Anti-Capitalism

[Everyday Anarchy]

I've been getting better at debating about Capitalism with friends and family. But anytime I'm debating somebody intelligent I get snagged on a certain rebuttal.

So after I explain how the capitalist exploits the workers to make a profit without doing any of the work, my opponent mentions how the boss started the business or that he purchased the building/machines/etc so he has a right to make a profit without doing the work.
Also, that without the boss starting the business, the workers would be left without jobs.

How can I come back to this?

[More Fire for the People]

Where did the boss obtain the capital to start his business? Either from the backs of his father's workers or from the bank which he repays with the money made from the backs of workers.

[KC]

my opponent mentions how the boss started the business or that he purchased the building/machines/etc so he has a right to make a profit without doing the work.

The building/machines/etc. - essentially, the means of production used to create the products that are sold by the business - were all created by workers in the same conditions as the workers in the current business work in. The working class therefore makes everything. The capitalist appropriates these means from the workers and sells it for a profit.

Yes, the capitalist takes a risk when he spends his money to appropriate these products and to invest in capital, but when a robber robs a bank, he also takes a risk to make a profit. Both are stealing. So does taking a risk justify the action? Definitely not.



Also, that without the boss starting the business, the workers would be left without jobs.

Without the bosses starting the businesses - without the bourgeoisie existing - the workers aren't going to sit around and starve to death because they don't have anyone to tell them what to do. They will choose to work. They will work voluntarily, to perpetuate society. They will work to live. Workers don't need bosses. Bosses need workers.

[Noah]

Either from the backs of his father's workers or from the bank which he repays with the money made from the backs of workers.

That's not true, I know people who have gone from working class - petty bourgeois - bourgeois without taking a loan or getting money from relatives.


started the business or that he purchased the building/machines/etc so he has a right to make a profit without doing the work

He has a right to make profit in capitalist society however the fact is that the person at the top tends to exploit their worker's so the boss can maximize profit. No one should have the right to exploit another human being. In addition to this the equipment and machines made were probably made under terrible conditions.


that without the boss starting the business, the workers would be left without jobs

Again, you are arguing about capitalism aboloshing private enterprise, that would be catastrophic to the capitalist economy/s. However, you could abolish 'the boss' and use a planned economy where worker's are treated fairly.

I'm not an economist or a political expert, so maybe i'm wrong in a few parts, however i'm sure some more knowledgable peers will be able to help.

[Eleutherios]

Here is a good resource for anti-capitalist theory. It deals quite thoroughly with the principal myths behind the capitalist ideology.

http://infoshop.org/faq/secCcon.html

[Epoche]

Xero:


So after I explain how the capitalist exploits the workers to make a profit without doing any of the work, my opponent mentions how the boss started the business or that he purchased the building/machines/etc so he has a right to make a profit without doing the work.

Pay close attention to Lazar's thoughts. He was spot on.

There can never be a "clean" ascent up the "corporate ladder" of business. An entrepreneur can never just start from scratch. All resources in any economy are inextricably connected, as Lazar mentioned, and what might seem as a 'personal sacrifice" or venture is really only a local exploitation of a foreign or distant labor force. Here there is only a shifting of already existing resources rather than a creation of new ones "out of thin air."

Entrepreneurs often are endangered by the psychology of hipocritical elitism. A mistake is made in assuming that because "I have worked hard for X amount years, it is my right to now start my own business," for instance. The pot has called the kettle black and hasn't even noticed.


Also, that without the boss starting the business, the workers would be left without jobs.

Again Lazar hits the nail on the head with this issue. I would also like to add that this case is a matter of "all or none." Starting a business is not justified by the excuse of "providing jobs" for workers, because where people can start their own business...there must be businesses already in progress in the field. The workers would simply find other employment. And it would be a blatant lie if an employer ever claimed to start a business so that he could provide work for people. We both know that's bullshit. The incentive to gain capital is the only reason a business is ever started.

I can't tell you how many times I have caught my employers in the same lie. For example, I would mention that I think it isn't fair that I build a house in a week and make a weeks wages, which aren't even an eighth of the profit he makes while not even working himself. His reply would be something like: "hey, it isn't as great as you think it is. I have a huge overhead and insurance costs an arm and a leg."

