Can you debunk these statements from capitalism.org ?

[valdek]

I would really appreciate it if someone could debunk/refute these statements because they've been troubling me in my leftist learning...


Isn't capitalism a system of exploitation?
If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average man, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation."


How does capitalism do this [stop exploitation]?
It accomplishes this by banning the initiation of force from all relationships. Under Capitalism no businessmen can lawfully force a worker to do something against his will (and vice-versa). Capitalism is not a system of exploitation, but is the system of laissez faire -- freedom.

Don't capitalists exploit the masses by stealing their surplus as the Marxists alleged?
If capitalists "exploited" the masses by stealing their "surplus", as the Marxists allege, where was this "surplus" before capitalists existed? If not for capitalism, many of the masses you cry about would not exist -- capitalism did not create poverty it inherited it.



What is the source of the capitalist's profits?
The profits of capitalists are not the surpluses extorted from labor, but are the result of the proper use of one's capital, as losses are the result of the improper use of capital.



Don't laborers have a right to a share of the capitalist's profits, in addition to their wages?
Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses? If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses? A moments reflection will point out that laborers are only responsible for their job description -- they are not directly responsible for the losses of a business -- and that the cause of an enterprise's losses lies essentially with the owner, as do the profits.

That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage.


And something else, if people have lost their jobs as..say some office job due to the GFC (or Global Capitalist Crisis as some of you may like to call it :p); instead of leeching off of welfare or unemployment benefits and complaining why does he not take a low end job somewhere as say a local council worker or a supermarket in the interim until he finds a more suitable job?
(i'm not sure if welfare is as readily available in America as many RevLeft members are predominantly from there-but I'm from Australia so this last question may not apply)
This is a complaint I get from a lot of capitalist friends who hate the idea of welfare..

Cheers!

[ZeroNowhere]

Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses? Why don't they cry out and demand that they get to receive a share in those losses?Probably because they're unemployed.


Isn't capitalism a system of exploitation?
If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average man, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation."That's not even an argument. The only place it would pass for an argument is in a debate.


Don't capitalists exploit the masses by stealing their surplus as the Marxists alleged?
If capitalists "exploited" the masses by stealing their "surplus", as the Marxists allege, where was this "surplus" before capitalists existed? If not for capitalism, many of the masses you cry about would not existCongratulations, you just grasped primitive accumulation.


What is the source of the capitalist's profits?
The profits of capitalists are not the surpluses extorted from labor, but are the result of the proper use of one's capital, as losses are the result of the improper use of capital.This reminds me of Marx's chapter on the trinity formula. In any case, it's a result of owning and selling commodities. Just because capital appears in present times as essentially the economic equivalent of gambling, that doesn't explain what capital is, namely an objectified social relation.

[La Comédie Noire]

If "exploitation" means increasing the standard of living of the masses, tripling the life span of the average man, and bringing wealth and prosperity to all those who live under it, then capitalism is a system of "exploitation." Those things were brought about by human ingenuity, which exists regardless of the socioeconomic system it operates under. You might as well thank early civilization for agriculture, or feudalism for the water mill. :lol:

But if we are going to be giving credit where credit is due. Where did these awesome benefits of a modern society come from? Who built and staffed the hospital that tripled the average lifespan? That's right, the workers.

Here's a better question, where would you rather live, 19th century England or 21st Century England? I would hope you'd pick the ladder because there are a wealth of factory reports from that time period that all agree being a factory worker in England was really shitty. You'd work 18 hours a day, breathing in fumes and making just enough so your impoverished children could replace you when you died at 40.

In fact it was the agitation of socialist and trade unionists that brought about the great standard of living we enjoy today. Here's a clue, leftists were agitating for reform before it was cool. In fact the last 200 years has been a battle to improve the conditions of the working class. People have this idea in their heads that we were handed things from above by the free market and their sympathetic policy makers. Bull shit, we fought for it and will have to again. What do you think austerity will mean to you?


