties are concerned, politics seems to be about power regardless of political orientation. That's why they put so much effort and money into winning elections.
And, at the end of the day, he wasn't elected so there isn't much point speculating what might have happened had he won the elections.
I guess you never have heard about about the Mamluks then.
Slavery came in various ways in history. Not all were the type of slaves that were seen as sub-humans as in America.
Wage slavery. I’m not talking about chattel slavery.
Selling yourself and renting yourself. That’s the difference.
Quoting NOS4A2
Because you’re a heavily indoctrinated neoliberal with no imagination and an incapacity (or unwillingness) to learn anything new.
Quoting NOS4A2
More Ayn Rand bourgeois ass licking, as usual.
The fruits of the workers’ labor, not the owners. Wal Mart could easily be run without the Waltons pocketing the profits from their Yachts. In fact that’s exactly what happens, except thanks to gifts from the state (which is supposed to be “small”?) only a handful of people decide what to do with the profits that the WORKERS produce— by law.
You make a great apologist for chattel slavery. “The slave owner runs things his way because it’s his property— he takes on more risk, pays the overhead, etc.”
Old, tired ways of thinking. Neoliberalism through and through.
Quoting NOS4A2
In your fantasy world. In reality, almost no one in the world runs a corporation. The owners— the major shareholders — are extremely rare. Maybe a basis point of the population.
Yeah, that’s “equal opportunity.” More bullshit slogans.
Quoting NOS4A2
Hmmm…well I suppose if I inherited 400 million dollars and 1.5 billion shares of a company my great grandfather started on the back of slave labor, I may do just that.
But for those without their heads up their asses: co ops exist all over the place. Some very successful. All worker owned. Mondragon is often used as an example, but plenty of others. Ocean Spray is one close to home for me. So it’s done quite often, and is not simply an abstraction. One simply has to see through the years of indoctrination which make it too “weird” to understand.
Abolishing the slave system was “weird” for many people too. Especially for the slaveowners. But in many cases (as in yours) even the slaves. You’d have made a great Uncle Tom.
So sad to see working/middle class people so utterly brainwashed that they’ll defend such a sick system, and a class that both loathes and shits on them. They’ll go to their graves with this sad perspective.
They can’t go quickly enough.
The institution of contempt.
Quoting Apollodorus
It shows that a state can be principled. That one guy, if Prime Minister, picks the rest of the government, and institutions of a state.
Quoting Apollodorus
The trouble is, to put your principles into practice you must win power. Once you've won power there's no point having that power unless you put your principles into practice, or use it for your own benefit, depending on your character.
Oh dear, the business owner cracking the whip on the backs of their voluntary slaves. Such entitled nonsense. There is much to be said about employment, but I’ve had too many jobs to believe in a concept like wage slavery, and I would never expect ownership of a company I did not create. That’s just me.
The cost of registering an LLC or corporation was about $100 in the state I’m from, the last time I checked. So it’s a lie to imply only the rich can start a company and incorporate. Starting a business takes plenty of time and dedication, lots of risk, maybe some borrowing, sure, but one needn’t be a trust-fund baby to do so.
Never mind that governments, too, employ vast amounts of people. There are millions of American slaves grinding for wages in your precious state machinery right now, all so people like you can beg them to pick up the slack wherever you refuse to. Where’s the foam at your mouth now?
I agree that in some countries government and state are more or less the same thing. The ruling Communist Party of China, in any case, that has been in power since 1949, is the supreme authority.
But I tend to believe that in general the state and the government are two different, though related, things.
The state consists of legislative, executive, judiciary, military, police, secret service, financial, economic, and educational institutions, media and propaganda organizations, etc., whose supposed collective purpose is to ensure the security and safety, as well as stability and well-being of society. But the state must preserve itself in order to provide security, safety, and stability in the first place. So, presumably, it must have a desire to stay in power.
Government, on the other hand, is the executive branch of the state, or executive instrument of the legislature. Like the state, it also has a desire to stay in power. But it can do so only to the extent that the legislature and the constitution, i.e. the state, allow it. Its powers and time in office are limited by the state, usually for four to five years after which it must participate in elections.
In your UK example, parliament is the legislative institution of the state and the supreme political power. We can ignore the House of Lords as it doesn’t have much power. But the House of Commons where the real power is, is formed of members of parliament (MPs) who are elected, not picked by government.
The remaining state institutions may be differently managed under different governments, but they stay in place as part of the state. In fact, the whole political and economic system tends to stay the same. The system doesn’t change from constitutional monarchy to socialist republic or from liberal capitalism to communism and vice versa with every election.
Even in political parties there is a tendency to retain the same power structure and if possible win and hold on to power.
Once you are in power you want to stay in power. Your principles or policies might change over time but the desire to win power and stay in power remains unchanged.
For example, Labour started off claiming to represent the working classes and has ended up representing minorities, as a means to win power and on the calculation that as minorities become more numerous it makes strategic sense to side with them.
