6 ms·

I would only attribute 3) & 4) to capitalism. 1) is a political right but capitalism is an economic system so it doesn’t really say anything about that. 5) is

by tored 5y ago

I would only attribute 3) & 4) to capitalism. 1) is a political right but capitalism is an economic system so it doesn’t really say anything about that. 5) is market economy and with 2) you get a free market economy

yucky 5y ago
There is no provision capitalism for forbidding a laborer from selling their labor to a different employer. That concept does not even exist in capitalism.
- tored 5y ago
  Correct, because capitalism is an economic system, it is perfectly possible to run capitalism under a harsh dictatorship or a liberal democracy for that matter, thus laborer selling their labor to a different employer can either be allowed or disallowed, hence capitalism can never guarantee any economic freedom as previously claimed.
  - yucky 5y ago
    Communism is an economic system too, so I suppose one could acquire capital and hire laborers under a communist system, using this logic?
    - tored 5y ago
      No, communism is a political system that normally has the economic system of planned economy, thus when you see a comparison between capitalism vs communism it is an apples to oranges comparison. Under Soviet communism you couldn’t do what you propose but definitely under current Chinese communism.
      - yucky 5y ago
        >but definitely under current Chinese communism. The Chinese system is not communist, it began the transition to state capitalism decades ago.[1][2][3] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communist-to-capitalist-2015-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communis... [2] https://newpol.org/china-bureaucratic-communism-bureaucratic-capitalism/ https://newpol.org/china-bureaucratic-communism-bureaucratic... [3] https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Hirson_USCC%20Testimony_FINAL.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Hirson_USCC%20Testi...
        tored 5y ago
        That is a question of definition I guess, the state is controlled by a single party, the communist party and intertwined with the military, typical for communist system. But regardless how you want to define China, it yet proves that capitalism by itself does not guarantee any freedoms at all. There are other asian examples of this, like Singapore, Taiwan & South Korea.
- diob 5y ago
  And there's no provision in capitalism for forbidding "forbidding a laborer from selling their labor to a different employer". Literally all capitalism is: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership and control of the means of production and their operation for profit." Turns out if someone owns enough capital, they can do exactly what you claim is impossible in capitalism.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >Turns out if someone owns enough capital, they can do exactly what you claim is impossible in capitalism. The only legal way to do that is if a laborer signs a non-compete agreement. These didn't, and that's why it's not enforceable.
    - diob 5y ago
      Ah, so it is possible in capitalism. Crazy how you've turned on a dime. And I can guarantee you it isn't the only legal way. How much leverage by the way do you think a worker has in capitalism to _not_ sign a non compete? Are they not fairly standard in industries? Why do you think that is? Who does it benefit?
      - yucky 5y ago
        >Ah, so it is possible in capitalism. No, you misread. What the judge tried to do (and failed) is not possible in Capitalism. You can't force an employee to not work at a competitor. An employee who signs a non-compete agreement is not being forced to not work for a competitor. Consent is a thing. As an analogy, you're saying if someone consents to sex, then rape is allowed as well.
        diob 5y ago
        I did not misread, I was responding to the non compete. It is literally possible. The judge thing, meh, it's kind of crazy that they still barred them from working for a while. What the fuck are you even trying to say about consent? Just to humor you, forced coercion isn't consent. Most don't have the means to say no to a non compete. As a real analogy, it's like you as a boss asking a subordinate who needs a job to have sex with you. They reluctantly say yes, is that consent? Maybe try and answer my questions instead of redirecting in a weird way. How much leverage by the way do you think a worker has in capitalism to _not_ sign a non compete? Are they not fairly standard in industries? Why do you think that is? Who does it benefit?

by tored 5y ago

yucky 5y ago

There is no provision capitalism for forbidding a laborer from selling their labor to a different employer. That concept does not even exist in capitalism.

tored 5y ago
Correct, because capitalism is an economic system, it is perfectly possible to run capitalism under a harsh dictatorship or a liberal democracy for that matter, thus laborer selling their labor to a different employer can either be allowed or disallowed, hence capitalism can never guarantee any economic freedom as previously claimed.
- yucky 5y ago
  Communism is an economic system too, so I suppose one could acquire capital and hire laborers under a communist system, using this logic?
  - tored 5y ago
    No, communism is a political system that normally has the economic system of planned economy, thus when you see a comparison between capitalism vs communism it is an apples to oranges comparison. Under Soviet communism you couldn’t do what you propose but definitely under current Chinese communism.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >but definitely under current Chinese communism. The Chinese system is not communist, it began the transition to state capitalism decades ago.[1][2][3] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communist-to-capitalist-2015-10?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communis... [2] https://newpol.org/china-bureaucratic-communism-bureaucratic-capitalism/ https://newpol.org/china-bureaucratic-communism-bureaucratic... [3] https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Hirson_USCC%20Testimony_FINAL.pdf https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Hirson_USCC%20Testi...
      - tored 5y ago
        That is a question of definition I guess, the state is controlled by a single party, the communist party and intertwined with the military, typical for communist system. But regardless how you want to define China, it yet proves that capitalism by itself does not guarantee any freedoms at all. There are other asian examples of this, like Singapore, Taiwan & South Korea.
diob 5y ago
And there's no provision in capitalism for forbidding "forbidding a laborer from selling their labor to a different employer". Literally all capitalism is: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership and control of the means of production and their operation for profit." Turns out if someone owns enough capital, they can do exactly what you claim is impossible in capitalism.
- yucky 5y ago
  >Turns out if someone owns enough capital, they can do exactly what you claim is impossible in capitalism. The only legal way to do that is if a laborer signs a non-compete agreement. These didn't, and that's why it's not enforceable.
  - diob 5y ago
    Ah, so it is possible in capitalism. Crazy how you've turned on a dime. And I can guarantee you it isn't the only legal way. How much leverage by the way do you think a worker has in capitalism to _not_ sign a non compete? Are they not fairly standard in industries? Why do you think that is? Who does it benefit?
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Ah, so it is possible in capitalism. No, you misread. What the judge tried to do (and failed) is not possible in Capitalism. You can't force an employee to not work at a competitor. An employee who signs a non-compete agreement is not being forced to not work for a competitor. Consent is a thing. As an analogy, you're saying if someone consents to sex, then rape is allowed as well.
      - diob 5y ago
        I did not misread, I was responding to the non compete. It is literally possible. The judge thing, meh, it's kind of crazy that they still barred them from working for a while. What the fuck are you even trying to say about consent? Just to humor you, forced coercion isn't consent. Most don't have the means to say no to a non compete. As a real analogy, it's like you as a boss asking a subordinate who needs a job to have sex with you. They reluctantly say yes, is that consent? Maybe try and answer my questions instead of redirecting in a weird way. How much leverage by the way do you think a worker has in capitalism to _not_ sign a non compete? Are they not fairly standard in industries? Why do you think that is? Who does it benefit?