This is bullshit. If it wasn't "so great" he'd still be working by the hour for someone else. Does he think I am an idiot? This tactic is a rhetorical device and nothing more. Despite this "overhead," he wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't better than working for someone else. The proof is in the pudding.

[Djehuti]

http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload2/strindberg.jpg ;)




(now it should work for all)

[Epoche]

user posted image

Who? Me? I haven't posted any images of anything.

Although I will say its possible that my account has already been hacked into and that tampering is in progress. I have "internet enemies" everywhere, who recognize my screen name and might follow me around. Pathetic, really. If I could meet these people in person...I'd snap a neck or two and take care of it.

If that question was not directed to me, disregard this post.

[Djehuti]

Huh? :blink:

[Epoche]

You said "user posted image."

What does this mean? How do I interpret it? Your post followed mine. Are you responding to me? If so, what are you saying?

No problem man, but to respond with a "Huh?" is quite the lack of inductive reasoning.

[Dyst]

"User posted image" is the message that appears if someone (Djehuti in this case) tries to post an image, but for some reason the image can't be viewed, I think.

[Epoche]

Ah, thank you, Keiza.

In that case I apologize. I also just realized how my first response could have been misunderstood. Let me start over.

Djehuti, what I thought had happened was maybe someone hacked into my account, posted a picture while logged in, and then the picture was deleted by the moderators.

That's why I thought you posted "user posted image." I could think of no other reason why you would post that...unless you were just speaking randomly about something.

Sorry bout that.

[Djehuti]

No prob. I linked to a picture from another site, and while I could view the picture it seems like no one else could, because you had to be logged in too that site to view the picture. But now I have downloaded it and uploaded it on a public uploader, so now it should be viewable.

[Connolly]

I think another point to argue on is that history suggests socialism as the next sociatal phase.

What you appear to be argueing is that socialism is an alternative to capitalism.

Socialism is not just an alternative, but the most logical result.

I used to argue on the same lines - but the merits of a particular society are irrelevent.

If history suggested complete barbarism, exploitation and slaughter as the next form of society to emerge, I would not debate its "pros" and "cons", but rather its inevitability based on history.

Debating the merits of particular systems can go on forever, and can be pretty useless - have a go at explaining why capitalism cannot remain progressive, rather than why communism is better than capitalism - (something which I cannot say for certain).

[Epoche]

why capitalism cannot remain progressive

I've thought about that for some time now, being careful not to jump to any conclusions. Ultimately it is military power that controls politics, so it is quite possible that a revolution never occurs and capitalism continues to exist until natural disaster or war destroys everything.

I don't follow Marx in what I think he means by asserting that it is a necessary outcome of history...that socialism is a "phase" that is inevitable.

I think if anything communism will result from the conscience and the rational conclusion that capitalism is excessively destructive to the environment. The rate at which it produces population and waste puts up a red flag to conservatives (I don't mean this as a political title) like myself. "Consumerism" can progress in a way where a sort of "ghost momentum," if I might call it, is gained in the human species' assimilation of the environment. The great shadow is not really the moral problems of individualism and class based society, as those are all philosophical concepts and subject to argument. The shadow is the manipulation of the environment to suit the liberal consumerist lifestyle and ever increasing population expansion. Namely pollution and scarcity. These effects are real regardless of our eternal arguments in politics and philosophy. While communism might happen or might not...what I mention WILL happen inevitably. To start communism is to essentially "buy more time" for the human species. Communism I think can be thought of as a super-emergency brake on a civilization out of control.

I'm a little romantic, yes...I'm sorry.

[Connolly]

Ultimately it is military power that controls politics, so it is quite possible that a revolution never occurs

How do you mean the military power controls politics?

Did the "military power" prevent the feudal lords and monarchs from becoming extinct?

Politics react to economic situations, the bourgeoisie react to economic situations - if their existance as a class becomes unnecessary - they WILL be overthrown, and theres nothing the army can do to stop the passage of time, delay and slow progress - maybe, stop it - impossible.


revolution never occurs and capitalism continues to exist until natural disaster or war destroys everything.

