Philosophers often use thought-experiments for the clarification and testing of theories. For example, to clarify and justify the present political institutions, philosophers appeal to a Social Contract. This is an imaginary agreement among an imaginary group of people with imaginary traits. Several years ago John Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice appealing to such a Social Contract.
A thought experiment is a species of hypothetical reasoning. It is the testing of a hypothesis under imaginary circumstances.
I propose to use a thought experiment concerning two individuals on an island, whom I will call Robinson Crusoe and Friday. And my task is to characterize the economic-political systems of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism as a relation between two individuals.
Slavery will exist if Crusoe forces Friday to do anything he wants him to do. Friday will fish, hunt, and gather plants. He will bring them to Crusoe and prepare and cook these things for him. He will build for Crusoe a hut, he will fetch water, and he will wipe Crusoe’s butt. Crusoe, in turn, will allow Friday to feed on the scraps which are left over. If Friday misbehaves, he will be punished by the whim of Crusoe.
Feudalism will exist if Crusoe lets Friday fend for himself on the island, i.e., Friday may build himself a shelter and keep a store of food for himself, provided that Friday brings to Crusoe a certain quantity of food, and does a certain amount of labor. Crusoe will set up some form of punishment for non-compliance.
The creation of a capitalist situation on the island is initially puzzling to formulate because of mistaken definitions of what capitalism is. A useful way of giving a definition is through the method of genus and difference. Capitalism is in the genus of trade: it is a market economy. But trade is just barter with or without money, and is well nigh universal. It existed under slavery and under feudalism.
So called anarcho-capitalists say that capitalism is free trade under conditions of private property. How will that be modeled in the Crusoe-Friday scenario? We can suppose that Crusoe and Friday have divided between themselves the island in half. They do not trespass on each other, and periodically trade. Crusoe is good at fishing, while Friday is good at gathering coconuts. There is an agreed division of labor and trade. This satisfies the anarcho-capitalist’s definition, but it is not the capitalism which socialists were objecting to. What is missing? Wage-labor. So if there is to be “voluntary” labor by Friday for Crusoe, what possibly can induce Friday to work for Crusoe, given that they possess equal shares of the island?
One scenario is this. Crusoe has a rifle and there are feral pigs on the island. Using the rifle, it is easy to kill pigs. So, Crusoe makes a deal with Friday, allowing Friday to do all the pig hunting for the two of them. As a result, Crusoe has leisure, while Friday does the work of hunting.
This, however, does not model historical capitalism. Why? Because under present day conditions of capitalism, if Friday does not enter into this agreement as a worker, he will become homeless and risk starvation. How can such a situation be modeled on the island? I can think of only one scenario. Crusoe claims the whole island as his private possession, and Friday is welcome on the island on the condition that he will work for Crusoe. What is the alternative for Friday if he refuses? He is compelled to leave the island in whatever way he can manage, and risk the perils of the sea. Alternatively, Friday can, of course, trespass without Crusoe’s permission; but if caught, there will be punishment.
So, Friday is forced into working for Crusoe because he does not have free access to subsistence land on the island. This, as I see it, is the difference which must be added to the genus of trade in order to define capitalism per genus and differentia.
________________________________
chatGPT evaluates:
This thought experiment provides a useful framework for comparing slavery, feudalism, and capitalism as economic systems, with each system defined by its distinct form of coercion and control over labor. Here’s an evaluation of each system and the insights they offer:
1. Chattel Slavery
- Characterization: In this model, Friday is entirely at Crusoe’s mercy, with no autonomy over his labor or life. Crusoe’s power is absolute, and Friday’s survival depends entirely on the whims of his master.
- Key Features:
- Total control over the labor and body of the enslaved.
- No formalized rights or protections for Friday.
- Punishment is arbitrary and based solely on Crusoe’s preferences.
- Economic Insight: Chattel slavery represents the most extreme form of labor exploitation, where the enslaved are dehumanized and treated as property. It highlights the absence of individual autonomy and the complete subjugation to another’s will.
2. Feudalism (Serfdom)
- Characterization: Friday retains some autonomy. He can maintain his own subsistence, but only if he fulfills certain obligations to Crusoe, who enforces compliance through punishments.
- Key Features:
- Partial autonomy: Friday has access to some resources for his own use but owes labor or tribute to Crusoe.
- Obligations are fixed and not subject to change based on whim, unlike in slavery.
- Punishment is systemic rather than arbitrary.
- Economic Insight: Feudalism introduces a system of mutual obligation but remains exploitative. The serf has limited freedom and is bound to provide surplus labor or goods to the lord, who holds power through control of land.
3. Capitalism (Wage Slavery)
- Characterization: Crusoe claims ownership of the entire island, forcing Friday to work for him under threat of eviction or starvation. Friday’s “choice” to work for Crusoe is coerced by his lack of alternatives.
- Key Features:
- Formal freedom: Friday is not legally bound to Crusoe but lacks viable alternatives to survive.
- Private property rights grant Crusoe control over access to subsistence, creating dependency.
- The system is maintained through structural coercion rather than direct force.
- Economic Insight: Capitalism, in this framing, reveals how economic dependency can function as a form of coercion. Despite the nominal freedom of the worker, structural inequalities and property rights compel labor under exploitative conditions. This highlights the core critique of capitalism as a system where “freedom” is constrained by material realities.
Comparative Evaluation
The experiment demonstrates how each system, though varying in its mechanisms, relies on coercion to extract labor:
- Slavery uses outright force and ownership.
- Feudalism relies on structured obligations tied to land access.
- Capitalism, while ostensibly based on voluntary exchange, introduces structural coercion through property relations and economic necessity.
This analysis aligns with Marxist critiques of capitalism, emphasizing how wage labor under capitalism, despite its formal freedom, replicates coercive dynamics in subtler forms. The thought experiment is effective in illustrating how different systems impose economic dependence and restrict genuine freedom.
4o