What's wrong with Capitalism?

[Alan]

I am hardly a fundamentalist; especially when as an anarchist I have been arguing for simple socialism, regardless of which socialism it is, in this argument.
What you say about capitalism and complete market capitalism and mixed economy might look like you have a point. Here' I mean to this part:
"We're not using capitalism in the totally unregulated sense, and thus, Jillian's argument: capitalism is only saved by socialism, thus a mixed economy is a bad idea is totally irrelevant."

But I still fail to see why you point out to a society that stops exploitation by limiting capitalism (i.e. mixed economy) as a reason to keep capitalism. What redeeming factor does capitalism have that makes you not want more socialism and less capitalism? Why not bring back things like radical trade unionism which was responsible for the adoption of the eight-hour workday and basic safety standards on the workplace, and whose destruction marked increasingly lower wages from 1919 to 1939, culminating in the depression?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

I am hardly a fundamentalist; especially when as an anarchist I have been arguing for simple socialism, regardless of which socialism it is, in this argument.
What you say about capitalism and complete market capitalism and mixed economy might look like you have a point. Here' I mean to this part:
"We're not using capitalism in the totally unregulated sense, and thus, Jillian's argument: capitalism is only saved by socialism, thus a mixed economy is a bad idea is totally irrelevant."

But I still fail to see why you point out to a society that stops exploitation by limiting capitalism (i.e. mixed economy) as a reason to keep capitalism. What redeeming factor does capitalism have that makes you not want more socialism and less capitalism? Why not bring back things like radical trade unionism which was responsible for the adoption of the eight-hour workday and basic safety standards on the workplace, and whose destruction marked increasingly lower wages from 1919 to 1939, culminating in the depression?

I was not aware you were arguing only for socialism, regardless, if equating a simple theory on distribution of wealth with amorality isn't an example of fundamentalist thought, I don't know what is. It's kinda like when PETA members tell me that they believe meat is murder but it's okay if I eat meat: It's just neutered fundamentalism.

As I said previously, there are a number of benefits that properly controlled capitalism has for society. Healthy competition encourages exceptionalism and innovation by offering a reward for those who contribute more to society. If everyone recieves the same compensation for their work, regardless of it's quality or impact, there is far less incentive to strive for greatness and more to be content with mediocrity. Capitalism also provides a more organic way of deciding which contributions are more important. Does this always work in theory? No, of course not, as Gothicus already pointed out. That's why finding a healthy balance between capitalist and socialist economic theory is important: too much socialism and freedom and innovation are stifled, too much capitalism and the strong gain enough power to stifle the weak regardless of their work/potential.

As for trade unions, I must confess I am largely ignorant on them, but I find the basic theory to be agreeable to me.

[Despanan]

Crap, I typed that reply on my iphone and just noticed that some of it might be easily misunderstood. Sorry, my bad.

This:

That's why finding a healthy balance between capitalist and socialist economic theory is important: too much socialism causes freedom and innovation to be stifled, and too much capitalism gives those who come out on top initially enough power to stifle those without capital and tip the scales unfairly in their favor.

Should read as this:

That's why finding a healthy balance between capitalist and socialist economic theory is important: too much socialism: freedom and innovation are stifled, too much capitalism: the strong gain enough power to stifle the weak and tip the scales too steeply in their favor.

[Alan]

Here's a quote by Karl Marx that destroys capitalism but still allows for individual incentive, because socialism does not need perfect equality:
“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”

[DRM]

Or you could quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and say: "Property is theft."

[Despanan]

Or despanan could say: "That's fucking stupid."

[Alan]

And here we reach the real problem. Capitalism without private property is simply collectivism. But no part of this conversation has tried to justify private property. We haven't gone there yet and it's really what defines capitalism as it is.
So now that we're reaching the core of the problem, what's the justification for the existence of private property?
If you work a piece of land and you cultivate oranges, you sell those oranges, and the earnings really are rightfully yours. That's the fruit of your labor, literally. But now that you've sold your oranges and you're not working that land anymore, why would you still claim it as yours?

[Despanan]

Are you just going to continue asking questions and jumping topics everytime I shut down an old argument, hoping that somewhere down the line I'll slip up?

Tell you what; I'll answer that question, and more I'll try my hardest to refrain from good old fashioned insults, and promise to keep my mockery to a minimum; when you admit that your capitalism/slavery/dictatorship argument was logically inconsistent.

Deal?

[Alan]

The point of that analogy is that we're justifying a system because of the benevolence of the people within the system and not because of anything in the system itself. If my argument didn't show this, then yeah, it's inconsistent, but you must have understood that much.
Consider it jumping topics if you might, and then I have lost everything else, but this right here is why I see capitalism as unjustifiable, so I wanna talk about it.

