Capitalism Doesn't Work

[Thirsty Crow]

That is not Capitalism, that is not free market. Capitalism would be agreeing on terms which would be fit the worker, and the employer, fit the worth to the cost on mutually agreeable terms.

You're trying in vain to force your definition onto reality. It's like daydreaming while actually believing that slowly you will transform your surroundings by the very process you're engaged in.
Capitalism is not an economic theory. It is an existing economic practice, with its history. One part of this history includes lassez faire, which pretty much equals "free market" you're advocating. And guess what - it was a brutal, dehumanizing set of economic and governmental/labour control practices. Moreover, the state was heavily involved since standing army was a neccesity for the proper functioning of the economic system - including imperialist domination over other nations/ethnic groups.

Moreover, capitalism, as an existing set of economic (and ensuing social, political and cultural) practices cannot be defined in an idealist, moralistic fashion (mutual agreement; but what if workers' do not wish to be subordinate to capitalists?).
It is an economic system based on generalized commodity production - meaning, the dominant model of production is that for sale on the market, with proprietors pocketing in the difference (profit; accumulating capital to reinvest in another cycle of capital accumulation) in the form of surplus value. The social position of the capitalist also bers upon te entire class possessing a far superior degree of social power (e.g. the ability to command social devlopment by means of capital investment) than workers.

Now, you also haven't tuched upon my argument regarding the Mexican framers.

[Revolution starts with U]

The worker is not being forced to work. The "elites" as you call them in a Capitalist society have every right to invest their capital as they see fit; no one is under any obligation to work for them.

As I already said, they are. No specific individual is forcing them. But they have to eat, and to eat they need money. And for money they have to beg someone who owns things for a job.

Keynes was a Statist, just like Marxism. Capitalism is at all not compatible with Statist ideologies.

Has or hasn't there ever been a capitalist society in the world? YOu'd better say no, else you contradict yourself.
Seriously, how can you deny america is a capitalist nation? It may not be part of your ancap fantasy, but it sure is capitalist.

Secondly, it is not the responsibility of the employer to care about his employees past the bottom line.

Correct, because labor is a commodity.

You personally do? Yeah, I'd love to see that. [/sarcasm]

Hehe. Believe what you want... of course you assume all socialists are lazy unemployed potheads looking for a handout. SO the decision was made long before you came here.

They're not the ones that have earned it, ever thought about that? Of course you haven't.

They did all the work. It's amazing to me that you consider throwing money at something "earning it."
PS. I'm a socialist, of course I have. That's the whole point. The workers earn everything, and the investor lives fat off it....

One can survive without anything but food and water, both of which can easily be obtained.

How? All the meaningful land is owned. One has the choice to earn their food illegally through theft and/or vagrancy, or they can beg... or they can get a job. It sure seems they are forced to work. lest they find themselves morally reprehensible.

Again, the Capitalist system does not force them into anything. It is your responsibility to prove that you are worthy, regardless of whether you need or want something.

No, it is your responsiblity to make money (in capitalism). Worthy is only a secondary thing. I could have made all my money robbing people, and then invested it, and nary a capitalist would bat an eye.

Red-herring. Until they invest their capital, they have no say. If the employee feels wronged, he is the one responsible for proving he's worth more.

How many times will you say the smae thing? I've already addressed this point...

Hardly.

1. Hunting licenses came about by result of Statism, not limiting the government.
2. All land is not necessarily owned.

Hunting licenses came about as a result of property laws and over-hunting. But agian, if you think capitalism = no state, you're living in a fantasy land. It is pointless to argue with a fundamentalist.

All the government regulations are the result of big-government, I hate to burst your bubble bubbah.

I thot you said were intelligent...? You're not bursting my buble at all. I fully understand that... it's why i'm an anti-capitalist. Your ancap world is an ahistorical fantasy. Those regulations are capitalist regulations, from a capitalist government. They are designed to protect profits, so... being that they came from a capitalist government, and protect the capitalist system.... I'd say that's big capitalist government.
It may be possible for their to be anarcho-capitalism (I have my doubts), but capitalism most certianly has always entailed statism, historically.

I do not feel a need to subject myself to your level.

You refuse because you know the capitalist system gives two fuck-alls where you got your money, or whether it was based on merit. All that matters is that you do have money... that's capitalism, friend.

Doesn't look fair. Those laborers are way overpaid for their unskilled contribution.
I'd replace them with monkeys and robots.

I'm sure you would.... because labor is a commodity in the capitalist system!! (this is not to say much of the economy shouldnt be automated. many socialists hold that as a key to their philosophy.)

The thing is, the laborer has nothing to lose. The stockholder can lose 100% of their investment. The laborer gets paid as an ongoing matter.

What?! The laborer has everything to lose; his job, his house, his food supply, possibly his family (because we all know, money problems breaks up more households than anything else).

I guess it just means that laborers should learn more, achieve better intellectual and economic standing, and become stockholders.
If they're not capable of doing so, they have nothing to ***** about.

So I guess slaves should just earn more, achieve better intellectual and economic standing and free themselves. If they're not capable of doing that, they have nothing to ***** about.

And laborers in this country are still far better off than laborers in any communist country.

Ok so you're either here 1) admitting that the US is a capitalist state or 2) admitting fascism > communism
Either way you're being inconsistent.

