Is capitalism naturally coercive?

[The Liberated Territories]

Perhaps the most often debated topic between the left and the right (economically speaking) is the idea that capitalism is naturally coercive, and that under a capitalist system people cannot fully truly be free, or have no choices in the terms of their conditions made in the system.

I personally do not believe this. Voluntarily exchanging some of your labor for money with ascribed value (an agreement often made in capitalism) is not coercive as the party who sacrifices their labor voluntarily accepts the demands of their employer, and they have the freedom to change their employer and thus, the agreement, become self reliant, or become the employer themselves. Even if capitalism is seen as coercive because it is hierarchal, one must realize that even if the richest elites still must rely on both the discriminating whims of their workforce, while at the same time having to keep up with market forces (the very demands of the workers who work for them!)

So what say ye, denizens of Nationstates. Is capitalism naturally coercive?

[The Scientific States]

No, it's not.

[The Liberated Territories]

No, it's not.

Why not? To play devils advocate - couldn't having no option but to work or starve in a capitalist system qualify as coercion?

[Kelinfort]

No, it's not.

Why not? To play devils advocate - couldn't having no option but to work or starve in a capitalist system qualify as coercion?

But you're offering an extreme capitalist society. Most capitalist nations aren't Laissez Faire or free market.

[The Scientific States]

No, it's not.

Why not? To play devils advocate - couldn't having no option but to work or starve in a capitalist system qualify as coercion?

In a Laissez Faire system, it is coercive. However, in a mixed market economy, with a social safety net, not working is not good, however, you won't starve or anything.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why not? To play devils advocate - couldn't having no option but to work or starve in a capitalist system qualify as coercion?

But you're offering an extreme capitalist society. Most capitalist nations aren't Laissez Faire or free market.

Where am I advocating a laissez faire system in my post?

[Stovokor]

No, it's not.

Sociology would tend to disagree

[The Union of the West]

Capitalism is coercive, but it's the best thing we've got. (Unless we can somehow work out anarchism)

[Kelinfort]

But you're offering an extreme capitalist society. Most capitalist nations aren't Laissez Faire or free market.

Where am I advocating a laissez faire system in my post?

I meant the devil's advocate you portray; such coercion would only occur in a truly Laissez Faire capitalist economy.

[The Scientific States]

No, it's not.

Sociology would tend to disagree

Elaborate, or at the very least, back up your claim with a source.

[Avenio]

Scarcity is the source of coercion, not capitalism. All systems that operate under scarcity parameters have to be coercive. Which isn't to say that capitalism doesn't exacerbate coersion - it most certainly does, since it's a non-optimal distributor of resources - but asking such is missing the point as to why coercion exists.

[The Liberated Territories]

Where am I advocating a laissez faire system in my post?

I meant the devil's advocate you portray; such coercion would only occur in a truly Laissez Faire capitalist economy.

How do you know? Certainly, in a neo-liberal capitalist economy with the bare minimum of welfare and such, people could not rack up enough debt to only afford to pay their taxes and get by, but not to purchase food?

[The Scientific States]

I meant the devil's advocate you portray; such coercion would only occur in a truly Laissez Faire capitalist economy.

How do you know? Certainly, in a neo-liberal capitalist economy with the bare minimum of welfare and such, people could not rack up enough debt to only afford to pay their taxes and get by, but not to purchase food?

A capitalist society doesn't have to be neo liberal or Laissez Faire.

[Siaos]

Scarcity is the source of coercion, not capitalism. All systems that operate under scarcity parameters have to be coercive. Which isn't to say that capitalism doesn't exacerbate coersion - it most certainly does, since it's a non-optimal distributor of resources - but asking such is missing the point as to why coercion exists.

Without some amount of coercion, society would collapse. Until we can form a perfect society with no scarcity, some amount coercion will be needed to keep people working and society running smoothly.

[The Liberated Territories]

How do you know? Certainly, in a neo-liberal capitalist economy with the bare minimum of welfare and such, people could not rack up enough debt to only afford to pay their taxes and get by, but not to purchase food?

A capitalist society doesn't have to be neo liberal or Laissez Faire.

Even in the most liberal of democracies, food is not socialized.

[Stovokor]

Perhaps the most often debated topic between the left and the right (economically speaking) is the idea that capitalism is naturally coercive, and that under a capitalist system people cannot fully truly be free, or have no choices in the terms of their conditions made in the system.

I personally do not believe this. Voluntarily exchanging some of your labor for money with ascribed value (an agreement often made in capitalism) is not coercive as the party who sacrifices their labor voluntarily accepts the demands of their employer, and they have the freedom to change their employer and thus, the agreement, become self reliant, or become the employer themselves. Even if capitalism is seen as coercive because it is hierarchal, one must realize that even if the richest elites still must rely on both the discriminating whims of their workforce, while at the same time having to keep up with market forces (the very demands of the workers who work for them!)