[Despanan]

Well, I guess that's the best I'm gonna get.

My answer is yes (At least in most cases). You made the initial investment to buy that land. You took the financial risk upon yourself that working that land would be profitable. You dedicated years of your life to making that land what it is today. It wouldn't be fair for someone you don't know to come along and take you and your families livelihood without your consent simply because you were now too old to work, or had moved on to greener pastures. Where were they when you were breaking your back fertilizing the soil? Where were they when you were growing the trees? Where were they when your kids had to eat nothing but ramen for a month because the field had caught fire earlier that summer and you'd lost half your crop.

Business owners do way more than simply take out a loan and then sit back and rake in money off the sweat of their workers. Often they dedicate years, even lifetimes to building something. That deserves compensation.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well, I guess that's the best I'm gonna get.

My answer is yes (At least in most cases). You made the initial investment to buy that land. You took the financial risk upon yourself that working that land would be profitable. You dedicated years of your life to making that land what it is today. It wouldn't be fair for someone you don't know to come along and take you and your families livelihood without your consent simply because you were now too old to work, or had moved on to greener pastures. Where were they when you were breaking your back fertilizing the soil? Where were they when you were growing the trees? Where were they when your kids had to eat nothing but ramen for a month because the field had caught fire earlier that summer and you'd lost half your crop.

Business owners do way more than simply take out a loan and then sit back and rake in money off the sweat of their workers. Often they dedicate years, even lifetimes to building something. That deserves compensation.

I sincerely doubt Alan is discussing stripping small farmers of their homes.

Last I checked, he was primarily an Anarcho-Syndicalist, so if anything he would say that your small farmer or land owner should band together with the other, neighboring farmers and over throw whomever actually OWNS that land, such as the government or a large, wealthy and owner.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well, I guess that's the best I'm gonna get.

My answer is yes (At least in most cases). You made the initial investment to buy that land. You took the financial risk upon yourself that working that land would be profitable. You dedicated years of your life to making that land what it is today. It wouldn't be fair for someone you don't know to come along and take you and your families livelihood without your consent simply because you were now too old to work, or had moved on to greener pastures. Where were they when you were breaking your back fertilizing the soil? Where were they when you were growing the trees? Where were they when your kids had to eat nothing but ramen for a month because the field had caught fire earlier that summer and you'd lost half your crop.

Business owners do way more than simply take out a loan and then sit back and rake in money off the sweat of their workers. Often they dedicate years, even lifetimes to building something. That deserves compensation.

You mean like in the capitalist system today where farmers are told to get big or get out, lose their land to the banks when they can't afford mortages and have to sell their goods for less because of the monopoly of buyers?

I took it that why should you, after you are finished with the land, hold on to it? Whats the good of lets say owning a house and never setting foot into it? Or moving out and never returning? After the harvest is over and its all said and done, why do you own the land?

[Razeal18]

Originally Posted by Saya

You mean like in the capitalist system today where farmers are told to get big or get out, lose their land to the banks when they can't afford mortages and have to sell their goods for less because of the monopoly of buyers?

I took it that why should you, after you are finished with the land, hold on to it? Whats the good of lets say owning a house and never setting foot into it? Or moving out and never returning? After the harvest is over and its all said and done, why do you own the land?

residual income

[Despanan]

Jillian chose the small farm example, not me, presumably to back up his assertion that we should "abolish all private property" so unless he's working some angle I have yet to discern, I think he is arguing for abolishing all private property. Privately owned farms count as private property regardless of size.

I appreciate your candor guys, but this is an argument as to why the capitalist system is indefensible, not agriculture reform. Please don't complicate the discussion.

[Alan]

I am in fact arguing for an end to private property, as it is entirely arbitrary.
From what you said, here's the philosophical problem with it: it is still arbitrary. The outcome of the hard labor the person has made s expressed in the output of his work, not on the undeniable rights to a parcel of land he worked on once.
In the practical world, let's see how private property works out.
A manager pays a worker five dollars an hour. The worker's job is to produce forty dollars' worth of materials each hour. Isn't the worker paying the owner thirty five dollars for working for him? Here's where private property comes in. The argument says "well the owner owns the machines." But he keeps earning seven times as much from EACH worker's labor, and the financial risk for him is nowhere near as valuable as the total labor his employees give. Why is the owner permanently and geometrically rewarded for his initial input and yet the worker's constant input is not rewarded accordingly?
Or how about the fact that a landlord can raise the rent of his apartments for improvements the people living in them make? That person makes an effort to improve their living conditions. The value of the apartment is raised by it, and rent is raised accordingly; all just because the landlord claims an arbitrary right over that apartment beyond the reward of the initial risk.

