Capitalists, can you clarify something

[Saint Street Revolution]

I believe that one of the fundamental flaws of Capitalism is the basic axiom that if everyone competes and tries to accumulate as much wealth as possible, the needs of the people will be served fairly. All this seems to create is explotation of the worse off by the better off. Factory owners lower their expenditures on employees but benefit all the same from the workers' labor, selling their blood, sweat, and tears (perhaps not literally,) for a quick buck.

Why are there worse off and better off? Why are there homeless and starving in the streets, hard working people living in poverty, while people like Nicole Richie who are loaded because they just so happened to appeal to a rich guy and got adopted by them? She didn't work for any of that cash.

The thing you guys need to clarify for me: Why?

[Saint Street Revolution]

No answers at all?

[Dr Mindbender]

clearly you have posted an airtight critique of capitalism that has no demand of discourse.

Congratulations, comrade.

:lol:

[Whitten]

Your criticism would likely provoke greater response if "capitalism" itself was a political ideology or doctrine, as opposed to a set of labour and social relations. Capitalism wasn't an idea someone came up with, nor is it something that tends to be of itself justified, rather specific ideologies which fall within the boundaries of capitalism are justified or advocated. Early Liberalism, for example, tended to advocate state intervention in order to preserve competition, as well as social contracts and the provision of public education in order to maximise competition, optimise market efficiency and so, according to their views, would allow people to improve their own lives. I bring up liberalism because it is an example of how people who support capitalist relations in general will often tend to advocate improvesments of their own, hence supporters of the capitalist system do not tend to associate market imperfection and social injustice with capitalism, rather with bad management within an already existing capitalist system. In the same way that there will be siputes on how to best run services in a socialist system.

[pusher robot]

I believe that one of the fundamental flaws of Capitalism is the basic axiom that if everyone competes and tries to accumulate as much wealth as possible, the needs of the people will be served fairly.

This is a meaningless statement, because obviously it depends on what "fairly" means.


Why are there worse off and better off? Why are there homeless and starving in the streets, hard working people living in poverty, while people like Nicole Richie who are loaded because they just so happened to appeal to a rich guy and got adopted by them? She didn't work for any of that cash.

You already know the answer to these questions. There are worse off and better off for lots of reasons. Different people have different abilities, different preferences, different attitudes, and different amounts of sheer luck. Capitalism rewards those whose labor is valuable to society. This benefits society greatly, as it induces people to work to its benefit, to the detriment of those who would rather idle or work for toward some other value - though even they are made better off due to the unexcludable benefits created by others. But to a capitalist, this is entirely reasonable and fair. I'll give you that inheritances are slightly more controversial even among capitalists, but take comfort that somebody did earn it in their lifetime, and if it is wasted, it will be gone soon enough.


The thing you guys need to clarify for me: Why?Why what? Why is this considered fair? Because it respects individuals as individuals, with the ability to succeed or fail through their own efforts, and reaping the costs or benefits that result.

[hajduk]

Dear grandma

The world is under control of people who is in charge,they called capitalists
Capitalists dont give a fuck about others becouse they are in charge of making economy,laws and governments
So if they find cheaper way to make lot of money they will do that
So dear grandma take your medications and wake up ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)This is a meaningless statement, because obviously it depends on what "fairly" means.[/b]
The context of ''fairly'' in this forum, i would like to think of as a rule of thumb means a situation where each person is rewarded with the true production value of their labour and are not in a situation where they have to worry about employment, shelter or nutrition.


