*** Capitalism in BABY-terms ***

[Afghan]

Hey everyone ,

I opened this thread due to certain questions I have regarding capitalism:


1-Are the US, UK, France etc: True-capitalistic-countries?


2- Is it true that capitalism says: You do NOT have to help the poor - you can help them if you want to?


3- Is it true that a capitalistic state will not help the poor financially? If this is TRUE , then how come in the the UK (for example) they have the NHS , JobseekersAllowance , Carer's Allowance etc , which DO help the poor ?

I hope you guys can answer my questions with references. Thank you for your time.

[#FF0000]

I don't think terms like "true capitalism" are useful. All of these countries are capitalist in that the capitalist mode of production is dominant there. That means:

1. The inputs and outputs of production are exclusively owned
2. Production is done for profit
3. The majority of people derive their income from wages and salaries.

So, whether or not a country has NHS or a Welfare State is irrelevant -- It doesn't stop them from being capitalist one way or the other.

[Afghan]

I don't think terms like "true capitalism" are useful. All of these countries are capitalist in that the capitalist mode of production is dominant there. That means:

1. The inputs and outputs of production are exclusively owned
2. Production is done for profit
3. The majority of people derive their income from wages and salaries.

So, whether or not a country has NHS or a Welfare State is irrelevant -- It doesn't stop them from being capitalist one way or the other.
Ok , thanks.

Then what is wrong with capitalism?

I thought they were hated for their greed and not helping the poor.

[#FF0000]

Ok , thanks.

Then what is wrong with capitalism?

I thought they were hated for their greed and not helping the poor.

Whether the rich help the poor or not, there would be no poor if not for capitalism!

That's what's wrong with capitalism -- Just like slave societies and feudal societies, it divides people up into class stratas, with a few people at the top with most of the wealth and power, and the vast majority at the bottom, who must go to work, create wealth, and then hand that wealth over to the boss in exchange for a wage, to survive.

This injustice is the most basic issue with capitalism. There are other problems that grow from here -- such as the horrendous working and living conditions that most of the world is forced to endure, the wars waged in the interests of business, etc. etc. etc.

[Nox]

1-Are the US, UK, France etc: True-capitalistic-countries?



2- Is it true that capitalism says: You do NOT have to help the poor - you can help them if you want to?


3- Is it true that a capitalistic state will not help the poor financially? If this is TRUE , then how come in the the UK (for example) they have the NHS , JobseekersAllowance , Carer's Allowance etc , which DO help the poor ?



1.) No. They are free market economies with social policies such as the NHS and welfare.

2.) No. There are very few purely Capitalistic countries in the world, Somalia is one of them.

3.) A purely Capitalistic state will do fuck all to help anyone at all. No roads, no schools, no healthcare, no nothing. The UK has those because it is not purely Capitalist.

[Afghan]

Whether the rich help the poor or not, there would be no poor if not for capitalism!

That's what's wrong with capitalism -- Just like slave societies and feudal societies, it divides people up into class stratas, with a few people at the top with most of the wealth and power, and the vast majority at the bottom, who must go to work, create wealth, and then hand that wealth over to the boss in exchange for a wage, to survive.

This injustice is the most basic issue with capitalism. There are other problems that grow from here -- such as the horrendous working and living conditions that most of the world is forced to endure, the wars waged in the interests of business, etc. etc. etc.
But this is how the world has always functioned, hasn't it?

A person owns a company , he employes people. They work for him. They get paid by him. Isn't this a a win-win situation for everyone? The worker earns money , the employer gets his job done - the country progresses. Everyone is happy.

So I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me yet.

I don't see anything wrong with one person being rich (because he worked for it , he earned it) and another person being poor , as long as the rich GIVES charity and the poor people are not left to their fate. The rich should help the poor.

Thank you.

[Nox]

But this is how the world has always functioned, hasn't it?

A person owns a company , he employes people. They work for him. They get paid by him. Isn't this a a win-win situation for everyone? The worker earns money , the employee get's his job done - the country progresses. Everyone is happy.

So I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me yet.

I don't see anything wrong with one person being rich (because he worked for it , he earned it) and another person being poor , as long as the rich GIVES charity and the poor people are not left to their fate. The rich should help the poor.

Thank you.

That is only the way the world has worked for the past 200 or so years.

It is not a win-win situation, the workers get paid less than half of what they produce.

You can't rely on the rich voluntarily donating money to the poor, and you can't force them to because that contradicts the libertarian goal.

[Afghan]

1.) No. They are free market economies with social policies such as the NHS and welfare.

2.) No. There are very few purely Capitalistic countries in the world, Somalia is one of them.

3.) A purely Capitalistic state will do fuck all to help anyone at all. No roads, no schools, no healthcare, no nothing. The UK has those because it is not purely Capitalist.
OK , this is in line with what I was thinking as well.

You say that the State will not provide roads, schools and healthcare in a "purely capitalistic" country. Can you confirm this with references to capitalistic books? Where is this mentioned? Where do capitalists say this themselves?

Can you tell me why/how Somalia is "purely capitalistic"?


It is not a win-win situation, the workers get paid less half of what they produce.
It doesn't always have to be this way. But as you said , sometimes it does happen. For example , Nike was involved in child-labour in India.

Other Western companies move their warehouses to poor countries , where they pay the workers less than the minimum wage.

I agree.


You can't rely on the rich voluntarily donating money to the poor, and you can't force them to because that contradicts the libertarian goal.
But TAX-VAT is taken forcefully in the West - you HAVE to pay it.

[Nox]

OK , this is in line with what I was thinking as well.

You say that the State will not provide roads, schools and healthcare in a "purely capitalistic" country. Can you confirm this with references to capitalistic books? Where is this mentioned? Where do capitalists say this themselves?

Can you tell me why/how Somalia is "purely capitalistic"?


It doesn't always have to be this way. But as you said , sometimes it does happen. For example , Nike was involved in child-labour in India.

Other Western companies move their warehouses to poor countries , where they pay the workers less than the minimum wage.

I agree.


But TAX-VAT is taken forcefully in the West - you HAVE to pay it.

Somalia is commonly known as the 'Libertarian paradise' because it is the best example of a Libertarian society. Somalia has no government and has a free market. It ticks all the boxes for Libertarianism.

It always happens that way. In places like China and India, western companies pay the workers less than 5% of what they produce. In the absolute best circumstances in the most developed countries, workers get no more than 66% or so of what they produce.

Tax is a 'socialistic' thing. In a Libertarian society, there would be no tax.

[Afghan]

Somalia is commonly known as the 'Libertarian paradise' because it is the best example of a Libertarian society. Somalia has no government and has a free market. It ticks all the boxes for Libertarianism.

It always happens that way. In places like China and India, western companies pay the workers less than 5% of what they produce. In the absolute best circumstances in the most developed countries, workers get no more than 66% or so of what they produce.

Tax is a 'socialistic' thing. In a Libertarian society, there would be no tax.
What is a "Libertarian Society"? Is it the same as a capitalistic society?

I think you missed one of my points : I was asking about references to capitalistic-books , where they confirm that the Capitalistic-State does not provide any roads, healthcare and schools to the public. I'd be very grateful if you or anyone else could provide them for me.

[CommieTroll]

Ok , thanks.

Then what is wrong with capitalism?

I thought they were hated for their greed and not helping the poor.

There are many problems with Capitalism, mainly the alienation of the proletariat and accumulation of surplus value

[Nox]

What is a "Libertarian Society"? Is it the same as a capitalistic society?

I think you missed one of my points : I was asking about references to capitalistic-books , where they confirm that the Capitalistic-State does not provide any roads, healthcare and schools to the public. I'd be very grateful if you or anyone else could provide them for me.

A Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist society is the most absolute, pure form of Capitalism.

