What is wrong with capitalism?

[Drace]

I cant believe I'm posting such a thing, but anyways, please list some things of what is wrong with the system.

Here is a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VstTwFxNKk&feature=related

It pretty much has all the aspects of capitalism, and lays out a good situation.What would be your arguments on it?

[BobKKKindle$]

Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production, which means that the tools and machinery we use to produce goods are owned by private individuals and firms, not society as a whole. This is a point of criticism because it means that, even though the production of goods is a social activity which requires the cooperation of large numbers of people who work together in factories and other enterprises, appropriation is private - in other words, a small minority can benefit from the hard work of other people who are only paid a wage for their efforts. The overthrow of capitalism will lead to the abolition of private property, and, as a result, a fairer distribution of rewards.

This is, of course, only one of many ways to criticize capitalism, and you can also argue that capitalism is flawed for other reasons, such as the destruction of the natural environment, imperialist wars which arise from the drive to secure profitable outlets for surplus capital, the alienation which results from the structure of the workplace and the power of the employers, etc.

[OI OI OI]

Dialectics gives us an answer!

Take a glass of water and take a picture of it.

Then move it and take a picture of it.
then hold the pictures together and examine them.

The glasses of water are at the sime time at two different places.

Hmm that is impossible you would say. So they obviously have moved.

Ok so this is an example of motion through contradiction.

In the society we have contradictions betweent he proletariat
and the bourgeoisie.

Contradictions because their interests are contradictory.

Therefore there will be motion and will move humanity forward.

this motion would be the revolution!

PS:This is a joke Rosa please don;t respond!

[Drace]

Ok sure the prolatariet may not be payed for their full efforts, but this "exploitation" is bad only if you look at it that way. Capitalists are not what you would call king and queens.

Looking at the middle class here, they are quite happy.

[BobKKKindle$]

Capitalists are not what you would call king and queens.

The bourgeoisie are able to enjoy relative financial security precisely because they own the means of production and so are able to derive income from the sale of goods, whereas workers have no choice but to rely on their wages, which they get by selling their labour power as a commodity to a member of the owning class. This is why, throughout the world, millions of workers continue to live in conditions of pressing material hardship, despite the fact that humanity now has the capacity to provide a decent living standard for everyone.

[mikelepore]

We should not forget all of the social problems that capitalism causes "indirectly." For example, every time sociologists measure that such undesirable personal behaviors as domestic violence, child neglect, and school dropout are "correlated with low family income" that's the same thing as saying that capitalism is the major cause of them.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ok sure the prolatariet may not be payed for their full efforts, but this "exploitation" is bad only if you look at it that way. Capitalists are not what you would call king and queens.

Looking at the middle class here, they are quite happy.

you need to leave the middle class suburbs and look at the rest of the world.

[Drace]

Mykitty, I was looking for the answer, but one with some info...

[INDK]

Basically, there are two classes at play -- the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and the proletariat, the working class. The relationship between these two exists solely at the workplace, and this is where all that exploitation we Leftists are always going on about goes down. What happens is, due to some form of coincidence whether it be inheritance, being at the right place at the right time, and undoubtedly in some rare cases actually working hard and getting lucky, there's a person that's on top, the boss, the owner of the means of production. Then there's all the people that work for this person, that do not own the means of production at all, but labor and produce, and sometimes manage the means of production for the bourgeoisie. This worker does all this crap and how is he compensated by the boss? The worker is given a wage, a stipend, whatever. The surplus from this wage, called the surplus value, is what the boss takes home (as well as profit from selling what the worker produces!), and is almost always more than the worker takes home, and why? Because of that previously mentioned coincidence that made them at the top of the workplace. That's how Capitalism works. The worker works and produces and the boss gets rich from the product, and the worker is compensated with an amount significantly less than the full value of their labor.

That's the basic class relationship in a normal workplace, and the main economic grievance of the Capitalist mode of production.


Ok sure the prolatariet may not be payed for their full efforts, but this "exploitation" is bad only if you look at it that way. Capitalists are not what you would call king and queens.

Looking at the middle class here, they are quite happy.

