7 ms·
You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in t
by danbruc 10y ago
You, on the other hand, have the choice between serving your employer, serving other members of society, serving a master as a voluntary slave, or foraging in the wilderness.
Theoretically yes, but in practice you might quickly end up against all kinds of constraints, especially if you got a bad start.
But if you give your effort to them, they can help save you from suffering the world on your own.
This of course works both ways, the workers are saving the capitalist from suffering by giving them shares of the goods they produce. There is no reason the capitalist should profit from this arrangement more than the workers.
- microcolonel 10y agoIf the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. If you take it by force, he no longer has any reason to operate it. Why should the capitalist suffer for free, and the worker destroy the capitalist's work for no gain?
- danbruc 10y agoI am probably misunderstanding what you want to say, but I never said that the capitalist should not be compensated for his work or the workers should destroy any work.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago>If the capitalist does not offer compensation at a profit, then there is no reason for the capital. Altruism is a reason. There's no reason founded on greed; and the rich person would then need to provide productive labour.