Oh boy, everyone should tell those Indian slaves in Dubai. They can’t hold you prisoner guys, it’s not valid if it’s not voluntary, so you can just go home. The capitalists say it’s okay…wait, what? Oh! it was the capitalists who put them there.
An innocent person who commits a crime is no longer an innocent person.
A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian.
A capitalist who enslaves someone is no longer a capitalist.
I’m so sorry you have trouble with this basic definition, but capitalism is a free market system. Slaves are not free, and that economic relationship is not a free market relationship.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, price systems, private property, property rights recognition, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.
Voluntary exchange is a fundamental assumption in classical economics and neoclassical economics which forms the basis of contemporary mainstream economics.[1] That is, when neoclassical economists theorize about the world, they assume voluntary exchange is taking place. Building on this assumption, neoclassical economics goes on to conclude a variety of important results such as that market activity is efficient, that free trade has net positive effects and that markets in which economic agents participate voluntarily make them better off. Notably, neoclassical economists—baseding the assumption of voluntary exchange—deny the Marxist definition of the exploitation of labour as a possibility within neoclassically defined capitalism.
So in an neoclassic definition that doesn’t reflect real world conditions?
A definition cannot he said to match or to not match real world conditions.
Like if I define a square as a quadrilateral with equal sides, that’s independent (orthogonal, even, pun intended) of whether any quadrilaterals with equal sides are around.
I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about whether a definition reflects reality. That’s not really what a definition is. They can’t be true or untrue.
Statements are true or untrue, but for a definition the concept of truth or falsity doesn’t make sense.
The whole philosophy of capitalism is “Economic interaction must be voluntary to be valid.
Oh boy, everyone should tell those Indian slaves in Dubai. They can’t hold you prisoner guys, it’s not valid if it’s not voluntary, so you can just go home. The capitalists say it’s okay…wait, what? Oh! it was the capitalists who put them there.
Nope sorry. Capitalism is defined by voluntary cooperation. Slavery’s not capitalism.
You should tell capitalists, it seems like they didn’t get the memo.
An innocent person who commits a crime is no longer an innocent person.
A vegetarian who starts eating meat is no longer a vegetarian.
A capitalist who enslaves someone is no longer a capitalist.
I’m so sorry you have trouble with this basic definition, but capitalism is a free market system. Slaves are not free, and that economic relationship is not a free market relationship.
You got a source on this definition? Because it sure sounds like bullshit
From wikipedia:
Voluntary exchange is a fundamental assumption in classical economics and neoclassical economics which forms the basis of contemporary mainstream economics.[1] That is, when neoclassical economists theorize about the world, they assume voluntary exchange is taking place. Building on this assumption, neoclassical economics goes on to conclude a variety of important results such as that market activity is efficient, that free trade has net positive effects and that markets in which economic agents participate voluntarily make them better off. Notably, neoclassical economists—baseding the assumption of voluntary exchange—deny the Marxist definition of the exploitation of labour as a possibility within neoclassically defined capitalism.
So in an neoclassic definition that doesn’t reflect real world conditions?
A definition cannot he said to match or to not match real world conditions.
Like if I define a square as a quadrilateral with equal sides, that’s independent (orthogonal, even, pun intended) of whether any quadrilaterals with equal sides are around.
I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about whether a definition reflects reality. That’s not really what a definition is. They can’t be true or untrue.
Statements are true or untrue, but for a definition the concept of truth or falsity doesn’t make sense.