Dak
mentat
Well there's a ton in that post where we can agree, or at least room for expansion rather than walls.
Capitalism (for the purposes of discussion, I'm referring to the "pure form", not the reality) offers the opportunity, not guarantee, that if one possesses talent and/or ideas, that one will have the opportunity to pursue offering the product/service to the public, and that the public will determine the value, and reward in kind: well if valued and poorly if not. However, opportunity is not risk free, even in a "pure" ideal. That some do not or will not consider the risk worth the return, or that some ideas(and thusly products/services) necessarily require someone to be employed rather than an employee does not automatically entail exploitation. If I have decided the exchange of risk for security, or transaction costs as a freelancer vs employee, is worth the difference in wages vs whatever margin of profit is on my product - in a free (even if relatively) environment - there has been no exploitation.
Now, to history and/or the current situation: Certainly there is and has been exploitation, but not because of any labor theory of value! The exploitation is in the form of legal restriction, which keeps potential self or general employers on the sideline, mitigating "creative destruction", in favor of "entrenched interests", and yes big industry/finance/"capital" etc. is certainly ongoingly guilty of rigging the legal system in their favor. However, "nature finds a way", or maybe in keeping with the nature of an economic discussion, "capital" finds a way. "Barriers to entry" are ever increasing to prevent competition, because competition requires that business constantly serve the public rather than fleece them (whether them includes employees or customers). However, even with significant restrictions we see "new" money combat "old". Owning the means of production is challenged when the means of production, or distribution become obsolete (which can be via ideas or technology), this is the primary manner of challenge in a mixed economy, which makes up essentially every economy now.
Rentseeking, license/certification defacto cartelization, etc. are the origination of "wage-slaves", not any sort of value theory. Now I know, as I admitted above, that big business will certainly pursue these things. However, they are aided by misguided public opinion that these things are in the public interest. In every case, legal protections ostensibly in the interest of the public are merely creating a fox-and-henhouse situation or worse.
"Free marketers" do not disagree that the current real and historical real model of capitalism has rested on exploitation, they merely disagree where the root/nature of the exploitation lies, and will also claim this until the end(of the state).
Capitalism (for the purposes of discussion, I'm referring to the "pure form", not the reality) offers the opportunity, not guarantee, that if one possesses talent and/or ideas, that one will have the opportunity to pursue offering the product/service to the public, and that the public will determine the value, and reward in kind: well if valued and poorly if not. However, opportunity is not risk free, even in a "pure" ideal. That some do not or will not consider the risk worth the return, or that some ideas(and thusly products/services) necessarily require someone to be employed rather than an employee does not automatically entail exploitation. If I have decided the exchange of risk for security, or transaction costs as a freelancer vs employee, is worth the difference in wages vs whatever margin of profit is on my product - in a free (even if relatively) environment - there has been no exploitation.
Now, to history and/or the current situation: Certainly there is and has been exploitation, but not because of any labor theory of value! The exploitation is in the form of legal restriction, which keeps potential self or general employers on the sideline, mitigating "creative destruction", in favor of "entrenched interests", and yes big industry/finance/"capital" etc. is certainly ongoingly guilty of rigging the legal system in their favor. However, "nature finds a way", or maybe in keeping with the nature of an economic discussion, "capital" finds a way. "Barriers to entry" are ever increasing to prevent competition, because competition requires that business constantly serve the public rather than fleece them (whether them includes employees or customers). However, even with significant restrictions we see "new" money combat "old". Owning the means of production is challenged when the means of production, or distribution become obsolete (which can be via ideas or technology), this is the primary manner of challenge in a mixed economy, which makes up essentially every economy now.
Rentseeking, license/certification defacto cartelization, etc. are the origination of "wage-slaves", not any sort of value theory. Now I know, as I admitted above, that big business will certainly pursue these things. However, they are aided by misguided public opinion that these things are in the public interest. In every case, legal protections ostensibly in the interest of the public are merely creating a fox-and-henhouse situation or worse.
"Free marketers" do not disagree that the current real and historical real model of capitalism has rested on exploitation, they merely disagree where the root/nature of the exploitation lies, and will also claim this until the end(of the state).