Private ownership of the means of production is an idolatry to an arbitrary sense of merit that has no justification grounded in reality, and creates injustice.

[Despanan]

I disagree. I currently work raising funds for Carnegie Hall's education and public outreach programs in New York. Between my commission and my hourly wage I earn about ten dollars an hour. I am expected to produce at least fifty dollars an hour in donations for Carnegie Hall (I usually do much more than that since I'm one of their best salesmen)

Now, my boss undoubtedly makes more than me. If I lacked perspective I might think that he's simply sitting in his office making money off my sweat and taking credit for my accomplishments. However, when you look at it from his perspective, He has to work there every day, day in, day out. He has to take the heat when our team doesn't produce, he has to work with the powers that be to ensure that we are given the leads that we need to produce, he has to handle all the shit that each of my co-works hand him, he has to deal with the office drama, and he has to handle the hiring and firing of employees. Now both me, and my boss are artists. He was an actor, and still performs sketch comedy. I am a playwright and poet, and I also still act. If I need to blow off a few shifts for an audition, or to perform in a show, everything doesn't go down the tubes, they just lose a few hundred dollars, if he blows off a shift they lose thousands because JP starts fucking around thinking he runs the office, myrtle spends her time trying to make sure she always gets the same chair, the people in development at the hall decide that they know better than we do and start wasting money on mailings that our patrons don't respond to, etc.

Unlike me, my boss has chosen to put his acting career on indefinite hold, in favor of being the force which organizes the fundraising arm of Carnegie Hall, I on the other hand, only help out as much as I can, and keep working on getting my plays finished and produced.

Would I like to be paid more? sure, but that would also mean less money that people donate to the cause of music education actually going to music education, and I'm fine with the meager amount that I make, so long as the job provides me with the freedom that I need. My boss has much more invested in that job than I ever will, and thus deserves a greater amount of compensation.

Thinking that a boss's salary is based upon arbitrary hierarchy is childish at best. It's like when you were a little kid and you figured: Man my parents have it great, all they do is tell me what to do! Except Joker is advocating that you and your brothers and sisters lock your parents out of the house because they're exploiting you as a room-cleaning work force.

[Alan]

All your argument is based around the idea that the world has it as good as you do, and your boss is the epitome of management.
Your justification is valid for talking only about you two, but if you believe that your boss gets paid rightly more because he works accordingly more, do you believe people that make a hundred times more than you work a hundred times more than you?
Do you realize that jobs that are much more important than yours and mine get paid a fucking joke because in this system businesses can get away with it? There hasn't been a point in history in which a just payment (hell, even a minimum payment) is the norm in capitalism.
So your argument is just based around your middle-class personal standard of living and unrealistic rationalizations that have proved not to be the case throughout history? I'd hardly call me the childish one here.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I disagree. I currently work raising funds for Carnegie Hall's education and public outreach programs in New York. Between my commission and my hourly wage I earn about ten dollars an hour. I am expected to produce at least fifty dollars an hour in donations for Carnegie Hall (I usually do much more than that since I'm one of their best salesmen)

Now, my boss undoubtedly makes more than me. If I lacked perspective I might think that he's simply sitting in his office making money off my sweat and taking credit for my accomplishments. However, when you look at it from his perspective, He has to work there every day, day in, day out. He has to take the heat when our team doesn't produce, he has to work with the powers that be to ensure that we are given the leads that we need to produce, he has to handle all the shit that each of my co-works hand him, he has to deal with the office drama, and he has to handle the hiring and firing of employees. Now both me, and my boss are artists. He was an actor, and still performs sketch comedy. I am a playwright and poet, and I also still act. If I need to blow off a few shifts for an audition, or to perform in a show, everything doesn't go down the tubes, they just lose a few hundred dollars, if he blows off a shift they lose thousands because JP starts fucking around thinking he runs the office, myrtle spends her time trying to make sure she always gets the same chair, the people in development at the hall decide that they know better than we do and start wasting money on mailings that our patrons don't respond to, etc.

Unlike me, my boss has chosen to put his acting career on indefinite hold, in favor of being the force which organizes the fundraising arm of Carnegie Hall, I on the other hand, only help out as much as I can, and keep working on getting my plays finished and produced.

