Is capitalism naturally coercive?

[Solaray]

No. Not unles it's 100% Laissez Faire, and even then, you could still hypothetically survive without a job. Live off the land a whatnot. But let's see that it doesn't come to that.

[The Scientific States]

Food stamps, welfare etc.

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

If you refuse to work, you will likely become eligible for food stamps and welfare.

[Blasveck]

One man's coercion is another man's free will to do as he pleases.

[United Marxist Nations]

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

If you refuse to work, you will likely become eligible for food stamps and welfare.

And how many can you get onto that before such a program becomes unstable? Hmm? Also, you usually do have to work for welfare, it was built into the original law. And, as I said, not at all fucking substantial.

[The Scientific States]

If you refuse to work, you will likely become eligible for food stamps and welfare.

And how many can you get onto that before such a program becomes unstable? Hmm? Also, you usually do have to work for welfare, it was built into the original law. And, as I said, not at all fucking substantial.

It's not. But, explain to me how other systems aren't somewhat coercive.

[Ponderosa]

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 don't think this is debated as often as you think it is.

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

No.

[Alyakia]

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 existing companies already own all the generation and delivery infrastructure for energy in the country. if a small company breaks this monopoly i will lay down my arms and cry "hail capital!". feel free to quote me on this.

incidentally, i have choice but to buy from these organizations because i am extremely limited in choice (changing isn't cheap, coverage isn't universal) and i'll, uh, die if i don't. this is totally 100% non-coercive and voluntary, of course.

[Tubbsalot]

Of course it is. The system compels you to work or die. What is your definition of coercion, if that doesn't qualify? Was the old Roman fire service just an innocent voluntary exchange of goods for services?

Whether that's a bad thing is another matter.

[The Liberated Territories]

So, what's your alternative?

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

Even love is a resource. Certainly, I believe that one's love could be exhausted, and humans tendency to reason would eventually see altruism as a zero sum gain in the long run. (Being the opportunistic pricks we are).

In fact, I would garner so much as to say that human nature is built around gaining resources, as the ability to gather and control resources was a manner of survival in the wild.

[Margno]

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

That can't happen in a capitalist society?

Sure it can, that's what the nonprofit sector does. But capitalism is not that.

[United Marxist Nations]

And how many can you get onto that before such a program becomes unstable? Hmm? Also, you usually do have to work for welfare, it was built into the original law. And, as I said, not at all fucking substantial.

It's not. But, explain to me how other systems aren't somewhat coercive.

Under socialism, you work for your own benefit, not the benefit of some factory owner.

[The Scientific States]

It's not. But, explain to me how other systems aren't somewhat coercive.

Under socialism, you work for your own benefit, not the benefit of some factory owner.

If you don't work under socialism, what happens? Under socialism, wouldn't everyone choose not to work, if they didn't have to?

[The Scientific States]

That can't happen in a capitalist society?

Sure it can, that's what the nonprofit sector does. But capitalism is not that.

A world without money is ludicrous. Even in such a world, coerciveness would still exist.

[United Marxist Nations]

Under socialism, you work for your own benefit, not the benefit of some factory owner.

If you don't work under socialism, what happens? Under socialism, wouldn't everyone choose not to work, if they didn't have to?

Of course they must work, because you are working for your own benefit.

[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 don't think this is debated as often as you think it is.

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

No.

I just heard a complaint somewhat similar to it a while ago, and doesn't the whole leftist opposition to capitalism begin with the idea that it is coercive in the first place?

[The Scientific States]

If you don't work under socialism, what happens? Under socialism, wouldn't everyone choose not to work, if they didn't have to?

Of course they must work, because you are working for your own benefit.

Elaborate.

[Stovokor]

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.

I know, you should have read, I said I couldn't offer a better suggestion besides that.

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.

This is true only in regulated economies, early 1900s america is a prime example as to why what you're suggesting couldn't possibly work. Though large corporations may not last for ever, if unregulated their first responsibility is monopolization of their respected market and all connected markets.

[United Marxist Nations]

Of course they must work, because you are working for your own benefit.

Elaborate.

In socialism, you receive the fruits of your labor; therefore, if you do not labor, you cannot receive the fruits of your labor.

[Tubbsalot]

Under socialism, you work for your own benefit, not the benefit of some factory owner.

Under socialism you work for everyone's benefit, not just your own.

[Ponderosa]

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?

That's natural law coercing you, not a capitalist. To acquire food, clean water, shelter, etc, someone has to do some work. This doesn't necessarily have to be the recipient of said products, but someone has to do it. If nobody works, everyone will starve. It doesn't matter which economic system you live under. Natural laws apply everywhere.

[United Marxist Nations]

Under socialism, you work for your own benefit, not the benefit of some factory owner.

Under socialism you work for everyone's benefit, not just your own.

Which, by very nature, leads to your own benefit.

[The Scientific States]

Elaborate.

In socialism, you receive the fruits of your labor; therefore, if you do not labor, you cannot receive the fruits of your labor.

I'm aware that you think this, but Im asking you as to why that's the case under socialism.

[United Marxist Nations]

In socialism, you receive the fruits of your labor; therefore, if you do not labor, you cannot receive the fruits of your labor.

I'm aware that you think this, but Im asking you as to why that's the case under socialism.

State and Revolution (1917), and various other books about what a socialist state would be.

[Solaray]

Elaborate.

In socialism, you receive the fruits of your labor; therefore, if you do not labor, you cannot receive the fruits of your labor.

That seems like unskilled people would be screwed then. If they can't make shit they don't get shit?

[Geilinor]

In socialism, you receive the fruits of your labor; therefore, if you do not labor, you cannot receive the fruits of your labor.

I'm aware that you think this, but Im asking you as to why that's the case under socialism.

Everyone does not receive exactly the same pay in socialism. That isn't the point.