QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

I posted this answer:

The question does not define “voluntary.” For reasons that will become evident shortly, we must be clear on what we mean by “voluntary.” I take the questioner’s use of the term “voluntary” to refer to the political/economic/social context--that is, to the means by which people deal with each other.

Under capitalism, each individual is free to act on his own judgement without physically coercive interference from other human beings. This principle applies equally to people as private citizens and to people acting in the capacity of government officials. The moral principle of inalienable individual rights sanctions that freedom, while also defining the limits of that freedom--the limit being the same rights of others. When we speak of voluntarism in the political/economic/social context, we speak of the interaction among individuals. Let me repeat. Voluntary means non-coercive relationships between consenting human beings. It refers to social relationships, and only social relationships.

This understanding has to be stressed, because socialists subvert the term “voluntary” in order to justify socialism’s statist ambitions. Consider the following quotes straight from the horses’ mouths. Pay special attention to the highlighted and italicized text, all of which are my emphasis:

From Socialism 101

Capitalism is alienating - "Entfremdung."

Marx understood that work can be the source of our greatest joy, but that capitalism has turned it into something we all detest. Everyone hates Mondays. Monday is the day we lose the freedom of the weekend to start working. But why do people hate Mondays? Why don't people enjoy their work? Essentially, modern work has us do one thing all day, but alienates us from what we believe we could ideally contribute to society. Someone who might want to write symphonies may have to work in a factory, because they need to earn money in order to afford food and housing. 

But real heart of the matter, that Marx would tell you, is that it is because the system (capitalism) forces those conditions upon you. In order to succeed in capitalism, it often pays off to behave greedily, and many situations arise where to not behave greedily is to fall behind and risk losing. And to lose in capitalism is to be made a debt slave, if not then to be homeless, broken, hungry, and in a word, oppressed. [sic]

From The Communist Manifesto, Marxist.org

[The] proletariat [is] the class of modern wage labourers—a class of people who have no other way of living—[and] are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. [Engels, 1888 English edition]

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

From Centralization and Socialism by George Fitzhugh, a "leading pro-slavery intellectual[5]". June 1856.

It is a notorious statistical fact, that free laborers generally throughout the world are suffering physical discomfort and destitution. It is equally notorious that slaves in all ages and countries have had their physical wants well supplied. Such suffering and destitution as the free laboring class now endure must injuriously affect their moral condition, and the statistics of crime everywhere attest the truth of their theory. Man emancipated from human masters, and remitted to the unfeeling despotism of capital, has, so far, lost in the exchange, both physically and morally. 

From See Robert L. Heilbroner What Is Socialism? Page 344:

Socialists have always railed against the invidious striving of the market that forces individuals to subordinate their full personalities to narrow economic roles. Moreover, it is not only the motivations of capitalists that are at stake—perhaps, under socialism, managers could be trained to obey price signals simply as a guide to steering their nationalized enterprises, with no thought of personal profit. The issue is the motivation of working people. For the market mechanism is not merely a means to profit. It is also a means to individual betterment by the maximization of one's income. Without this drive, the mechanism will not work. 

But is the drive for private gain compatible with the goal of socialism? I do not see how it can be. The market system, in order to function, requires attitudes of self-seeking that are in direct conflict with the goal of an "other-oriented" society. If socialism seeks to avoid both the anarchy and alienation of capitalism, it must seek to break the hold of the market, not merely over the economy but over the mind.'

And finally, from this thread, self-described Marxist Leninist David King opens his answer with “No, of course not,” and goes on to explain:

Capitalists like to say that wage labour does not limit freedom because it is “voluntary”, which is ridiculous. Unless of course, voluntary choice consisted two viable possibilities. The choice Capitalism gives the majority is between starvation, poverty, death and selling their labor for the most basic necessities. 

Since workers engage in wage labour because they have no other choice, it essentially proves that wage labour under capitalism is not voluntary. 

All emphasis is mine, except for King’s “no” and “not”. Do you notice a theme here? It is a recurring theme throughout socialist literature.* However spin-doctored, socialism arises largely from a resentment against work and self-responsibility.