I'm going to assume you live in a country like the US, if not the US, where the common definition of class is based on how much money you have, instead of class relation to the means of production. (For instance, in America an actor or actress is considered high-class because of the extremely high income however they labor for a boss, the director or manager, and are therefore proletarian in common class terms) These people that you have considered middle class are most likely bourgeoisie or close to it (petit-bourgeoisie, not the owners of the means of production but manage the means of production as well as the profit accumulation from producers) in actual class terms, however their income has left them in the 'middle class', which is actually quite nice, the normal suburban home, etc. Their income is lower than a 'high class' person for a various reasons; the business they own or workplace they manage is not as large or profitable as franchise or larger business; despite this lack of extreme luxury they are still bourgeoisie. I'd be happy too.

But maybe they're lucky proletarians with laborious jobs but a reasonable income for a proletarian these days. These people are not what we call 'class conscious'. They don't know what they could have, or what they're losing; they don't know what their boss is getting away with. They are, blissfully ignorant. Class consciousness and rebellion are reached in people that have it good in common standards today not by the thought of what they are losing and why their lives are so bad or scarce (like how class consciousness is more easily achieved in inner city or poor neighborhoods, where socialism is more likely to thrive), but what they could additionally have and what their boss has instead.

[spice756]

What is wrong with capitalism?

1.working class does not own the means of production
2.They are exploited low pay and long work hours
3.They do not get same profit for the commodity
4.Do to the competition and class struggle some people drop out of society others get very depressed
5.Capitalism has a monopoly effect thus free market does not work and need regulating
6.In Capitalism you don't have right to work or have food.It is a privilege.
7.There are rich people and poor people.And rich people do not work to get rich he pay people to make commodity who gives them profit.
8.In Capitalism you do not have a right to have house it is a privilege.
9.Capitalism makes lots of crime like robbery ,B&E ,stealing do to the class struggle .
10.In Capitalism the court/law is based on profit.

[Drace]

These people that you have considered middle class are most likely bourgeoisie or close to it

No, by middle class, I mean wage jobs...I mean you don't really see people here that seem to be oppressed. Sure they don't know that they should be getting more, but the wage they earn is enough to eventually buy a car, nice clothes, go to movies, etc.

[spice756]

No, by middle class, I mean wage jobs...I mean you don't really see people here that seem to be oppressed. Sure they don't know that they should be getting more, but the wage they earn is enough to eventually buy a car, nice clothes, go to movies, etc.
Yes capitalism made the middle class to counter- the revolution:( in almost all G-8 countries have a middle class to counter- the revolution.It is same thing in Canada do to pre-80's left movement they made a strong middle class to counter- the revolution.But the good thing is the middle class is getting remove in the US so people can all unite than have this class division.

[Post-Something]

No, by middle class, I mean wage jobs...I mean you don't really see people here that seem to be oppressed. Sure they don't know that they should be getting more, but the wage they earn is enough to eventually buy a car, nice clothes, go to movies, etc.

Look up "Labour aristocracy".

Which reminds me to make another thread!

Off to the learning section I go!

[Red Anarchist of Love]

Modern Capitalism’s Major Flaw in the US

As demonstrated in Mr. Clark’s Article “WEALTH DISTRIBUTION IN U.S.” unequal wealth distribution is a major social problem in the U.S. This affects a very large group of people. Its causes are social in nature and so are its solutions. There are also many groups trying to help stop this social problem. Marxists, labor unions, welfare programs, community activists, non-profit lawyers, communist movements, and even some church groups are working hard to right the wrongs of this corrupt system. The best theoretical frame work to use to explain this problem would be the conflict prospective. If I were to study this phenomenon further I would use secondary analysis of existing data as seen in Jack Clark’s article.