It accomplishes this by banning the initiation of force from all relationships. Under Capitalism no businessmen can lawfully force a worker to do something against his will (and vice-versa). Capitalism is not a system of exploitation, but is the system of laissez faire -- freeUtopian capitalist horseshit. Force is used all the time in capitalism, often times de jure, and if not they can always reinterpret laws afterwards to fit the circumstances. I at least respect the people who use the excuse "well it had to be done!" at least their being honest.

Capitalism most certainly doesn't just "leave things be". In fact it's built into the logic of capitalism itself, you either make profit and grow, or you die. Thousands of displaced tribes and war torn countries can attest to that fact. Do you think we're pushing the earth to it's ecological limits because humanity is inherently avaricious?

In fact Capitalists have a double standard when it comes to government intervention. Social safety net? No thanks. A line of riot policemen to enforce my property rights? Thank you!


If capitalists "exploited" the masses by stealing their "surplus", as the Marxists allege, where was this "surplus" before capitalists existed? If not for capitalism, many of the masses you cry about would not exist

Zeronowhere, nailed it. It didn't just come from nowhere and definitely not because some misguided squirrels partied all winter while a more frugal bunch saved all their nuts.



Why are the laborers who demand a share in the capitalist's profits, silent in demanding their "share" when he incurs losses?

Whether or not workers want it, they incur the losses of capitalism anyways. What happens when a business has a bad quarter? Do capitalists take the hit to their profit margin or do they cut jobs? That's right, they cut jobs. What happens when they make record profits? That's right, they keep them. Capitalism is a system that privatizes the gains, while it collectivizes the losses. Again, not because capitalists are "evil", but because it's built into the system.

Communism simply seeks to collectivize the gains and losses.


The profits of capitalists are not the surpluses extorted from labor, but are the result of the proper use of one's capital, as losses are the result of the improper use of capital.

This is just silly. Where does capital come from? Sure you can squander your capital through a series of bad business decisions, but that doesn't explain why you have it in the first place. Capital is past labor, it is the work of others stored up in things like machines.


If labor is the sole cause of all profit, then is it not also the sole cause of all losses?No, we don't get to make any decisions. We create products and services, or help in the realization of those products and services and then are sent on our merry way. Degrading us to the level of machines. Of course, communists seek to change this, but as you already know that's a controversial subject.


That a businessmen pays a worker less wages than the worker feels he deserves is not exploitation, as the worker is free to leave his job and look elsewhere for a higher paying one, if he thinks that someone can give him a better job for a better wage.


Of course that's not exploitation, that's the subjective theory of value, which conveniently ignores the production process and focuses entirely on exchange. I can feel and want whatever I want, but unless I make enough to provide for my basic needs while saving up for those luxuries (relative term) they will remain distant dreams in my mind. And to do that, I have to work 40 hours a week, on someone else's time. I don't meet other buyers in the market to sell my wares on equal terms, I sell my capacity to work because one group of people own the tools of production which society uses to create goods and services. That includes the education it takes to get a higher paying job.


And something else, if people have lost their jobs as..say some office job due to the GFC (or Global Capitalist Crisis as some of you may like to call it :p); instead of leeching off of welfare or unemployment benefits and complaining why does he not take a low end job somewhere as say a local council worker or a supermarket in the interim until he finds a more suitable job?

Some people receive welfare and work at the same time. But let's think about this for a minute. I could bust my ass for 40 hours a week at some super market, or I could get paid about the same and use that time to look for a job. Of course welfare is supposed to be temporary, but there is a growing number of people who simply cannot find work, or enough to justify the cost of commuting. We have a huge waste of human potential that is a serious misallocation of resources. While a Capitalist will tell you this is "frictional unemployment" and something temporary there are a few people who think it will become the norm of capitalism.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/hightech/chap1.html

http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

[Forward Union]

As for the first one,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

[Tim Cornelis]

Here: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secCcon.html