Secundo Disputandum: The Capitalist Workplace Is A Dictatorial Structure

MayCaesar

This is a strange interpretation of a working arrangement on a free market. What the duties of each party in a job contract are is prescribed explicitly in the contract, and the terms that allow the business owner to fire workers are also predefined. The business owner does not really "command" workers, this is not the army or a plantation; the business owner delegates the contractual duties to their workers, and the workers delegate the payment duties to their boss - it is not a hierarchy, but an equal economical exchange arrangement, in which different parties have different rights and obligations, and all benefit from the arrangement as a result of giving voluntary consent to it.

Cassian

@MayCaesar ;The fundamental fallacy in your claim is that it presumes that the business owner must follow their own contract, but this is not the case because the owning private individual has the entire capacity to not follow or even betray the designed contract, as there is no illegality in such actions by the capitalist. The business owner absolutely commands the workers because the workers have to follow out the dictations of the owner in order to have employment, whereas the private owner doesn’t have to, and those workers do not have the explicit power to bargain on behalf of their own concerns. It is absolutely a hierarchy because the capitalist holds the entire power over his or her enterprise and does not have to legally abide by the contract, whereas the efficacy-lacking workers of whom possess no fate in the business must do so in order to remain workers.

Cassian

@MayCaesar Additionally, the business owner is not prohibited from changing the terms of the contract at any time, meaning even those terms aren't even secure on paper.

sear

"Dictatorial"

In North Korea perhaps.

In the U.S. it's rather more hierarchical.

Three

additional

lines.

Plaffelvohfen

@Cassian

What is your take on approach to Capitalism from a cooperative perspective like for example the Mondragon Corporation? I think there might be something in there worth considering...

MayCaesar

Cassian said:

@MayCaesar ;The fundamental fallacy in your claim is that it presumes that the business owner must follow their own contract, but this is not the case because the owning private individual has the entire capacity to not follow or even betray the designed contract, as there is no illegality in such actions by the capitalist. The business owner absolutely commands the workers because the workers have to follow out the dictations of the owner in order to have employment, whereas the private owner doesn’t have to, and those workers do not have the explicit power to bargain on behalf of their own concerns. It is absolutely a hierarchy because the capitalist holds the entire power over his or her enterprise and does not have to legally abide by the contract, whereas the efficacy-lacking workers of whom possess no fate in the business must do so in order to remain workers.

Since you are talking about a capitalist workplace, that is a workplace formed as a result of a voluntary exchange contract - the business owner absolutely must follow their own contract, and violating the terms of the contact inflicts the predefined negative consequences for the owner. 

The workers do not have to do anything other than what they have vowed to do in the contract, and any command by the owner that surpasses that is illegal and must not be followed.

The business owner holds exactly as much power over their enterprise as their business model suggests, and is inherently restricted by the agreements they have made with their workers and other business owners, by the demands of the harsh free market competition and so on.

MayCaesar

Cassian said:

@MayCaesar Additionally, the business owner is not prohibited from changing the terms of the contract at any time, meaning even those terms aren't even secure on paper.

This is incorrect in the general case. The contract may prescribe certain possible changes, but unless such prescriptions are specified, changing the contract without the consent of the worker is illegal. For example, if my employer right now decides to cut my salary in half, then I will be able to sue him for a breach in the contract and receive a very large compensation.

AmericanFurryBoy

Usually, workers are fired when they deserve it, (ex. Not working, misbehaving badly). So no, it really isnt. Also, there are plenty of federal restrictions on owners, like minimum wages and healthcare and stuff.

sear

"This is incorrect in the general case. The contract may prescribe certain possible changes, but unless such prescriptions are specified, changing the contract without the consent of the worker is illegal." MC

You may be right. But let's not overlook the golden rule: THE ONES WITH THE GOLD MAKE THE RULES.

If an employer is stuck with someone they're desperate to get rid of, I'm guessing they'll find a way to do so. If nothing else they can transfer him to the satellite office in Burundi.

 - or -

Promote him to an impossible job no mortal could do, wait for him to fail, and then fire him for that.