What these quotes have in common is not a critique of capitalism. It is a rebellion against nature. Nature does not magically provide the material means of survival, like some Garden of Eden. Life doesn’t provide only “good” options from which to choose, like a toddler's playroom. Jobs, houses, medical care, plentiful easily accessible food, clothing, et al don’t lie around waiting to be picked up. Man’s needs, from food to clothing to shelter and beyond, must be produced from the only thing nature makes available, raw materials. In other words, man must work to live and thrive. This requirement applies not just to “the majority” or to the “wage laborer,” but to every person, whether they choose to start and run a business or “sell their labor” by accepting a job created by the businessperson. Some people may attempt to parasitically live off of the productive work of others, be it as a moocher or a burglar or by enslaving others. But no person can survive on Earth except by someone’s work. When the socialist condemns capitalism for “forcing” people to work to support their lives, it is not capitalism they are condemning. It is nature itself. Socialism is a rebellion against nature, because “work or starve” is not capitalism’s mandate. It is nature’s ultimatum. 

This is why it is absolutely necessary to properly understand what “voluntary” means. In a certain sense, nature’s requirement to work or starve is not “voluntary”—reality is what it is, so we have no choice about our nature as human beings. We human beings have no choice about work, if we want to live. But under capitalism we can count on being free to choose our values, goals, and actions in pursuit of our own well-being. We are free to choose our means of work, according to the options of our personal circumstances and the willingness of others to voluntarily trade with us. We are free to trade with others, whoever is willing. What we can not do is force our choices on others, and others cannot force theirs on us. We cannot force others to provide for us what we ourselves do not produce, nor be forced to provide to others what we do produce. We may hope for a benefactor to willingly support us while we indulge whatever whimsical “ideal” we believe will “contribute to society.” But we can not force someone else to provide us with food and clothing so that we can sit at home and write symphonies. 

All human associations are voluntary under capitalism. Government protects everyone’s right to live and act on his own judgement, so long as his actions don’t involve forcing his judgement on--violating the inalienable rights of--any others. Under capitalism, aggressive (or initiatory) force is banned from human relationships, and people can deal with each other only by voluntary, mutually agreed-upon terms. And by force I mean physical force--the power of a gun, a whip, a fist, or a law, or derivatives thereof such as extortion or fraud. Capitalism permits force only as a defensive mechanism and only against those who initiate force against others—a principle that applies to government as well as to individuals (which is why a free society needs a government-limiting constitution).

Capitalism doesn’t “force” anyone to work to survive and thrive. The laws of nature require that: If you want to live and thrive, you must work. Capitalism merely recognizes nature’s fundamental ultimatum, work or starve, and leaves people free to work, sell, and buy in a market free of coercion, and protects from thieves whatever property you have earned by such methods, on whatever level of productiveness you have achieved it. If you lived alone on a deserted island, you would still face the same choice, work or starve--but without the businesses to provide you the job opportunities to “sell your labor” and without the benefits of trade with others. But you would be free to act to achieve your goals, without anyone there to impede you or steal the product of your labor. Capitalism legally and constitutionally protects that same basic freedom in a social context. The socialist resents nature, and rebels against it in the only way any human being can, by force—by enslaving productive people and seizing the product of their labor in order to “guarantee” what nature does not, a chance to live without effort or without personal responsibility. That’s why socialism as a political/economic/social system always begins with organized armed theft by government. And socialism, properly understood, is not merely so-called “welfare capitalism”—capitalism with a government-run “social safety net.” Socialism goes well beyond forced redistribution of wealth, immoral as that is. Socialism is complete top-down central planning. As the socialist Robert L. Heilbroner honestly acknowledges, central planning is by its nature authoritarian, if not totalitarian, and is incompatible with economic, political, or intellectual freedom, including free markets, freedom of speech, and the other liberties that the open society of capitalism provides. Heilbroner is brutally clear: 

Nor can we wriggle off this hook by asserting that, among its moral commitments, socialism will choose to include the rights of individuals to their Millian liberties. For that celebration of individualism is directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal. 

[A] socialist cake with bourgeois icing [is a] delusion. 

