What's wrong with Capitalism?

[Methadrine]

Originally Posted by Saya

Are mixed economies better than straight up capitalism? Absolutely. But they still fail to make things egalitarian and classless.

But Sweden is more or less classless as I see it, which is great. Equal rights to everyone does indeed work here most of the time, but as usual there's room to improve.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Alan

Your 'mixed economies' are merely capitalist countries that limit this capitalism with socialistic institutions to offer most people a cushion.

You mean like a mix of economic theories? Fancy that.

Originally Posted by Alan

How can you not fucking see that there is no "balance" in that? Where exactly are you showing that "balance is extremely important"?

Mixed economies do a lot to balance capitalism and socialism. Take labour laws as a start: the eight-hour day, the minimum wage, health and safety initiatives are all socialist ideas. They help to maintain a balance in a competitive market, still allowing trade but protecting workers' rights. Mixed economies rarely do enough to dilute capitalism's weaker points, but there is definitely a balance there if you don't resolve yourself to immediately declaring any trace of capitalism as irredeemable, it could just do with a little more. The problem here isn't that mixed economies don't offer a balance, it's your interpretation that's at fault.

Originally Posted by Alan

How could you find balance between an economic philosophy that takes private property as necessary and one that does not believe in private property?

Come on, man, you wonder why I accuse you of oversimplifying?

Originally Posted by Alan

And now, call me slow if you will, but if we're going back to the first posts, tell me exactly what's wrong with this:
The claim is, capitalism can be salvageable if the people that work under capitalism disregard the definition of capitalism and work in more humane manners: bosses don't exploit their workers.
Equally, slavery can be salvageable if the people that work under slavery disregard the definition of slavery and work in more humane manners: slaveowners don't exploit their slaves.

I know what you're saying so I'm going to try and tread lightly arguing here, because I don't want it to seem like I am legitimizing what is essentially the blackmail of employment. That said, your comparison is stupid. If the bosses don't exploit their workers, the most reasonable outcome would be that bosses walk away with the exact same amount of profit for their troubles as workers do, merely working in an administrative role. Obviously this can't be said for slavery, as it is slavery. Employment is not necessarily wage slavery, it simply happens to be that way now.

Originally Posted by Razeal18

i am gonna have to side with jcc and desparan on this one. alan i admire your spirit and your conviction and faith in what you believe is right but i fail to see how anarcy (no government no police no checks and balances no one to go to if you need help no checks on the economy if some fat bastard is gouging scicne hes the only one who has a product member opec yeah its called a monopoly) would be better that the curent state of things.

You don't understand anarchism.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by JCC

You don't understand anarchism.

Or Socialism. Or Capitalism, for that matter.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Methadrine

But Sweden is more or less classless as I see it, which is great. Equal rights to everyone does indeed work here most of the time, but as usual there's room to improve.

Don't get me wrong, I can write an essay on how awesome Sweden is, but its still not classless or has everyone on a level playing field. The gender wage gap still exists, for example, although Sweden is really cool in that they are one of the few countries who are tackling the problem seriously and has made wonderful improvements on that front.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by JCC

You mean like a mix of economic theories? Fancy that.

It's not mixing economies, it's simply imbuing capitalism with a little humanitarianism - something socialism already inherently has. Once again, capitalism is just salvaged because of the non-capitalist aspects of its society.

Mixed economies do a lot to balance capitalism and socialism. Take labour laws as a start: the eight-hour day, the minimum wage, health and safety initiatives are all socialist ideas. They help to maintain a balance in a competitive market, still allowing trade but protecting workers' rights. Mixed economies rarely do enough to dilute capitalism's weaker points, but there is definitely a balance there if you don't resolve yourself to immediately declaring any trace of capitalism as irredeemable, it could just do with a little more. The problem here isn't that mixed economies don't offer a balance, it's your interpretation that's at fault.

The only thing you have said is exactly the same: capitalism is salvaged by socialism. Only thing you attributed to capitalism is "a competitive market," but come one man, you're JCC, you know better than that.

Come on, man, you wonder why I accuse you of oversimplifying?

Hey, your above argument is the standard cliché you yourself have argued against before.