Cassian

@sear ;If the business owner doesn’t have to answer to any forms of oversight and has the capacity to deal with employees without any due process, then it is dictatorial and not simply hierarchical.

Cassian

@Plaffelvohfen ;As I’m not familiar with Mondragon, can you explain its structure/implementation in detail and we go from there?

Cassian

MayCaesar said:

Cassian said:

@MayCaesar ;The fundamental fallacy in your claim is that it presumes that the business owner must follow their own contract, but this is not the case because the owning private individual has the entire capacity to not follow or even betray the designed contract, as there is no illegality in such actions by the capitalist. The business owner absolutely commands the workers because the workers have to follow out the dictations of the owner in order to have employment, whereas the private owner doesn’t have to, and those workers do not have the explicit power to bargain on behalf of their own concerns. It is absolutely a hierarchy because the capitalist holds the entire power over his or her enterprise and does not have to legally abide by the contract, whereas the efficacy-lacking workers of whom possess no fate in the business must do so in order to remain workers.

Since you are talking about a capitalist workplace, that is a workplace formed as a result of a voluntary exchange contract - the business owner absolutely must follow their own contract, and violating the terms of the contact inflicts the predefined negative consequences for the owner. 

The workers do not have to do anything other than what they have vowed to do in the contract, and any command by the owner that surpasses that is illegal and must not be followed.

The business owner holds exactly as much power over their enterprise as their business model suggests, and is inherently restricted by the agreements they have made with their workers and other business owners, by the demands of the harsh free market competition and so on.

Why must the business owner “absolutely” follow his or her designed contract, and what “negative consequences” will result from not abiding by them? Why can’t the business owner enforce the employee(s) to deviate from the contract, and where is illegality in such enforcement by the capitalist? How can the business owner be restricted by his or her own contracts when they hold the entire authority over them?

Cassian

MayCaesar said:

Cassian said:

@MayCaesar Additionally, the business owner is not prohibited from changing the terms of the contract at any time, meaning even those terms aren't even secure on paper.

This is incorrect in the general case. The contract may prescribe certain possible changes, but unless such prescriptions are specified, changing the contract without the consent of the worker is illegal. For example, if my employer right now decides to cut my salary in half, then I will be able to sue him for a breach in the contract and receive a very large compensation.

Yes, when there is government regulation and oversight, then this does become illegal. So, are you in favor now of crafting a government which has the capacity to oversee and regulate markets for the will of and representation of the people?

Cassian

@AmericanFurryBoy ;Ideally, there can almost always exist the capacity for authority to engage in correct courses of action, but we have to examine the capacity for exploitation to occur. To your point on governmental restrictions, this is absolutely true, but you do recognize this arises only from government intervention and not from capitalism, right? 

Plaffelvohfen

@Cassian

The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based on the Rochdale Principles.  At the end of 2014, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge, with the latter distinguishing Mondragon from other business groups. 

Mondragon has demonstrated impressive resilience after the 2008 crisis and kept jobless levels in the Basque region to under half the national average. ( At the time it was nationally in excess of 25% and 53% among young people)

As equal co-owners of their workplaces, members enjoy job security together with individual capital holdings, equal sharing of profits on a proportionate basis and an equal ‘one-member one vote’ say in their governance. Remuneration within the cooperatives is egalitarian, with the highest rates payable other than in exceptional circumstances being no greater than six and a half times the lowest.

It had in 2015 revenues of about €12 billion and total assets around € 24 billions. 

It not perfect mind you, what is, if we're honest... But It's flexible and resilient even if it still operates within a Market. I think there maybe something to learn here... 

MayCaesar

@Cassian

This all comes down to the definition of a free market, which is the embodiment of capitalism: a free market is an economical platform on which individuals perform voluntary mutually consented on economical exchanges - and when we talk about capitalism, we talk about the system on which a free market already exists in its functional form, which implies that the consented terms are protected from being arbitrarily ignored or misinterpreted.