Similarly, the Tories held the referendum hoping that the Remain side would win. The Brexit side won and the Tories had to implement Brexit as per the referendum result. However, the question arises as to how principled a government is if it liberates the country from the EU only to make it dependent on China. Incidentally, the latter has always been Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan. If he now changes that plan under pressure from his own party, then he is an "unprincipled guy" and the state is "unprincipled" if we compare them with Corbyn and his hypothetical Labour government.
It follows that political leaders, governments and political parties in general may appear to do the “will of the people” when pressured to do so, but ultimately they have their own agendas.
Is Sky News one of the main news stations in Australia? For a while YouTube was recommending clips of it to me, and it was just like Fox News. UK's Sky News is pretty balanced, probably due to broadcasting rules.
If so, what then is the analogue of that in the realm of epistemic authority, standing next to religion the way capital stands next to the state?
The media, perhaps? Should they be a fourth option in the OP’s question?
Not everything has to be symmetrical enough for you to draw one of your diagrams of it. Some things actually come in threes.
I don't know how big an audience it gets, but it's nationwide and has a hard core of fans. Sky After Dark hosts a rabid bunch of climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and right-wing conspiracy nut propogandists.
The problem is that those in power believe they are putting principles into action, but really serving themselves and their constituents.
Corbyn was a decent guy, but not a fighter. Even if he pushed through, the issue then becomes one of enacting the policies. Reminds me of Bernie. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do much without the Congress, the appellate courts and Supreme Court, or the state legislatures — almost all of which are completely dominated by far right Republicans and moderate Republicans (Democrats). Not to mention the huge media attack on both sides.
It’s an uphill battle.
Again, because you don’t listen — either consciously refusing or unconsciously. Given your age, it’s likely unconscious. But who knows.
“Wage slavery” isn’t a radical concept. It was prevalent in the Republican Party during Lincoln’s day, in fact. The idea of renting yourself was seen by many at the time to be degrading and dehumanizing — for example, the factory girls of Lowell and Lawrence MA (close to where I live) in the 19th century. I agree with them.
I said absolutely nothing about a “whip”. You continue to pretend as if I don’t distinguish very clearly between chattel slavery and wage slavery. As I’ve said many times, and which you refuse to understand: they’re not the same thing; they’re very different in how they function.
As for ownership — why should the fact that you’ve filed for articles of incorporation entitle you forever after to exploit your workers for profit while giving them no say in where to allocate those profits? Workers “create” a company just as much as investors, founders, legal “owners,” board members, or anyone else. There would be no company without them. Unless you can run everything yourself, which is possible and we often see in small family businesses— sole proprietorships — the workers should have say. Otherwise it’s what Dewey called “industrial feudalism.”
The fact that you defend the worst aspects of capitalism is telling.
Workers who run the companies should control the companies. Just try applying all your criticism about “big government” to “big business.” You won’t find a less free place than within the confines of a corporate job. Why decry one and not the other, if “freedom” is a value?
Quoting NOS4A2
:yawn:
Anyway— yes, any job that exchanges your life and labor for an hourly wage is wage slavery. Whether government or private business.
You’re again not listening. The government is a partially Democratic institution, and we demand it be more so— or profess to. Are you in favor of democracy or not? You’re too intellectually immature to know for certain, but I would assume you are in favor of it, in principle.
Given that assumption, we should criticize the government for failing to be democratic. We should push to make it more Democratic.
We should do the same in the workplace. If we believe in democracy.
That doesn’t even mean abolishing “capitalism” necessarily.
There’s a bit of epistemic and deontic elements in both the state and in religions. I’d argue that capitalism is a religion, in many respects. Nationalism and statism too.
Corporations are legal creations, really. But they represent the current organization of an ideology— the worldview— of the merchants. The bourgeois. This is basically capitalism, but also at heart materialism.
That’s what I alluded to in the OP. This is why I argue that it’s dogma (ideology) that truly rules the world today. I associate dogma with the church, so the answer to my own question is “the church.” If I were forced to pick. That’s an unconventional definition, though, so I don’t hold it against anyone for missing my point. The Church of Materialism (in the form of money or capital) has ruled the day. To me, materialism is basically nihilism.
The real culprit is philosophy. Or I wanted to get around to making that point eventually anyway. By philosophy I mean Greek answers to basic questions, including the question of questions (seinsfrage).
Quoting Pfhorrest
Sure. Education is another. Both play very important roles. I’m rolling in both as either in service of the state or corporate sector, however, in my OP. But they certainly are important enough to warrant separate attention.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, you are right. Arguably what Corbyn should have done is remove the whip from those attacking him, as it is a breach of the party's rules to bring the party into disrepute, and selected fresh candidates to stand at the General Election. I guess he calculated this would do more harm than good, but at least he would have had MPs that would vote through his policies if he had won.
I think Labour's fundamental problem is that it was founded by the Fabian Society and trade unions which were two different camps. The agreement was for the unions to provide members and funds, and for the Fabians to provide the ideology, write policy papers and manifestos, etc.
