Freedom of contract, collective bargaining, and the problems with social Darwinism..

Social Darwinism is still a prominent position in contemporary political thought. It states that competition is what dictates who deserves what they have, along with their class position in society.  The fittest get wealthy, the unfit deserve their lot in life.  It is the idea that most people are at the bottom due, not to circumstance or poor luck, but an unwillingness to use their freedom and will to move above their socially undesirable position.


 
Why do they believe this? Because "freedom of the individual is king" for a social Darwinian. Although it is cold and harsh sometimes, this is what is required to protect the negative rights of the individual ("negative rights" being those rights we can fulfill by NOT doing, or leaving alone, e.g. to fulfill one's right to life, all we have to do is not kill, The right to property, not steal, etc.. )

 
For the social darwin, freedom of contract is defined by free and voluntary consent, but there is a bent view on what is "free and voluntary." If you are in poverty, with no means to further education (and perhaps a family or whatever), and this is NOT a result of laziness or lack of will (or lack of trying, for that matter), but the result of bad luck and circumstances that define your existence (i.e., you were born with responsibility to a family, and you have never had the means or opportunity to get out of your socially undesirable position, etc.)… This does not matter to social darwinism. All that matters is your free and voluntary consent to contract.  If you have freely volunteered to contract with someone, then your duty is to fulfill that contract.  However, the moral grounds that justify this position assume that there is no coercion in contract and that both parties have a reasonable position to bargain from.


 
If an employer comes to you under such circumstances (mind you this is extreme for the sake of argument), and says "come work for me or starve to death," the social darwinian claims this is still a free and voluntary contract. You are still free to voluntarily starve to death, if you so choose.

 
But what is social Darwinism forgetting?  What is it leaving out? I will tell you by asking another question: Who has more bargaining power? Who would be able to drive a harder bargain, set the limits of the bargain, and have more power to do so? Is it the average citizen who works hard, and yet, in such poor circumstances that he/she desperately considers working in a sweat shop?  Or is it the business power that already owns all the capitol, and holds all the cards?  Thriving businesses, especially corporate entities, have ALL the bargaining power.  All of it.  Think about that.  Where does a simple college student begin to have bargaining power?  Where does a steel worker begin to have bargaining power?  They don't!  People like you are a dime a dozen in the eyes of corporate business.

 
What labor unions today are seeking is simply this: social justice in bargaining power, so they can negotiate higher wages and better working conditions. The average person (born with only the skin on his back) is negotiating with nothing but his labor power.  He has the choice to quit and find another job, and to deny the less desirable employer with his services.  This is the employee's only option without collective bargaining power. But does this "threat" of alternate means of employment actually create enough power to effect the bargaining position between employer and employee? No! There is no reason a thriving business would even miss you! Therefore, you have NO bargaining power in many cases with the business that employs you.

 
To have equal opportunity, we need to have fair and reasonable positions at the bargaining table. As of now, the businesses control all bargaining power for contract. This is known as "private coercion". Although you are choosing to enter a contract with a potentially manipulative business enterprise, your choice is coerced and not entirely free. In some cases, you have no other choice but to accept a job that reduces you from the position of human-being to slave. You must have a job to survive, but the opportunity provided by your circumstance is most-likely exceptionally low because social Darwinism is the ideology ruling this country.  As a citizen, corporations have more rights than you do.  In 2010 more than two thirds of U.S. corporations paid less in federal taxes than the average citizen.  Many companies were paid a bonus instead of having to pay taxes!  And this is after they cut job employment in the U.S. and expanded job opportunities over seas??  Why in the flying fuck! (excuse my language) should we pay these assholes ANYTHING, and then turn around and support a legislature that cuts benefits for publicly employed teachers?   Why?  So the rich can get richer?  So the monopolies can continue to rule within the plutocracy of the U.S.?  You know what I say to that?  FUCK capitalism.  What about democracy?  What about the citizens and the civilization that allowed these companies to be created?  They claim that competition is brutal and life is short.  Too bad for you, they say..   Well I say that humanity has survived through cooperation!!  We are social beings, and THAT is what has allowed our species to surpass all others.  One of my professors asked:  Who would survive a nuclear holocaust?  Cockroaches or humanity?  Cockroaches!  Does that mean they are "fittest"??  That somehow their ability to survive is more virtuous than human intellect and human civilization?  No!  Then where do we get this horrible "stab-each-other-in-the-back-to-get-ahead" mentality?  


(keep in mind that I don't think ALL businesses behave like this, but the majority ruling Wall Street, the one's that most influence our economy, I contend DO act this way)
 
Is competition really that great?  Why is cooperation not more virtuous? One necessitates war, while the other necessitates peace.  And notice how the bigger corporations really are not in any immediate competition. They are lazy monopolies. Who is GE really competing with?  Global capitalism doesn't produce as much competition as one might think.  It instead produces slow and lazy monopolies that compete for political control that enables their monopoly to exist.   "No successful capitalist wants competition - for himself - he only wants it for the working class, so that he can buy his labor power at the lowest competitive price in the labor market…The day of individual effort, of small tools, free competition, hand labor, long hours and meagre results is gone never to return. The civilization reared upon this old foundation is crumbling" (Eugene V. Debs - Unionism and Socialism)


      - part 1 of this topic here.