Poverty in the US is mainly caused by the system of wealth and its imbalanced distribution. Unequal distribution of wealth is a major social problem in the US. Its results are poverty, the loss of the American dream, or even the greater loss of our Idea of equality stated in the declaration of independence. In 2007, 37.3 million people were in poverty; this is 12.5% of the population, not including undocumented workers. (US census bureau) In August of 2008, 145,477 were considered unemployed. (US department of labor). This means 4.8% of the population over the age 16 is not employed. Everyone who does work and sees their wage stay the same ,as prices of commodities go up, as well as the profits of companies’ CEO’s and official’s is effected by this imbalanced wealth. Not only are they effected in means of there recourses, but emotionally. This emotional response is a loss in sense of one’s dignity, and out look one’s surroundings. This unequal distribution of wealth hurts not only the working-class but as the nation in a whole. People are forced into unequal educational systems, because schools are funded by property tax. In a low income area property taxes are low, there for so are the schools budget. Every one in this school system is affected by this social problem. In theses areas there is a force of disparity, making it very hard to do well in school or take upon successful careers. These citizens potential is lost to the system, forcing them in jobs of mainly low skill labor. What they could of offered society is a lost to us all. Inhuman wealth distribution in the US is a large social problem which affects the masses an we as us all.

Social factors cause an imbalance of resources, but also in social factors may we find its remedy. The formation of big business in the US was caused by no other forces of that of greed and attachment to material possessions, and a will to power. Our culture today is based today on a large portion to martial goods and patronage to companies that systematically distribute the wealth unjustly. A regular activity for youth in the middle and higher classes is to go and spend money at large shopping malls run by corporations. These corporations pay low wages and usually have most the profits going to the higher positions and C.E.O.’s. This social behavior and factor adds even more to the social problem of unjust wealth distribution. Our society’s attachment to material goods, both on the higher and lower, economic levels fuels this social problem. Many teenagers who work, as well as the working class, in general work at corporations just to spend what little money they earn at corporations. Most of our physical needs, wants and desires, are on a large part monopolized by corporations which distribute their wealth in an unethical manner. This way of life is so embedded in our culture that a young child can recognize 100’s of corporate logo’s and fewer that 10 of the plants that grow in their local area. When we buy products rarely do we think of the ethics or practices or how well they pay their workers here and abroad. There is an economic system which is form by traits of our society and social factors. One of the major opponents of the way wealth is distributed is the socialist party, who whish to bring about change by changing of social factors. After the Russian revolution the red scare in the US, which was largely generated by the wealthiest of Americas, created a black list. In this list some of the major targets were intellectuals that sympathized with the working class, and unionist. Unionists wish to unite workers to fight for there their rights and the system that treats them unfairly. This has lasted all the way up to modern times and was exposed in its true nature by McCarthy in the 50’s, although the list was continued in the more secretive braches of the government. In the 1970’s there was a popular folk song by Billy Bragg titled “there is power in a union” In this he sings in a sense unity and well as a sense of rebellion agent this system and it’s injustice distribution on of wealth: “The Union forever, defending our rights. Down with the blackleg, all workers unite. With our brothers and our sisters together we will stand. There is power in a Union.” Unions fight for fair wealth distribution in a social way by uniting the working class. Stronger importance on family in the lower class is social way for the working class to live more efficiently on what little recourses they have. If all members of society where to practice this, everyone would no longer need large amount of recourses in which this need fuel this social problem thus another social, not revolution, but resolution.

There are many groups in our society that wish to fix this social problem. Marxists and communist are some of the most obvious groups. They wish to solve this problem by redistribution of the wealth. This redistribution would then be followed by a system in which the society and wealth is controlled by the working class. Everyone would use their best traits to best benefit society as a whole. This would Cause a social end to this social problem. In April 1927 thousands of members and non-members of the International Labor Defense demonstrated in New York City’s Square to free framed anarchist immigrant workers Sacco and Vanzetti. The pair became a martyr for the cause of just wealth distribution, and the working class. In 2006 Greensboro, North Carolina Eric of the Farm Labor organizing committee (stationed at the Hive) helped organized a campaign to support the union workers, mostly Hispanic immigrants, who pick cucumbers. He did this not by putting pressure on the independent farmers, but by putting pressure on a pickle corporation that farmers sell to. There was a boycott on this brand of pickles, so the corporation would pay the farmers more. In turn the farmers will pay better wages and create better housing and working conditions for the workers. This campaigns purpose was to redistribute the wealth in a humane way, for workers to have a living wage, and working and housing conditions. On July 4, 2008, in Greensboro, North Carolina the Minimum Wage Committee marched and its supporters marched down town it the fourth July parade. They were there to promote the idea of raising the minimum wage in Greensboro. they were there to promote the redistribution of wealth in a way in which every worker earns a sufficient amount that they could live off of, so workers would not have to take 2 or 3 jobs to provide for there families. I marched in the end of the parade with a large sign that said one day in the Iraq war, in which a lot of money is embezzled by military corporations, could pay for 163,525 people with health care, A necessity that many live with out due to the inhuman distribution of wealth in America.