Most Labour MPs were members of the Fabian Society and this applied in particular to party leaders. So, the Fabians have been in charge of the party ever since. The unionists may attempt a takeover once or twice in a century, but the Fabians remain firmly in control.
For example, the Fabians reasserted their control with Tony Blair after Labour didn't get anywhere with Neil Kinnock, and again, with Keir Starmer after Corbyn.
The tension between the Fabian right wing and the unionist left wing will always be there and the Fabians will always stay on top. The only way for the unionists to be in charge would be for them to form a separate party.
I’m well aware of the concept of wage slavery. I just don’t believe it is accurate at all, especially when used to describe employment in general. Voluntarily working for a wage does not rise to the level of slavery, chattel or otherwise. What’s more, I have never subscribed to the theory of exploitation or the labor theory of value, so I am unable to agree with your description of employment in that respect. There is no valid reason beyond pure greed that an employee should own the company he works for by virtue of him working there alone.
The state, on the other hand, subsists entirely on exploitation in a way that is morally equivalent to forced labor: through taxation. I have to pay homage to the state with each purchase in the form of sales tax. If I don’t pay it I don’t eat. By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor. As far as exploitive practices and greed is concerned, the robber baron pales in comparison to the state.
I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper.
I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.
Quoting NOS4A2
I say it is. I guess that evens out.
Declaring it isn't so isn't an argument.
The relationship between master and slave, and employer and employee, are different.
This "voluntary" defense is so tired and so embarrassing it's barely worth responding to. Needless to say, one could make an equal argument that slaves were voluntary, too. They didn't have to be slaves, after all. They could have killed themselves, or tried to run away, or rose up in rebellion (all of which often happened, of course). True, those alternatives don't seem so great, but they were there.
Similarly, though less extreme, one makes the argument about renting yourself. "Well, you can quit if you want to." True, and face eviction, homelessness, starvation, humiliation, debt, poverty, stigma, etc.
Or you're forced to go to another job that perhaps treats you better. Wonderful. Many slaveowners were very decent people, too. Treated them well, housed them, had relationships with them, etc.
Is either of these facts an argument in favor of slavery as a system? Of course not -- although many did make such arguments. Fitzhugh is a good example. You seem to fit in well with someone like him. You're simply defending wage slavery instead of chattel slavery. It's that simple.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're paid less than what you produce. That's not hard to understand. That's inherent in this system. That's exploitation. If people were paid the equivalent to what they produce, there would be no profit. There's nothing to "subscribe" to.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, in your inverted world of alternative facts, it's the workers who are the "greedy" ones. How quaint.
"There is no valid reason, beyond pure greed, that a citizen of this country should get to vote by virtue of his living here alone."
So you're not in favor of democracy. Got it. No wonder you didn't answer that question.
Quoting NOS4A2
So taxes are exploitation, but paying someone less than what they're worth -- isn't.
All capitalists are in favor of a very large welfare state. They couldn't survive a second without it. You cannot have defense, roads, or anything else without money, and you can't raise money without taxation. The rich want the following: pay as little as possible in taxes, let the working and middle class pick up most of the check. Then make sure that money goes to subsidies, bailouts, research they can then privatize, and infrastructure they can use. The state is absolutely essential for them.
I'll say it a thousand times: there are no "free markets." Certainly not in the United States. Your small government, free-market/ laissez-faire capitalism indoctrination was thrust upon you at some point in your life, and you should outgrow it. It's completely wrong. Which is partly why people on the forum (and probably elsewhere), including me, think you're mostly an imbecile. Doesn't have to be that way, though. Just takes listening and a willingness to learn.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not at all. But even if it were true in absolute amounts, we have some say in what the state does with the taxes. 600 billion goes to defense, and I don't like. But billions goes to medicare and social security, which I do like. Billions goes to education and infrastructure, which is also good -- and I think far too little. We should have far more influence over where that money goes.
Now compare to a corporation. Take WalMart or Amazon. Billions of dollars of profits. How much say do the workers have in where those profits go? Zero. But importantly, they don't even have a say in who gets to make that decision for the company they all work for. The owners do.
If I employ you and another person, and I'm the holder of a piece of paper that says I'm the owner of the company, and all three of us generates $10,000 in profits, and I decide that I'm going to give it all to myself...if you're OK with that scenario, good for you. You make a good wage slave. In prior times, a good "house negro." But that's your issue.
In fact we know it doesn't. The quickest way to destroy anything is to privatize it. We know that from our healthcare system. The pattern is always the same for the people who want to profit off of what should be basic social programs, like healthcare or education: defund it. Defund it, then it fails. When it fails, you can swoop in with claims about how great it will be -- once we start treating it like a business, subjecting it all to those magical "market forces." Of course, it ends up a giant disaster, the state has to step in and clean it all up, and we repeat.
Older people like NOS and others are stuck in the cold war era of propaganda. where fear of communism was beaten into their heads, and capitalism was worshiped as nearly synonymous with "freedom," being the "American" system. Then came the "government is the problem" neoliberal program, which has been a complete disaster -- privatize everything, deregulate, cut taxes, etc. We're living with the results of all of this, and the prior generations who were taken in by it all. Milton Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, Ayn Rand, etc. -- these are the people they believe in, to this day.
