Actually, I mislike using other encylopedias as citation sources, kind of a metadata issue - so I've been looking for journal articles on the matter, I think I've found a reasonable source... Title: Meanings of Capitalism Author(s): Frederic C. Lane Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 29, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History. (Mar., 1969), pp. 5-12. Stable URL: [1] It identifies three key features of capitlism (paraphrasing slightly) - Capital, Labour and Markets - anyone else want/able to take a look at see if it could inform or alter our activities here...?-- Red Deathy 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, we're not going to let your cherrypick sources to wedge in your fringe "sole proprietors aren't part of capitalism" POV. Please, stop adding the bit about wage labor. I will call over an admin if necessary. MrVoluntarist 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, read the source, I picked up about ten on a trawl through Jstore. I've got a citation so it's not original research, I can't and won't add it again today, but waged labour is a key difference that is abswent from the legalistic def. that Bostonion has been pushing.--
Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- So? You need more than just a few sources. It had to be representative of what most sources say. I can grab ten Marxist journals and take the ones I like -- that wouldn't make it encyclopedic. It's not in any of the mainstream dictionaries. The part about wage labor should only be mentioned in one of the sections below, where it describes the relevance of capitalism to the various philsophical systems.
MrVoluntarist 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article hardly looks like a Marxist source, I didn't cherry pick it, it pretty much jumped out of a brief citation search - i'd welcome any other sources that come from reputable places. teh part about wage labour could come straight from Adam Smith and his discussions about capital, so it's hardly a Marxist point. That said, I think we need to go beyond popular dictionaries to slightly more reliable material, because otherwise we're paraphrasing a paraphrase...--
Red Deathy 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a Marxist source; I was just showing how you can cherrypick sources on this. The problem is, I have never heard *any* reference to so-called "wage labor" (which is harder to define than you might think) except in obscure, highly technical discussions, or from radical leftists. It's just not what "capitalism" means to most people. Now, if you want to say that as a historical matter, most economies described as "capitalism" have significant numbers of people deriving income from "wage labor", that's pretty uncontroversial. The question is whether that is a defining feature, and to most people, no, it isn't. Just the opposite -- any trend toward more people starting their own businesses is described in the media as capitalistic. Or, what if most people not owning their businesses were migrant, independent contractors that changed jobs frequently? Again, I don't see how that makes it "less capitalistic". The "wage labor" differentiation should be confined to a later part of the article, which talks about the different conceptions, not included uptop as if that part is uncontroversial.
MrVoluntarist 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wouldn't want to cherrypick, I'd like to debate and refine and find reliable critical sources we can site and build a consensus around. Most people wouldn't consider a jobbing plumber to be a capitalist, conceptually they'd think large employer - I'd hazard. However, it isn't our job to report what people already think, but report the truth in an accessible language, which is slightly different. If you prefer, market in labour covers the same concept adequately. I'll try and review the citations I dug up (when I find some time) and report back, they're mostly historical development of capitalism articles.--
Red Deathy 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I was clear. The question is not whether an independent migrant contractor is a capitalist, but whether he counts as a wage laborer. As for reporting the truth, remember that the standard is verifiability, not truth. Finally, if you want to reduce the mention in the intro to saying there's a "market for labor", then I don't understand the point. There are markets for lots and lots of things in capitalism, why single out labor?
MrVoluntarist 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was addressing the point of whether people see self employment as capitalist. Yes, tehre is a grey area where you have defacto employees who are self employed largely for tax reasons, etc. The significance is that whereas many things were for sale under feudalism, chattel slavery and tribal economies, labour wasn't one of them, it is an historical novelty (largely speaking).--
Red Deathy 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's a "gray area" so much as "there is no serious distinction". If you're rich, it's a client, and if you're poor, it's a boss. Same thing. As for the historical novelty (come on, let's pronounce those h's! a historical), what? The last 500 years in the West is a historical novelty? And don't forget that labor was bought at least as far back as Rome. The term "
salary" comes from the "salt" used to hire Roman soldiers. Plus, even under feudalism and slavery, people were still hired for odd jobs when they could get away with it, sometimes routinely. In the American South, it was common for a slaveholder to manumit a slave on the condition that he pay an "income tax" to the former master, essentially "renting out" the slave". There was never a time when labor couldn't be hired.
MrVoluntarist 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the distinction comes when an 'And carry out otehr reasonable management instructions' clause gets added to the contract, if you're gonna be like that (it's on mine). yes, tehre has always been a small possibility of buying labour power, but generally it was marginal and notpart of a systemaic labour market - up until the nineteenth century servants could be beaten for leaving their master. I've never pronounced an Haitch in my life, bloody Yorkshire an proud...:) -- Red Deathy 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's a "gray area" so much as "there is no serious distinction". If you're rich, it's a client, and if you're poor, it's a boss. Same thing. As for the historical novelty (come on, let's pronounce those h's! a historical), what? The last 500 years in the West is a historical novelty? And don't forget that labor was bought at least as far back as Rome. The term "
salary" comes from the "salt" used to hire Roman soldiers. Plus, even under feudalism and slavery, people were still hired for odd jobs when they could get away with it, sometimes routinely. In the American South, it was common for a slaveholder to manumit a slave on the condition that he pay an "income tax" to the former master, essentially "renting out" the slave". There was never a time when labor couldn't be hired.
MrVoluntarist 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was addressing the point of whether people see self employment as capitalist. Yes, tehre is a grey area where you have defacto employees who are self employed largely for tax reasons, etc. The significance is that whereas many things were for sale under feudalism, chattel slavery and tribal economies, labour wasn't one of them, it is an historical novelty (largely speaking).--
Red Deathy 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I was clear. The question is not whether an independent migrant contractor is a capitalist, but whether he counts as a wage laborer. As for reporting the truth, remember that the standard is verifiability, not truth. Finally, if you want to reduce the mention in the intro to saying there's a "market for labor", then I don't understand the point. There are markets for lots and lots of things in capitalism, why single out labor?
MrVoluntarist 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wouldn't want to cherrypick, I'd like to debate and refine and find reliable critical sources we can site and build a consensus around. Most people wouldn't consider a jobbing plumber to be a capitalist, conceptually they'd think large employer - I'd hazard. However, it isn't our job to report what people already think, but report the truth in an accessible language, which is slightly different. If you prefer, market in labour covers the same concept adequately. I'll try and review the citations I dug up (when I find some time) and report back, they're mostly historical development of capitalism articles.--
Red Deathy 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a Marxist source; I was just showing how you can cherrypick sources on this. The problem is, I have never heard *any* reference to so-called "wage labor" (which is harder to define than you might think) except in obscure, highly technical discussions, or from radical leftists. It's just not what "capitalism" means to most people. Now, if you want to say that as a historical matter, most economies described as "capitalism" have significant numbers of people deriving income from "wage labor", that's pretty uncontroversial. The question is whether that is a defining feature, and to most people, no, it isn't. Just the opposite -- any trend toward more people starting their own businesses is described in the media as capitalistic. Or, what if most people not owning their businesses were migrant, independent contractors that changed jobs frequently? Again, I don't see how that makes it "less capitalistic". The "wage labor" differentiation should be confined to a later part of the article, which talks about the different conceptions, not included uptop as if that part is uncontroversial.
MrVoluntarist 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article hardly looks like a Marxist source, I didn't cherry pick it, it pretty much jumped out of a brief citation search - i'd welcome any other sources that come from reputable places. teh part about wage labour could come straight from Adam Smith and his discussions about capital, so it's hardly a Marxist point. That said, I think we need to go beyond popular dictionaries to slightly more reliable material, because otherwise we're paraphrasing a paraphrase...--
Red Deathy 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- So? You need more than just a few sources. It had to be representative of what most sources say. I can grab ten Marxist journals and take the ones I like -- that wouldn't make it encyclopedic. It's not in any of the mainstream dictionaries. The part about wage labor should only be mentioned in one of the sections below, where it describes the relevance of capitalism to the various philsophical systems.
MrVoluntarist 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, read the source, I picked up about ten on a trawl through Jstore. I've got a citation so it's not original research, I can't and won't add it again today, but waged labour is a key difference that is abswent from the legalistic def. that Bostonion has been pushing.--
Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are not outside capitalism, but most owner proprietors nowadays are subsidiary to the power of big capitalist firms - a small shop keeper is largely dependent upon the economic activity of massive warehouses; small logger firms are de facto subsidiaries of massive timber mills, etc. teh dominant economic force is capital employing waged labour. Capitalism is about employing waged labour - that's the key difference between ancient rome (where waged labour, save for the army, was largely absent) and modern capitalism. The point is, there is a differennce between capitalis, a whole system of society, and capitalists. A co-op isn't a cpaitalist concern, but it operates within capitalism...-- Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Employment is likely in capitalism because people are free to buy and sell whatever they want, including their own labor. But that's not a part of the definition of capitalism.