I used the Conflict theory to analyze this social problem while proving that it is a social problem, because it is often characterized by Inequality and oppression on the lower class. The social problem it -self is in the view point of conflict theory analysis. To better define the perspective in which I used I would define it as Critical-conflict perspective. In critical-Conflict perspective I suggested that social problems come from the way the US is organized and its contradictions. I think this perspective is a wonderful way to look at the world and have little or no objection to it
The Census Bureau and the Department of labor have vast data bases on the distribution of wealth in America. Therefore the best way to research this social problem is the use already existing data. Both I and Jack Clark used this research method to complete our literary works. On the web site of the census bureau it is amazing how much information is presented. I guess one of the cons is sorting out the information that one could use to write their paper with. The information is obvious and out there in numerical statistics and well as being represented in our everyday lives. The US has a problem with social contributors and solutions, how will we fix this social problem in which the wealthiest top 1% of the population controls more that the 90% combined!

The U.S. Census Bureau
The U.S. Department of Labor
Jack Clark’s Wealth Distribution in the U.S.
Howard Zinn’s A Peoples History of the U.S.
A Spartacist Pamphlet #20 Black History and the Class Struggle
Carl Marx’s Communist Manifesto
Verbal Information from Eric who works at FLOC in the HIVE and Ed who works with the Wage Committee


Billy Bragg’s There is Power in a Union



WEALTH DISTRIBUTION IN THE U.S.

U.S. Wealth Distribution: I Get $38, You Get 23 Cents -- That's Fair, Right?
Distribution of Our Wealth Is Terribly Askew
September 4, 2001
Most people have no idea that the vast bulk of the wealth of the United States is in the hands of a relative handful of people. The wealth distribution chart below shows that the top 1% own 38.1% of the wealth in the country, the next 4% own 21.3%, and the next 5% own 11.5%. That is to say, the top 10% of the country owns 70.9% of the wealth of this nation! Ninety percent of the country owns a mere 29.1%. Another way to put it: Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. No one expects it to be divided perfectly evenly at $1 apiece, but everyone involved expects that some basic fairness will be used in the process that will split up the money.


Now let's say the $100 winds up being divided as follows:
1 person gets
$38.10
4 people get
$5.32 each
5 people get
$2.30 each
10 people get
$1.25 each
20 people get
.60 each
20 people get
.23 each
40 people get
1/2 cent each


The 40 people getting 1/2 cent each might be a bit annoyed at the person getting $38.10. The 20 people getting 23 cents each would probably not be happy with the 4 people receiving $5.32 each. And so on...
This is how our economic system has distributed the wealth of our country. It's so far from any type of fairness as to be laughable, were it not a direct cause of certain segments of our society lacking adequate resources for food, clothing, shelter, medical care and other necessities, let alone any amenities of a beyond-subsistence life.
This Short article was Written by Jack Clark and posted in The Rational Radical.

[trivas7]

Essentially capitalism is the theft of human labor for the aggrandizement of those who don't labor. Do you find nothing wrong with this picture? Look around you.

[Ratatosk]

What is wrong with capitalism?The fact that by far the biggest rewards are determined by ownership, not work or effort or something like that, and that certain individuals have a massively disproportionate say in matters that affect huge social groups.

[Chicano Shamrock]

No, by middle class, I mean wage jobs...I mean you don't really see people here that seem to be oppressed. Sure they don't know that they should be getting more, but the wage they earn is enough to eventually buy a car, nice clothes, go to movies, etc.
Are you old enough to have a job? You ever had one? Have you ever heard people complain at your job that they have to work so much, they have so little and that they wish they could just have a little personal time outside of work but that is not financially realistic for them?

These are my main problems with capitalism. We are wasting our lives at work. How much does an hour out of your life, that you will never get back, cost to you non-monetarily? Now start multiplying that by tens of thousands.

By the way everyone working knows they should be getting more and a lot of times people get angry about not getting paid enough. Some just don't realize why they aren't being paid enough.