Worth reminding yourself, too: this person voted for Donald Trump. These are the kinds of decisions that come out of this picture of the world. Sad.
Well, I'm not sure Donald Trump is the problem. Rather, he exemplifies what happens when the whole system loses credibility.
But I don't think it's a good idea to get stuck in any old political ideology. Things change, life and the world move on, and we need to move with the times. Time to come up with new ideas and new solutions, otherwise we keep going round and round in circles without getting anywhere or not anywhere good in any case.
Whoever has a good idea, be it "socialist" or "capitalist," it should be adopted, modified as required, and implemented. And discard the unnecessary ideological baggage that holds us back and prevents us from building a better and brighter future for all ....
Like you, Fitzhugh lamented wage labor, capitalist exploitation, and was fervently illiberal. It’s neat how the tandem desire for control can make slave masters and socialists comfy bedfellows. So I think you are more inclined to fit in well with him than me.
It’s true; I am operating on the assumption that a slave is chattel, is forced to work at the discretion of his master, is not allowed to leave, is involuntary, and so on. Maybe you don’t define “slave” in such a way, but I do, and given that these conditions are absent in wage labor, the conditions of slavery are not the same as the conditions of wage labor. This admittedly common sense view of slavery, not as penetrating as your own no doubt, suffices for me to distinguish slavery from wage labor, and why I refuse to consider wage labor as wage slavery. As far as pejoratives go, it’s a weak and boring one.
I don’t think it can be argued that slavery was voluntary or consensual, or that slaves should be blamed for their conditions, so we’ll just leave that one aside.
It’s true that leaving a job can lead to financial hardship, but then again it can prove beneficial. It would be interesting to see some statistics on it, but from personal experience, I know of no one who has quit a job and faced homelessness or stigma or humiliation. Certainly some do, but I’ve quit plenty of jobs and am the better for it. Have you ever quit a job before? Have you ever had a job before?
As for the theory of exploitation, for me the criticism of the theory remains the same as when Böhm-Bawerk made them over a century ago: surplus value is not equal to profits and wages are often paid in advance of revenue. That and the collapse of the labor theory of value renders the theory pretty useless.
But I don’t think you really care much about the exploitation of labor, anyways, especially when it comes to the government taking it. Your so-called “say in what the state does with taxes” is false. I wager you have not followed a single dollar of your taxes to any final destination. If you cannot know where it goes, you cannot have a say in where it goes. All you’ve done is hinged your servile hopes on the promises of politicians and bureaucrats, pretending that selecting from a rogues gallery of state careerists amounts to having a say in government.
I did not request those services. So why should I have to pay for them?
It doesn't get more true just by ignoring the arguments to the contrary. You abandoned the last thread in which you made this ridiculous claim because you couldn't answer the criticism raised against it, and yet here you bring it up again like a polished turd. Do you plan to actually defend it this time?
Quoting NOS4A2
Wow. So you've never used a road? Do tell us how.
I don’t remember the argument but sure I’ll try to defend it.
I use roads all the time.
Great, then we'll start again. On what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?
Quoting NOS4A2
Then you've seriously misunderstood the arrangement. Do you get chucked off a lot of fairground rides too? The roads aren't free, they're there for you to use on the assumption that you (or others in your community on your behalf) pay for them. If you don't agree to this, don't use them.
A wage is payed to me for my labor. Do you think it should be payed to someone else?
I am well aware that roads aren’t free, and I use them because I pay taxes. What I don’t agree to is the coercive and involuntary arrangement.
That's not what I asked. On what grounds is it your property?
Quoting NOS4A2
Then don't use the roads. You've no argument so long as you're using them.
It was given to me. Is it someone else’s property?
Why would I not use something that I’ve already helped to fund?
So your grounds for ownership is that it was given to you? Is everything given to you automatically yours? I'd hate to lend you a lawnmower.
Quoting NOS4A2
Moral integrity?
No, I’m not borrowing it. It was given to me on the assumption that I get to keep it. If it’s not my property, whose property is it?
Not only should my money be stolen for the construction of roads, but I should refrain from using them? That sounds like a double loss.
Are you saying your employer is unaware of the taxation system?
Quoting NOS4A2
Obviously if you don't like the system you need to present the alternative.
No, of course he is aware. Whose property is my wage?
There is no alternative to present. The monopoly is total.
Exactly. We may not specifically request certain services but still use them. In order to demand exemption from taxation we would need to show that we are not using any of those services now or in the future. But we can't do that if we are using them .... :grin:
No one uses all roads, though. Not only that but it cannot be shown that one’s taxes go to any specific road, or if they go to Raytheon missiles, or some other “service”.
Then he didn't give it to you with the expectation that you'll keep it did he? He gave it to you with the expectation that the appropriate proportion would be given to the government in taxes. So once more, on what grounds is it your property?