You don't need to read a book to realise that a purely Capitalist society would not provide and roads/healthcare/schools to the public, all you need to know is what Capitalism is, which from what you've posted so far, you clearly don't.

[Revolution starts with U]

There's nothing wrong with someone getting riched because he earned it. Trouble is. he didn't earn it. His workers earned it for him, and he siphoned it to himself.

If you think we start with the "some are rich some are poor, this is bad" stance, you are thinking of liberals, and not correct. We start with the "some are granted the privelage of ownership by the state, and this is wrong" stance.

[Thirsty Crow]

But this is how the world has always functioned, hasn't it?As I've suspected, the main problem here lies in your underlying assumption that the existence of "the poor" is as natural a phenomenon as birds singing.

In short, no, this is not how the world has always functioned. Capital and wage labour have only become hegemonic (one as a social relation of production, the other as the specific organization of labour, dependent on the former) some centuries ago, and at that, first in limited geographic areas, from which they expanded onto the whole world as evident in contemporary capitalism.

Prior to capitalism and the world market, human beings conducted their production of their own social existence in different ways, feudalism representing one such stage, slave societies another, and even further "back" into human history, pre-agricultural societies which didn't even witness specific class distinctions.


A person owns a company , he employes people. They work for him. They get paid by him. Isn't this a a win-win situation for everyone? The worker earns money , the employer gets his job done - the country progresses. Everyone is happy.This is a very simplified vision of concrete labour relations in capitalist enterprises, and consequently, of broader social relations in capitalism.
To start with, there is no reason whatsoever why production must be organized as to enforce the rule that there are people who work for another - the owner. It's rarely a win-win situation, and in most cases, one side benefits significantly more - and you can guess which side is that. The situation in itself is basically a situation of social power structures, therby ensuring the domination of one side over another (for example, as it is common nowadays, capitalists will not invest if there is no expected profitability, thereby leaving the productive powers idle and more degrading, leaving workers out of work, which has real personal and social consequences).

But even the assumption that workers' are regularly paid is a benevolent one, and is not really grounded in reality. For example, here where I live there were numerous instances of capitalists continuing with their business, while workers' weren't paid at all, sometimes as long as a whole year. This testifies to the unequal relations of power between the two sides - with high unemployment, capitalists will be able to coerce workers' into accepting all sorts of shit, pardon my language.



So I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me yet.I'm going to ask you an honest question and I would not like it to be misconstrued for a prejudice - but, have you ever worked for a boss yourself?

[Afghan]

You don't need to read a book to realise that a purely Capitalist society would not provide and roads/healthcare/schools to the public, all you need to know is what Capitalism is, which from what you've posted so far, you clearly don't.
Ok , please explain it to me. I'm eager to know.

[Lunatic Concept]

And dont forget that the things you mentioned such as the benifits system and the NHS were fought for by working people for decades, often in direct opposition to the state and capitalists, and thus are not inherent features of the system, Capitalists saw these measures as 'insurance against revolution'- in order to ease the pain of the current economic system without solving the inherent problems.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/1923/socialism.htm
Interesting little article for ya.

[Rafiq]

Ok , thanks.

Then what is wrong with capitalism?

I thought they were hated for their greed and not helping the poor.

Read Das Kapital.

Capitalism carries several internal contradictions. It will implode eventually.

[Rafiq]

You guys are all just so fucking horrible (besides Manecchio).

This is why we don't get a lot of folliwers.

Afghan i'll explain to you everything later

[runequester]

The origin of many social benefits to workers was Bismarck's Germany, attempting to ward off the then rise of socialist feeling.

Buy off the proletarians so they won't rise.

[ComradeMan]

You guys are all just so fucking horrible (besides Manecchio).

This is why we don't get a lot of folliwers.

Afghan i'll explain to you everything later

Comrade Popov and I did nothing.... :(

[Bronco]

You guys are all just so fucking horrible (besides Manecchio).

This is why we don't get a lot of folliwers.

Afghan i'll explain to you everything later

To be fair, telling someone to read Das Kapital, an incredibly long, complex critique of Capitalism, isn't exactly the best advice to give to someone who's a complete beginner either

[Bronco]

OK , this is in line with what I was thinking as well.

You say that the State will not provide roads, schools and healthcare in a "purely capitalistic" country. Can you confirm this with references to capitalistic books? Where is this mentioned? Where do capitalists say this themselves?

Can you tell me why/how Somalia is "purely capitalistic"?


Those who advocate Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism believe that it would be more efficient if the private sector provided those instead, so it would be run on a for-profit basis. Their basic idea is that competition would lead to these services being supplied at low cost and that they'd be run more productively although this would presumably lead to them no longer being free of charge, and may well make such services inaccessible to a lot of people. Murray Rothbard in his book "For a New Liberty" argues that all state run institutions should be placed in the hands of private individuals or businesses.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Somalia for the time that it could be considered "Anarcho-Capitalist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991-2006), although it's worth mentioning that most Libertarians/An-Caps would reject the suggestion that is a Libertarian Paradise or that it exemplifies what a stateless Capitalist society should look like.

I'm not an expert myself though, so someone may correct me on any of that

[Bud Struggle]

The best way to learn about Capitalism--is to get a job. You'll learn the good and bad of it really quickly.

[Ele'ill]

The best way to learn about Capitalism--is to get a job. You'll learn the good and bad of it really quickly.

To take what you said literally- yes. Hands on experience with labor/organizing will give you everything you need to know about capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

To take what you said literally- yes. Hands on experience with labor/organizing will give you everything you need to know about capitalism.

Take it any way you want it. Organize, work, be a wage slave, be a businessman. all that will teach you a lot more than reading Marx or Keynes or anyone else ever will.

[Thirsty Crow]

Take it any way you want it. Organize, work, be a wage slave, be a businessman. all that will teach you a lot more than reading Marx or Keynes or anyone else ever will.
Bud, you're on to something, and that's why I asked the question of our OP ever being employed as a wage labourer. However, it's wrong to assume that all necessary knowledge may come from immediate personal experience (although precisely this, working and some other stuff, has been a great motor force for the devleopment of my political positions).

[Ele'ill]

Take it any way you want it. Organize, work, be a wage slave, be a businessman. all that will teach you a lot more than reading Marx or Keynes or anyone else ever will.

I would supplement the hands on experience with reading and critical discussion.

[Bud Struggle]

I would supplement the hands on experience with reading and critical discussion.

I agree.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, you're on to something, and that's why I asked the question of our OP ever being employed as a wage labourer. However, it's wrong to assume that all necessary knowledge may come from immediate personal experience (although precisely this, working and some other stuff, has been a great motor force for the devleopment of my political positions).

Graphs and economics and compairing growth charts are worthless without real life experience. Studying minimum wage in school is nothing compaired to working for an hour and making $7.31. It's shit.

I did it momentarily when I was a kid and decided to become a Capitalist. You certainly can decide to do otherwise and become a Communist, that's fine.

The only fools are those that make their $7.31 and live with it.

[Afghan]

And dont forget that the things you mentioned such as the benifits system and the NHS were fought for by working people for decades, often in direct opposition to the state and capitalists, and thus are not inherent features of the system, Capitalists saw these measures as 'insurance against revolution'- in order to ease the pain of the current economic system without solving the inherent problems.
Interesting little article for ya.
Interesting article , indeed.

Can you provide a source for the bold part?

Thanks.


Read Das Kapital.

Capitalism carries several internal contradictions. It will implode eventually.
LOL , I'm a beginner , don't push me into the deepsea ;)


The best way to learn about Capitalism--is to get a job. You'll learn the good and bad of it really quickly.
True.

I am aware that :

The employer does not pay me because he feels sympathy with me or because he feels sorry for my children!

He wants to benefit and profit from me (my work). There are always strings attached.

