Capitalism is voluntary

Advocates of capitalism often argue that participating in capitalism is voluntary, and therefore anti-capitalists should not try to abolish it but instead just choose not to participate. Others may more specifically claim that the exchange of goods under capitalism is voluntary. This article explains how these are both coerced decisions.

''Many pro-capitalists claim the answer to whether capitalism is voluntary or not depends on whether overarching government market intervention exists to coerce individuals into involuntary actions. Where relevant, arguments will be split into refutations of both anti-government capitalism and then additional issues affecting government-protected capitalism.''

=Issues with the claim=

Defining 'voluntary'
A common source of arguments in this topic is the question of what qualifies as voluntary participation.

Left-libertarians and anarchists, for example, will often assert that being given a strict choice between selling one's liberty and labour (a requirement for most paying jobs under capitalism) to people who hold resources, or to die of starvation or lack of available medicine, is not a voluntary choice for anyone who doesn't wish to die and doesn't have the resources needed to escape, self-sustain or create a profitable business. If one doesn't want to die, and also doesn't want to work for any of the available job-givers who are willing to hire them, neither option is voluntary. The coercion in this scenario is systematic, rather than something more obvious like a single boss or group of people threatening violence.

This example choice is obviously limited and makes broad assumptions, however it represents the core axiom of the argument. The assumptions are substantiated later in this article.

Opponents to this argument may claim that none of the available jobs are coercing anyone into applying for them, the only aggressor is 'nature' (starvation) rather than any political force. Similarly, opponents may also claim that dying is a voluntary choice, even if someone doesn't want to die. It is their choice whether or not to sacrifice their freedom in order to avoid starvation. Therefore, rational self-interest to work and not die is a voluntary participation in capitalism. This claim similarly relies on the assumption that there is no aggressor (or rather, that the only aggressor is nature), in contrast to a directly cursive version of the situation where someone traps a person and will only give them food if they perform work against their will. Both these counter-arguments are considered in the latter section: 'Nature' is not the aggressor under capitalism.

'Nature' is not the aggressor under capitalism
Capitalism is an artificial social system, and the concept of starving due to being unable to purchase food is an artificial phenomenon. 'Nature' is not the coercing element in the scenario of choosing between starving or working for employers, capitalism's notion of private property is, along with those who defend it.

The establishment and defense of private property (not to be confused with personal property) is a form of aggression. The capitalist economic system relies on the seizure and enclosure of the commons, including natural resources needed to survive like fertile land, building materials, plants, and sometimes even waterways. Now, due to this artificial scarcity, most people no longer have access to resources necessary for survival, unless the owner allows them conditional access (such as paying rent or fees). These people didn't choose to have these access rights taken from them. Submitting to the demands of capital owners in order to access the basic needs of survival, which they (collectively, intentionally or otherwise) forcefully forbid people from freely accessing as they could in nature, is a coerced decision. The capitalist system, not nature, has deprived (or maintained the deprivation of) of people living under it of free access to basic needs of survival. To buy or rent property (needed to start a profitable venture), one must must submit to the conditions of its owners.

This argument assumes that the people at risk of starvation do not seize property without permission, because private property is protected, either by the owners, private security forces or government law enforcement, who must be able to perform coercive deterrent against property infringement.

Not wanting to work available jobs is valid
Some opponents to this argument assume that not wanting to work in any of the available jobs must be laziness or entitlement. However there is a large variety of objections that can combine to make a person reasonably reject or resign from all job offers available to them, including:


 * Inadequate pay (not enough to support a healthy diet, rent, essential services and other reasonable expectations for them and any dependents)
 * Incompatible hours (especially for people with dependents)
 * Health and safety concerns
 * Religious, moral or ethical conflicts
 * Abusive employers
 * Alienation of job from society or self (especially if the job isn't meaningful or necessary, a growing concept termed pseudowork)

Depending on various factors beyond someone's control, there may be few job offers available to start with. These factors include location, age, education level, disability, and arbitrary prejudices of employers.