Build your own road and use that.
True. But you are not taxed the whole amount spent on the entire road system, only for a small fraction of it. Personally, I am against excessive taxation especially if any of my money goes to foreign aid, dodgy international institutions like the UN, and other questionable projects. But I think that paying some taxes isn't a big problem so long as it is kept within reasonable limits. The big corporations should certainly have their taxes drastically increased and they shouldn't be allowed to take over the country. With a bit of luck this might enable the state to reduce the taxes for the rest of us.
The “appropriate proportion” is defined by the state, and is added to the cost at the expense of the consumer, in other words, people like myself. It’s not like the employer is giving the state their own money back. It’s taken from the tax-payer at every point.
So once more, on what grounds is it the state’s property?
I would have to go through the state to do it.
So?
Quoting NOS4A2
You've still not provided any grounds on which the money is the property of the tax-payer. I'll ask again, on what grounds is the pre-tax wage your property?
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not a pejorative, it's a description of fact. Working for a wage is renting yourself -- your brains and muscles, time and effort -- for money. So simple even you can understand it. The rest is semantics. If you want to restrict "slavery" for chattel slavery, fine. The Republican party of the 1800s would disagree with you.
Quoting NOS4A2
They had the option to leave, just as the factory girl has the option to leave. There are repercussions for both. Since we're ignoring the latter, let's ignore the former as well. In which case: both are voluntary. In your world.
Quoting NOS4A2
True, as can leaving a plantation.
Quoting NOS4A2
I never claimed "surplus value" is equal to profits. Whatever the worker is paid, it cannot possibly be more than what his or her production is worth. In that case, there'd be no business. There'd be deficits and bankruptcy. If that's too difficult for you, that's your problem.
The profits made by a company are generated by the workers of that company. The workers, in turn, have zero say in how those profits are distributed -- in a capitalist system, anyway. I'm against that, because I'm against illegitimate hierarchy and I'm in favor of democracy. You've now shown repeatedly you're not in favor of democracy. In which case, I'd say: go live in another country.
Quoting NOS4A2
I realize, of course, that you're too silly to understand this, but I'll continue on:
We have a "say" in the state in a number of ways. One of those ways is voting, but there are others as well. The higher up the chain you get, the harder it is to have an influence. When it comes to what is done with taxes, we should vote in people who want to spend that money on programs we advocate for. I never said I could track my tax dollars. There's plenty to criticize the government for -- nearly all politicians are bought by the corporate sector, they're basically unresponsive to the needs of the majority of the population, etc. There should be more parties, and so on. We could go on about it. It should be more democratic, less influenced by special interests....
All of this is obvious. It's not about worshiping the state. The state should represent the people, and it really doesn't. That should change.
Now compare the state -- the government -- to the corporation, to capitalism. Is there democracy there? No. Is there any say in the decisions? No. Any expectation that they represent the "people" or their workers? No. Any worker vote for who make the decisions? No. Any say in what happens to the profits we all generate? No. Do you have free speech within a corporation? No. Democracy, your rights (voting, speech), etc., all out the window once you enter the workplace.
And yet, your religion says: the latter is the ideal. Government bad, capitalism good.
Or go back to the Articles of Confederation. Clearly the idea is that being taxed is "confiscation of property," an old idea. In an ideal world, we would, as a community, pool our resources voluntarily to do things we cannot do individually. Wonderful. But this, like "free market capitalism" -- is a compete fantasy. It's never existed.
So why do people continue to hold to it? Because it's an easy slogan to remember, keeps things simple. Pure abstraction. But no connection to the real world of state-capitalism, and no understanding of history.
Again, you're dealing with a person who voted for Donald Trump.
Donald Trump. This is the level of intellect here. So don't be disappointed if you get exactly no where.
As you were saying: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/08/02/youtube-suspends-sky-news-australia-videos-denying-covid-19-existence
Yeah, I've actually had this exact conversation with @NOS4A2 before. we reached...https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/509272...then Nos walked away unable to defend his position.
It just fascinates me what might be going through the minds of people who, after utterly failing to defend their position in one thread nonetheless just re-iterate it in another as if it were unassailable epiphany. The motive, I'm sure, is to do with declaring opinions as 'membership badges' for particular social groups and I see no reason to assume otherwise here, but the mechanisms are the interesting bit, I imagine I'm looking at the cogs whirring whilst they're contorting sets of beliefs into a sufficiently grotesque edifice to sound like a counter-argument. It's a truly engaging hobby, no?
I already did. It was the agreed-upon wage for the labor I provide. On what grounds is it the state’s property?
I walked away because you’re boring and difficult to read. That’s not something to be proud of.
Yes, and we agreed that your employer was aware of the proportion he expected to go to the government. Are we just going to do all this again?
Your employer agrees to pay £100 to you in the knowledge that you'll keep £80 and give £20 to the government. So in what way is the whole £100 your property? Your employer did not intend you to have it, no law determines you should have it, no one involved in the entire transaction bargained from the assumption that you'd keep it. So on what grounds is it your property?