In fact , we have a poem in Afghanistan :
------------------------------------------------------
فریب باغبان را مخور ای گل گر آب میدهد گلاب می خواهد
"O Rose, don't be fooled by the farmer's kindness!
The water that you get , is for the roses that he wants!"
-------------------------------------------------------
But I still work , and I can understand why the employer wants profit as well.

I also hate the class-system in the West , where you have the first-class and business-class system in trains, airplanes etc. I believe that a person should be respected for his good deeds , not for his money.

[Bud Struggle]

Afghan, you from Afghanistan? You live there? Well, welcome to RevLeft. Hope you can lear and grow here.

[Revolution starts with U]

Delete because it was about a page too late.

[Afghan]

Afghan, you from Afghanistan? You live there? Well, welcome to RevLeft. Hope you can lear and grow here.
I am from Afghanistan , but I live in the West now , because there is war in my country : (

I've already learned a lot from you guys and I hope to expand my knowledge even more. I don't feel shy of saying: I don't know. There is a lot I can learn from you guys. We Afghans say about the words , "I don't know" , that it's half of all knowledge.

Nobody is a born scholar.

[Bud Struggle]

I am from Afghanistan , but I live in the West now , because there is war in my country : (

I've already learned a lot from you guys and I hope to expand my knowledge even more. I don't feel shy of saying: I don't know. There is a lot I can learn from you guys. We Afghans say about the words , "I don't know" , that it's half of all knowledge.

Nobody is a born scholar.

Welcome brother, welcome.

[Yugo45]

(because he worked for it , he earned it)
Half people who are rich never moved a finger in their lives. They were born rich. (inheritance).

Just putting it out there.

[Afghan]

Half people who are rich never moved a finger in their lives. They were born rich. (inheritance).

Just putting it out there.
I agree - but a rich person in the West pays TAX/VAT , which goes to the poor , so he's helping the poor as well?

And if that rich individual creates factories , warehouses and businesses where employees can work & earn - how would that be unethical?

He is helping himself & economy & employees - isn't he?

[Bud Struggle]

Half people who are rich never moved a finger in their lives. They were born rich. (inheritance).

Just putting it out there.

The other half build and create.

[Revolution starts with U]

But a slave owner builds houses for his slaves, so he's helping the poor as well!

The good nature of individual capitalists, like the proverbial benevolent dictator, does not justify the position of private property holder.

[Bud Struggle]

But a slave owner builds houses for his slaves, so he's helping the poor as well!

The good nature of individual capitalists, like the proverbial benevolent dictator, does not justify the position of private property holder.

And in theory--we all work together and create a wonderful world. I agree that would be best, but that's now how we human being are. I'm looking out for Bud and you are looking out for Rev.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'll look out for Bud whether he likes it or not ;)

[Luís Henrique]

1-Are the US, UK, France etc: True-capitalistic-countries?

Well, do they have private property of means of production? Do the owners of means of production hire workers to produce stuff? Does the stuff they produce take the form of commodities, to be sold in the market?

If so, they are capitalist countries.

As far as I can see, the answers to the questions above are, yes, yes, and yes. And so the US, UK, and France, are all [true] capitalist countries.


2- Is it true that capitalism says: You do NOT have to help the poor - you can help them if you want to?

3- Is it true that a capitalistic state will not help the poor financially? If this is TRUE , then how come in the the UK (for example) they have the NHS , JobseekersAllowance , Carer's Allowance etc , which DO help the poor?

Nope. Capitalist States may or may not have structures to deal with extreme poverty, and these structures may be public, or "third sector". A State is not less capitalist if it has structures such as NHS, nor does it become "somewhat socialist" because of that.

Luís Henrique

[Robert]

I am from Afghanistan , but I live in the West now , because there is war in my country

Hi Afghan. If you were to ask every adult in Afghanistan these questions, how would they answer (by percentage)? (Don't say what you think till you read the warning below)

1. Was life, on balance, better or worse in your country before 1996?

2. Did the cost of the U.S. - led invasion in 2001 outweigh the benefits?

3. Do you want all western military powers out of Afghanistan now?

4. Do you support the return of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan?

5. Did the Taliban pervert Sharia law as claimed here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/03/taliban-sharia-pakistan)?

6. Do you support Sharia law in Afghanistan in some other form?

*Hey, if you didn't already know this, people have gotten restricted for supporting the western invasion of Afghanistan, so beware of the consequences on revleft of any answer that may sound pro-imperialist. No I'm not kidding. I THINK you can say what the average Afghan thinks, but this place is crazy so don't assume anything.

[Robert]

And by the way, I am going to go on record and say that I think Afghan is pulling our legs.

I don't call you a troll, Afghan, but something isn't quite adding up here.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree - but a rich person in the West pays TAX/VAT , which goes to the poor , so he's helping the poor as well?
That's not clear at all, in fact. It depends on the social policies which a particular state upholds. Historically, there were cases (and still are, as a process which is going on as we speak) of "rich" people - capitalists - using the state in all sorts of ways to abolish what they think is too much social welfare. And that's not because they are evil or immoral - but because it's a necessity for a capitalist enterprise to expand continuously, and all sorts of mechanisms are an option when it comes to acheiving an optimal profit level. Also, the TAX/VAT also funds imperialist wars.

I bet you heard about how great Nordic (Sweden, Norway...) welfare state is...well, take a look at this article which will explain some thing, and don't hesitate to bring issues up here (if something will be unclear): http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752


And if that rich individual creates factories , warehouses and businesses where employees can work & earn - how would that be unethical?I don't want to repeat myself: see what I wrote above, it applies well here.


He is helping himself & economy & employees - isn't he?
Not really, but what's most important, "he" is not needed - workers' could manage production and public affairs themselves.

[Afghan]

And by the way, I am going to go on record and say that I think Afghan is pulling our legs.

I don't call you a troll, Afghan, but something isn't quite adding up here.
No I'm not - what made you think that? I genuinely want to know. I can't see what possible reason I could have to joke around here?

If anyone doesn't want to answer my questions , I'm not forcing anyone am I?

[Rafiq]

To be fair, telling someone to read Das Kapital, an incredibly long, complex critique of Capitalism, isn't exactly the best advice to give to someone who's a complete beginner either

Yeah, thats why I said Ill explain everything LATER.

[Robert]

I can't see what possible reason I could have to joke? You'd be a great Revleft moderator.:)

My apologies if you're on the level, but there's something of the ingenue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenue_%28stock_character%29) about you. I don't get it.

As for "what possible reason you could have," the answer might be that you want to corner the commies -- or maybe me -- into self-contradiction.

You write English very well.

[Catma]

Troll or not, it's useful to continually, repetitively, have these conversations. It sharpens the rhetorical skill of the commentators, familiarizes people with all sorts of arguments, and may sway the opinion of the OP (even if s/he is a troll!), and possibly more importantly, of lurkers.

Just because you've seen a thread a hundred times doesn't make it worthless. Repetition is key to popularizing ideas. We might wish we could reach a larger percentage of the population faster with these conversations, but they proceed apace. Though there might not be as many new eyes as could be hoped, there are almost always more than zero.

On the topic of Capitalism, you, Afghan, do seem to be confusing socialism with a generalized conception of bleeding-heart liberalism. I really can't do better than some of the explanations already posted, particularly Menocchio's. Read, consider, reply. You have a lot of assumptions that need to be examined.

[Veovis]

The best way to learn about Capitalism--is to get a job. You'll learn the good and bad of it really quickly.

Seconded. After university, it took me less than a year of working at a low-paying job outside my field for me to become radicalized.

[Afghan]

You'd be a great Revleft moderator.

My apologies if you're on the level, but there's something of the about you. I don't get it.

As for "what possible reason you could have," the answer might be that you want to corner the commies -- or maybe me -- into self-contradiction.