pusher robot

You already know the answer to these questions. There are worse off and better off for lots of reasons. Different people have different abilities, different preferences, different attitudes, and different amounts of sheer luck. Capitalism rewards those whose labor is valuable to society. This benefits society greatly, as it induces people to work to its benefit, to the detriment of those who would rather idle or work for toward some other value - though even they are made better off due to the unexcludable benefits created by others. But to a capitalist, this is entirely reasonable and fair. I'll give you that inheritances are slightly more controversial even among capitalists, but take comfort that somebody did earn it in their lifetime, and if it is wasted, it will be gone soon enough.
The idea that capitalism rewards those who contribute most to society is misleading. It primarilly rewards those who are most adept at fanning the flames of the status quo, ie those who maximise the profit margins of an elite clique. This does nothing for those outside the elite club as they have no access to the wealth unless they join in their activities. But then only a specific number can do this because a class based society requires a majority of population to be imprisoned by wage slavery in order to preserve their 'pull' factor.
In reality this is detrimental to the intersts of society on a collective basis because it sets about the precedence for social division and disparity, secondly there is no necessary onus to reward those who are successful in industries which are specific to the advancement of the species. Wealth accumulation is an arbitrary activity, within a society run on the basis of need before profit it is not a pre-requiste to the advancement of scientific or artistic endeavour.

[pusher robot]

The context of ''fairly'' in this forum, i would like to think of as a rule of thumb means a situation where each person is rewarded with the true production value of their labour and are not in a situation where they have to worry about employment, shelter or nutrition.

In that case, this:



I believe that one of the fundamental flaws of Capitalism is the basic axiom that if everyone competes and tries to accumulate as much wealth as possible, the needs of the people will be served fairly.

is obviously false. I know of no capitalist that claims as an axiom that if everybody competes and tries to accumulate as much wealth as possible, the needs of the people will be served with "the true production value of their labour and...not in a situation where they have to worry about employment, shelter or nutrition."

[Saint Street Revolution]

You are not grasping the point that it's simply not right for people who work harder than any celebrity, who have families and such as well as themselves to take care of, should have to look around and see people overly prosperous all around them for doing jack shit. It just doesn't get through to me that this is just.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 02:15 pm
different amounts of sheer luck.
Why should "sheer luck" run things? Why should people just so happen to "earn" millions of dollars for almost no reason?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Grandma [email protected] 20, 2007 09:12 pm
You are not grasping the point that it's simply not right for people who work harder than any celebrity, who have families and such as well as themselves to take care of, should have to look around and see people overly prosperous all around them for doing jack shit. It just doesn't get through to me that this is just.
Well, what do you want me to argue? You're just making moral judgment calls without explaining the basis.

Well, feel free to do so, but don't act surprised that others people don't share your religion.


Why should "sheer luck" run things? Why should people just so happen to "earn" millions of dollars for almost no reason?

Why shouldn't luck be a factor? Random events happen that benefit people unequally - it would be a silly society that tried to eliminate them. If you're walking through the jungle and a coconut lands on your head, guess what? You're unlucky! Should everyone else give themselves a concussion so that everyone is equal?

[Publius]

This is a meaningless statement, because obviously it depends on what "fairly" means.

It's not meaningless, it's just subjective.



You already know the answer to these questions.

I think the general thrust was 'why' in a philosophical sense. We know actually why Nicole Richie is loaded -- her dad is loaded.

But the question is really WHY is that allowed.

[pusher robot]

I'd love for you tell me how the system is fair. I'm dying to hear an explanation.

It's the only one that at least tries to be objective about an individual's value to society. Surprise! Luck and circumstance has an effect, though usually not insurmountable ones. This is just the nature of the physical universe.


What's fair about a game where everyone plays by different rules? What's fair about a game where some people have to work their asses off to study in a shitty inner-city school vs. people who send their children to Eton and then Trinity College?

What's fair about getting hit on the head with a coconut?

[Publius]

Fuck your fucking bullshit forum software.

Show me an error message for this post, ****s.

I'll pm you my response since RevLeft's goat blowing rules will not allow my perfectly valid post to go through.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:23 pm


But the question is really WHY is that allowed.
becouse capitalists dont give shit and people who working for them dont give shit so...

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 09:26 pm
What's fair about getting hit on the head with a coconut?

That much is the "state of nature."

However, if we were to adopt formal institutions with a rule that says, if I get hit on the head with a coconut, then your great-great-grandchildren will be given documents that permit them to hit my great-great-grandchildren on the head with coconuts, then that would be like capitalism.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by mikelepore+August 27, 2007 09:59 pm--> (mikelepore @ August 27, 2007 09:59 pm)
pusher [email protected] 20, 2007 09:26 pm
What's fair about getting hit on the head with a coconut?

That much is the "state of nature."