Working for yourself isn't a solution
A common rebuttal is that a person can start their own business under capitalism, and therefore not have to submit to work for other businesses.

Starting a business requires capital
If someone is not privileged enough to have enough capital at their disposal (such as owned land, money and any good and services needed to operate a business), then they can't avoid working for others by starting their own business. Starting a business (especially a legal one under a government) requires investment.

Starting a capitalist business doesn't make capitalism voluntary
Even if someone has the means to own their own company that serves others, they are still subject to the pressures of capitalism, must still compete and satisfy the demands of other capital owners to make profit and avoid starvation. They have some more control over their situation than submitting to another business owner's conditions of work, but they are still coerced into working in a profitable way by capitalism, and within capitalism. This effectively recreates many of the factors listed previously.

We can compare this to a society where work is only done voluntarily, where there is free access to the necessities of survival and development. There would still be obvious motivations to do work for survival and improvement, but no coercion to force workers into doing work that doesn't benefit or reward them or their society (see the previous section on pseudowork).

Avoiding capitalism isn't a solution
It may become apparent that all of these suggestions require extreme sacrifice, and are rarely done voluntarily. Almost all of them are non-solutions if you require any artificial medication or procedures, or other special needs.

Not participating within capitalist society
This argument suggests a person a solution is to simply not hold a paying job.

Squatting or homelessness
A necessity for survival is making or finding shelter. 'Squatting' (occupying property without authorization) on private land is generally considered illegal (or, if one believes in a non-aggression principle, aggression) and puts someone at high risk of fines (restricting access to necessities), violent retaliation or imprisonment. Living on public land (if it exists) puts someone at high risk of exposure, theft and assault, and in many jurisdictions is effectively criminalized. In both these situations, there is a high threat of violence and starvation, so participating in capitalism to avoid these threats is coerced.

Private charity
Private charity may be suggested as a way to alleviate starving. In most cases, this doesn't provide security or shelter, is generally given conditionally to people considered most 'in need', and is often unreliable or supplementary which means it is not a reasonable alternative to participating in capitalist society.

Additionally, it should be noted some jurisdictions have outlawed or harassed charities which give supplies to homeless people, as part of the previously mentioned criminalization of homelessness.

Government welfare
Government welfare (including government housing and shelters) is generally given on a conditional basis, such as requiring evidence of attempting to enter the workforce or some other means test, and are often given temporarily. It is not a reliable alternative to participating in capitalist society.

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI)
Also known by other names. A UBI makes an interesting counterpoint which deserves discussion due to it being piloted in a variety of existing capitalist societies, even if done in a limited way.

However, this answer must assume a full basic income which is sufficient to meet all basic needs, because a partial supplementary UBI doesn't resolve the issue. There would obviously be a large cost to run such a program, and is currently a purely hypothetical proposal, but it's not impossible under a radical reformist government.

Even with these conditions, a UBI would just give you the means to not require a paying job. There are still the inherent pressures of capitalism like seizure of the commons which force you to use the money available to you through UBI in certain exchanges like rent/mortgage and food. Consumer participation in capitalism is still necessary.

Escaping to rural land
Also takes the form of "just go live in the wilderness". The argument is that capitalism is voluntary because it allows people to go to a rural area and live a primitive self-sustaining lifestyle independent from capitalism.

Buying rural land in a capitalist state is still subject to capitalism
This requires that you have enough money and opportunity to purchase the property you are living on, otherwise it is just squatting. For anyone who doesn't have the surplus capital to buy land and travel to it, this is not an option.

Unless you qualify for tax-exempt status (or live in a hypothetical capitalist state without taxes), there are also the ongoing costs of taxes, that will typically require an income to keep paying. If there is no government, you would instead need to pay a security force to prevent destructive invasion, unless you can single-handedly defend against a corporation.