I know what you're saying so I'm going to try and tread lightly arguing here, because I don't want it to seem like I am legitimizing what is essentially the blackmail of employment. That said, your comparison is stupid. If the bosses don't exploit their workers, the most reasonable outcome would be that bosses walk away with the exact same amount of profit for their troubles as workers do, merely working in an administrative role. Obviously this can't be said for slavery, as it is slavery. Employment is not necessarily wage slavery, it simply happens to be that way now.

Fair enough. That is true, but that is still only if capitalism is rid from its purpose. It's a simple bad analogy; I originally wanted to compare it to fascism (both have corporatism anyway) but I thought it would have been too over-the-top. But here it goes:
If capitalism is defensible only by ignoring its defining terms, what stops anyone from extending the same respect to fascism?
You still get hierarchy, you still get a profit-driven market, you still get a centralized police state, and you still get institutionalized pseudo-unions everyone has to obey. Only in this case let the upper classes care about the lower ones, let the bosses care about their workers, let the cops be humane, and let the state-governed 'unions' care about their members. Unlike slavery, none of these entail oppression anymore than capitalism. Is fascism salvageable now?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

How could you find balance between an economic philosophy that takes private property as necessary and one that does not believe in private property?

Probably by allowing certain things to remain private (Clothes, houses, animals) and keeping other things public (Parks, the police force, libraries, health care, and certain utilities). Ya know, WHAT PEOPLE ALREADY DO.

You're just rationalizing the already established system and claiming it to be a perfect center of everything.

Yes. I am saying that, because of all those posts I made that say that...oh wait...There aren't any posts where I do that. The way your mind works is really frightening you know that?

Originally Posted by Jillian

The claim is, capitalism can be salvageable if the people that work under capitalism disregard the definition of capitalism and work in more humane manners: bosses don't exploit their workers.

I wondered what fucking definition you were using for capitalism, so I looked it up:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production also known as the means of production, is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

Capitalism
-noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Originally Posted by mirriam-webster

Capitalism
-n
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

I was really having trouble till I found this one:

Originally Posted by Jillian's tiny, crazy brain

Capitalism
HATENoun

A system of exploitation where rich people wake up from long sleeps in piles of bloodsoaked money and think to themselves: "How can I make everyone's life worse today?" While smoking a cigar rolled in newborn baby skin.

So yeah, you got me there. Under your definition it's totally impossible to own a business and be fair about it.

My question is, why is capitalism respectable in this manner but not slavery?
And where did I become a racist? Was it the moment you read "slave" and a black guy immediately popped into your head?

Dude...YOU ARE COMPARING OWNING A CAR TO OWNING A PERSON. Displaying such a complete and utter lack of perspective, and utilizing the struggles of people who were LITERALLY chained, shackled, *****, killed, and in every way dehumanized to promote your own self-centered agenda (and yes, you are massively self-centered Alan)...well I just don't think there's any other word for it. What you're doing is tanamount to when PETA brought up the specter of the Holocaust to try to get people to stop eating chicken: rude, stupid, and yes, racist.

Oh, and also: Your argument has actually been used in favor of slavery. suck on that.

[viscus]

Slavery analogy aside, what Alan is saying is that capitalism rests upon exploitation. If you take away exploitation, it isn't capitalism anymore.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by viscus

Slavery analogy aside, what Alan is saying is that capitalism rests upon exploitation. If you take away exploitation, it isn't capitalism anymore.

and I am saying that's stupid. There's definitely a case that certain forms of capitalism encourage unhealthy competition and this can certainly lead to exploitation, but the idea that any form of property is always exploitation is outright laughable.

For crissakes people, we're talking about a method of trading, not a moral code.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by viscus

Slavery analogy aside, what Alan is saying is that capitalism rests upon exploitation. If you take away exploitation, it isn't capitalism anymore.