Possible. I dont like to think that way though - what a horrible existance I would live if i thought the world couldnt get better. :(


I don't follow Marx in what I think he means by asserting that it is a necessary outcome of history...that socialism is a "phase" that is inevitable

The word inevitable is pretty strong and inappropriate. But socialism is most likely.


Communism I think can be thought of as a super-emergency brake on a civilization out of control.

Socialism/communism is the result of a greater means of production, in which class, property and state becomes unnecessary for the furthering of human advancement.

Its not an option, but a particular form of society based around a particular mode of production.

Its a higher system, which capitalism cannot facilitate. Capitalism must end, not because its a terrible disaster for human "well being" and the environment - but because it cannot further the advancements of production.

Millions of tonnes of food, milk and consumer goods are destroyed or "stored" each year to maintain their market value, to maintain the profits of the ruling minority - even though the demand is there in places.

As technology and systems of production grow, the capitalist system, more and more, holds back and limits the productive potential of our species.

The means of production outgrow the structures of society - it becomes necessary to overthrow it through revolution - the natural mechanism for the advancement of the means of production.

It destroys itself.

[Epoche]

How do you mean the military power controls politics?

Did the "military power" prevent the feudal lords and monarchs from becoming extinct?

I am no historian although I think I understand how these primitive systems worked. The first "societies" had to consist primarily of a population and general public which had settled into agricultural modes (as opposed to hunter-gatherer) with the aid of a protective military force. The "public" would be considered the producers of economy, which is the activity that regulates the society, of course. The military power would be provided by a ruling class, which would be under contract with the society. For example, a "king" would have an army that promised to support and protect a society if it in turn took up the work of producing economy for the two combined.

This format exists only because there is the threat of foreign invasion from other groups. Without the threat of such forces there is no need for military.

Eventually, as roaming groups stabilize and form societies of their own, which in turn take up the structure of the two part cooperation of society and military power, there is less pioneering-- groups are not nomadic anymore and therefore do not threaten to over-run neighboring groups and societies. Empires are established and are small wandering rogue groups are of little threat.

Meanwhile, since the threat is no longer present to the society, the kings military resources are no longer needed, although the contract is still in effect between the lord and "his" people. Slowly an uprising occurs through the natural consequence of that king's support being no longer necessary, and the society will attempt to "break away" from its original economic contract. Then a revolt occurs against the military power of the king, by the society that had once depended on it. The "peasants" uprising. Either a total integration will happen, like a real communism where there are no real rulers, or a primitve form of capitalism will happen, where those who have control over industry will dictate the economy.

I compare this outline to what is happening in the modern world. I imagine that a revolution from within a capitalist society must effectively overthrow the military power that enforces its laws. If a million men suddenly seize the factories....do you think that's all it takes? Certainly not. The army will be mobilized immediately.

So essentially a "real" revolution will not be something like a capitalism naturally evolving into a communism through some kind of economic necessity. The revolution will be an offensive against the military powers that protect the capitalism and its doctrine of laws. It wouldn't be a fight against capitalism...it would be a fight against the powers that protect the capitalistic system.

How many times have we seen this domestic attempt to "revolt" against a local capitalistic system fail? Over and over again the resistence forces are contained and controlled, ending only in a disaster which then makes news headlines. Then we come back here to the drawing board and theorize about how it failed and how it is still the natural course of historical materialism....only that it didn't happen the right way the last time.

Eggs must be cracked to make this omelete, sir. I can see no other way around it. The process which Marx speaks of concerning the evolution of economy and this natural inclination toward the estabslishment of communism is contemplative and dandy, but as long as there sits a military force above the capitalism, part of this process of getting to communism will require a war, or several in unison. Especially since nations are allied. If you are gaining the upperhand in one country...you can expect that an allied country is on the way over to kick your ass.

How else will it happen. Do millions of people read a pamphlet and suddenly decide to go on strike? Do people suddenly refuse to vote? Do we all drop out of society? I doubt it. We are inside the monster's gullet and the only way out to smash the walls down.

The only alternative to this is something like the event redstar2000 mentioned where during the uprising the military forces decided to join rather than oppose.

It can't just happen by taking control of the means of production. It has to happen by also destroying the military power that protects the former system that you wish to collapse.