The exact protection mechanism can come in many shapes, and not all of them require the governmental intervention - but that is a different topic entirely. I personally favor the model in which corporations and individuals voluntarily, for their own interest, form alliances with the sole purpose of guaranteeing the fulfilment of contracts made between the members of the alliance; it is also worth noting that entities that violate contracts acquire a very negative reputation on a free market and are unlikely to remain competitive long-term, hence the free market naturally discourages and punishes such behavior.

AmericanFurryBoy

@Cassian
Well, usually when capitalism is mentioned, it also involves the government due to the fact that capitalism and democracy (an example like the US) go hand in hand to make a market economy which is what capitalism is. Thus, I see it fit to add in my point about federal restriction s, regulations, and requirments.

Cassian

@Plaffelvohfen I have no problem addressing you, but I would really appreciate for you to abide by the 1-3 sentence stipulation I stated in my OP. So, could you try to summarize it or make an individual response per each of your unique points? Thanks in advance.

Cassian

@MayCaesar ;To your first sentence, how does a free market, by itself, exist in such a form that consented terms are protected from corruption, if that is what you’re saying? What sort of protection mechanism doesn’t necessitate an enforcing agent, hence a government? In your final sentence, your fallacy is that your claim there will be only a select few bad entities in the system and the people can willingly escape them for better job prospects, but if the vast majority of such job opportunities are in the private sector, then there is ultimately nowhere to run to for the workers as they will run the risk of falling into the same predicament once more.

Cassian

@AmericanFurryBoy ;Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that democracy and capitalism go hand-in-hand? Also, I want to know, do you or do you not agree that, in order to prevent capitalist tyranny, a government is needed to ensure that the people are compensated and represented accordingly? Then, if you agree with that, wouldn't you also agree that the people should receive as much of this compensation and representation as possible?

Ampersand

It depends on how you're defining Capitalism and Dictatorial, but by the definitions I think make sense I would somewhat disagree premise.

Now capitalism is certainly hierarchical, but when you say dictatorial I think that has clear connotations of near absolute power to the authority figure. When we look at capitalism today in the countries we're from (presuming we're from the USA, Europe, etc) there are large restrictions placed on how business owners can operate by government. They have to offer certain terms in their employment, if they wish to fire someone they have to meet certain criteria, their are limits to what they can ask people to do, etc. They have disproportionate power over the employee, but the state constrains that power.

You do have to note though that these constraints aren't external to Capitalism - it could and has operated without them in the past. I don't consider the democratic system that Capitalism operates within in my country as part of Capitalism itself. You can think to existing poor sub-saharan African countries where people are paid so little that they can die of malnutrituion despite being in employment or in developed countries 100+ years ago when protections were much weaker and Capitalists were far more abusive to workers. Ironically the free market types who will be the first to try and defend capitalism are those who would bring out its very worse aspects.

sear

"@sear ;If the business owner doesn’t have to answer to any forms of oversight and has the capacity to deal with employees without any due process, then it is dictatorial and not simply hierarchical." C

Correct.

Thus my allusion to North Korea.

Your impunity scenario hardly applies in the U.S.

Please spare me the anecdotes. Improperly discharged employees often have recourse in the U.S.

Plaffelvohfen

@Cassian

@Plaffelvohfen I have no problem addressing you, but I would really appreciate for you to abide by the 1-3 sentence stipulation I stated in my OP. So, could you try to summarize it or make an individual response per each of your unique points? Thanks in advance.

@Plaffelvohfen ;As I’m not familiar with Mondragon, can you explain its structure/implementation in detail and we go from there?

You asked me for details, 1-3 sentence can only give you a vague overview...

Cassian

@Plaffelvohfen Well, in that first quote you delivered, I stated I'm willing to give you the option to talk about individual portions of the entire perspective through individual unique responses. This resolves your addressed issue.

Cassian

@sear I never said it necessarily applies to capitalism as it functions in the United States. This post is to examine this particular flaw in capitalism in its purest form, not as to say it can't be met with solution if involving government regulatory oversight.

sear

C,

That's fine. But the topic title is:

The Capitalist Workplace Is A Dictatorial Structure

and I consider the U.S. capitalist, though certainly not laissez-faire.