Wow, this is patently untrue. It's an unambiguous falsehood.
A capitalist system can encourage exploitation, but it isn't fundamentally equatable therewith. As I said earlier in this thread, if people naturally cleaved to the virtues of citizenship, altruism and fair-play such that a graceful segue from rigid class-hierarchy to sustainable stateless socialism were possible, a capitalist economy would be almost entirely unproblematic. Just as the implementation of Communism tends to hit a snag during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the realization of an ideal Capitalism is complicated once private interests seize upon means of profit that don't demand a proportional amount of labor, upon the idea that commodities can be sold for a price that far exceeds their real worth.

Originally Posted by despanan

the idea that any form of property is always exploitation is outright laughable.

Careful, property isn't an endemically capitalist concept. I just don't want everything else you said to be ignored in favor of this slip-up.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Wow, this is patently untrue. It's an unambiguous falsehood.
A capitalist system can encourage exploitation, but it isn't fundamentally equatable therewith. As I said earlier in this thread, if people naturally cleaved to the virtues of citizenship, altruism and fair-play such that a graceful segue from rigid class-hierarchy to sustainable stateless socialism were possible, a capitalist economy would be almost entirely unproblematic. Just as the implementation of Communism tends to hit a snag during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the realization of an ideal Capitalism is complicated once private interests seize upon means of profit that don't demand a proportional amount of labor, upon the idea that commodities can be sold for a price that far exceeds their real worth.

It would seem that capitalism always leads to exploitation, unless it's held in check by something else, e.g. the state.

Capitalism also becomes problematic when those who are able to acquire a large amount of wealth start using it to expropriate the work of others.

[KontanKarite]

I still think it's pretty damned crazy to assume that capitalists are by nature exploitative categorically.

I understand that capitalism is the enemy of socialists, but capitalism isn't some big scary monster that you're fighting against, it's people.

Sure, corporations are in large, pretty god damned shitty. But what a lot of socialists are talking about... you guys are talking about dismantling my buddy's game store. You realize that he doesn't even make enough from his own damned shop to own his own fucking car? But running that store is what makes him happy. So... how exactly is what my buddy doing inherently wrong?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Careful, property isn't an endemically capitalist concept. I just don't want everything else you said to be ignored in favor of this slip-up.

My bad. I was tired.

Viscus:

hence a mixed economy with plenty of government-imposed regulations to safeguard against stuff like that.

[Despanan]

Hey Kontan, I think we just found the first Slavepunk novel:

Originally Posted by wikipedia entry for Cannibals All!

Cannibals All! was a sharp criticism of the system of "wage-slavery" found in the north. Fitzhugh's ideas were based on his view that the "negro slaves of the South" were considerably more free than those trapped by the oppression of capitalist exploitation. His idea to rectify social inequality created by capitalism was to institute a system of universal slavery, based on his belief that "nineteen out of every twenty individuals have...a natural and inalienable right to be slaves."

[KontanKarite]

I think I just came.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I still think it's pretty damned crazy to assume that capitalists are by nature exploitative categorically.

And here I thought I was arguing against a system; not people.
I have faith in people - why the hell do you think I'm a socialist? But what the fuck is the point of keeping a system in place when the system's rules are inherently exploitative, just because people are good enough that they could work better under a different system? It's stupid.

I understand that capitalism is the enemy of socialists, but capitalism isn't some big scary monster that you're fighting against, it's people.

You just fucking said it's crazy to think people would wake up just to think how to fuck their employees better!!
Make up your damned mind. If you believe the problem is people, then you're contradicting yourself, and you're also much less respectable than the credit we give you.

Sure, corporations are in large, pretty god damned shitty. But what a lot of socialists are talking about... you guys are talking about dismantling my buddy's game store. You realize that he doesn't even make enough from his own damned shop to own his own fucking car? But running that store is what makes him happy. So... how exactly is what my buddy doing inherently wrong?

See how laughable your argument is?
We're trying to defend capitalism here, right?
Then what the fuck is your friend doing with a business that hardly makes any profit? That's bad business, therefore he's a bad individual in this capitalist game.
Is he doing what he loves? Yeah. Is he contributing to society through the law of supply/demand in a way that is profitable to both parties? Apparently not.
So once again you're fucking trying to defend capitalism with an example that is directly opposed to the point of capitalism?

[Despanan]

Dude, Alan

you're fucking crazy. What the hell happened to you? Did a guy dressed as uncle pennybags touch you inappropriately?