Quoting NOS4A2
The law by which property is determined. Contract law (both parties were expecting such a payment when they entered into the contract), and, if you like, natural law - you used government services in earning that money so they're entitled to renumeration.
I’m aware of how the income tax system works. It applies to most forms of income, not just what employers pay in wages. But the question of whose income, properties, sales, estates, inheritances, benefits, money they are taxing is explicitly stated by governments themselves.
Force and confiscation aren’t legitimate forms of acquiring property for me, so reiterating that the state claims a right, therefor it has the right, to the fruits of my labor isn’t good enough for me.
So we need to first establish what is your 'property' and what is the 'fruits of your labour'. As we've now been through several times, your pre-tax wage isn't either of those things by any measure you've yet suggested.
Put it like this. If the government changed the income tax laws tomorrow so that instead of you paying from your return, your employer paid the government directly. Your employer would drop your take home wage accordingly, right? You wouldn't expect him to pay you the same as before plus your taxes?
Now your revolution finally comes, government is abolished and your employer no longer has to pay your taxes. They're not going to put your wages up by the exact amount they used to pay in tax are they? Why would they, they know they can secure workers for the cost of your take home pay, so it'd be madness to offer more. The money was never yours, it was just the tax due.They'll now need that money for all the investment and infrastructure they're going to have to pay for themselves that the government used to pay for.
So in what sense could you possibly say the money was yours before this?
Just to be clear, I’m not an abolish the government kind of guy. People are too dependent on it, that to abolish it would be cruel. I’m not even into civil disobedience. I much rather make fun of it and let it go it’s own direction. I just think that taxation is immoral and unjust and maybe, even piecemeal, it can become just.
Bear with my layman’s understanding, but in your scenario I would expect the full pay. Income tax and deductions come from my gross income, my full earnings according to the agreed-upon wage multiplied by the sum of hours I work. By “fruits of my labor”, at least as it pertains to this kind of employment, I mean my gross income. If the tax system was abolished I would expect my employer to pay me everything I earned, including the money the government commonly deducts from this exchange.
I say that the gross income is mine because it was traded to me, exchanged, given to me, gifted, for my work.
We've just established that what was 'agreed upon' included you paying a portion to tax.
Let's try this. You sign a contract promising to build a bridge. The renumeration is $10,000 of which you must give $1,000 to compensate the landowner. Now the client decides that actually they'll compensate the landowner directly. Are you still entitled to the full $10,000? Who would think that? It's obvious that an expense that was to come from your renumeration after you received it is now coming before you receive it. Either way only $9,000 was ever yours to take home.
It's the same with tax. The arrangement between you, your employer, and the government is that you'll receive $x, 20% of which you'll give to the government. If you don't then give that portion you're breaking the terms of your contract, as understood by both parties at the time of signing it. There's acres of case law on unwritten understandings that underwrite contracts.
If you want a without-tax wage, you need to tell your employer that you don't intend to pay tax. Your employer may then want to renegotiate your wage under these new terms because they know they'll have additional expenses arising from your failure to pay said taxes.
To say you'll keep the full wage you're changing the terms under which the contract was negotiated. Essentially you're being deceitful, because your keeping renumeration negotiated under one set of circumstances despite knowing that key elements of those circumstances have changed. Does that sound like honorable behaviour?
I don’t agree that the “agreed upon wage” includes some implicit condition that I pay a percentage of it in taxes. If I refuse to pay taxes I don’t owe the employer a percentage of my wage. The exchange of tax between me and the government has nothing to do with the employer.
The government sees what I make in income, it takes a percentage of that income. That’s the exchange.
It's no use just repeating what you'd like to be the case, this isn't an opinion poll, it's a discussion site. If you're not going to discuss the issue then there's no point posting.
The amount your employer offered was offered in the full knowledge that a fixed proportion (as counted against your total income), would go to the state. If you renege on those terms you renege on the agreement. There's no opinion to be had on the matter, those are just the facts of the case.
It's no different to inflation, or currency changes, or RPI indexing... the value of money is relative to the circumstances of the country of which it is a currency. A country in which no one pays tax is different to one in which everyone pays tax. So the value of your labour, in whatever currency, will be different in those different circumstances. You are not valued at $2,000 by your employer and then the government takes $400, you are valued at $2,000 because the government take $400. If you change the economic circumstances in which the valuation takes place you'll change the valuation. It's really primary school level economics. Not getting it is not really an option for having a serious adult conversation.
Do you hold that an employer includes what I will inevitably owe in income taxes into the wage? I don’t see how that can work.
Yes. Your taxes pay for services which, if you don't pay for them, the company might become liable for. This changes the economic circumstances in which the valuation of your labour took place and so changes the value.
We'll try another route. Why do you think the employer picks the figure they do for your wage?
If I miss a day, and therefor have less income, should my wage go down as well?
Your income is your wage, the question doesn't seem to make sense.
If I miss a day, have less income to tax, and therefor have less tax to pay, should the hourly wage change to reflect that?
