August 16th, 2007

eyes black and white

Who exploits the workers

So the socialist story goes, employees are being exploited by employers because they have to work or starve. Yeah right. Paul Marks properly debunks this rhetoric, as defended by incoherent "anarchist" Kevin Carson (Cám ơn, Samizdata).

But let's examine what the socialist theory predicts. According to Lassalle's "iron law of wages", employers pay the minimum needed for survival and workers never rise above the limit of starvation — and thus socialists claim that only the government-mandated minimum wage helps the poor workers. OK. Then how come some wage earners earn more, sometimes much more, than this decreed minimum wage? Weird isn't it? If government is the only cause for employee wealth, why would any employer ever bother to pay anyone more than the minimum? If there are other forces at play, what are they?

The socialist argument is only a one-sided consideration of the competition between employees that keeps their salary low. But they forget to consider that competition between employers keeps the salaries high. The balance between the two is called the market price. The socialist "solution" is to reduce the competition between employers through regulations, taxes, confiscations and state monopolies. And the inevitable outcome is that actual wages lower through this combined reduced competition and overall destruction.

But let's take competition between employers seriously. If a given worker chooses an employer over another one, clearly, it is because this employer offers him the best deal the worker can find. The deal may suck badly — it is the best. And so, if the actual employer is to be blamed — how much more to be blamed are the other potential employers, who proposed even worse deals? In the job market, the actual employer proved to be the worker's best friend. And you want to punish him for that, through taxes and corvées? Yeah right. Why not punish all the other employers instead? And why not punish all those non-employers who didn't even have a job to offer? Or the worker himself for being a burden to others to begin with? The socialists claim that the employer saves the workers from starvation — if that were true, then he should be honored as a life-saver, not fought as an enemy. Sure it's bad to work just for food, but the alternative of starvation is much worse — and that's what happens when there is noone left to offer this above-starvation wage. And note how rich workers are in the countries that are least burdened by taxation and regulation... how come workers have nice clothes, good food, cars, fridges, computers, holidays?

Will killing or robbing the employer help the poor? Replacing him with a socialist bureaucrat in the name of the worker will certainly help the ruling socialist bureaucrat who becomes the new employer, now with a state monopoly. As for the worker, he still has an employer, under another name. But now it's a monopoly employer who owes his title to force rather than persuasion, an employer who faces no competition. One that claims to be a friend, but destroys the former best friend and the freedom of choosing this friend (for competition between employers is nothing else but freedom for employees to choose between employers).

Socialists are not the friends of the working poor, but their worst enemies. They are slavers. They enslave the rich and the poor alike, by force and by fraud.

eyes black and white

How to deal with slavers

Socialists are not just liars and absurdists; socialists are slavers. They claim that one man should live at the expense of another man — and pick precisely those best men in society as their sacrificial victims. The penalty for enslaving innocents should be death. How much more should be the penalty for targetting specifically the best friends of the very poor you claim to protect? Socialists are the enemies of those they claim to save as well as against those they explicitly target. They are criminals against mankind. A good socialist is a dead socialist. A very dead socialist.

Oh, in a free society, people are free to say whatever they want. Socialist liars will be free to spread their absurd religion. Their predicament will be met with laughter. The laughter of free men who will kill the bastards the second they are caught plotting to implement their crazy utopias by force — and particularly so by public force. "Democratic" socialists are just connivers trying to subvert supreme force to enslave all other people in the country, and they deserve hanging for their attempt, just like any attempted crime calls for the penalty of the successful crime — in this case, high treason against the society in the name of which they claim totalitarian power. Their displayed "good intentions" are worth the smile of any con man and should be considered aggravating circumstances — fraud in addition to violence.

Socialists, do onto yourself what you propose to force upon others: go live in your phalanstères, your kibbutzim, your cooperatives, your autarkic or trading "intentional communities". And leave others in peace — or be crushed as the mass criminals you are, have always been, and will be again every time you are let loose.

Between socialists and honest men, no peace is possible. They know it all too well. We ignore it at our own risk.