You write English very well.
Aha , I see what you mean now , but you're mistaken my friend. I don't have any agendas. If I had (lol) , I'd pretend to be clever and dwell into the contraversial issues instead of the basics , right? Surely, the basics of communism do not contradict.

Anyways , I hope we can get along haha

[Afghan]

I have read all your comments and I do appreciate efforts , but:

If I ask you all to write the TOP-5 reasons why capitalism is BAD , what would you write ?

[RGacky3]

Graphs and economics and compairing growth charts are worthless without real life experience. Studying minimum wage in school is nothing compaired to working for an hour and making $7.31. It's shit.

I did it momentarily when I was a kid and decided to become a Capitalist. You certainly can decide to do otherwise and become a Communist, that's fine.

The only fools are those that make their $7.31 and live with it.

You need both, living Capitalism gives you insights that analysis won't give you, and analysis will give you insights that juts living it won't give you.

Keep in mind OP, Capitalism is not like democracy or socialism, its not an ideology or a philosophy, it is a system that came about after feudalism, almost naturally, the ideologies defending it came after, kind of like monarchy, all the defences of monarchy and ideologies surrounding it came after monarchy was the dominant institution.

Democracy and socialism and others are different, their ideologies and philosophies came first.

As for juts DECIDING to be a capitalist, or being a fool if you work a minimum wage job, thats being a bit stupid, capitalism only allows a small amount to be the ruling class, even if everyone in the world was compitent and intelligent, you still ahve the same class system, because thats how capitalism works.

A capitalist saying "just do it, its a choice." Is like a king in the middle ages saying "Peasents, just become a kind, get some land, work hard on gaining power and you'll be fine." Its ignorence, and its not malicious, but it comes off very arrogant and dickish.

[Revolution starts with U]

Aha , I see what you mean now , but you're mistaken my friend. I don't have any agendas. If I had (lol) , I'd pretend to be clever and dwell into the contraversial issues instead of the basics , right? Surely, the basics of communism do not contradict.

Anyways , I hope we can get along haha

Everyone has an agenda... everyone.


I have read all your comments and I do appreciate efforts , but:

If I ask you all to write the TOP-5 reasons why capitalism is BAD , what would you write ?

1. "Bad" doesn't exist as a natural concept, only being derived from my own subjectivity
2. Lost a job I didn't want in the latest economic crash, and now I'm broke
3. The right to property is an aggressive right
4. Private property is monopoly power
5. The people that tend to support private enterprise are, in my view, not quite as desirable of people, in their general worldview, as anyone else. The thing that pushed me from ideological support of capitalism the farthest and fastest was the "I'm the shit fuck you all" attitude of its supporters.

So there's my metaphysical, philosophical, material, and ethical reasons for anti-capitalism.

[RGacky3]

1. Its an unsustainable system that has outlived its benefits to the point to where it can't function anymore, the internal contradictions have brought it to a point to where its no longer workable.

[Robert]

I'd pretend to be clever and dwell into the controversial issues instead of the basics , right? Surely, the basics of communism do not contradict.

There it is again!

But sure, we'll get along fine.:)

[Revolution starts with U]

There it is again!

But sure, we'll get along fine.:)

Seen this coming :lol:

[Manic Impressive]

this might help a little

BoN7y3I9PfM

[Luís Henrique]

Everyone has an agenda... everyone.

Sure... but not everybody knows and understands their own agenda.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Hey everyone ,

Hello.


I opened this thread due to certain questions I have regarding capitalism:

Alrighty, then.

[
INDENT]1-Are the US, UK, France etc: True-capitalistic-countries?

Capitalism is defined by people's social and material relations to the mode of production all together. So yes, they are all true capitalist countries, because they run under the capitalist mode of production(Not means of production, but mode of production, the existence of capital, markets, etc, it is very unique). Now, whether they are "Free Markets" is debatable, but Free Markets are not possible, anyway (it is Utopian).

When people tell you they are not "true capitalist" countries, they are full of shit.


2- Is it true that capitalism says: You do NOT have to help the poor - you can help them if you want to?


No. Capitalism is not an ideology. Some countries have laws in which the government is forced to "help" the poor. So long as those countries run under the capitalist mode of production, they are capitalist, no matter how "nice" they treat people, or how appealing they appear to be. Capitalism is the system in which the Bourgeoisie exert's it's control over the masses, and it takes many different shapes and forms, in many different ways, whether it be Hitler's Germany or Ayatollah's Iran.


3- Is it true that a capitalistic state will not help the poor financially? If this is TRUE , then how come in the the UK (for example) they have the NHS , JobseekersAllowance , Carer's Allowance etc , which DO help the poor ?


It is not true. The state is the instrument in which the ruling classes use to assure their dominance over the masses continue. They help the poor, not because they are "nice people" but because if they do not, capitalism itself will crumble to pieces, and if capitalism crumbles to peaces, so does their class position (which is the dictorial class, currently).

if you have any more questions, don't post them in OI. Post them in Theory, for you will most likely find more helpful questions, there.

[Rafiq]

Ok , thanks.

Then what is wrong with capitalism?


The problem with capitalism is really not a moral one.

Capitalism carries several internal contradictions, I'll name a few:

Contradictions in Class: Two main classes form under the capitalist system. The proletarians, who are the employed, and the Bourgeoisie, who are in a position of class dictatorship. Capitalism is the system which best represents their interests and is a systematic process in which their dictatorship is kept.

The Proletariat (us) have interests different from the Bourgeoisie. We are thrown into battle to fight their wars. We were thrown into the mines of Siberia to dig recources that they wanted, etc. Eventually the proletarians will rise up and crush their class enemy, taking their place in a position of class dictatorship and slowly bringing us into a society in which their interests are addressed, and from their, I can't tell you what will evolve out of that. No one knows.


And contradictions in capital accumulation(Which class contradictions are also in, but this is the systematic part):

This is where a lot of Marxist academics at universities come in. People like David Harvey are not proletarians. Yet they are Marxists. Why is this? Many academics have found a certain truth in Marxism: That even without class warfare or class contradiction, capitalism is a very unstable and destructive system. It carries, literally, the seeds of it's own destruction. Capitalism, eventually, will cease to work. This is part of a larger, "crisis Theory". We have the theory of falling profit, the larger, more important, theory of value, and the 'over production theory".

All of which have yet to be disproven.

That is what is wrong with capitalism. Moral criticisms of capitalism alone are weak and useless.



I thought they were hated for their greed and not helping the poor.

No, it is not that. Greed is not the problem, the system itself is. Greed is merely a response to the conditions set forth by the material conditions set forth by the mode of production, which, by far dominates the conscious choices that humans make, in most cases.

It is a systematic problem, not a moral one.

[Rafiq]

this might help a little

BoN7y3I9PfM

Afghan, don't take this video seriously, it is absolute crap. It has more to do with Parenti than Marx.

"Exploitation and the likes were created because of some priest with Ideas" is bullshit. The Preist came about as a result of the way the Egyptians organized themselves into, which was not only responsible for the pyramids and the likes, but was responsible for Egyptian society as a whole.

[Rafiq]

Whether the rich help the poor or not, there would be no poor if not for capitalism!


Yup, there were no poor people under Feudalism or Primitivism. :rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

But this is how the world has always functioned, hasn't it?

On a larger scale, yes, this is how the world has "always functioned" (In terms of having a ruling class and the exploited class below it) for the past, say 10,000 years. Capitalism, however, has only existed for aprox. 300 years so to say capitalism is human nature is completely ridiculous.


A person owns a company , he employes people. They work for him. They get paid by him. Isn't this a a win-win situation for everyone? The worker earns money , the employer gets his job done - the country progresses. Everyone is happy.