Why would it? Your tax is a rate, averaged over a fixed time period. Your employer could re-negotiate your wage daily, or even hourly, but the cost of doing so would exceed any savings made from a more accurate valuation, so they renegotiate yearly, or per contract. The frequency of renegotiation is irrelevant to the fact that external circumstances affect those negotiations whenever they occur.
I just don’t see how that works. If the income tax is the product of a tax rate times the taxable income, it is impossible for an employer to know what I will be paying in income tax in order to factor it into my hourly wage.
They don't need to. They only need to know enough to make a fair assessment of their liabilities. Like any pricing or valuation, it's an estimate not a formula. What you do in declaring the whole wage packet your own is lie to your employers about the circumstances they are using to make their estimate. They're expecting a rough proportion to go to the state. That knowledge forms part of their assessment of your value to them. If you lie about that bit, you're deliberately deceiving them as to the circumstances so as to obtain more money. That's theft.
Many things determine wage— job requirements, pay standards in your industry, the size of the company, geographic location, supply and demand—but this is the first time I’ve hear income tax was a determining factor. It’s an interesting argument but I’ll just have to disagree.
Longer answer later, I have to go out. Short answer -all the things that income tax currently pays for. Many of them the employer benefits from. If you're not paying for them, they'll have to, so you're less valuable an asset.
Income tax pays for (among other things) health services, environmental protection, unemployment benefit, policing, and utilities.
When determining your value as a labourer, your employer assumes that you'll get better rapidly if ill, that you'll be unlikely to get ill in the first place, that you'll not be beset by social unrest, and, most importantly, that he can fire you when times are tough and then re-hire you (or someone like you) from a pool of ready-to-work potential employees when he wants to grow his business. He also assumes that you're going to be able to travel freely to work, freely able to acquire the resources you need (water, food etc).
If you don't come with all of those benefits, you're a less valuable asset and so worth less. If you don't pay a portion of your wage in income tax (by law, not by deception), then you don't come with all those benefits. Of course, you might, they might be provided by charity, or they might be something you arrange privately, but then the employer has to take a gamble. a gamble is worth less than a certainty, so you're a less valuable asset.
@NOS4A2 wants to take the value his employer has determined under the assumption he's the former type of asset, but deceive his employer by actually being the latter type. He wants to defraud his employer out of the difference in value between the two, i.e. steal from him.
'The Market'? Where does it get its prices from?
Quoting tim wood
Yes. That's the point I'm making. I've outlined which is the more attractive, it's (on average) the one with the safety net, paid for by taxes.
Quoting tim wood
Nothing complex, just without hindrance. As in his water comes out of a tap, not a well 6 miles away.
Quoting tim wood
I have tried. If you ask about that which confuses you, I'll try to explain. I can't simply 'make it simply' because I don't know in advance what you'll find too complex.
Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems.
Behind all of this, and the basis for religion and culture, are answers (tacit or otherwise) to universal human questions, but especially the question of questions— which defines philosophy: the question of being.
What is a human being? Human nature? Is greed the most important human characteristic? Are we simply self-interested entities trying to accumulate wealth? Are we creatures of God? The rational animal? Spirits? Minds?
What is good? What is happiness?
What *is*?
We are what they want us to be. The solution is being a fish who swims countercurrent. All of these powerful (including the press and media which are even worse...) entities want to brainwash us without tolerance. It is difficult living alone and not been caught by these elements but I think is worthy to give it a try.
If I believe in something, I do it because I want not forced. If I learn a new language, is due to I want to not because "laboral opportunities"
It is time to go back to Greek-Roman Era where the culture and individualism were more respected.
Quoting Xtrix
This is a good question and a purpose Aristotle used to teach back in Ancient times. I do not how to answer but I defend it is not related to materialism as buying a big car/house... Like sadly the social media wants to show us.
I want to add something a little less broad and abstract to fill this in: the present day.
What's really happening in the world today? How does it function? How is it organized?
It seems to me that when looked at from a perspective that highlights class, there is little question that the political and economic ruling class are nearly all of one ideology: we deserve to be in power, and deserve even more power.
The nation state has replaced the monarchy and separated from the church. But there's no separation from the religion of the ruling class, which has a similar relation to the state that the church had to the monarchy during the height of their powers in the middle ages. They have hijacked the political power through ideas and communication -- and so all political parties must declare loyalty to capitalism as they declared belief in God, the rest being mostly incidental.
I think the reason their propaganda worked so well was because of the opportunistic use of stagflation during the 1970s and the unhappiness with the Carter administration. But also because it was theoretically more sophisticated (honed since the New Deal), and because the push was harder than the prior 25-30 years. Why? Because the threat was seen as much larger -- namely, the movements of the late 60s, and in particular the questioning of the economic system.
Even without the convenient backdrop of the Cold War and the easy comparison to "communism," these movements alone would have been enough to awaken the dragon. Right after these movements you have the Powell memorandum (1971) to the Chamber of Commerce, which essentially identifies the problem (too much democracy, too much questioning, too socialistic, too adversarial to the "free enterprise system") and outlines a strategy for pushing back against it, but also the Trilateral Commission (1975) -- which does the same (notice the symbol of the flag in the crosshairs).