Improper Bostonian 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Without someone to work on the capital it's kind of useless - it's no coincidence that capitalism came aboutafter lifting the restrictions on the number of employees and when workers were freed from the land. Smith dedicates a large chunk of his description of what we now call capital to the way in which it suports labour, and the rise of capitalism is teh rise of waged labour in the world - you cannot have capitalism without a labour market--
Red Deathy 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- From the U.S. State Department article on Small Business Structure in the United States: "Most businesses are sole proprietorships -- that is, they are owned and operated by a single person. In a sole proprietorship, the owner is entirely responsible for the business's success or failure."
[2] If "wage labor" is essential to capitalism, then we would have to say that most of the business sector in the U.S. is not a part of the capitalist system.
Improper Bostonian 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, as I note above, they are part of the capitalist system, but that firms that employ waged labour are more decisive and make up the proponderance of the economy (and small business have employees as well, tha knowest). It's a question os what is the hegemonic economic activity, no economy is totally uniform...--
Red Deathy 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's not true. Sole proprieterships make up the preponderance of the economy in the U.S. Improper Bostonian 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll." As of 2002, the number of firms in the U.S. with no employees is 17,646,062. The number of firms with employees is 5,696,759. Of the ones that do have employees, most of those have only 1 to 4 employees.
[3]
Improper Bostonian 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quite - One ExxonMobile, how many thousands of proprietor owned petrol stations? One GM, how many proprietor owned car showrooms? One UnhiLever, how many shops selling washpowder? etc. The hegemonic activity is that of the mass production wage labouring sector - and of course, capitalism is a worldwide system, so all those kids in Pakistan sewing footballs for sale in Asda need to be counted as an integral part of the US or UK economies.--
Red Deathy 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a sufficient condition for employment, but employment is not a necessary condition for captialism. Capitalism at the most fundamental level is private ownership of the means of production. Three quarters of all businesses in the U.S. are private ownership of the means of production that have no employees other than self-employed operators of those means of production.
Improper Bostonian 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Besides, human-power (used to be called manpower :-) is the most basic "means of production", and is owned by the individual worker, who decides whom to sell it to. So in a way, workers are indeed a part of Capitalism. Dullfig 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You could have private ownership of MoP without having capitalism, you can have small hodler atrtisan economies which would not be capitalistic, the labour market and the employment of labour power is the defining feature that goes beyond that to create capitalism.--
Red Deathy 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be capitalism. Capitalism is defined by private means of production and goods and services that trade in a free market. Improper Bostonian 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a sufficient condition for employment, but employment is not a necessary condition for captialism. Capitalism at the most fundamental level is private ownership of the means of production. Three quarters of all businesses in the U.S. are private ownership of the means of production that have no employees other than self-employed operators of those means of production.
Improper Bostonian 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quite - One ExxonMobile, how many thousands of proprietor owned petrol stations? One GM, how many proprietor owned car showrooms? One UnhiLever, how many shops selling washpowder? etc. The hegemonic activity is that of the mass production wage labouring sector - and of course, capitalism is a worldwide system, so all those kids in Pakistan sewing footballs for sale in Asda need to be counted as an integral part of the US or UK economies.--
Red Deathy 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, as I note above, they are part of the capitalist system, but that firms that employ waged labour are more decisive and make up the proponderance of the economy (and small business have employees as well, tha knowest). It's a question os what is the hegemonic economic activity, no economy is totally uniform...--
Red Deathy 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- From the U.S. State Department article on Small Business Structure in the United States: "Most businesses are sole proprietorships -- that is, they are owned and operated by a single person. In a sole proprietorship, the owner is entirely responsible for the business's success or failure."
[2] If "wage labor" is essential to capitalism, then we would have to say that most of the business sector in the U.S. is not a part of the capitalist system.
Improper Bostonian 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Without someone to work on the capital it's kind of useless - it's no coincidence that capitalism came aboutafter lifting the restrictions on the number of employees and when workers were freed from the land. Smith dedicates a large chunk of his description of what we now call capital to the way in which it suports labour, and the rise of capitalism is teh rise of waged labour in the world - you cannot have capitalism without a labour market--
Red Deathy 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Red Deathy, there are a couple of problems with this theory: (1) there is only a thin line between simple commodity production (SCP) and one based on large-scale commodity production (modern capitalism), in that the former tends to become the latter. I don't know of any society in human history in which SCP (as distinct from subsistence) has long been the dominant mode of production. (2) Capitalism is compatible with unfree labour and has made significant use of it in numerous different forms (slavery, indentured labour, criminal convicts, political prisoners etc) in many different historical contexts. It can argued that unfree labour is a transitional phenomenon in capitalism, but then I would argue the same about SCP. Grant65 | Talk 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- In my oppinion, when capitalism says "private ownership of MOP", it means that MOP is in the hands of any and all humans. Any economic system that makes use of unfree labor cannot be classified as a true laisez faire capitalism. It may look like capitalism, but it is not. Just as mucha as "State capitalism" isn't capitalism either. And lets make one thing clear: it was not "capitalism" that was making use of unfree labor. Unfree labor can only be instituted, in other words imposed by law. Only the state can enslave people, not capitalism. There is no concievable market force that could enslave people. Can you think of one?
Dullfig 18:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dullfig, we now seem to be veering towards an unproductive, ideological discussion instead of one based on historical fact. I don't know how anyone can say it was "not 'capitalism' that was making use of unfree labor". If we take the best-known modern example, being slavery in the southern U.S., then the biggest users of slave labour were plantation owners (large commodity producers), not the state and certainly not SCP in the southern states. White SCPers made up most of the population, but not the output of cotton, tobacco, etc which was dominated by large plantation owners. The state, whether it was the (pre-1861) U.S. government, individual state governments, or the Confederate government, recognized and (to varying degrees) enforced slavery, but none of these governments created slavery in the south, which was generated by factors like labour shortages, marginal/declining profitability in particular agricultural regions, and the availability of slaves through a pre-existing, international, free market in slaves. It may cause a wailing and a gnashing of teeth to recogise that free markets are compatible with unfree labour, but I don't see how it can be disputed.
Grant65 |
Talk 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there is slavery, then it's not free market capitalism. A free market has no force or fraud, except in defense. Slavery is the theft of someone else's labor. There is nothing free market about that. In a free market, individuals sell their labor for any mutually agreed upon price. Improper Bostonian 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly! and besides, you say that slavery wasn't invented in the south, just enforced. This is probably due to the fact that slavery had existed for at least 3000 years. But without a government that enforces slavery, slavery cannot exist. Again, show me how you can enslave people purely through market forces. It can't be done. Force always needs to be used, and force is NOT market capitalism.
Dullfig 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- "A free market has no force or fraud, except in defense" ... "force is NOT market capitalism"?!?!! These are nice theories, but the "free" in free market relates only to the movement of capital, goods and services. The freedom of individuals isn't a requirement, as shown by South Africa for most of the 20th century, South Korea and Taiwan for most of the second half, Chile 1973-89, etc.
- Dullfig, we now seem to be veering towards an unproductive, ideological discussion instead of one based on historical fact. I don't know how anyone can say it was "not 'capitalism' that was making use of unfree labor". If we take the best-known modern example, being slavery in the southern U.S., then the biggest users of slave labour were plantation owners (large commodity producers), not the state and certainly not SCP in the southern states. White SCPers made up most of the population, but not the output of cotton, tobacco, etc which was dominated by large plantation owners. The state, whether it was the (pre-1861) U.S. government, individual state governments, or the Confederate government, recognized and (to varying degrees) enforced slavery, but none of these governments created slavery in the south, which was generated by factors like labour shortages, marginal/declining profitability in particular agricultural regions, and the availability of slaves through a pre-existing, international, free market in slaves. It may cause a wailing and a gnashing of teeth to recogise that free markets are compatible with unfree labour, but I don't see how it can be disputed.