What happens when that company becomes broke and eats shit? The proletarians must pay the price, not the employer. They get fired, maybe starve to death. Like I said, if it was like how you described, their would be nothing wrong with capitalism. But you must realize this:

A person cannot own a company without hiring workers first. A company is created via the proletarians creating the wealth within it, and that is how the boss makes money. It is not as if their is some natural right to own companies, no. That is just like saying:

A slave owner has a plantation, and gets some slaves to work on it. They are all housed and clothed. Win win situation, no?

No, it's not. Because although the proletarians have the option not to work for this company, they will most likely starve or die, if they refuse, just like a slave would be murdered had he attempted to escape his master.


So I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me yet.

This is natural. I myself am astonished at the responses given in this thread.


I don't see anything wrong with one person being rich (because he worked for it , he earned it) and another person being poor , as long as the rich GIVES charity and the poor people are not left to their fate. The rich should help the poor.

Their would be nothing wrong with being rich if the means of attaining the wealth were not so destructive. Think about it. Wealth is finite. If a person is rich that means that a lot of poor people must exist in order to compensate for the imbalance.

How does a man get rich? By owning property. How does he aquire this property? Through taking it. So, although I do not want to stoop down to moral arguments, moral arguments on the "other side of the political spectrum", such as you saying "He earned it" are bullshit. No amount of labor value from a single man can create such massive quantities of wealth. And even if it was possible, 99.999% of the "rich" people today didn't even come close to producing that much value with their own labor.

[Rafiq]

OK , this is in line with what I was thinking as well.

You say that the State will not provide roads, schools and healthcare in a "purely capitalistic" country. Can you confirm this with references to capitalistic books? Where is this mentioned? Where do capitalists say this themselves?

He is wrong. Their is no such thing as a "Purely capitalist country". It is either capitalist or it is something else. The State providing social services to the masses is irrelevant to how we define the nature of the mode of production.


Can you tell me why/how Somalia is "purely capitalistic"?

It is just as capitalist as the USA or Britian.



It doesn't always have to be this way. But as you said , sometimes it does happen. For example , Nike was involved in child-labour in India.

Child labor and terrible conditions will always have to exist under capitalism. We used to have it in the industrializing countries, but with the power of the labor movement they were forced to move the suffering geographically to countries like India or China. Child Labor is a necessity in order for the capitalism we love so dear to exist the way it does now.


Other Western companies move their warehouses to poor countries , where they pay the workers less than the minimum wage.

And soon "Eastern Countries" Like China will probably move it to Africa, and do the same the "west" did. It is not a "Western" problem. It is the nature of the system.





But TAX-VAT is taken forcefully in the West - you HAVE to pay it

Yes, but not because the Bourgeoisie are generous, because without those taxes the system in which they harvest on will crumble to pieces, along with the class dictatorship they are in.

[Revolution starts with U]

So, although I do not want to stoop down to moral arguments...

Except for these ones:



No, it's not. Because although the proletarians have the option not to work for this company, they will most likely starve or die, if they refuse, just like a slave would be murdered had he attempted to escape his master.



What happens when that company becomes broke and eats shit? The proletarians must pay the price, not the employer. They get fired, maybe starve to death. Like I said, if it was like how you described, their would be nothing wrong with capitalism. But you must realize this:


Take your liberal moralism and GTFO! :laugh:

[Rafiq]

What is a "Libertarian Society"? Is it the same as a capitalistic society?
.

"Libertarianism" was a word that started out in Europe as a "current of socialist politics".

In the US, it took on a different meaning, which was:

Unregulated, Almost No government capitalism.

Basically the Petite Bourgoeisie and the Bourgeoisie do whatever the fuck they want.

But the smart members of the ruling class know this ideology to be Utopian and unfeasible.

Therefore they avoid association with it.

[Rafiq]

Take your liberal moralism and GTFO! :laugh:

It is not Moralism, you fool.

It is simply recognizing that the proletariat will eventually get pissed off and sick of being thrown around like rags, for selfish reasons. I am pointing out that Anti-Capitalism would be a natural response from Proletarians.

Any sensible person would realize it.

[Rafiq]

Alright, there you have it.

I'm done posting in this thread, but Afghan, if you have any more questions PM me, or if you don't like my responses, post in Theory.

[Manic Impressive]

Afghan, don't take this video seriously, it is absolute crap. It has more to do with Parenti than Marx.

"Exploitation and the likes were created because of some priest with Ideas" is bullshit. The Preist came about as a result of the way the Egyptians organized themselves into, which was not only responsible for the pyramids and the likes, but was responsible for Egyptian society as a whole.
god your thick sometimes and I mean that in the nicest way possible. That's not what the cartoon is saying at all. It's showing in very simplistic terms how society has developed and the how the classes have evolved with the little guy always getting screwed over. The priest charecter doesn't even feature at the end of the video as the capitalist is represented as a pig. So wtf are you on about?

Also what's this got to do with Parenti? and by Parenti I assume you're talking about Michael? If so I'm pleasantly surprised if this has anything to do with him.

[Revolution starts with U]

It is not Moralism, you fool.

It is simply recognizing that the proletariat will eventually get pissed off and sick of being thrown around like rags, for selfish reasons. I am pointing out that Anti-Capitalism would be a natural response from Proletarians.

Any sensible person would realize it.

1) Any sensible person would realizse not all proles are socialists.

2) I'm sorry. It seemed to me like you were saying that it was all bad and wrong that the proles take the brunt of the problems with capitalism. It also still seems like a moral issue that you think anti-capitalism SHOULD be the response to it, especially considering #1.

.I have my hypothesese why you despise the moral arguments of anti-capitalism... but you wouldn't like it.

[Rafiq]

Also what's this got to do with Parenti? and by Parenti I assume you're talking about Michael? If so I'm pleasantly surprised if this has anything to do with him.

Parenti believed that historically, there have only been two major classes:

The People

And the Masters.

So, this video basically tried to say that the proletariat and the Bourgeoisie have always existed, when in fact they have only existed for 300 years.

[Rafiq]

1)
2) I'm sorry. It seemed to me like you were saying that it was all bad and wrong that the proles take the brunt of the problems with capitalism. It also still seems like a moral issue that you think anti-capitalism SHOULD be the response to it, especially considering #1.

no, I said Anti-Capitalism would and will be a response to it, regardless of mine, yours, or anyone elses opinion on whether it should.


.I have my hypothesese why you despise the moral arguments of anti-capitalism... but you wouldn't like it.


Go ahead, spit it out. I'm curious as to what this is. I don't like most of the things you post so this shouldn't be that different. But please, go on. If I get that enraged over it I just won't respond to it and I'll leave this thread. Deal?

[Revolution starts with U]

no, I said Anti-Capitalism would and will be a response to it, regardless of mine, yours, or anyone elses opinion on whether it should.

Why will it? Could it perhaps be because the system robs them of themselves, and affronts them morally? If anti-capitalism isn't an ethical choices, why are there so many pro-capitalist proles?

Morals are material situations. This is what I've been saying.


Go ahead, spit it out. I'm curious as to what this is. I don't like most of the things you post so this shouldn't be that different. But please, go on. If I get that enraged over it I just won't respond to it and I'll leave this thread. Deal?
I think communism is a phase for you, that you will grow out of once you have a full time job and a family. I think you would take the factory, exploit your workers just as bad if not worse than everyone else, and donate the funds to the Revolution only if and when Proletarian victory becomes inevitable.

Basically, you're only anti-capitalist because you're poor. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I's just tells'em likes I sees'em. :cool:

[Rafiq]

If anti-capitalism isn't an ethical choices, why are there so many pro-capitalist proles?

Proletarians who have not achieved Class consciousness are not aware of their class interests.



I think communism is a phase for you, that you will grow out of once you have a full time job and a family.

Although I don't plan on "getting a family". And I am a student, right now, life really isn't too hard for me to get by in.