All this leads to, in my view, the third most consequential election of the last 50 years: the 1980 election. Reagan was a smart choice -- a well-known actor, former candidate (with an enthusiastic base), governor of California, and perfect puppet. The time was apparently right to overtake the government and inaugurate a new era -- one completely determined by the masters of the universe: the neoliberal era, embodied in Reagan's inaugural speech as the slogan "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
This was simultaneously done, electorally, by hijacking the Republican party since Nixon, forming a coalition of evangelicals, southern racists (the so called "Southern Strategy"), etc., bonded by social issues like abortion, affirmative action, "welfare queens," and an intense fear of communism.
With Reagan in the Whitehouse, and with the Friedman Doctrine dominating corporate governance, what Marx called the bourgeois now controlled both the corporation and the state.
In the present day, there are still those who cling to the failed, destructive neoliberal policies and the political and economic philosophy that underlies them, even after 40 years of this experiment. We should try our best to educate, but also remember that we have the majority.
Tony Judt's "Ill Fares The Land" takes up and develops some of these themes rather well.
[quote=David Hume, On The First Principles of Government] NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan of Egypt, or the emperor of Rome, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion.[/quote]
This is what I've tried to say much less eloquently.
Power always existed in the different aspects of society. From a simple mayor to the PM of the state. If you want to hold the power you have to be ready to take the "wrong" way against ethics. If you check all the people with power you would see that most of them break the law. They do not act ethically but viciously to maintain such status.
In the other hand, while I don't see any interest on politics. I remember that when I attended to the university there were a lot of "affiliates". Well, most of them were fake, selfish, arrogant and cheaters. I guess these are the main characters of a politician (apart from the fact that they are rich) and probably they are senators now.
Most people in power are sincere individuals who believe they’re doing good in the world. That’s what I see. I don’t begrudge anyone their power, status, or wealth. I take issue with their actions, decisions, and judgment.
I think of the categories provided, the church is the most powerful. Everyone — in whatever class, in whatever position of power, and whether a politician or king or CEO, has a religion. This serves as a basis out of which their attitudes and actions flow.
Agreed. We should not forget that Catholic Church is even a state (Vatican City State is an independent city-state and enclave surrounded by Rome, Italy. Also known simply as the Vatican, the state became independent from Italy in 1929 with the Lateran Treaty, and it is a distinct territory under "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction")
Religion is powerful towards education. Karl Marx wrote that religion is“the opiate of the masses” disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now, and dulling their engagement in progressive politics.
Nevertheless, according to Landon Schnabel, Religion still has a strong influence, but in a new way. Rather than making people less political, religion shapes people’s political ideas, suppressing important group differences and progressive political positions.
Here is the source: Religion: less ‘opiate,’ more suppressant, study finds
Brute force, money, or opinion.
Opinion.
Governments are a minority. They could not rule without control of opinion.
Money's worth is based on opinion, and convincing people to participate in wage slavery depends on controlling opinion.
It could be argued that governments and money are themselves fictions.
:up: :sparkle:
This had me laughing. Nice Lord of the Rings reference.
In seriousness though, I think it's true. I let "church" be the representative for religion, and religion (in my view) asks similar universal human questions that philosophy does. Religion also pre-dates philosophy -- at least the type of philosophical questions we're used to.
Yes. It's what Hume talks about in the opening of his "First Principles of Government":
I think that's exactly right.
Corporations trump the state (business lobbies).
The state trumps the church (separation of church & state).
The church trumps corporations (ethics & commerce).
Rock-paper-scissors!
You’re overusing this. FYI.
I'm just an idiot, correct what's wrong with that. I'm not a political scientist.
A) Which one of them can simply be terminated by a degree from a judge?
B) Which one of them can terminated by it joining another, by annexation or invasion by force?
C) Which one of them dies basically as the last human person believing in it dies?
If we understand "Church" as Religion, then it is at least the most persistent. In our secular society the Church may look as to have the least power, but looks can be deceiving.
Yes. Unfortunately, they essentially own the government. So in practice they run the state. They need a strong state to survive.
It’s a brilliant move, too, because anything wrong with society can be blamed on the government. The private sector gets a free pass. People began to take notice around 2009, when the private sector needed a huge bailout from the state.
Syat ... true!
Once having a corporation was considered a priviledge and one's corporate charter could be withdrawn. Those days are long gone.
Be careful about what you wish, multi-party system can lead to a chaos. Whenever you have multiple politicians with different views it is harder to promote laws or manage the state. In my honest opinion, it is more efficient to hold a two-party system. At least, you will have the assurance that they will run the country.
It is indeed strange that we’re one of only a few developed countries that don’t have a labor party or something similar. We have, as many others have pointed out, two factions of one party: the corporate party. I think destroying that is a good idea. Whether that means electoral reform, I don’t know.