Grant65 |
Talk 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- As for the suggestion that market forces cannot enslave people, then I think that illustrates a very limited and controversial definition of market forces. Who is to say that it wasn't market forces that installed the Nazis in power in Germany? In fact, the close relationship between the Nazis and major corporations has been well-established. Now, the force is veiled but it is still there:
- One morning, riding the elevator up to work, I noticed a cop standing next to me, a gun on his hip. I realized in an instant that all the sophisticated machinations that went on upstairs and around the whole Wall Street neighborhood rested ultimately on force. Financial power, too, grows out of the barrel of a gun. Of course a serious analysis of the political economy of finance has to delve into all those sophisticated machinations, but the image of that gun should be kept firmly in mind. ( Doug Henwood, 1998, Wall Street, Verso Books, p.1)
- You have zero conception of "free market" if you think slavery is consistent with a free market. The "free" in "free market" applies to the choice of the individual. The individual is free from coercion. If you choose to work for me in exchange for payment, that is a free market exchange. If I take you in chains and force you to work for me in exchange for food, that is not a free market transaction. The "free" in free market applies to free decision. It means demand isn't forced and supply isn't force. What is demanded and what is supplied is left to free individal decision. "In a free-market system, every person has a property right over his own person and his own labor, and that he can make free contracts for those services. Slavery violates the basic property right of the slave over his own body and person." [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Improper Bostonian ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
- And you say that "free market relates only to the movement of capital, goods and services." Hello. "Services" includes labor. There is no free market in labor, in a slave system. That is an unfree market in labor. The price of labor in such a system is not determined by unregulated supply and demand but diminished and determined by the use of physical force. Improper Bostonian 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the ideals/rhetoric/propaganda. Look at the historical facts: in the old South there was a both a free market (buying, selling, supply and demand) in unfree labor and a free market in free labor. If anything the trade in slaves was "freer", because free laborers had some rights. Neither was there a division/separation between/of the labor markets of the South and North; this was a major reason why many working class whites in the North hated slavery and were prepared to take up arms against it, because slavery put downward pressure on their own wages and conditions. Slavery is the most extreme and institutionalized version of the phenomenon now known as labor stratification, i.e. a tiered labor market. Grant65 | Talk 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If each and every person is not free to decide for himself how to live their life, who to work for, etc. then it is not a free market. Period. And trying to insist that a free market and slavery can co-exist, sure sounds like propaganda to me.
Dullfig 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone everyone ever is "free to decide for himself how to live their life, who to work for, etc."
Grant65 |
Talk 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If not, then it's not a free market. It's pretty simple. Improper Bostonian 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone everyone ever is "free to decide for himself how to live their life, who to work for, etc."
Grant65 |
Talk 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming an issue of semantics - not very clarifying. What economists and social theorists mean by "free market" varies, especially when you leave the realm of some purely ideal models to talk about actual societies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- All economic models are ideals.
Improper Bostonian 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why and how free/wage labor is essential to the operation of a free market. In the "eyes" of the market, labor is just another commodity/input. Why does the market require free labor any more than it needs sentient and empowered apples, iron ore, t-shirts, silicon chips etc.? the market need free consumers; it doesn't need free labor.
Grant65 |
Talk 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's partially correct, Grant65. It doesn't matter whether anyone works at "wage-earning" jobs in determining if the system is capitalist. "Wage labor" is indeed not an essential part of capitalism. Common? Sure. Historically typical? Absolutely. Defining aspect? Nope. MrVoluntarist 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You've already been told why in detail. It's a matter of definition. By definition, a free market is absent force and fraud. By definition, a free market is voluntary exchange of goods and services. Slavery is forced services.
Improper Bostonian 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves. I mean, not that Grant65 would actually consider analyzing at that level, but still.
MrVoluntarist 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could say that, but I think he's talking about an overall free-market economy. In a free market economy, the price of labor is determined by mutual agreement among the purchasers of labor and the laborers themselves. If I force someone to labor for me at gunpoint, then the price of labor is reduced to zero through force, rather than market dynamics.
Improper Bostonian 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- He's going to come back though, and pretend not to understand the difference between "you can't leave" and "you can't enter". Watch. MrVoluntarist 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could say that, but I think he's talking about an overall free-market economy. In a free market economy, the price of labor is determined by mutual agreement among the purchasers of labor and the laborers themselves. If I force someone to labor for me at gunpoint, then the price of labor is reduced to zero through force, rather than market dynamics.
Improper Bostonian 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves. I mean, not that Grant65 would actually consider analyzing at that level, but still.
MrVoluntarist 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why and how free/wage labor is essential to the operation of a free market. In the "eyes" of the market, labor is just another commodity/input. Why does the market require free labor any more than it needs sentient and empowered apples, iron ore, t-shirts, silicon chips etc.? the market need free consumers; it doesn't need free labor.
Grant65 |
Talk 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. "By definition, a free market is absent [of] force and fraud." Only in some comicbook depiction of the ideas of Hayek or Ayn Rand. By its own definition, the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise, but as encyclopedists we shouldn't rely on self-definitions. In real, concrete, historical "free markets", monopolists and monopsonists (or semi-monopolists and semi-monopsonists) frequently use their powers to distort market forces. Labor is not different to any other good or service in that respect. "You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves". That's exactly what I'm saying. "In a free market economy, the price of labor is determined by mutual agreement among the purchasers of labor and the laborers themselves." As I have shown there have been innumerable examples of unfree labor (slavery, indenture, convicts, political prisoners etc) within capitalist systems. "If I force someone to labor for me ... the price of labor is reduced to zero through force, rather than market dynamics..." In the first place, it is not generally the case that unfree laborers lose freedom at ther hands of a private employer, who generally purchases their services (or otherwise benefits from them) from a third party, such as a slave trader or a capitalist state. Second, there are operating costs with unfree laborers comparable to wages, such as the maintenance/depreciation of the slave (presuming that we aren't talking about a specific short-term task). Third, let's not forget that this article is not about ideal free markets, it's about capitalism. Grant65 | Talk 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- So what if you bring up historical cases of unfree labor? Then obviously those examples are not examples of a free market economy. In free market capitalism, there is no slavery. The price of labor in a free market economy is determined by supply and demand...by definition. It's ludicrous that you think slavery is compatible with a free market economy. In a free market economy, the prices of all goods and services are determined through markets. If I bring the price of your labor down to zero by putting a gun to your head, that's not a free market transaction. Not only does it reduce the price of a person's labor who is forced to work at gunpoint, but it depresses the price of voluntary labor as well at a level below at which it would sell in a free market (because demand decreases). Improper Bostonian 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves". That's exactly what I'm saying. No, Grant65, it's not, or you would have made that (helpful) distinction a long time ago instead of wasting everyone's time. So what if part of the economy is capitalist while the other isn't? How does this affect what should be in the article? MrVoluntarist 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Improper Bostonian, what is your source for the claim that in capitalism prices are determined by supply and demand? Samuelson's Economics textbook shows how in capitalist economies supply and demand are only two elements that go into determining prices and in fact there are many other variables one must consider. I would like an answer to this specific quesion (what is your source) but I am also trying to make a bigger point: the problem with this discussion is it is dangerously unmored from the kind of research that goes into our articles, namely, working with verifiable sources. Some editors are acting as if there is one definition of capitalism, when in fact NPOV requires us to consider multiple points of view, and in one turns to verifiable sources one discovers different views. We should not be discussing what we think capitalism is; we should be discussing the various verifiable relevant sources and how they should be used to improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said, S. We have run into an old problem: can more than one mode of production co-exist in the same society and can a MoP include things which appear to be inconsistent with its general character? IMO the answers are: "not for long" to the first part, and "yes" to the second. Others will disagree. Anyway, there is plenty of literature to support my argument. Respected labor historians like Robert Miles and Marcel van den Linden have made exactly the same argument. For example:
- ...the idea that "free" market capitalism corresponds best with "free" wage labour ... appears not only in liberal theory but also in the work of authors such as Marx. In Capital we read that free wage labour is the only "true" capitalist way to commodify labour power. Marx states emphatically that "labour-power can appear on the market as a commodity only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity."14 Traditional interpretations of the working class are based on this idea. After all, if only the labour power of free wage labourers is commodified, the "real" working class in capitalism can only consist of such workers.
- As historical research on labour relationships in colonial countries became more sophisticated Marx's thesis was questioned in increasing measure. Several authors have argued that unfree labour is fundamentally compatible with capitalist relations[emphasis added].15 This conclusion is in fact rather obvious. Marx's thesis is based on two dubious assumptions, namely that labour needs to be offered for sale by the person who is the actual bearer and owner of such labour, and that the person who sells the labour sells nothing else.16 Why does this have to be the case? Why can labour not be sold by a party other than the bearer? What prevents the person who provides labour (his or her own or that of somebody else) from offering packages combining the labour with labour means? And why can a slave not perform wage labour for his master at the estate of some third party? Asking these questions brings us very close to the idea that slaves, wage-labourers, share-croppers, and others are in fact an internally differentiated proletariat. The target approach is therefore one that "eliminates as a defining characteristic of the proletarian the payment of wages to the producer."17 The main point appears to be that labour is commodified, although this commodification may take on many different forms.
