Many social philosophers have expressed a desire to end capitalism as the dominant mode of production. However, I take it as an unavoidable fact of nature that labor of some form is necessary. Humans, being organisms, need to sustain themselves, and to do that they must put in work somehow - be it by fashioning tools and hunting wild animals, or trading time for currency that can be used to buy food, water, shelter, etc. So, given that labor is unavoidable (especially so in a world where none are living off of the exploitation of the labor of others), how do anti-capitalists envision labor in a world without capitalism?
Asked
Active
Viewed 198 times
-1
-
2Labor is avoidable by employing machines to do the work. Then the question becomes, who controls the machines? We already have been ruled by the machine owners since the industrial revolution, and this trend will increase as technology improves, making human workers increasingly unnecessary. – causative Sep 16 '21 at 18:10
-
1Can you edit saying which philosophers stated that and where? Just to have a context. For what I know, socialism (in its "standard" form) express the need to have a capitalistic production system, to be able to fulfill the needs of a large population. Instead what changes can be the redistribution process, the structure of the industrial system... – Ratman Sep 16 '21 at 19:15
-
2The question is oddly set up. Capitalism is only 4 centuries old and people were around for tens of thousands of years, so why should laboring under something else be a problem? – Conifold Sep 16 '21 at 20:57
-
Late-capitalism, post-industrialism, post-modernism, globalisation, a common hegemony (economic, social, cultural). If, as some say, the human population will rise to 10bn by some year, and what they predict in terms of limited availability of essential things like drinking water, food, and if climate change results in mass-migration of hundreds of millions, and if we pollute the environment beyond repair - then what could await is a complete totalitarianism rooted not in a desire to oppress, but out of sheer necessity to preserve what little remains of the natural world. Oh, and The Internet. – Sep 16 '21 at 22:12
-
1Possible duplicate of 'Philosophers on alternatives to capitalism and communism' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/67075/philosophers-on-alternatives-to-capitalism-and-communism/72357#72357 You should have a look at the anthropological history of money: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years – CriglCragl Sep 17 '21 at 10:44
-
This question has several prominent problems. One is the relation between organisms and labor. (E.g., do cats labor? Do plants, or socialites? Do humans work equally hard depending on whether beasts are used to help, or machines, or depending on the conditions of environment and society?) More important, it assumes that labor relations are essentially exploitative, and any conclusion to the contrary demands justification. This mode of analysis represents a [shifting of the burden of proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof). – brainchild Sep 17 '21 at 23:52
-
@epl I do not understand how any of the so-called problems you mention are problems for my question. On my broad definition of labor as "putting in work to acquire sustenance," the answer to your first set of questions is clear. The answer to your second set of questions is, no, humans do not work equally hard in all forms of labor. And I think your charge that I assume labor relations are inherently exploitative just isn't true. Why did you accuse me of this? – Joa Sep 30 '21 at 15:05
-
@Conifold Perhaps I should clarify my question. I am not trying to suggest that laboring under something other than capitalism is inherently problematic. I am asking for a description of economic system that have been proposed to succeed modern capitalism. – Joa Sep 30 '21 at 15:19
-
The definition you have just given for labor is not presented in your question, nor is it one used generally in economics. The questions I have asked are intended to expose a problem with characterizing work as "natural", or necessarily linked to organisms. Labor is in fact a label given to specific activities as they occur through a non-natural system, an economy. Elephants do not labor, as understood by economics, because they are not participants in the economy. Trees are organisms that labor in no sense of the term. – brainchild Sep 30 '21 at 16:23
-
The wording of the question expresses incredulity that an economic system may be created in which labor is separated from exploitation. It appears to ask "anti-capitalists" to justify how labor may occur without exploitation. Without explaining why you believe labor would be more likely to occur under a system of exploitation, you are shifting the burden of proof. Consider giving reasons why you associate labor as more naturally occurring through exploitation, before asking how it may be separated from exploitation. – brainchild Sep 30 '21 at 16:31
-