However, if we were to adopt formal institutions with a rule that says, if I get hit on the head with a coconut, then your great-great-grandchildren will be given documents that permit them to hit my great-great-grandchildren on the head with coconuts, then that would be like capitalism. [/b]
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you clarify?

[jasmine]

It's the only one that at least tries to be objective about an individual's value to society. Surprise! Luck and circumstance has an effect, though usually not insurmountable ones. This is just the nature of the physical universe.

Capitalism is not a meritocracy. You could be the world's greatest nurse ever, or the world's greatest carer for the old and infirmed, the world's greatest fireman. You may risk your life and limb as an outstanding member of air/sea rescue but capitalism will not reward you with the income of a movie star. The market does not maximise human potential it maximises human greed.

Under capitalism what you truly contribute to society is not seen as a success. Success is how much you make. Why is George Clooney worth so much more than a nurse on a cancer ward? Is he really contributing more to society?

[pusher robot]

Capitalism is not a meritocracy.

I have not claimed that it is.


The market does not maximise human potential
Correct.


it maximises human greed.
Incorrect. It maximizes pursuit of the society's values.


Why is George Clooney worth so much more than a nurse on a cancer ward? Is he really contributing more to society? Yes, actually he is, according to the expressed values of the society, as measured by what they are willing to sacrifice in exchange. Though Clooney's actual contribution to any specific person is small, it is added up over hundreds of millions of people. A cancer ward's nurse's value to her specific patients is large, so she makes a decent living, but her work is of tiny value to everyone else who does not benefit from it.

Perhaps you believe that this is morally wrong or unfair, but you are then substituting your own personal value for those actually expressed by society. Capitalism rewards the pursuit of the society's values without judgment as to the worthiness of those values.

[jasmine]

Incorrect. It maximizes pursuit of the society's values.

Not true. There is no such thing as "society's values." Personal values change with circumstance. If your loved one is dying in a cancer ward you don't give a damn about George Clooney's latest movie. But your "vote" doesn't register. Overall in peoples' lives the health or lack of it of those around them is the most important thing. This translates into a lot of money for insurance companies but very little for those who work in health care.

Nobody values George Clooney above the person who cares for their sick relative. The market mechanism allows this to seem to be the case because short term distraction from boredom and suffering earns money. Nobody values George Clooney above the friend who gives them happiness and comfort but of course you cannot be paid for being a friend.

However you slice it capitalism and the market is about greed. Money equals success and let's hope that's all there is to life.

[pusher robot]

Not true. There is no such thing as "society's values."

There's the aggregation of the values of the individuals of a society, which is what I am talking about.


If your loved one is dying in a cancer ward you don't give a damn about George Clooney's latest movie. But your "vote" doesn't register.

Sure it does. You can not go to his movie and he'll be out the portion of your $10 that he is entitled to. You just don't get to out-vote the hundreds of millions of other people who think George Clooney's movie is worth their $10 but your loved one's cancer treatment is not.


Overall in peoples' lives the health or lack of it of those around them is the most important thing.

To them. But not to others.


This translates into a lot of money for insurance companies but very little for those who work in health care.

So now the insurance company revenues are caused by George Clooney?


Nobody values George Clooney above the person who cares for their sick relative. Yes, nobody values George Clooney above their own health care, or care of their loved ones. But everybody values George Clooney higher than the care of people they don't know or care about.


However you slice it capitalism and the market is about greed. Money equals success and let's hope that's all there is to life.
No, it's about being rewarded for providing value to others. Greed is a person who expects others to work for his benefit without doing anything in return.

[jasmine]

There's the aggregation of the values of the individuals of a society, which is what I am talking about.

It's bullshit. There is an aggregation of what people spend their money on. That's all you have.

For example I buy food, I also buy a movie ticket. Which is more important subjectively? I spend 50 euros on groceries, 5 euros on my movie ticket. This does not not express that groceries are 10 times more important than movies.

I buy my girlfriend a present for 5 euros, I buy groceries worth 20 Euros in
the same week. Which is more important to me - my groceries or my girlfriend?

Your whole argument is based on dollar calculations that you may live by but others are not so afflicted by.