- ... [I]n his extensive study (elaborating on the work of Robert Miles and others), Moulier Boutang supplies arguments supporting the position that bonded labour is essential for capitalism to function, both in the past and nowadays. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, who have also been inspired by Moulier Boutang, summarize a substantial portion of his theory as follows:
- Slavery and servitude can be perfectly compatible with capitalist production, as mechanisms that limit the mobility of the labor force and block its movements. Slavery, servitude, and all the other guises of the coercive organization of labor — from coolieism in the Pacific and peonage in Latin America to apartheid in South Africa — are all essential elements internal to the process of capitalist development.19 [Emphasis added.]
- Marx called slavery "an anomaly opposite the bourgeois system itself," which is "possible at individual points within the bourgeois system of production," but "only because it does not exist at other points."20 If Moulier Boutang and others are right, then Marx is mistaken here. In this case, "free" wage labour would not be the favoured labour relationship under capitalism, but only one of several options. Capitalists would always have a certain choice how they wished to mobilize labour-power. And bonded labour would under many circumstances remain an alternative. (Marcel van der Linden, "Labour History as the History of Multitudes", Labour/Le Travail, 52, Fall 2003, 235-244)
I'm sure MrV and Improper will be surprised to find themselves agreeing with Marx, but there it is. Grant65 | Talk 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget that we've been talking explicitly about "free market" capitalism. In a free market, there is no force or fraud. In a free market, each individual is free to sell his goods or labor. Stealing goods or labor is not free market. Improper Bostonian 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Grant65 for actually providing sources. Let me pointout that Improper bostoinian is stillmaking assertions without providing any sources. By the way, note that s/he has changed his/her point. Before, it was a question of what determines prices. Improper Bostonian still has notprovided a source to back up his/her original point. Now s/he is making another point, that there is no force or fraud in free market capitalism. Again, what is your sources? By the way, by specifying "free market capitalism" Improper Bostonian is implying that there are other kinds of capitalisms. Again, I would like a source. No, Improper Bostonian, I do not just want to know what you think, because just what you think isn't going to go into the article any more than just what I think. Whose point of view are you expressing, and What is yout verifiable source? We should always be asking these two questions because the relate to our core NPOV and NOR, Verifiability policies. If you cannot answer these two questions, Improper Bostonian, I have to wonder whether you are pushing your personal POV or just BSing and wasting our time. I hope not. I want to take you in good faith. That is why, even though you did not answer my question the first time, I am repeating them again now to give you another chance. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone who says slavery is compatible with capitalism is not referring to free market capitalism, but something else. The most common definition of capitalism refers to a largely free market situation.
Improper Bostonian 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- We are going round in circles. Just to recap: the article is about capitalism, not "free market capitalism". In any case, societies with unfree labour almost always are "largely free markets", to use your phrase. I have shown that some historians regard unfree labor as compatible with, even essential to, capitalism in many contexts.
Grant65 |
Talk 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we are going in circles. Grant65, what does that crank's theory about capitalism "needing" unfree labor have to with the definition of capitalism that's going into this article? It already describes capitalism as having mostly private ownership and a mostly free market. So you know an instance of a market not totally free. Is there a relevant point you want to make? MrVoluntarist 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- We are going round in circles. Just to recap: the article is about capitalism, not "free market capitalism". In any case, societies with unfree labour almost always are "largely free markets", to use your phrase. I have shown that some historians regard unfree labor as compatible with, even essential to, capitalism in many contexts.
Grant65 |
Talk 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've made my point. Time has not improved your manners, Mr V. Grant65 | Talk 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so you agree your posts say nothing about what should be changed in the intro definition. Great. Moving on.
MrVoluntarist 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the whole talk page was devoted to the intro. My bad.
Grant65 |
Talk 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Were you aware what this topic was about? Scroll up: "In my oppinion, when capitalism says "private ownership of MOP", it means that MOP is in the hands of any and all humans. Any economic system that makes use of unfree labor cannot be classified as a true laisez faire capitalism." MrVoluntarist 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the whole talk page was devoted to the intro. My bad.
Grant65 |
Talk 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, unfree labour is perfectly compatable with a free market, it's called debt-bondage, or debt slavery, which is a very old institution, a great many peasants and sharecroppers find themselves subject to it even as we speak today. Also, illeal immigrants are frequently subjected to debt-bondage, as a freely entered into choice...te tum te tum....-- Red Deathy 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point, Red Deathy. Someone who irresponsibly runs up a credit card bill they can't afford to pay and is stuck paying interest is equivalent to someone who was kidnapped and forced to work at one specific job his whole life. A lot of people aren't aware of that.
MrVoluntarist 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that was flippancy, but to be clear, my reference to illegal imigants was that often their traffickers charge them a transportation fee they can't reach and then tell them they have to work it off in their sweatshop. Debt slaves in the modern and ancient world were often 'forced' into debt, as a deliberate practice of creating a bonded slave. It is not the same as someone compelled through credit card bills. Peasants, often with highly restricted access to cash find that debt bondage is forced on them by big landowners, etc. All part and parcel of free market economics.--
Red Deathy 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Another great point, Red Deathy. Defrauding people into a "debt" they "have to" pay off in a sweatshop is a quite integral part of capitalism, without which no capitalist economy could persist as such. I'm sorry about my earlier error -- no prominent writer has ever referred to people trapped in credit card debt as "debt slaves".
MrVoluntarist 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say integral, I said compatable, and perfectly free market. Put another way, it's like the central problem of
King Lear in a perfectly voluntary market someone can sign a contract to sell themselves into slavery, but such a contract invalidates the very premise on which it is signed: the continued free will of the individual. Yet to invalidate the contract would be to violate the sovereignty of free contract. I was just making a theoretical point that you can have slavery without violating amrket norms.--
Red Deathy 14:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- You said "part and parcel" of a free market. That means it goes hand-in-hand, i.e., an integral, always-there part. Perhaps you meant "pot and possle" (a pot and possle, whatever that is, being non-integral parts of the kitchen) and mistakenly added the r's, since Yorkshire people don't pronounce them? j/k But more seriously, if you're trying to bring up the "slavery paradox", that's not going to cut at lot of ice with me, since I don't see it as contradictory. The contract simply says that, in exchange for some good, the "slave" will henceforth work for the "owner", with the exception of things that invalidate the original consideration given. The "slave" had sovereignty on making the contract, and the terms are still enforced. The "slave" still has free will; it's just that certain "owner" rights will be enforced against him should he try to violate them. But that's getting pretty tangential. MrVoluntarist 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say integral, I said compatable, and perfectly free market. Put another way, it's like the central problem of
King Lear in a perfectly voluntary market someone can sign a contract to sell themselves into slavery, but such a contract invalidates the very premise on which it is signed: the continued free will of the individual. Yet to invalidate the contract would be to violate the sovereignty of free contract. I was just making a theoretical point that you can have slavery without violating amrket norms.--
Red Deathy 14:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Another great point, Red Deathy. Defrauding people into a "debt" they "have to" pay off in a sweatshop is a quite integral part of capitalism, without which no capitalist economy could persist as such. I'm sorry about my earlier error -- no prominent writer has ever referred to people trapped in credit card debt as "debt slaves".
MrVoluntarist 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that was flippancy, but to be clear, my reference to illegal imigants was that often their traffickers charge them a transportation fee they can't reach and then tell them they have to work it off in their sweatshop. Debt slaves in the modern and ancient world were often 'forced' into debt, as a deliberate practice of creating a bonded slave. It is not the same as someone compelled through credit card bills. Peasants, often with highly restricted access to cash find that debt bondage is forced on them by big landowners, etc. All part and parcel of free market economics.--
Red Deathy 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I havn't added my two cents for a while. here goes: Capitalism is the system that invariably and spontaneously forms among free people. If half the population in a given country are truly free, and the other half isn't, the half that is free will freely engage in commerce among themselves, giving rise to a free market. But that free market cannot free the other half that is unfree. People give rise to freedom. Freedom is a belief that we are all born equal, and that we have certain inalienable rights. A free market will not give rise to free people. But free people will give rise to a free market. Dullfig 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Invariably? Not South Sea Islanders, nor Romans. But, 1) Marklet and Capitalism are not synonyms. 2)markets do arise wherever there is scarcity, create abundance and market behaviour begins to vanish (see South Sea Islanders, or Marshall Sahlins passim. IMNSHO. -- Red Deathy 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I mislike using other encylopedias as citation sources, kind of a metadata issue - so I've been looking for journal articles on the matter, I think I've found a reasonable source... Title: Meanings of Capitalism Author(s): Frederic C. Lane Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 29, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History. (Mar., 1969), pp. 5-12. Stable URL: [1] It identifies three key features of capitlism (paraphrasing slightly) - Capital, Labour and Markets - anyone else want/able to take a look at see if it could inform or alter our activities here...?-- Red Deathy 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, we're not going to let your cherrypick sources to wedge in your fringe "sole proprietors aren't part of capitalism" POV. Please, stop adding the bit about wage labor. I will call over an admin if necessary. MrVoluntarist 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, read the source, I picked up about ten on a trawl through Jstore. I've got a citation so it's not original research, I can't and won't add it again today, but waged labour is a key difference that is abswent from the legalistic def. that Bostonion has been pushing.--
Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- So? You need more than just a few sources. It had to be representative of what most sources say. I can grab ten Marxist journals and take the ones I like -- that wouldn't make it encyclopedic. It's not in any of the mainstream dictionaries. The part about wage labor should only be mentioned in one of the sections below, where it describes the relevance of capitalism to the various philsophical systems.