So what say ye, denizens of Nationstates. Is capitalism naturally coercive?

To respond to you OP, ultimately yes. capitalism as an economic system is ultimately harmful to the human condition, a major issue with capitalism is that it tends to dehumanize it's working class, and ultimately cases inequality, in any cases not because someone worked harder but simply because of status and connections to wealth. If unregulated, capitalism has the habit of ultimately destroying competition and results in the creation of a mega-corporations and economic blocs, as well as a trans-national class that can be considered the modern power elite.

However, with that said, I cannot in good faith suggest anything better, simply a highly regulated capitalistic economy with socially funded programs.

[The Scientific States]

A capitalist society doesn't have to be neo liberal or Laissez Faire.

Even in the most liberal of democracies, food is not socialized.

Food stamps, welfare etc.

[The Scientific States]

Perhaps the most often debated topic between the left and the right (economically speaking) is the idea that capitalism is naturally coercive, and that under a capitalist system people cannot fully truly be free, or have no choices in the terms of their conditions made in the system.

I personally do not believe this. Voluntarily exchanging some of your labor for money with ascribed value (an agreement often made in capitalism) is not coercive as the party who sacrifices their labor voluntarily accepts the demands of their employer, and they have the freedom to change their employer and thus, the agreement, become self reliant, or become the employer themselves. Even if capitalism is seen as coercive because it is hierarchal, one must realize that even if the richest elites still must rely on both the discriminating whims of their workforce, while at the same time having to keep up with market forces (the very demands of the workers who work for them!)

So what say ye, denizens of Nationstates. Is capitalism naturally coercive?

To respond to you OP, ultimately yes. capitalism as an economic system is ultimately harmful to the human condition, a major issue with capitalism is that it tends to dehumanize it's working class, and ultimately cases inequality, in any cases not because someone worked harder but simply because of status and connections to wealth. If unregulated, capitalism has the habit of ultimately destroying competition and results in the creation of a mega-corporations and economic blocs, as well as a trans-national class that can be considered the modern power elite.

However, with that said, I cannot in good faith suggest anything better, simply a highly regulated capitalistic economy with socially funded programs.

That's still capitalism.

[Margno]

At its simplest, trade is saying, "I will help you in this way if and only if you do what I want." So ya, it's coercive as fuck.

[The Scientific States]

At its simplest, trade says, "I will help you in this way if and only if you do what I want." So ya, it's coercive as fuck.

So, what's your alternative?

[Margno]

At its simplest, trade says, "I will help you in this way if and only if you do what I want." So ya, it's coercive as fuck.

So, what's your alternative?

Do good things for people, and don't ask for anything in return.

[United Marxist Nations]

Even in the most liberal of democracies, food is not socialized.

Food stamps, welfare etc.

Which only means a limited amount aren't coerced, and those programs don't always provide a substantial amount.

[The Liberated Territories]

Perhaps the most often debated topic between the left and the right (economically speaking) is the idea that capitalism is naturally coercive, and that under a capitalist system people cannot fully truly be free, or have no choices in the terms of their conditions made in the system.

I personally do not believe this. Voluntarily exchanging some of your labor for money with ascribed value (an agreement often made in capitalism) is not coercive as the party who sacrifices their labor voluntarily accepts the demands of their employer, and they have the freedom to change their employer and thus, the agreement, become self reliant, or become the employer themselves. Even if capitalism is seen as coercive because it is hierarchal, one must realize that even if the richest elites still must rely on both the discriminating whims of their workforce, while at the same time having to keep up with market forces (the very demands of the workers who work for them!)

So what say ye, denizens of Nationstates. Is capitalism naturally coercive?

To respond to you OP, ultimately yes. capitalism as an economic system is ultimately harmful to the human condition, a major issue with capitalism is that it tends to dehumanize it's working class, and ultimately cases inequality, in any cases not because someone worked harder but simply because of status and connections to wealth. If unregulated, capitalism has the habit of ultimately destroying competition and results in the creation of a mega-corporations and economic blocs, as well as a trans-national class that can be considered the modern power elite.

However, with that said, I cannot in good faith suggest anything better, simply a highly regulated capitalistic economy with socially funded programs.

Couldn't monopolies not naturally break themselves up after enough time/pressure? For even the largest corporation it takes in a large pool of resources to sustain itself, and even a small business that is more resourceful could outcompete a large monopoly simply due to the fact that small businesses can be more flexible. Similar to governments, I believe.

[The Scientific States]

So, what's your alternative?

Do good things for people, and don't ask for anything in return.

That can't happen in a capitalist society?

[United Marxist Nations]

At its simplest, trade says, "I will help you in this way if and only if you do what I want." So ya, it's coercive as fuck.

So, what's your alternative?

The socialization of all parts and facets of the economy.