[Ratatosk]

No, by middle class, I mean wage jobs...I mean you don't really see people here that seem to be oppressed. Sure they don't know that they should be getting more, but the wage they earn is enough to eventually buy a car, nice clothes, go to movies, etc.The by far most oppressed people, on whose work most of the economy rests, live in other countries, probably even other continents. So you can't just look around yourself to see the effects of capitalism, you need to take those people into account, too.

[spice756]

By the way everyone working knows they should be getting more and a lot of times people get angry about not getting paid enough. Some just don't realize why they aren't being paid enough.


Not only are capitalists have millions or billions of money but people only getting $14 a hour and now they are starting new thing called offshoring and downzing.

[Lenin's Law]

For instance, in America an actor or actress is considered high-class because of the extremely high income however they labor for a boss,


Good post but a small correction is needed here: by "actor" and "actress" you are referring to that small elite layer in Hollywood that makes a huge amount of money; the other 99% live on very modest incomes and the vast majority need to work a 2nd or 3rd job simply to make ends meet. The myth of an actor's life being all glamourous and luxurious applies only to a small minority (sounds familiar?) While most actors have to struggle mightily just like most proleterians do and actually the example of actors makes yet another case against capitalism as the system exploits the large numbers of people who want to be actors and can get away with paying them little or nothing.

A capitalist supporter might argue that this system awards the actors who are "truly talented" or "work harder" from the others but this is easily disproven; it only takes a few so called Blockbuster names from the entertainment industry who rely on physical attributes, personal connections in the industry, and nepotism and who are not great or even good actors. As for working hard: Who Does? The actress in New York waiting tables at 2 restaurants to earn a living or Tom Cruise?

[Omi]

Besides the other points mentioned, capitalism also drives scarcity. It relies on it, it needs scarcity to function properly. It needs a strong base of workless people, so it can fire the workers that complain, try to gain a little something more, etc. They just hire a new work seeking individual, because even in the most developed western country's it's still near impossible to live a decent life without a job.
Also a lot of products get wasted to keep the prices high. Just have a look at what your local superstore sends to the dump every night. Just because the manufacturers of products set the date to low so supermarkets are not allowed to sell them. Just have a look one night, and you'll be astonished of how many needing familys can be fed on a daily basis. In my country it's illegal to just take the waste and dine from it, they even hire people to protect it to make sure it goes to waste! But when you manage to get your hands on some food, it's mostly still good for weeks to come!
That's what property relations are for you, massive waste and scarcity to keep the capitalists in their nice little world.

[INDK]

Good post but a small correction is needed here: by "actor" and "actress" you are referring to that small elite layer in Hollywood that makes a huge amount of money; the other 99% live on very modest incomes and the vast majority need to work a 2nd or 3rd job simply to make ends meet. The myth of an actor's life being all glamourous and luxurious applies only to a small minority (sounds familiar?) While most actors have to struggle mightily just like most proleterians do and actually the example of actors makes yet another case against capitalism as the system exploits the large numbers of people who want to be actors and can get away with paying them little or nothing.

A capitalist supporter might argue that this system awards the actors who are "truly talented" or "work harder" from the others but this is easily disproven; it only takes a few so called Blockbuster names from the entertainment industry who rely on physical attributes, personal connections in the industry, and nepotism and who are not great or even good actors. As for working hard: Who Does? The actress in New York waiting tables at 2 restaurants to earn a living or Tom Cruise?

Granted, good post.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Interesting and perceptive article here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/10/heroic-defense-of-markets.html

[Enragé]

Are you old enough to have a job? You ever had one? Have you ever heard people complain at your job that they have to work so much, they have so little and that they wish they could just have a little personal time outside of work but that is not financially realistic for them?

These are my main problems with capitalism. We are wasting our lives at work. How much does an hour out of your life, that you will never get back, cost to you non-monetarily? Now start multiplying that by tens of thousands.

By the way everyone working knows they should be getting more and a lot of times people get angry about not getting paid enough. Some just don't realize why they aren't being paid enough.

the best answer here (not to say that the points others made aren't valid)

those who speak of revolution without relating to everyday life have a corpse in their mouths :)