MrVoluntarist 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article hardly looks like a Marxist source, I didn't cherry pick it, it pretty much jumped out of a brief citation search - i'd welcome any other sources that come from reputable places. teh part about wage labour could come straight from Adam Smith and his discussions about capital, so it's hardly a Marxist point. That said, I think we need to go beyond popular dictionaries to slightly more reliable material, because otherwise we're paraphrasing a paraphrase...--
Red Deathy 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a Marxist source; I was just showing how you can cherrypick sources on this. The problem is, I have never heard *any* reference to so-called "wage labor" (which is harder to define than you might think) except in obscure, highly technical discussions, or from radical leftists. It's just not what "capitalism" means to most people. Now, if you want to say that as a historical matter, most economies described as "capitalism" have significant numbers of people deriving income from "wage labor", that's pretty uncontroversial. The question is whether that is a defining feature, and to most people, no, it isn't. Just the opposite -- any trend toward more people starting their own businesses is described in the media as capitalistic. Or, what if most people not owning their businesses were migrant, independent contractors that changed jobs frequently? Again, I don't see how that makes it "less capitalistic". The "wage labor" differentiation should be confined to a later part of the article, which talks about the different conceptions, not included uptop as if that part is uncontroversial.
MrVoluntarist 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wouldn't want to cherrypick, I'd like to debate and refine and find reliable critical sources we can site and build a consensus around. Most people wouldn't consider a jobbing plumber to be a capitalist, conceptually they'd think large employer - I'd hazard. However, it isn't our job to report what people already think, but report the truth in an accessible language, which is slightly different. If you prefer, market in labour covers the same concept adequately. I'll try and review the citations I dug up (when I find some time) and report back, they're mostly historical development of capitalism articles.--
Red Deathy 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I was clear. The question is not whether an independent migrant contractor is a capitalist, but whether he counts as a wage laborer. As for reporting the truth, remember that the standard is verifiability, not truth. Finally, if you want to reduce the mention in the intro to saying there's a "market for labor", then I don't understand the point. There are markets for lots and lots of things in capitalism, why single out labor?
MrVoluntarist 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was addressing the point of whether people see self employment as capitalist. Yes, tehre is a grey area where you have defacto employees who are self employed largely for tax reasons, etc. The significance is that whereas many things were for sale under feudalism, chattel slavery and tribal economies, labour wasn't one of them, it is an historical novelty (largely speaking).--
Red Deathy 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's a "gray area" so much as "there is no serious distinction". If you're rich, it's a client, and if you're poor, it's a boss. Same thing. As for the historical novelty (come on, let's pronounce those h's! a historical), what? The last 500 years in the West is a historical novelty? And don't forget that labor was bought at least as far back as Rome. The term "
salary" comes from the "salt" used to hire Roman soldiers. Plus, even under feudalism and slavery, people were still hired for odd jobs when they could get away with it, sometimes routinely. In the American South, it was common for a slaveholder to manumit a slave on the condition that he pay an "income tax" to the former master, essentially "renting out" the slave". There was never a time when labor couldn't be hired.
MrVoluntarist 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the distinction comes when an 'And carry out otehr reasonable management instructions' clause gets added to the contract, if you're gonna be like that (it's on mine). yes, tehre has always been a small possibility of buying labour power, but generally it was marginal and notpart of a systemaic labour market - up until the nineteenth century servants could be beaten for leaving their master. I've never pronounced an Haitch in my life, bloody Yorkshire an proud...:) -- Red Deathy 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's a "gray area" so much as "there is no serious distinction". If you're rich, it's a client, and if you're poor, it's a boss. Same thing. As for the historical novelty (come on, let's pronounce those h's! a historical), what? The last 500 years in the West is a historical novelty? And don't forget that labor was bought at least as far back as Rome. The term "
salary" comes from the "salt" used to hire Roman soldiers. Plus, even under feudalism and slavery, people were still hired for odd jobs when they could get away with it, sometimes routinely. In the American South, it was common for a slaveholder to manumit a slave on the condition that he pay an "income tax" to the former master, essentially "renting out" the slave". There was never a time when labor couldn't be hired.
MrVoluntarist 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was addressing the point of whether people see self employment as capitalist. Yes, tehre is a grey area where you have defacto employees who are self employed largely for tax reasons, etc. The significance is that whereas many things were for sale under feudalism, chattel slavery and tribal economies, labour wasn't one of them, it is an historical novelty (largely speaking).--
Red Deathy 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I was clear. The question is not whether an independent migrant contractor is a capitalist, but whether he counts as a wage laborer. As for reporting the truth, remember that the standard is verifiability, not truth. Finally, if you want to reduce the mention in the intro to saying there's a "market for labor", then I don't understand the point. There are markets for lots and lots of things in capitalism, why single out labor?
MrVoluntarist 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wouldn't want to cherrypick, I'd like to debate and refine and find reliable critical sources we can site and build a consensus around. Most people wouldn't consider a jobbing plumber to be a capitalist, conceptually they'd think large employer - I'd hazard. However, it isn't our job to report what people already think, but report the truth in an accessible language, which is slightly different. If you prefer, market in labour covers the same concept adequately. I'll try and review the citations I dug up (when I find some time) and report back, they're mostly historical development of capitalism articles.--
Red Deathy 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say it was a Marxist source; I was just showing how you can cherrypick sources on this. The problem is, I have never heard *any* reference to so-called "wage labor" (which is harder to define than you might think) except in obscure, highly technical discussions, or from radical leftists. It's just not what "capitalism" means to most people. Now, if you want to say that as a historical matter, most economies described as "capitalism" have significant numbers of people deriving income from "wage labor", that's pretty uncontroversial. The question is whether that is a defining feature, and to most people, no, it isn't. Just the opposite -- any trend toward more people starting their own businesses is described in the media as capitalistic. Or, what if most people not owning their businesses were migrant, independent contractors that changed jobs frequently? Again, I don't see how that makes it "less capitalistic". The "wage labor" differentiation should be confined to a later part of the article, which talks about the different conceptions, not included uptop as if that part is uncontroversial.
MrVoluntarist 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article hardly looks like a Marxist source, I didn't cherry pick it, it pretty much jumped out of a brief citation search - i'd welcome any other sources that come from reputable places. teh part about wage labour could come straight from Adam Smith and his discussions about capital, so it's hardly a Marxist point. That said, I think we need to go beyond popular dictionaries to slightly more reliable material, because otherwise we're paraphrasing a paraphrase...--
Red Deathy 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- So? You need more than just a few sources. It had to be representative of what most sources say. I can grab ten Marxist journals and take the ones I like -- that wouldn't make it encyclopedic. It's not in any of the mainstream dictionaries. The part about wage labor should only be mentioned in one of the sections below, where it describes the relevance of capitalism to the various philsophical systems.
MrVoluntarist 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, read the source, I picked up about ten on a trawl through Jstore. I've got a citation so it's not original research, I can't and won't add it again today, but waged labour is a key difference that is abswent from the legalistic def. that Bostonion has been pushing.--
Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course they are not outside capitalism, but most owner proprietors nowadays are subsidiary to the power of big capitalist firms - a small shop keeper is largely dependent upon the economic activity of massive warehouses; small logger firms are de facto subsidiaries of massive timber mills, etc. teh dominant economic force is capital employing waged labour. Capitalism is about employing waged labour - that's the key difference between ancient rome (where waged labour, save for the army, was largely absent) and modern capitalism. The point is, there is a differennce between capitalis, a whole system of society, and capitalists. A co-op isn't a cpaitalist concern, but it operates within capitalism...-- Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Employment is likely in capitalism because people are free to buy and sell whatever they want, including their own labor. But that's not a part of the definition of capitalism.