Would I like to be paid more? sure, but that would also mean less money that people donate to the cause of music education actually going to music education, and I'm fine with the meager amount that I make, so long as the job provides me with the freedom that I need. My boss has much more invested in that job than I ever will, and thus deserves a greater amount of compensation.

Thinking that a boss's salary is based upon arbitrary hierarchy is childish at best. It's like when you were a little kid and you figured: Man my parents have it great, all they do is tell me what to do! Except Joker is advocating that you and your brothers and sisters lock your parents out of the house because they're exploiting you as a room-cleaning work force.

So the reason your boss deserves more money than you is because your coworkers are a bunch of mouth breathers who don't know how to do their fucking jobs?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

All your argument is based around the idea that the world has it as good as you do, and your boss is the epitome of management.

I have it good? I work for ten dollars an hour for a non-profit, and can get less than 30 hours a week, in the most expensive city in the world. I can barely even make rent. Let alone pay for my lavish lifestyle (a bottle of cheap gin and one open mike night a week).

Yeah, I'm mister trust-fund moneybags.

Your justification is valid for talking only about you two, but if you believe that your boss gets paid rightly more because he works accordingly more, do you believe people that make a hundred times more than you work a hundred times more than you?

So clearly, because some people are paid too much or too little for their actual contribution to society, my apartment should belong to "the people" right? 'cause that crackhead across the street is totally NOT allowed to sleep on my couch.

Do you realize that jobs that are much more important than yours and mine get paid a fucking joke because in this system businesses can get away with it? There hasn't been a point in history in which a just payment (hell, even a minimum payment) is the norm in capitalism.

wait, what about minimum wage?...that's sort of the norm in most "capitalist" societies...unless you've gone all "yoda" again and started spouting word salad, or you're trying to argue against anarcho-capitalism which, as I've pointed out, is a straw-man.

So your argument is just based around your middle-class personal standard of living and unrealistic rationalizations that have proved not to be the case throughout history? I'd hardly call me the childish one here.

Once again...I make barely $1,400 a month working for a non-profit, in a city where my rent is $1050 a month. I'm on food stamps. Which one of us thought about transferring to an ivy-league school and paying out $80-$100,000 just so they could bang a chick?

yeah I thought so.

Originally Posted by Jokerisafag

So the reason your boss deserves more money than you is because your coworkers are a bunch of mouth breathers who don't know how to do their fucking jobs?

No, my boss deserves more money because he has devoted years of his finite time on this planet to raising money for education instead of following his acting career.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by JillianMcAllanster

Do you realize that jobs that are much more important than yours and mine get paid a fucking joke because in this system businesses can get away with it? There hasn't been a point in history in which a just payment (hell, even a minimum payment) is the norm in capitalism.

speaking of which, what the hell is this "Just" payment you argue which has NEVAR occured before in the history of capitalism? Are you arguing that if I bring in $2000 dollars a week in donations, I should get paid $2000 dollars a week?

That'd be pretty sweet, though I think some donors would be pretty pissed if they found out that that "Education" fund was actually a "Get Desp Drunk an Laid" fund.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I have it good? I work for ten dollars an hour for a non-profit, and can get less than 30 hours a week, in the most expensive city in the world. I can barely even make rent. Let alone pay for my lavish lifestyle (a bottle of cheap gin and one open mike night a week).

Yeah, I'm mister trust-fund moneybags.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ten dollars an hour is NOT minimum wage over there, is it?
So you complain about earning 140% that of most low income class people living in the same most expensive city in the world?
A further argument below.

So clearly, because some people are paid too much or too little for their actual contribution to society, my apartment should belong to "the people" right? 'cause that crackhead across the street is totally NOT allowed to sleep on my couch.

Obviously you can only argue your point with hyperbole, because that's how socialism works.

wait, what about minimum wage?...that's sort of the norm in most "capitalist" societies...unless you've gone all "yoda" again and started spouting word salad, or you're trying to argue against anarcho-capitalism which, as I've pointed out, is a straw-man.

"What about minimum wage?"
Indeed, what about it?
A real minimum wage is not the norm in almost any part of the free-market world. And yet you bitch about how you don't have it good.
Not only is the pursuit of a minimum wage won by radical trade unionism consciously opposed to capitalism, and at the expense of thousands of workers' lives; but aside from that, you're being so fucking eurocentric right now.
The increasingly welfarist European states have decent wage standards and America has at least a minimum wage; therefore fuck the third world, main producer of prime materials, and the underclassed millions in America who must be doing something bad if their businesses still pay less than minimum wage - the "sort of norm in 'capitalist' societies"

Once again...I make barely $1,400 a month working for a non-profit, in a city where my rent is $1050 a month. I'm on food stamps. Which one of us thought about transferring to an ivy-league school and paying out $80-$100,000 just so they could bang a chick?