SHOW US ON THE DOLL WHERE CAPITALISM TOUCHED YOU.

[Razeal18]

Originally Posted by JCC

You don't understand anarchism.

Definitions brought to you by wiki

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]

yeah i think i understand anarchy,i think someone is bit naive in thinking that a state of autonomouse liberty would result in any thing other then mass chaos, bloodshed, a regression of society back to a feudal dark ages system, and expose the very EVILS of mankind. and the 3rd definitions vert post adalecent idealistic phase.

[JCC]

Don't try and teach me what anarchy is and isn't with a single paragraph from Wikipedia and use that to back up your entirely ridiculous conclusion.

[Razeal18]

Originally Posted by JCC

Don't try and teach me what anarchy is and isn't with a single paragraph from Wikipedia and use that to back up your entirely ridiculous conclusion.

Why not? a direct definition of the word that you question my understanding of is not a legitamit position to have on an argument? i dont care what your definition of this word is, and if its somethin other that this definiton that i am happy for you and may the momraths lead you back home and away from the cheshire cat and the queen of hearts, but up here in reality it is the accepted definition. We can agree to disagree if you like, but i am backing up my position with hard facts instead of condescending little tidbits of a post that remind me too much of senile family members.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Razeal18

Why not? a direct definition of the word that you question my understanding of is not a legitamit position to have on an argument? i dont care what your definition of this word is, and if its somethin other that this definiton that i am happy for you and may the momraths lead you back home and away from the cheshire cat and the queen of hearts, but up here in reality it is the accepted definition. We can agree to disagree if you like, but i am backing up my position with hard facts instead of condescending little tidbits of a post that remind me too much of senile family members.

Have you ever researched the subject at all? All you see is 'statelessness' and then this leads you to fucking idiotic conclusions like that fucking feudalism will spontaneously rise from the ashes of Western civilization and catapult us all into a perpetual fucking Hell on Earth. Don't give me that shit about hard facts, where in that definition can you find any basis for your ramblings, you backwards fuck?

[Razeal18]

Originally Posted by JCC

Have you ever researched the subject at all? All you see is 'statelessness' and then this leads you to fucking idiotic conclusions like that fucking feudalism will spontaneously rise from the ashes of Western civilization and catapult us all into a perpetual fucking Hell on Earth. Don't give me that shit about hard facts, where in that definition can you find any basis for your ramblings, you backwards fuck?

Omg your right i have just been going on rational and reason. why have i wasted such time! where has the time gone? Yes your right jcc i will study anarchy... oh here it is also from wiki:

"However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-statist society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities."

OMG you were right i'll see you at the love circle tonight were we can all smoke a pound of weed and sing cum-bi-ya, no one will ever try to manipulate one another or take advantage of such ( i'll say it again) naivity. put down the joint and walk outside once in a while better yet walk in to a "bad " neighborhood and start preaching everyone getting along without a government of organization, when yopu get you wallet stolen along with you kidney and all your clothes come back tell me again how people dont need a government and we can all just get along

Put Down The Bong Before You Post

[JCC]

So your incoherent use of sarcasm is really witty and enlightening and totally trumps my universally superior knowledge of this subject.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Razeal18

Put Down The Bong Before You Post

Might I suggest that you follow your own advice.

[Razeal18]

what good is universal superior knowledge if IT DOESN'T WORK. the negative aspect of anarchy is not an acceptable form of society, your idealistic view of anarchy is not feasible because of the inherit flaws of man. with out wit, without sarcasim and without flavor. Just cause i have unerversally superior knowledge of world of warcraft dosent mean that i can argue it as a legitamate form of society. IF i am wrong please enlighten me how you can confirm the majority's faith in humanity. without faith in humanity anarchy is still just an idealistic fantasy. i understand that you believe in it and far be it for me to tell you that your belifs are better or worse than mine but when you apply your beliefes to society as a whole it is flawed. not everyone has the faith in the rest of the world to live and let live.

[JCC]

I'm not telling you what I believe in, it would be dishonest to say that I still identify as an anarchist. I'm just telling you that your opinions are juvenile and unfounded.