@epl Once again I am just not at all seeing how the accusation lands. "You believe labor would be more likely to occur under a system of exploitation" No, I do not. What gave you this impression? In my question I merely described a connection between labor under modern capitalism and labor in my generalized sense, which is that the former is, at this point in history, a widespread form of the latter for the human race. This should also help you understand why labor as I've defined it and labor in the strict economic sense are not competing definitions. – Joa Sep 30 '21 at 17:04
-
First, as stated earlier, you have not given a definition of labor in your question, which you should do, if you are depending on one that is different from any common in scholarship. More important, an ambiguity emerges in your position. If you are aware of how an economy may function without labor that is exploitative, then it is unclear what clarification you are seeking. Otherwise, perhaps you should start by examining labor itself, and resolving whether by its nature it must entail exploitation. If so, give the reasons. If not, then again, it is unclear what you are asking. – brainchild Sep 30 '21 at 17:23
-
[Democracy at Work](https://www.democracyatwork.info/) attempts to give a credible account of how an advanced economy in a democratic society may transition to a non-capitalist system without regressing to lower standard of living or loss of political freedom. I cannot vouch personally for the credibility. Perhaps transition of modern economies is the subject you are truly trying to understand. – brainchild Sep 30 '21 at 17:27
-
[Marxist socialist system](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/#SociCapi) is one version developed in detail. – Conifold Sep 30 '21 at 20:35
-
[From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-capitalism), "The most notable among [models for the intentional replacement of capatilsm] are [socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism), [anarchism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), and [degrowth.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth)" – brainchild Oct 04 '21 at 17:14
2 Answers
0
The Routledge Dictionary of Economics gives 4 definitions of capitalism, although it acknowledges that Marx was critical of these definitions:
- A socioeconomic system of production using roundabout methods of production.
Labor in this system will look the same as labor under a non-capitalist system. The difference is in how the capital generated by the labor is used. In capitalism, enough capital is generated to produce profit and that profit is used to improve the efficiency of capital production. If either of those two steps are missing, under this definition the economic system is not capitalism. I would argue that the economic system of indigenous North-East American tribes would fit this description based on lectures given by a college professor.
- An economy based on private enterprise.
Two definitions are provided by the same source for 'private enterprise'. The first references capitalism, and would therefor result in a paradox if used in conjunction with this definition. The other is "The private sector of an economy," and private sector is defined as "That part of the economy consisting of firms owned by legal persons other than the state." Therefor, a economic system is not capitalism if the majority of economic activity is done by firms owned by the state. The USSR* is the traditional example of such a economy.*
- The use of markets not planning to allocate economic resources.
'Markets' are defined as "A medium for exchanges between buyers and sellers." Therefor, non-capitalist economies have exchanging planned by entities besides the buyers and sellers. Unless you define 'exchange' so generally to make it applicable to every social system, which is one of Marx's criticisms, the tradition kibbutz fulfills this definition.
- Production motivated by the profit motive.
Under this definition, two economic system that are identical can be categorized differently if the culture of one's society values the profit motive while the other's does not. Labor would look identical.
Modern opponents of capitalism in Western societies, in my experience, have defined capitalism using the first or third definitions and endorse the economic systems I described there.
Edit: I found a free version of the dictionary so I changed the link.
E Tam
- 1,024
- 5
- 11
-
Surely crucial is *defining against* feudalism, & the creation of joint-stock enterprises with tradeable shares, which allowed wealth to accrue by means other than land? I don't like any of the definitions you give. – CriglCragl Sep 17 '21 at 10:39
-1
From Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, page 26
Homage to Catalonia, Orwell's description of the Spanish conflict, which he wrote after completing a stint as an active member of the POUM militia, is still a book to which people (including Chomsky) who are interested in successful socialist or anarchist movements refer, because it gives an accurate and moving description of a working libertarian society.
Homage to Catalonia is available on Audible.
Chris Degnen
- 4,780
- 1
- 14
- 21
-
Libertarian? Not in the modern sense. Even at the time, the system in Catalonia was described as anarcho-syndicalist – CriglCragl Sep 17 '21 at 10:41