I think you would take the factory, exploit your workers just as bad if not worse than everyone else, and donate the funds to the Revolution only if and when Proletarian victory becomes inevitable.

I might do that, If I was given a factory, just like Engels did, but I probably would be pretty decent to my workers. I'm no lifestylist, if someone offered me a factory I would take it. However I would be a class traitor, in the end. Because I'm a curious guy. I know the proletariat is the only class capable of furthering the human constraint and allowing us Humans to learn more about things.


Basically, you're only anti-capitalist because you're poor. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I's just tells'em likes I sees'em. :cool:

Well maybe you should stop "Tell'sem likes I sees'em" and start acquiring actual existing facts about another person's life before jumping to those kinds of bizzar conclusions.

Even if I didn't get a family and the likes, Marxism will never leave my head. I have yet to find a valid argument that would disprove Marxism as a whole, and even If I tried to ignore it, I could not deny it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Proletarians who have not achieved Class consciousness are not aware of their class interests.

What makes you think they ever will be?




I might do that, If I was given a factory, just like Engels did, but I probably would be pretty decent to my workers. I'm no lifestylist, if someone offered me a factory I would take it. However I would be a class traitor, in the end. Because I'm a curious guy. I know the proletariat is the only class capable of furthering the human constraint and allowing us Humans to learn more about things.

I just have my doubts that "Marxism in the back of your head" would give you any cause to put class interest above your personal interest. People have all kinds of ethical stances they base their lives off of, and consistently act against.




Well maybe you should stop "Tell'sem likes I sees'em" and start acquiring actual existing facts about another person's life before jumping to those kinds of bizzar conclusions.

I need not know your motivations, as long as I can see your actions ;)

[Afghan]

I have to thank you all, my special thanks go to Rafiq!

I've read what you all wrote and it has cleared up some mist for me.

Further questions may follow.

[Azraella]

Moralism

Except I'm a prole and I reject capitalism for ultimately moral reasons. Some people might have selfish reasons but motivations for choosing an ideology can range from all sorts of reasons. Sometimes even moral reasons to support an ideology can be tempered with selfish reasons. Commmunism would be beneficial to me, but I also have a distrust of authority but at the same time I support worker's struggles and so forth because it's the only right thing to do.

[Zealot]

1-Are the US, UK, France etc: True-capitalistic-countries?


2- Is it true that capitalism says: You do NOT have to help the poor - you can help them if you want to?


3- Is it true that a capitalistic state will not help the poor financially? If this is TRUE , then how come in the the UK (for example) they have the NHS , JobseekersAllowance , Carer's Allowance etc , which DO help the poor ?

I hope you guys can answer my questions with references. Thank you for your time.

1 - Basically, yes. They own the means of production and thus we consider it capitalist. Anarcho-capitalists obviously would whinge at me right now but fact of the matter is, half the time it's the government that allows capitalism to keep rolling, just look at the latest financial disaster and how the government had to step in and preserve their system.

2 - In my opinion yes. It's not a question of where is it written down in say, The Wealth of Nations, but it's a question of will this happen and has this happened? And the answer seems to be yes. Because the capitalist system is based on profit and not need they will do anything to accumulate this profit. This often comes in the form of "efficiency": cutting costs, taking shortcuts, firing workers, lowering wages etc etc. And again, the finest example of this is the latest economic crash. Sure, every now and then they will help the poor but then again, is giving to charity really "giving" if the money is already essentially stolen? (If you need to know why we believe this to be the case then I can elaborate more on that). For them, they need to strike the right balance between keeping the masses happy enough to continue producing their profit and preventing them from becoming dissatisfied and so occasionally they will throw us a bone or two.

3 - Well much of this was answered above but let's be clear about this, most of those benefits were fought for by the working class, not the capitalists. So in relation to what I previously said, they have to keep us pacified enough that we don't start a rebellion and break the system that enables them to stay in an exploitative position.


Ok , thanks.

Then what is wrong with capitalism?

I thought they were hated for their greed and not helping the poor.

Not at all, although those types of things come along with it.

We hate it because it is an intrinsically exploitative system, they pay us less than what we actually produced which in modern terms we would call stealing.


But this is how the world has always functioned, hasn't it?

Yes and no. What Marx noticed was that in almost all previous systems there were always those who produced more than they themselves needed and those who didn't produce at all. For the people who produced nothing their means of existence had to necessarily come from those who produced more. This was the case with slavery, feudalism and is no different in capitalism, in this regard.


A person owns a company , he employes people. They work for him. They get paid by him. Isn't this a a win-win situation for everyone? The worker earns money , the employer gets his job done - the country progresses. Everyone is happy.

So I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me yet.

I don't see anything wrong with one person being rich (because he worked for it , he earned it) and another person being poor , as long as the rich GIVES charity and the poor people are not left to their fate. The rich should help the poor.

Thank you.

It's not a win-win situation because the workers get paid less than what was produced. How do people that are rich and don't work manage to get so rich? It's obviously not because they worked hard (because often they don't work at all!) but because the people working for them were giving away wealth that should have been theirs.

Now why don't you see anything wrong with people being poor? Often, they are poor because of this very system. Some are born into rich families and some are born into very poor families, and for capitalists to claim that they both have the same opportunities in life is just absurd. When I took Economics in high school, one of the most basic concepts drilled into our heads was that people born into poor families will be given a poor education because they can't afford better, thus they will have poor jobs, poor opportunities and when it comes time for them to start their own family the cycle will continue.

Like I said above, they are not obliged to help the poor anyway only enough so as to keep the masses happy. If someone gives away a million dollars to help African children, the same children who possibly slave away in their factories, is this really helping the poor? The situation we have is this: In the west we demand to be treated a certain way, get paid a certain amount. Now this means that to keep costs down and for the most profit, jobs are exported overseas where the labour is cheaper and inevitably the overseas workers are going to demand the same. This means that the places where capitalists can burrow themselves to make a profit are getting smaller by the year.


Not only this but businesses have the tendency to become monopolies and lead to imperialism. You might want to read Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism,_the_Highest_Stage_of_Capitalism) by Vladimir Lenin.



OK , this is in line with what I was thinking as well.

You say that the State will not provide roads, schools and healthcare in a "purely capitalistic" country. Can you confirm this with references to capitalistic books? Where is this mentioned? Where do capitalists say this themselves?

Can you tell me why/how Somalia is "purely capitalistic"?

The reason that he said no schools or healthcare etc would be provided in a "purely capitalist" country is because there is no incentive to do so, it would be cutting into their profits. It's not like it's written down because that would look bad but it HAS happened.

People like to give Somalia as the ultimate example of a "purely capitalist" country because they have no government and a true "free market". The results of this has been that workers are getting paid crumbs forcing them to resort to things such as piracy, I'm sure you've heard a lot about Somali pirates lately, because they get more money that way.

It doesn't always have to be this way. But as you said , sometimes it does happen. For example , Nike was involved in child-labour in India.

Other Western companies move their warehouses to poor countries , where they pay the workers less than the minimum wage.

I agree.


But TAX-VAT is taken forcefully in the West - you HAVE to pay it.

No it doesn't have to be that way but quite often it is. There's a reason America is called a consumer society and it's because they produce hardly anything! Everything is done overseas to generate larger profits, so as you can see, the capitalist system with their profit incentive will always go where minimum wage is. The problem Obama has now is trying to bring all that work back to America but he's failing. Why? Because businesses are private, they have absolutely no incentive to blow a whole lot of money relocating their businesses back to a country where they will have to pay a higher wage and produce less, which would make their products more expensive and cut into profits dramatically.

Okay I'm done now. lol.

[Zav]

I have read all your comments and I do appreciate efforts , but:

If I ask you all to write the TOP-5 reasons why capitalism is BAD , what would you write ?
1. Exploitation of the many by the few.
2. Dehumanization by wage slavery and by profit being considered more valuable than life and liberty.
3. Destruction of Earth for the sake of profit.
4. It will inevitably collapse because it's an unstable system.
5. That pretty much covers it.