Improper Bostonian 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Without someone to work on the capital it's kind of useless - it's no coincidence that capitalism came aboutafter lifting the restrictions on the number of employees and when workers were freed from the land. Smith dedicates a large chunk of his description of what we now call capital to the way in which it suports labour, and the rise of capitalism is teh rise of waged labour in the world - you cannot have capitalism without a labour market--
Red Deathy 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- From the U.S. State Department article on Small Business Structure in the United States: "Most businesses are sole proprietorships -- that is, they are owned and operated by a single person. In a sole proprietorship, the owner is entirely responsible for the business's success or failure."
[2] If "wage labor" is essential to capitalism, then we would have to say that most of the business sector in the U.S. is not a part of the capitalist system.
Improper Bostonian 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, as I note above, they are part of the capitalist system, but that firms that employ waged labour are more decisive and make up the proponderance of the economy (and small business have employees as well, tha knowest). It's a question os what is the hegemonic economic activity, no economy is totally uniform...--
Red Deathy 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's not true. Sole proprieterships make up the preponderance of the economy in the U.S. Improper Bostonian 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll." As of 2002, the number of firms in the U.S. with no employees is 17,646,062. The number of firms with employees is 5,696,759. Of the ones that do have employees, most of those have only 1 to 4 employees.
[3]
Improper Bostonian 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quite - One ExxonMobile, how many thousands of proprietor owned petrol stations? One GM, how many proprietor owned car showrooms? One UnhiLever, how many shops selling washpowder? etc. The hegemonic activity is that of the mass production wage labouring sector - and of course, capitalism is a worldwide system, so all those kids in Pakistan sewing footballs for sale in Asda need to be counted as an integral part of the US or UK economies.--
Red Deathy 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a sufficient condition for employment, but employment is not a necessary condition for captialism. Capitalism at the most fundamental level is private ownership of the means of production. Three quarters of all businesses in the U.S. are private ownership of the means of production that have no employees other than self-employed operators of those means of production.
Improper Bostonian 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Besides, human-power (used to be called manpower :-) is the most basic "means of production", and is owned by the individual worker, who decides whom to sell it to. So in a way, workers are indeed a part of Capitalism. Dullfig 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- You could have private ownership of MoP without having capitalism, you can have small hodler atrtisan economies which would not be capitalistic, the labour market and the employment of labour power is the defining feature that goes beyond that to create capitalism.--
Red Deathy 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be capitalism. Capitalism is defined by private means of production and goods and services that trade in a free market. Improper Bostonian 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a sufficient condition for employment, but employment is not a necessary condition for captialism. Capitalism at the most fundamental level is private ownership of the means of production. Three quarters of all businesses in the U.S. are private ownership of the means of production that have no employees other than self-employed operators of those means of production.
Improper Bostonian 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quite - One ExxonMobile, how many thousands of proprietor owned petrol stations? One GM, how many proprietor owned car showrooms? One UnhiLever, how many shops selling washpowder? etc. The hegemonic activity is that of the mass production wage labouring sector - and of course, capitalism is a worldwide system, so all those kids in Pakistan sewing footballs for sale in Asda need to be counted as an integral part of the US or UK economies.--
Red Deathy 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, as I note above, they are part of the capitalist system, but that firms that employ waged labour are more decisive and make up the proponderance of the economy (and small business have employees as well, tha knowest). It's a question os what is the hegemonic economic activity, no economy is totally uniform...--
Red Deathy 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- From the U.S. State Department article on Small Business Structure in the United States: "Most businesses are sole proprietorships -- that is, they are owned and operated by a single person. In a sole proprietorship, the owner is entirely responsible for the business's success or failure."
[2] If "wage labor" is essential to capitalism, then we would have to say that most of the business sector in the U.S. is not a part of the capitalist system.
Improper Bostonian 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Without someone to work on the capital it's kind of useless - it's no coincidence that capitalism came aboutafter lifting the restrictions on the number of employees and when workers were freed from the land. Smith dedicates a large chunk of his description of what we now call capital to the way in which it suports labour, and the rise of capitalism is teh rise of waged labour in the world - you cannot have capitalism without a labour market--
Red Deathy 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Red Deathy, there are a couple of problems with this theory: (1) there is only a thin line between simple commodity production (SCP) and one based on large-scale commodity production (modern capitalism), in that the former tends to become the latter. I don't know of any society in human history in which SCP (as distinct from subsistence) has long been the dominant mode of production. (2) Capitalism is compatible with unfree labour and has made significant use of it in numerous different forms (slavery, indentured labour, criminal convicts, political prisoners etc) in many different historical contexts. It can argued that unfree labour is a transitional phenomenon in capitalism, but then I would argue the same about SCP. Grant65 | Talk 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- In my oppinion, when capitalism says "private ownership of MOP", it means that MOP is in the hands of any and all humans. Any economic system that makes use of unfree labor cannot be classified as a true laisez faire capitalism. It may look like capitalism, but it is not. Just as mucha as "State capitalism" isn't capitalism either. And lets make one thing clear: it was not "capitalism" that was making use of unfree labor. Unfree labor can only be instituted, in other words imposed by law. Only the state can enslave people, not capitalism. There is no concievable market force that could enslave people. Can you think of one?
Dullfig 18:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dullfig, we now seem to be veering towards an unproductive, ideological discussion instead of one based on historical fact. I don't know how anyone can say it was "not 'capitalism' that was making use of unfree labor". If we take the best-known modern example, being slavery in the southern U.S., then the biggest users of slave labour were plantation owners (large commodity producers), not the state and certainly not SCP in the southern states. White SCPers made up most of the population, but not the output of cotton, tobacco, etc which was dominated by large plantation owners. The state, whether it was the (pre-1861) U.S. government, individual state governments, or the Confederate government, recognized and (to varying degrees) enforced slavery, but none of these governments created slavery in the south, which was generated by factors like labour shortages, marginal/declining profitability in particular agricultural regions, and the availability of slaves through a pre-existing, international, free market in slaves. It may cause a wailing and a gnashing of teeth to recogise that free markets are compatible with unfree labour, but I don't see how it can be disputed.
Grant65 |
Talk 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there is slavery, then it's not free market capitalism. A free market has no force or fraud, except in defense. Slavery is the theft of someone else's labor. There is nothing free market about that. In a free market, individuals sell their labor for any mutually agreed upon price. Improper Bostonian 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly! and besides, you say that slavery wasn't invented in the south, just enforced. This is probably due to the fact that slavery had existed for at least 3000 years. But without a government that enforces slavery, slavery cannot exist. Again, show me how you can enslave people purely through market forces. It can't be done. Force always needs to be used, and force is NOT market capitalism.
Dullfig 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- "A free market has no force or fraud, except in defense" ... "force is NOT market capitalism"?!?!! These are nice theories, but the "free" in free market relates only to the movement of capital, goods and services. The freedom of individuals isn't a requirement, as shown by South Africa for most of the 20th century, South Korea and Taiwan for most of the second half, Chile 1973-89, etc.
- Dullfig, we now seem to be veering towards an unproductive, ideological discussion instead of one based on historical fact. I don't know how anyone can say it was "not 'capitalism' that was making use of unfree labor". If we take the best-known modern example, being slavery in the southern U.S., then the biggest users of slave labour were plantation owners (large commodity producers), not the state and certainly not SCP in the southern states. White SCPers made up most of the population, but not the output of cotton, tobacco, etc which was dominated by large plantation owners. The state, whether it was the (pre-1861) U.S. government, individual state governments, or the Confederate government, recognized and (to varying degrees) enforced slavery, but none of these governments created slavery in the south, which was generated by factors like labour shortages, marginal/declining profitability in particular agricultural regions, and the availability of slaves through a pre-existing, international, free market in slaves. It may cause a wailing and a gnashing of teeth to recogise that free markets are compatible with unfree labour, but I don't see how it can be disputed.
