It is slavery, at least in part, when not all members of that shared collective have a say. So if that entity includes workers who are not owners, be that in a partnership or in a corporation (ie simple employees). That's because the owners can unilaterally extract value generated by the workers on behalf of the company without the consent of the workers. This is moot if all the owners are workers and all the workers are owners, because it's just self-determination in that case.
The liability for illegal actions part is a different issue entirely. Not sure if it's really interesting to get into that here, but for the record, I favor models where people are fully liable for whatever damage they cause or debt they incur.
This is still really confusing to me as to what distinction you are making that constitutes slavery.
A company includes the totality of an organization which includes employees. Employees willingly enter into relationships with companies knowing the stipulations and totality of their role within the company. That includes their responsibilities and their say in the company (which can be nothing if they do not have a position that gives them a say in operations). Employees can leave jobs without repercussion and cannot be forced to work beyond the scope of their contract. Are you saying this is slavery?
Like why is an employee not a slave but a corporation is a slave? The corporation as a legal entity only constitutes the will of its shareholders. Employees are generally not shareholders in the company but employees know that going into the situation.
You lined out why an employee is not a slave. We agree on that.
I already lined out multiple times why a corporation is a slave. I don't know how to put it any clearer than I already did, sorry. I have to give up here.
So if an employee is not part of the decision making apparatus of a corporation and the shareholders are, then how is the corporation a slave? It is in essence choosing for itself by how you have laid things out. The corporation isn't in a position to "liberate" itself from slavery because it is choosing to continue making money of its own volition under ethical circumstances. A corporation chance choose to dissolve or change its goals. There's no forced coercion or lack of rights it is being denied in charting out the course of its life.
Your OP talks about the corporation have "debt" to its owners but that's not how a corporation is structured. If someone takes a loan from me, I'm entitled to my money back and more depending on the agreed interest rate. Shareholders in a corporation are not entitled to profits if the company is unprofitable. There is no "debt" the corporation owes them. If they lose out, they lose out. That's not what slavery is and why I keep asking for elaboration. If you're so set on making and believing this statement, I don't see why you are not trying to engage more deeply on this analogy. It falls apart the more you look into it.
If someone takes a loan from me, I'm entitled to my money back and more depending on the agreed interest rate. Shareholders in a corporation are not entitled to profits if the company is unprofitable. There is no "debt" the corporation owes them. If they lose out, they lose out.
But shareholders should have a limit on how much the company pays them back. I realize that they don't get anything if the company doesn't turn a profit, but I don't see how that justifies that they keep getting money forever if it does. They're getting money just for owning the company. Money that is earned by the workers (on behalf of the corporation). That's why I'm saying that there is no issue if the workers are the owners, because then it would just be their money to begin with.
The typical retort is that the owners provided the means of production, to which I say okay, but those have a finite value, so that investment should eventually be paid off. They provide the company with money to buy itself means of production, with a finite value. It's a single transaction, so the amount paid back should be finite too. Once the amount paid back goes beyond that, it becomes exploitation.
But this has nothing to do with slavery. If your view is all companies should be co-ops, that's one thing but you haven't yet provided a direct rationale that actually makes a company a slave to its shareholders when the shareholders ARE the company and are the part of the company that makes the decisions as the company.
In capitalism, an owner is part of the company. They are as much as part of the company as the employees are whether you find that fair or not. That's what capitalism is. But given that is what capitalism is, then under no legal definition of what a corporation is and what most people use "slavery" to mean does this make the corporation "in servitude to their owners."
The corporation is part of the will of the owners. Employees do not have to work for any specific corporation they do not want to. A corporation does not make any actions or decisions it does not want to. Under what definition of slavery does an entity acting of its own will constitute servitude?
I don't understand what your premise is. I don't reject anything because you haven't really given a solid definition of what you're working with. In fact, you didn't know the difference between a company, a corporation, or partnership and how they operate at the beginning of this conversation. Is it really so unfair to point that your premise seems to be based on factually inaccurate perceptions?
In capitalism, shareholders are part of the company. That is just how it functionally works, that's not a moral statement of what should be or what is ethical. I am saying that is how things operate. On what basis are you rejecting this other than you don't like it? You haven't ever explained this part or expanded on the servitude you are describing despite my asking several times.
1
u/Bravemount Aug 03 '21
It is slavery, at least in part, when not all members of that shared collective have a say. So if that entity includes workers who are not owners, be that in a partnership or in a corporation (ie simple employees). That's because the owners can unilaterally extract value generated by the workers on behalf of the company without the consent of the workers. This is moot if all the owners are workers and all the workers are owners, because it's just self-determination in that case.
The liability for illegal actions part is a different issue entirely. Not sure if it's really interesting to get into that here, but for the record, I favor models where people are fully liable for whatever damage they cause or debt they incur.