4 ms·

> If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• supremesaboteur 9y ago
  If the employer created a famine to help recruit cheap labour, I agree, there is no consent
  • ue_ 9y ago
    Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual relationship, and at the very least it is exploitative, just as a prostitute who must sell herself on the street to make ends meet is being exploited - not by any particular person, but by the system perpetuated by the individuals who force her to sell herself in this way. When the only alternative is starving, I'm afraid to say that it's not consent when someone agrees not to starve.
    • supremesaboteur 9y ago
      Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly
      • ue_ 9y ago
        > Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them. >In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter. The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.
        • supremesaboteur 9y ago
          > but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus This surplus is profit, which is the motivation for setting up businesses. Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk > They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. This is already allowed in a capitalist society > They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them Disagree. The labourers own their labour and the owners own the product > In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter Again, in slavery you do not own your labour. So the surplus of your wages ( or time ) cannot be invested, or used to create capital > The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism. What does this even mean ? > You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports Without property ( which ultimately boils down to the right to enjoy the fruits of one's labour ) there is no good reason to perform the unenviable job we call "work" To me, it looks like the system you are proposing would be very much like slavery