Neither. Transferring from my university program with my GPA allowed me to pay the same thing in another college as mine for a year: 1,200.
But it's nice to know ad hominems are back on the table.

yeah I thought so.

Thought what? You were wrong.

No, my boss deserves more money because he has devoted years of his finite time on this planet to raising money for education instead of following his acting career.

So I ask you again; if your argument is as stupidly simplistic as "he earns more because he works more," then someone who earns a hundred times what you earn works a hundred times what you work? Does it go viceversa?
Man! Those Braceros sure are fucking lazy, then!

[Still Jack]

Vaguely relevant to the thread.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Alan

A real minimum wage is not the norm in almost any part of the free-market world.

Argue against a mixed economy. That's what Despanan's arguing for, so it only makes sense for you to argue against a mixed economy rather than to keep diverting with "Yes but in this DIFFERENT application of capitalism..."

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ten dollars an hour is NOT minimum wage over there, is it?
So you complain about earning 140% that of most low income class people living in the same most expensive city in the world?
A further argument below.

Who's complaining? My life is awesome, but that doesn't mean your critique of me as an "out of touch" middle class guy is valid. I'm FAR below the poverty line.

Oh and my base wage is 7.55, which IS minimum wage. I just happen to be able to average around Ten an hour because I'm really good at my job.

Obviously you can only argue your point with hyperbole, because that's how socialism works.

YES. THIS HAS CLEARLY BEEN MY ONLY MEANS OF ATTACK THIS ENTIRE TIME. MY STATUS AS A CUNNING LINGUIST IS THE ONLY REASON YOU HAVE FOUND YOURSELF SO THOROUGHLY LICKED.

Hyperbole aside, there are many different theories on socialist thought and it's application which DON'T involve Harlem's syphalitic drug addicts crashing with me on my couch. Just because some versions involve the abolishment of private property doesn't mean that this is a good idea, nor does this being "How socialism works" do anything for your case that capitalism is entirely without merit.

A real minimum wage is not the norm in almost any part of the free-market world. And yet you bitch about how you don't have it good.
Not only is the pursuit of a minimum wage won by radical trade unionism consciously opposed to capitalism, and at the expense of thousands of workers' lives; but aside from that, you're being so fucking eurocentric right now.
The increasingly welfarist European states have decent wage standards and America has at least a minimum wage; therefore fuck the third world, main producer of prime materials, and the underclassed millions in America who must be doing something bad if their businesses still pay less than minimum wage - the "sort of norm in 'capitalist' societies"

What JCC said. Arguing against third world economies is a straw-man. I'm not endorsing Argentina's uber-capitalistic economy. Why do you find it so hard to stay on topic? For that matter, why do you keep avoiding my direct questions? It's not helping dude.

Neither. Transferring from my university program with my GPA allowed me to pay the same thing in another college as mine for a year: 1,200.
But it's nice to know ad hominems are back on the table.

Once again, pointing out hipocracy is only ad hominime if the argument is saying/implying you're WRONG because of it. You know, like this:

Originally Posted by Some douche what doesn't know to argue good

your argument is just based around your middle-class personal standard of living...

Now, I could continue this "poorer than thou" dickwaving contest, but as I've pointed out, it really doesn't apply to this argument: that capitalism is entirely without merit (which Jillian, so far, has done a massively inadequate Job of arguing for) Lets just agree that we're both super poor dudes with mad working class street cred and go back to using our university educated minds to spend multiple hours a day arguing theoretical economics on the internets.

if your argument is as stupidly simplistic as "he earns more because he works more," then someone who earns a hundred times what you earn works a hundred times what you work? Does it go viceversa?

That was never my argument, so stop pretending it was. My argument was that your claim that salaries in a "capitalist" economy were "arbitrary" or "based on hierarchy" there are many factors which go into a persons salary, which I have shown. I am not arguing that all salaries are deserved all the time, nor am I implying that inequalities are not present. Besides, aren't you supposed to be arguing for the abolition of property? What the fuck does how much a person makes per hour even have to do with that?

Man! Those Braceros sure are fucking lazy, then!

leave the hyperbole to those who are good at it. Everyone here knows you don't have a sense of humor, so quit pretending otherwise.

[Despanan]

Oh shit...Guys, I'm sorry I said Jillian wasn't funny; I just read this sentence outloud with the punctuation:

Man! Those Braceros sure are fucking lazy, then!

Seriously, read it to yourselves outloud... I just spit tea out my nose...