Additionally, under most current capitalist jurisdictions, creating shelter typically requires permits to build structures (which may additionally require electrical utility connection depending on jurisdiction), permits to cut down trees if you can't purchase building supplies.

Rural intentional communes are subject to capitalism
Since rural land is still within the capitalist state, many of the existing anarchist communes are actually legally registered as non-profit organizations   for tax-exempt status, collectively owning the land as (legally) private property. This requires the purchase of private land (a substantial investment to purchase enough to live on) and is conditional on tax-exemption law to avoid needing income from capitalist society simply to pay land tax. As a result of this and other simple technological needs, most or all of these communities have stores to sell products externally, thus they engage in capitalism and are ultimately subject to it.

Additionally, these communities are private property, and they allow you there conditionally (typically requiring registration), even if the condition is not monetary.

Moving to a non-capitalist state
Emigration costs money (transport, housing, food), and in almost all cases this will require international travel which may additionally require passport fees, visa fees, proof-of-solvency, currency exchange fees and other costs. There are also other requirements to long-term residency. Ignoring birthright citizenship: Most people don't have jobs which would make employers consider hiring internationally, so even a regular work visa is questionable. For anyone who doesn't have enough money to apply and travel, or isn't in special circumstances, or has a criminal record, emigration isn't even an option.
 * Cuba's permanent residency permit (to stay longer than a year) requires a Cuban relative or spouse. Temporary resident visas require certain jobs, or being a political refugee or medical tourist.
 * China's 'Z' work visa requires a Bachelor's degree or higher. Other work/student visas require certain conditions. A 'D' permanent residency card requires either family members, being very rich, or entering on a work visa for 3 years and then being in a key position in a company and having a skill in shortage.
 * Vietnam permanent residency requires political asylum, 'distinguished services' to Vietnam, or being a family member of a permanent resident. A temporary resident status is easier obtain, but must be extended every 30 days for a small fee. A work visa requires a sponsor, lasts a year and can be renewed, although employers must prove they've first tried to hire Vietnamese employees.

=Issues with the argument= The claim that capitalism is voluntary usually comes alongside the suggestion that the voluntary nature of capitalism means it can, or should, be tolerated by those who see major issues with it.

Argumentum ergo decedo fallacy
The argument that someone should leave a place or system because they think it should be improved is known as argumentum ergo decedo, or the traitorous critic fallacy. This informal ad hominem fallacy is used to assert that capitalism is voluntary and therefore someone who wants to replace it must not value self-autonomy. This does not follow.

Capitalism still harms those trying not to participate
Capitalism doesn't just affect people involved in exchanges. If someone has issues with capitalism, it is not reasonable to demand they just ignore it.

At an individual level, the seizure of the commons threatens anyone who doesn't participate in capitalism. Someone who tries to escape to rural forest still has to deal with capitalists encroaching on the land they live on, polluting the resources they rely on and therefore destroying their food supply. Ecological damage and unsustainable harvest of resources has far-reaching impacts on everyone.

At a global level, countries which tried to escape the control of colonial or imperial capitalism and chose to become independent (such as many in South America forming socialist republics) were brutally opposed by capitalist powers with interest in those country's resources.

Socialism and anarchism can be voluntary
While it is not necessarily implicit in the argument of capitalism being voluntary, it is acknowledged that some proponents of capitalism use this as a fallacious tū quoque ('whataboutism', appeal to hypocrisy) to assert that alternatives to capitalism, such as socialism, are not voluntary.

Socialism is not inherently voluntary or involuntary. Unlike capitalism, there is no intrinsic coercive element such as seizure of the commons, allowing it to be either voluntary or involuntary.

While Marxist-Leninist states have often been involuntary in a way similar to capitalist states, these are not the only form of socialist state. As a counter example, existing anarchist communes and worker-cooperatives typically allow free (even if conditional) entrance and freedom to leave without cost. Someone who does not wish to freely associate with their society is under no pressure to.