[Afghan]

Exoprism , thanks for your input! I like your way of explaining stuff :)


Sure, every now and then they will help the poor but then again, is giving to charity really "giving" if the money is already essentially stolen? (If you need to know why we believe this to be the case then I can elaborate more on that).

Please to elaborate on this one.

As far as I've heard:

1- The rich are rich because they invented something genius , like Microsoft.
2- Bill Gates gave nearly $30,000,000 in charity!
3- The billions of dollars that the rich have , are used to create more jobs and opportunities for the poor.

Isn't this the case?


The reason that he said no schools or healthcare etc would be provided in a "purely capitalist" country is because there is no incentive to do so, it would be cutting into their profits. It's not like it's written down because that would look bad but it HAS happened.
OK , thank you.

Could you please quote me some unbiased definitions of "capitalism" , which says that capitalism does not look at the needs of the people, but rather the personal profit? I mean , we all say that capitalism and socialism is such-and-such , but I never see any references to books.

I hope I'm not asking for too much ;)

[Zav]

As far as I've heard:

1- The rich are rich because they invented something genius , like Microsoft.
2- Bill Gates gave nearly $30,000,000 in charity!
3- The billions of dollars that the rich have , are used to create more jobs and opportunities for the poor.

Isn't this the case?

No.

1. The rich are rich because they exploit others. Microsoft isn't that genius. It came around at the opportune moment to exploit the home computing boom. Its software is popular now because it has been popular and because the company has the clout to crush almost all opposition. In reality, Windows sucks. Macs are worse.

2. He gives half his income. To a poor person, that sounds really generous. When you can buy anything in the world, it isn't so much. He still has many many billions in his pocket.

3. That's called trickle-down (piss-on) economics, and no, it doesn't help the poor. More jobs equal less profit, so companies cut wages, fire old hands, outsource labour, and produce lesser products to preserve a certain level of profit, i.e. the most they can squeeze from of the workers.

[Afghan]

And how would you reply to: The wealthy people pay 17% of TAX

[Burkland]

And how would you reply to: The wealthy people pay 17% of TAX
It isn't that much if you look the wealth they have it isn't has much, your argument is :thumbdown:

[Zealot]

Exoprism , thanks for your input! I like your way of explaining stuff :)



Please to elaborate on this one.

Well for a start capitalism always leads to imperialism, as Lenin pointed out long ago. For an example of this, you can look up the Guatemalan coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat), in which the United Fruit Company successfully convinced the US government to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala. In fact it was here that Che Guevara first joined an armed militia to stop the coup and cemented his belief that capitalism was imperialism. That's not even the end of it but just a quick example.

Secondly, in its very nature it is exploitative. If I work for someone and make chairs for a living valued at $20 each, I'm not going to get paid $20 because then there's nothing in it for the capitalist. More likely, he'll sit around all day while I make chairs, pay me maybe $10 and take a cut out of what I just created. We believe that this sort of thing has no need to exist, the workers are, in most cases, quite capable of producing a chair without a capitalist collecting most of the profits.


As far as I've heard:

1- The rich are rich because they invented something genius , like Microsoft.
2- Bill Gates gave nearly $30,000,000 in charity!
3- The billions of dollars that the rich have , are used to create more jobs and opportunities for the poor.

Isn't this the case?

30 million was probably chump change for that guy, and this world will need a lot more than 30 million to fix poverty. And he's not rich for being a genius, if you look at Bill Gate's story he was more of a cunning thief/trickster than a genius. Furthermore, good inventions are only good inventions so long as they can create a profit. Is the computer you're currently using water-resistant? I doubt it, yet they have more than enough skills to make such a thing. So why not? Well, waterproof computers aren't going to be very profitable; they wouldn't be able to bank on the idea that the product will fall apart, compelling the consumer to buy a new one.

As for creating jobs, the capitalist is likely to keep as fewer workers as possible to keep profits high. The situation now is a whole lot of empty factories and a whole lot of unemployed workers. Does that make sense at all?


OK , thank you.

Could you please quote me some unbiased definitions of "capitalism" , which says that capitalism does not look at the needs of the people, but rather the personal profit? I mean , we all say that capitalism and socialism is such-and-such , but I never see any references to books.

I hope I'm not asking for too much ;)

Well that's the thing, the very definition of "Capitalism" according to the Oxford Dictionary is "an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state"

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism

Now Adam Smith would have argued that the needs of everyone should be attended to but he failed to see that by the very force guiding the system, maximization of profits, capitalists by nature are compelled to take as many shortcuts as possible, employ as few people as possible, help as little people as possible.

I remember reading one of those self-help books, written by a millionaire, who claimed that if the money in the world were divided equally, we'd all have around 2 million dollars each. So why is it that millions of people are in poverty, to the point that around 25,000 die per day? Because the maximization of profits requires virtual slave labor in the third world, "efficiency" and on and on.

People can say all they like about what "true" capitalism is, or stateless capitalism, but the fact is, those problems mentioned above, would be magnified on a scale unseen if they were to get their way.

[Baseball]

Is the computer you're currently using water-resistant? I doubt it, yet they have more than enough skills to make such a thing. So why not? Well, waterproof computers aren't going to be very profitable; they wouldn't be able to bank on the idea that the product will fall apart, compelling the consumer to buy a new one.

A waterproof computer would be more expensive than a non-waterproof computer. Why would computer users pay more when they could just take the sensible precaution of avoiding the use of a computer near water?


As for creating jobs, the capitalist is likely to keep as fewer workers as possible

True. But why would a socialist factory seek to use more workers than needed to do the work it is tasked to complete?

[WeAreReborn]

And how would you reply to: The wealthy people pay 17% of TAX
Look where the tax goes. To support the interests of the wealthy and the ruling class elite. Not to mention that the majority of the most wealthy people get tax breaks and find loopholes so that literally they pay less (not only in percent but actual figures) then most people. Though that is irrelevant since even if they did pay the taxes they are still rich and the majority is still poor.

[RGacky3]

As far as I've heard:

1- The rich are rich because they invented something genius , like Microsoft.
2- Bill Gates gave nearly $30,000,000 in charity!
3- The billions of dollars that the rich have , are used to create more jobs and opportunities for the poor.

Isn't this the case?

1. Usually not
2. If you have more money than you could ever spend, and you DON'T give a chunk of it away, the part that you'll never ever spend nor will your children, your the biggest evil asshold in the world.
3. Would'nt a better system be where the poor don't have to rely on the rich for jobs?


True. But why would a socialist factory seek to use more workers than needed to do the work it is tasked to complete?

You can have everyone work less ...

[rylasasin]

3. Would'nt a better system be where the poor don't have to rely on the rich for jobs?

Or even better, a system where the poor would not have to need "jobs" to "earn their daily bread" in the first place.



You can have everyone work less ...

Not to mention find ways of Automating undesirable, repetitive jobs like factory work to lighten the work load even further.

We Technocrats hold that Captialists want to do this anyway because its profitable (You don't need to pay or give benefits to an autonomous machine, not to mention you can work it endlessly. When they talk about "the race to the bottom," Fully automating jobs is the finish line.) though paradoxically this is also a large part of what will cause capitalism to fail. (Automating jobs leads to less people having jobs, which of course leads to less consuming, which eventually leads to economic failure. To put it in laymen's terms.)

Though in a non-market, non-money post scarcity economy (such as the ones Technocrats and Socialists advocate) Automating jobs doesn't have this downside. In fact, in a society that doesn't rely on money there is really no reason NOT to automate as much manual work as possible.

Just saying.