Grant65 |
Talk 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- As for the suggestion that market forces cannot enslave people, then I think that illustrates a very limited and controversial definition of market forces. Who is to say that it wasn't market forces that installed the Nazis in power in Germany? In fact, the close relationship between the Nazis and major corporations has been well-established. Now, the force is veiled but it is still there:
- One morning, riding the elevator up to work, I noticed a cop standing next to me, a gun on his hip. I realized in an instant that all the sophisticated machinations that went on upstairs and around the whole Wall Street neighborhood rested ultimately on force. Financial power, too, grows out of the barrel of a gun. Of course a serious analysis of the political economy of finance has to delve into all those sophisticated machinations, but the image of that gun should be kept firmly in mind. ( Doug Henwood, 1998, Wall Street, Verso Books, p.1)
- You have zero conception of "free market" if you think slavery is consistent with a free market. The "free" in "free market" applies to the choice of the individual. The individual is free from coercion. If you choose to work for me in exchange for payment, that is a free market exchange. If I take you in chains and force you to work for me in exchange for food, that is not a free market transaction. The "free" in free market applies to free decision. It means demand isn't forced and supply isn't force. What is demanded and what is supplied is left to free individal decision. "In a free-market system, every person has a property right over his own person and his own labor, and that he can make free contracts for those services. Slavery violates the basic property right of the slave over his own body and person." [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Improper Bostonian ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
- And you say that "free market relates only to the movement of capital, goods and services." Hello. "Services" includes labor. There is no free market in labor, in a slave system. That is an unfree market in labor. The price of labor in such a system is not determined by unregulated supply and demand but diminished and determined by the use of physical force. Improper Bostonian 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the ideals/rhetoric/propaganda. Look at the historical facts: in the old South there was a both a free market (buying, selling, supply and demand) in unfree labor and a free market in free labor. If anything the trade in slaves was "freer", because free laborers had some rights. Neither was there a division/separation between/of the labor markets of the South and North; this was a major reason why many working class whites in the North hated slavery and were prepared to take up arms against it, because slavery put downward pressure on their own wages and conditions. Slavery is the most extreme and institutionalized version of the phenomenon now known as labor stratification, i.e. a tiered labor market. Grant65 | Talk 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If each and every person is not free to decide for himself how to live their life, who to work for, etc. then it is not a free market. Period. And trying to insist that a free market and slavery can co-exist, sure sounds like propaganda to me.
Dullfig 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone everyone ever is "free to decide for himself how to live their life, who to work for, etc."
Grant65 |
Talk 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If not, then it's not a free market. It's pretty simple. Improper Bostonian 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not everyone everyone ever is "free to decide for himself how to live their life, who to work for, etc."
Grant65 |
Talk 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming an issue of semantics - not very clarifying. What economists and social theorists mean by "free market" varies, especially when you leave the realm of some purely ideal models to talk about actual societies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- All economic models are ideals.
Improper Bostonian 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why and how free/wage labor is essential to the operation of a free market. In the "eyes" of the market, labor is just another commodity/input. Why does the market require free labor any more than it needs sentient and empowered apples, iron ore, t-shirts, silicon chips etc.? the market need free consumers; it doesn't need free labor.
Grant65 |
Talk 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's partially correct, Grant65. It doesn't matter whether anyone works at "wage-earning" jobs in determining if the system is capitalist. "Wage labor" is indeed not an essential part of capitalism. Common? Sure. Historically typical? Absolutely. Defining aspect? Nope. MrVoluntarist 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You've already been told why in detail. It's a matter of definition. By definition, a free market is absent force and fraud. By definition, a free market is voluntary exchange of goods and services. Slavery is forced services.
Improper Bostonian 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves. I mean, not that Grant65 would actually consider analyzing at that level, but still.
MrVoluntarist 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could say that, but I think he's talking about an overall free-market economy. In a free market economy, the price of labor is determined by mutual agreement among the purchasers of labor and the laborers themselves. If I force someone to labor for me at gunpoint, then the price of labor is reduced to zero through force, rather than market dynamics.
Improper Bostonian 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- He's going to come back though, and pretend not to understand the difference between "you can't leave" and "you can't enter". Watch. MrVoluntarist 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could say that, but I think he's talking about an overall free-market economy. In a free market economy, the price of labor is determined by mutual agreement among the purchasers of labor and the laborers themselves. If I force someone to labor for me at gunpoint, then the price of labor is reduced to zero through force, rather than market dynamics.
Improper Bostonian 19:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves. I mean, not that Grant65 would actually consider analyzing at that level, but still.
MrVoluntarist 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why and how free/wage labor is essential to the operation of a free market. In the "eyes" of the market, labor is just another commodity/input. Why does the market require free labor any more than it needs sentient and empowered apples, iron ore, t-shirts, silicon chips etc.? the market need free consumers; it doesn't need free labor.
Grant65 |
Talk 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. "By definition, a free market is absent [of] force and fraud." Only in some comicbook depiction of the ideas of Hayek or Ayn Rand. By its own definition, the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise, but as encyclopedists we shouldn't rely on self-definitions. In real, concrete, historical "free markets", monopolists and monopsonists (or semi-monopolists and semi-monopsonists) frequently use their powers to distort market forces. Labor is not different to any other good or service in that respect. "You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves". That's exactly what I'm saying. "In a free market economy, the price of labor is determined by mutual agreement among the purchasers of labor and the laborers themselves." As I have shown there have been innumerable examples of unfree labor (slavery, indenture, convicts, political prisoners etc) within capitalist systems. "If I force someone to labor for me ... the price of labor is reduced to zero through force, rather than market dynamics..." In the first place, it is not generally the case that unfree laborers lose freedom at ther hands of a private employer, who generally purchases their services (or otherwise benefits from them) from a third party, such as a slave trader or a capitalist state. Second, there are operating costs with unfree laborers comparable to wages, such as the maintenance/depreciation of the slave (presuming that we aren't talking about a specific short-term task). Third, let's not forget that this article is not about ideal free markets, it's about capitalism. Grant65 | Talk 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- So what if you bring up historical cases of unfree labor? Then obviously those examples are not examples of a free market economy. In free market capitalism, there is no slavery. The price of labor in a free market economy is determined by supply and demand...by definition. It's ludicrous that you think slavery is compatible with a free market economy. In a free market economy, the prices of all goods and services are determined through markets. If I bring the price of your labor down to zero by putting a gun to your head, that's not a free market transaction. Not only does it reduce the price of a person's labor who is forced to work at gunpoint, but it depresses the price of voluntary labor as well at a level below at which it would sell in a free market (because demand decreases). Improper Bostonian 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You could, though, say that it is a free market with respect to the relationship between buyers and sellers of the slave labor, but not a free market with respect to the relationship between the "employers" of that labor and the slaves". That's exactly what I'm saying. No, Grant65, it's not, or you would have made that (helpful) distinction a long time ago instead of wasting everyone's time. So what if part of the economy is capitalist while the other isn't? How does this affect what should be in the article? MrVoluntarist 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Improper Bostonian, what is your source for the claim that in capitalism prices are determined by supply and demand? Samuelson's Economics textbook shows how in capitalist economies supply and demand are only two elements that go into determining prices and in fact there are many other variables one must consider. I would like an answer to this specific quesion (what is your source) but I am also trying to make a bigger point: the problem with this discussion is it is dangerously unmored from the kind of research that goes into our articles, namely, working with verifiable sources. Some editors are acting as if there is one definition of capitalism, when in fact NPOV requires us to consider multiple points of view, and in one turns to verifiable sources one discovers different views. We should not be discussing what we think capitalism is; we should be discussing the various verifiable relevant sources and how they should be used to improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said, S. We have run into an old problem: can more than one mode of production co-exist in the same society and can a MoP include things which appear to be inconsistent with its general character? IMO the answers are: "not for long" to the first part, and "yes" to the second. Others will disagree. Anyway, there is plenty of literature to support my argument. Respected labor historians like Robert Miles and Marcel van den Linden have made exactly the same argument. For example:
- ...the idea that "free" market capitalism corresponds best with "free" wage labour ... appears not only in liberal theory but also in the work of authors such as Marx. In Capital we read that free wage labour is the only "true" capitalist way to commodify labour power. Marx states emphatically that "labour-power can appear on the market as a commodity only if, and so far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, offers it for sale or sells it as a commodity."14 Traditional interpretations of the working class are based on this idea. After all, if only the labour power of free wage labourers is commodified, the "real" working class in capitalism can only consist of such workers.
- As historical research on labour relationships in colonial countries became more sophisticated Marx's thesis was questioned in increasing measure. Several authors have argued that unfree labour is fundamentally compatible with capitalist relations[emphasis added].15 This conclusion is in fact rather obvious. Marx's thesis is based on two dubious assumptions, namely that labour needs to be offered for sale by the person who is the actual bearer and owner of such labour, and that the person who sells the labour sells nothing else.16 Why does this have to be the case? Why can labour not be sold by a party other than the bearer? What prevents the person who provides labour (his or her own or that of somebody else) from offering packages combining the labour with labour means? And why can a slave not perform wage labour for his master at the estate of some third party? Asking these questions brings us very close to the idea that slaves, wage-labourers, share-croppers, and others are in fact an internally differentiated proletariat. The target approach is therefore one that "eliminates as a defining characteristic of the proletarian the payment of wages to the producer."17 The main point appears to be that labour is commodified, although this commodification may take on many different forms.