My emphasis. Though the “new” Democratic Socialists try to “wriggle off this hook,” Heilbronner is right: You cannot force socialism’s “collective moral goal” onto an entire society from the top down while simultaneously preserving liberty. Individual rights will always get in the way, so those rights—the “bourgeois icing”—must be wiped out. And anyone who believes it’s “only” your money and property that is at stake is delusional. Intellectual freedom is not possible without economic freedom. In order for government planners to control your life and seize your earned property at will, it must forbid dissent or challenge to the planning authority of the state. Contrary to the delusions of their latest fad, democratic socialism, socialists can tolerate no intellectual opposition. For socialists, warns Heilbroner, “Dissents, disagreements, and departures from norms assume a far more threatening aspect than under bourgeois society, for they hold out the possibility of destroying the very commitment to a moral consensus by which socialist society differs from capitalist.” That’s because the “moral consensus” is imposed by government force whether any individual consents or not.  

It is socialism that is strictly involuntary. Socialism by its very nature cannot countenance the possibility of being voted out of office. Protecting its power is the only way an authoritarian government can work. Unlike a free capitalist government, a socialist government must rule by aggressive governmental force, or the threat thereof. In exchange for “relieving” you of the “alienating” responsibility to support yourself through the “destitution” of your “free labor”, socialism offers the “benefits” enjoyed by the “slaves in all ages and countries.”

Is capitalism voluntary? So long as you respect others’ rights, you are free to pursue your goals. No other human can legally stop you. With voluntarism properly understood, uncorrupted by socialist spin-doctors, the answer is unequivocal: Capitalism is voluntary. 

SUPPLEMENTAL: The following two essays are very helpful in contrasting the fundamentals of socialism and capitalism. Importantly, both authors defend their respective social systems on fundamental moral grounds, where the heart of the conflict between collectivism and individualism lies. Read What is Socialism by Robert L. Heilbroner and What is Capitalism by Ayn Rand. Very clarifying. Whichever side you’re on, you should be fully aware of precisely what you are supporting and what you are opposing.

__________________________________________________________________________

* [Another example of socialism’s rebellion against work and, especially, self-responsibility is the self-described Democratic Socialist Billy Bragg’s The Three Dimensions of Freedom. 

[You can listen to Bragg discuss his whimsical vision in a podcast with Reason’s Nick Gillespie in Billy Bragg Wants Three-Dimensional Freedom. But Can We Afford That?. Reason writes:

In The Three Dimensions of Freedom, Bragg writes, "Freedom has been repackaged as the right to choose, but genuine choice—in housing, in the workplace, at the ballot box—is hard to come by."

[Bragg, a successful musician, harps on the same old socialist narrative: Life is hard. But it doesn’t need to be. Just give me—i.e., the state—power over the economy, and I’ll give you an ideal utopian life--by restricting your rightful freedom, starting with censorship.] 

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Is fascism a capitalist ideology?‘

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

A Socialist Confirms that the Basics of ‘True’ Socialism is Totalitarianism

QUORA *: ‘What makes someone a socialist?'

QUORA: ‘Why has modern capitalism risen in the West?’

QUORA: ‘How do capitalists justify the inequality/high disparity part of a capitalistic society that a socialistic system tends to stop?’

QUORA: 'Can certain forms of capitalism be made to work for the people instead of just the elite?'

QUORA*: ‘Is it fair to claim that capitalism does not create better lives, but simply shifts the suffering somewhere else?’

QUORA: 'Why do people think capitalism is ethical?'

QUORA: ‘Is it fair to say capitalism has killed more people than communism?’

QUORA *: 'How is capitalism good despite the fact that it creates higher and lower classes?'

QUORA: '[W]hy do we ignore all the examples of capitalism failing, like the major divide between the wealthy and the poor in the US?'

QUORA: ‘Given that I live in a capitalist society, how can I avoid having my labor exploited?’

QUORA: "Is having an 'Anarcho-capitalist' society possible?"

Related Viewing:

Exposing Leftist Channel Second Thought's Lies & Falsehoods by Yaron Brook

A rebuttal of the Marxian premise that work is alienating.