[RGacky3]

We Technocrats hold that Captialists want to do this anyway because its profitable (You don't need to pay or give benefits to an autonomous machine, not to mention you can work it endlessly. When they talk about "the race to the bottom," Fully automating jobs is the finish line.) though paradoxically this is also a large part of what will cause capitalism to fail. (Automating jobs leads to less people having jobs, which of course leads to less consuming, which eventually leads to economic failure. To put it in laymen's terms.)


I mean less work for the same compensation. Of coarse what you just wrote is marx's analysis.

[SocialistTommy]

The UK is a capitalist country, however we do have free healthcare etc. (touchwood the tories don't take it away).

[Afghan]

I remember reading one of those self-help books, written by a millionaire, who claimed that if the money in the world were divided equally, we'd all have around 2 million dollars each. So why is it that millions of people are in poverty, to the point that around 25,000 die per day?
Good point.

Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it :)

[Afghan]

Look where the tax goes. To support the interests of the wealthy and the ruling class elite.
But it mainly goes to unemployed, homeless, Disabled, Children etc. doesn't it?

[Rafiq]

And how would you reply to: The wealthy people pay 17% of TAX

The wealthy are really just taxing themselves. They control the state so they regulate how much their fellow class members are taxed.

[Rafiq]

But it mainly goes to unemployed, homeless, Disabled, Children etc. doesn't it?

Not in the U.S.

[RGacky3]

And how would you reply to: The wealthy people pay 17% of TAX

And control 40% of the wealth.

[Revolutionair]

But this is how the world has always functioned, hasn't it?

Not exactly. Capitalism is only 200 to 400 (depending on what year you began to count) years old. Class society is at least 6000 years old. Way before that, humans lived in small scale primitive-communist hunter-gatherer societies.


A person owns a company , he employes people. They work for him. They get paid by him. Isn't this a a win-win situation for everyone? The worker earns money , the employer gets his job done - the country progresses. Everyone is happy.

Please note that in this win-win situation, there is only ONE person who is doing the necessary labor to get the job done, IE one person does 100% of the work and only receives 10-30% of the benefit. If a person disagrees with this win-win, they will feel the wrath of the capitalist state. Your screen name is Afghan, so I don't have to explain the pain that one can suffer because of capitalist wars.



I don't see anything wrong with one person being rich (because he worked for it , he earned it) and another person being poor , as long as the rich GIVES charity and the poor people are not left to their fate. The rich should help the poor.

You are saying that one deserves a more powerfull position in society if he/she feels that he/she deserves it. It's a bit of a circular argument. In reality this argument is enforced by the law. An institution upheld by the bourgeoisie to crush opposition to the capitalist mode of production. So in reality it is not logic, but violence that allows the capitalist to keep that deserved spot in society.

[Revolutionair]

The wealthy are really just taxing themselves. They control the state so they regulate how much their fellow class members are taxed.

And this money goes right back to them. The state is the enforcer of bourgeois rule. You could see the state as a tool which one class uses to oppress another. What does that mean when a capitalist invests in the state?

They are increasing their means to oppress. Is it really morally a good thing when people are buying more guns to oppress other people???? You make it sound like allowing yourself to be taxed as a capitalist is a virtue.

[Revolutionair]

But it mainly goes to unemployed, homeless, Disabled, Children etc. doesn't it?

Yes some of it does go to the working class. But that is only because the working class has had moment of power, where they had the opportunity to do away with class rule. The working class leadership was bought off, in turn the working class leadership bought off the working class.

Without working class struggle, there wouldn't be unemployment benefits, an end to child labor, the 8-hour work day, etc...


In a way, charity has become part of the system. You can kill whoever you want, you can bomb whatever country you want, it's all okay as long as you give something to charity. This image polishing only allows the system to go on longer. Thereby increasing the damage it does to our class.
hpAMbpQ8J7g

[Chambered Word]

But it mainly goes to unemployed, homeless, Disabled, Children etc. doesn't it?


The wealthy are really just taxing themselves. They control the state so they regulate how much their fellow class members are taxed.

This is more or less true. I wouldn't say that the 'wealthy', presumably referring to people who own capital, directly control the state, but the structure of the state, the way it works and executes its decisions have been established by the bourgeoisie/ruling class themselves. This is because the state itself is an instrument for class rule and it's necessary for it to have a distinctly capitalist character, i.e. characteristics that serve capital.

Basically, redistribution of wealth through taxes is controlled by the politicians who are supported by the capitalist class (and become part of that class, since they have some control over capital in the nation they serve). As socialists, we think that there's a problem with this because every action taken by the capitalist class and its state is more or less at the whim of capitalists and its need to accumulate more and more capital through profit so that they can compete with eachother and have a greater control over the world.

Taxation can indirectly benefit workers if they get unemployment benefits instead of being left to totally fend for themselves when they're unemployed. But this on its own would be a disadvantage to capitalists, since some of their own wealth or capital would be needed to finance it. In the case of corporate taxes, this could lead to higher prices being imposed on consumers, lower salaries and wages etc. In reality, the main reason for such government programs is because a. they were introduced at times when profit margins were high enough in the economy to be able to afford them and/or b. a highly trained, educated and/or healthy workforce became more necessary for the nation's production.

Unemployment welfare also remains as a last-ditch source of income provided by the government which workers can possibly lose unless they metaphorically jump through the hoops given to them by the social security office. This does help the state to enforce its will to a degree. Having to deal with Centrelink (the social security office we have in Australia) isn't fun at all.

As socialists we support the proletariat (the working class), and we believe the world would be better in which the workers and oppressed had full control over their lives, and we think that class antagonisms will eventually be resolved by the proletariat taking over and creating a society where classes aren't necessary, as they are the only class capable of resolving the constant conflict between the classes in this point of history. Taxes aren't totally significant because we don't think that workers should be at the mercy of the ruling class, nor do we think that charity from the rich is any way to create a fair and just society.

Sorry if those explanations were somewhat wordy, I hope I've helped you out here. :)

[Judicator]

Hey everyone ,

I opened this thread due to certain questions I have regarding capitalism:


1-Are the US, UK, France etc: True-capitalistic-countries?


2- Is it true that capitalism says: You do NOT have to help the poor - you can help them if you want to?


3- Is it true that a capitalistic state will not help the poor financially? If this is TRUE , then how come in the the UK (for example) they have the NHS , JobseekersAllowance , Carer's Allowance etc , which DO help the poor ?

I hope you guys can answer my questions with references. Thank you for your time.

1) Mixed economies, this is the pretty standard definition.

2) You don't have to, but if you don't, someone else will, by at least providing them with the goods and services they are willing to pay for (e.g. Big Macs)

3) They will help the poor by providing lower cost products. The track record on job skills programs is quite poor. There's no reason to believe the government has more knowledge of the ROI poor people can get out of job training, and therefore no reason to believe the government is a better judge of the proper investments.

[Chambered Word]

How are they 'mixed economies'? Mixed with what?

As for #2, this means that the only reason people are able to buy food is because its profitability coincides with their demand. The profit motive is an anti-human objective.

[RGacky3]

1) Mixed economies, this is the pretty standard definition.

It depends on your standard, no one would consider the US or the UK mixed economies, France is pretty much Capitalist as well.


3) They will help the poor by providing lower cost products. The track record on job skills programs is quite poor. There's no reason to believe the government has more knowledge of the ROI poor people can get out of job training, and therefore no reason to believe the government is a better judge of the proper investments.

Well comparing it to so called "free market" solutions they do pretty damn well.


2) You don't have to, but if you don't, someone else will, by at least providing them with the goods and services they are willing to pay for (e.g. Big Macs)


Notice the condesation in his answer. Anyway, under capitalism necessarily, the gap between the rich and the poor gets larger, exponentially, so capitalism ultimately is'nt good for the poor, at least when compared to systems where they have more of a say.