- ... [I]n his extensive study (elaborating on the work of Robert Miles and others), Moulier Boutang supplies arguments supporting the position that bonded labour is essential for capitalism to function, both in the past and nowadays. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, who have also been inspired by Moulier Boutang, summarize a substantial portion of his theory as follows:
- Slavery and servitude can be perfectly compatible with capitalist production, as mechanisms that limit the mobility of the labor force and block its movements. Slavery, servitude, and all the other guises of the coercive organization of labor — from coolieism in the Pacific and peonage in Latin America to apartheid in South Africa — are all essential elements internal to the process of capitalist development.19 [Emphasis added.]
- Marx called slavery "an anomaly opposite the bourgeois system itself," which is "possible at individual points within the bourgeois system of production," but "only because it does not exist at other points."20 If Moulier Boutang and others are right, then Marx is mistaken here. In this case, "free" wage labour would not be the favoured labour relationship under capitalism, but only one of several options. Capitalists would always have a certain choice how they wished to mobilize labour-power. And bonded labour would under many circumstances remain an alternative. (Marcel van der Linden, "Labour History as the History of Multitudes", Labour/Le Travail, 52, Fall 2003, 235-244)
I'm sure MrV and Improper will be surprised to find themselves agreeing with Marx, but there it is. Grant65 | Talk 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget that we've been talking explicitly about "free market" capitalism. In a free market, there is no force or fraud. In a free market, each individual is free to sell his goods or labor. Stealing goods or labor is not free market. Improper Bostonian 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Grant65 for actually providing sources. Let me pointout that Improper bostoinian is stillmaking assertions without providing any sources. By the way, note that s/he has changed his/her point. Before, it was a question of what determines prices. Improper Bostonian still has notprovided a source to back up his/her original point. Now s/he is making another point, that there is no force or fraud in free market capitalism. Again, what is your sources? By the way, by specifying "free market capitalism" Improper Bostonian is implying that there are other kinds of capitalisms. Again, I would like a source. No, Improper Bostonian, I do not just want to know what you think, because just what you think isn't going to go into the article any more than just what I think. Whose point of view are you expressing, and What is yout verifiable source? We should always be asking these two questions because the relate to our core NPOV and NOR, Verifiability policies. If you cannot answer these two questions, Improper Bostonian, I have to wonder whether you are pushing your personal POV or just BSing and wasting our time. I hope not. I want to take you in good faith. That is why, even though you did not answer my question the first time, I am repeating them again now to give you another chance. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone who says slavery is compatible with capitalism is not referring to free market capitalism, but something else. The most common definition of capitalism refers to a largely free market situation.
Improper Bostonian 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- We are going round in circles. Just to recap: the article is about capitalism, not "free market capitalism". In any case, societies with unfree labour almost always are "largely free markets", to use your phrase. I have shown that some historians regard unfree labor as compatible with, even essential to, capitalism in many contexts.
Grant65 |
Talk 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we are going in circles. Grant65, what does that crank's theory about capitalism "needing" unfree labor have to with the definition of capitalism that's going into this article? It already describes capitalism as having mostly private ownership and a mostly free market. So you know an instance of a market not totally free. Is there a relevant point you want to make? MrVoluntarist 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- We are going round in circles. Just to recap: the article is about capitalism, not "free market capitalism". In any case, societies with unfree labour almost always are "largely free markets", to use your phrase. I have shown that some historians regard unfree labor as compatible with, even essential to, capitalism in many contexts.
Grant65 |
Talk 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've made my point. Time has not improved your manners, Mr V. Grant65 | Talk 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so you agree your posts say nothing about what should be changed in the intro definition. Great. Moving on.
MrVoluntarist 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the whole talk page was devoted to the intro. My bad.
Grant65 |
Talk 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Were you aware what this topic was about? Scroll up: "In my oppinion, when capitalism says "private ownership of MOP", it means that MOP is in the hands of any and all humans. Any economic system that makes use of unfree labor cannot be classified as a true laisez faire capitalism." MrVoluntarist 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that the whole talk page was devoted to the intro. My bad.
Grant65 |
Talk 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, unfree labour is perfectly compatable with a free market, it's called debt-bondage, or debt slavery, which is a very old institution, a great many peasants and sharecroppers find themselves subject to it even as we speak today. Also, illeal immigrants are frequently subjected to debt-bondage, as a freely entered into choice...te tum te tum....-- Red Deathy 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point, Red Deathy. Someone who irresponsibly runs up a credit card bill they can't afford to pay and is stuck paying interest is equivalent to someone who was kidnapped and forced to work at one specific job his whole life. A lot of people aren't aware of that.
MrVoluntarist 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that was flippancy, but to be clear, my reference to illegal imigants was that often their traffickers charge them a transportation fee they can't reach and then tell them they have to work it off in their sweatshop. Debt slaves in the modern and ancient world were often 'forced' into debt, as a deliberate practice of creating a bonded slave. It is not the same as someone compelled through credit card bills. Peasants, often with highly restricted access to cash find that debt bondage is forced on them by big landowners, etc. All part and parcel of free market economics.--
Red Deathy 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Another great point, Red Deathy. Defrauding people into a "debt" they "have to" pay off in a sweatshop is a quite integral part of capitalism, without which no capitalist economy could persist as such. I'm sorry about my earlier error -- no prominent writer has ever referred to people trapped in credit card debt as "debt slaves".
MrVoluntarist 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say integral, I said compatable, and perfectly free market. Put another way, it's like the central problem of
King Lear in a perfectly voluntary market someone can sign a contract to sell themselves into slavery, but such a contract invalidates the very premise on which it is signed: the continued free will of the individual. Yet to invalidate the contract would be to violate the sovereignty of free contract. I was just making a theoretical point that you can have slavery without violating amrket norms.--
Red Deathy 14:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- You said "part and parcel" of a free market. That means it goes hand-in-hand, i.e., an integral, always-there part. Perhaps you meant "pot and possle" (a pot and possle, whatever that is, being non-integral parts of the kitchen) and mistakenly added the r's, since Yorkshire people don't pronounce them? j/k But more seriously, if you're trying to bring up the "slavery paradox", that's not going to cut at lot of ice with me, since I don't see it as contradictory. The contract simply says that, in exchange for some good, the "slave" will henceforth work for the "owner", with the exception of things that invalidate the original consideration given. The "slave" had sovereignty on making the contract, and the terms are still enforced. The "slave" still has free will; it's just that certain "owner" rights will be enforced against him should he try to violate them. But that's getting pretty tangential. MrVoluntarist 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't say integral, I said compatable, and perfectly free market. Put another way, it's like the central problem of
King Lear in a perfectly voluntary market someone can sign a contract to sell themselves into slavery, but such a contract invalidates the very premise on which it is signed: the continued free will of the individual. Yet to invalidate the contract would be to violate the sovereignty of free contract. I was just making a theoretical point that you can have slavery without violating amrket norms.--
Red Deathy 14:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Another great point, Red Deathy. Defrauding people into a "debt" they "have to" pay off in a sweatshop is a quite integral part of capitalism, without which no capitalist economy could persist as such. I'm sorry about my earlier error -- no prominent writer has ever referred to people trapped in credit card debt as "debt slaves".
MrVoluntarist 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that was flippancy, but to be clear, my reference to illegal imigants was that often their traffickers charge them a transportation fee they can't reach and then tell them they have to work it off in their sweatshop. Debt slaves in the modern and ancient world were often 'forced' into debt, as a deliberate practice of creating a bonded slave. It is not the same as someone compelled through credit card bills. Peasants, often with highly restricted access to cash find that debt bondage is forced on them by big landowners, etc. All part and parcel of free market economics.--
Red Deathy 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I havn't added my two cents for a while. here goes: Capitalism is the system that invariably and spontaneously forms among free people. If half the population in a given country are truly free, and the other half isn't, the half that is free will freely engage in commerce among themselves, giving rise to a free market. But that free market cannot free the other half that is unfree. People give rise to freedom. Freedom is a belief that we are all born equal, and that we have certain inalienable rights. A free market will not give rise to free people. But free people will give rise to a free market. Dullfig 07:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Invariably? Not South Sea Islanders, nor Romans. But, 1) Marklet and Capitalism are not synonyms. 2)markets do arise wherever there is scarcity, create abundance and market behaviour begins to vanish (see South Sea Islanders, or Marshall Sahlins passim. IMNSHO. -- Red Deathy 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)