[Thirsty Crow]

You know what, I just realized what capitalism is.
It is a mode of production in which footballers (not American football) are owners of capital.
OMG this is not capitalism I'm living in!!!!!!!!!!

Fucking hillarious (and kinda sad too).

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think the fact that most of the world is poor and Capitalist proves it doesn't work.

[Judicator]

What?! The laborer has everything to lose; his job, his house, his food supply, possibly his family (because we all know, money problems breaks up more households than anything else).

Under the theory that labor is a commodity, then like any other commodity, the laborer can sell it to anyone with relatively little additional effort. His job is never really at risk, since he can get a job anywhere else for the same wage. If the factory goes bankrupt, its capital providers lose their money, while the worker walks next door for a new job.

Also, how is someone with enough surplus income to support a family considered a slave?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree about Capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

Oooops -- meant to address this one....

Under the theory that labor is a commodity, then like any other commodity, the laborer can sell it to anyone with relatively little additional effort.

Not so.

Labor, unlike commodities that one may *own* -- as for investment -- is a part of one's own life, life-time, and effort. If someone has no other commodities to control then one *only* has their own labor power to sell as a commodity, by default.

Owning external commodities to the point of *not having* to sell one's own labor power is called 'wealth' and we all recognize that wealth is a luxury, especially since someone who's wealthy doesn't *have to* work for a living.

His job is never really at risk, since he can get a job anywhere else for the same wage.

You're assuming an economy that's *static* here, which, as we all know, isn't the case at all. Labor rates (wages and benefits) are subject to the same dynamics as all other commodities, and they fluctuate over time according to market conditions. Government bailouts, as over the last decade, always favor covering *financial* losses, not labor ones (wages and benefits, and costs related to employment and living).

If the factory goes bankrupt, its capital providers lose their money,

Money is *not* a finite resource, since debt can be created as a substitute for it, *and* it's external to one's own person, like a buffer of material. If market conditions favor the creation of financing for another factory-based business, it *will* happen, regardless of past performance.

while the worker walks next door for a new job.

This is sheer hyperbole -- any worker knows that the transaction costs involved in marketing one's own labor anew can be considerable and do not necessarily guarantee results.

Also, how is someone with enough surplus income to support a family considered a slave?

If one has to sell one's own labor power by default -- for lack of ownership of performing assets -- then the process of *exploitation* remains the same kind of "wage-slavery", no matter how much one may have gained from employment. On the upper end of things are celebrities like actors and athletes -- while often better-compensated than average they *still* don't control the output of their own labor efforts.

[RGacky3]

Under the theory that labor is a commodity, then like any other commodity, the laborer can sell it to anyone with relatively little additional effort. His job is never really at risk, since he can get a job anywhere else for the same wage. If the factory goes bankrupt, its capital providers lose their money, while the worker walks next door for a new job.

Also, how is someone with enough surplus income to support a family considered a slave?

If the capital provider looses his investment (he never looses his wealth because he's extracted most of it from the labor), the worker looses his job, the capital provider cna use his wealth to make another investment, and generally he'll get a golden parachute. The worker will loose his job and be back in the labor market, where he has to sell himself against the rest of the 16% functionally unemployed people, for whatever he can get, and unlike a commodity, he can't wait for a good deal because he has a mouth or more to feed.

Slaves also supported their families.

[CHE with an AK]

[Revolution starts with U]

Under the theory that labor is a commodity, then like any other commodity, the laborer can sell it to anyone with relatively little additional effort.

lol, you really live in a hypothetical land don't you?

His job is never really at risk, since he can get a job anywhere else for the same wage

lol, you really live in a hypothetical world don't you?

. If the factory goes bankrupt, its capital providers lose their money, while the worker walks next door for a new job

Assuming they are hiring. You really live in a hypothetical world, dont you?

Also, how is someone with enough surplus income to support a family considered a slave?

Does it surprise me that someone who's intellectual capacity consists solely of hypotheticals is completely ignorant of history? Of course not.
Many slaves lived very comfortable lives.

[Judicator]

Labor, unlike commodities that one may *own* -- as for investment -- is a part of one's own life, life-time, and effort. If someone has no other commodities to control then one *only* has their own labor power to sell as a commodity, by default.

Owning external commodities to the point of *not having* to sell one's own labor power is called 'wealth' and we all recognize that wealth is a luxury, especially since someone who's wealthy doesn't *have to* work for a living.

So labor is a commodity, but unlike any other? Why consider it a commodity at all? Unlike every other commodity, there are lots of qualitative and relevant differences among different laborers: physical strength, IQ, etc.

You're assuming an economy that's *static* here, which, as we all know, isn't the case at all. Labor rates (wages and benefits) are subject to the same dynamics as all other commodities, and they fluctuate over time according to market conditions. Government bailouts, as over the last decade, always favor covering *financial* losses, not labor ones (wages and benefits, and costs related to employment and living)

Why should the fact that prices move impact your ability to buy or sell?

This is sheer hyperbole -- any worker knows that the transaction costs involved in marketing one's own labor anew can be considerable and do not necessarily guarantee results.

Why would marketing costs be so high if unskilled labor is completely interchangeable for other unskilled labor, i.e. if labor is a commodity?

If one has to sell one's own labor power by default -- for lack of ownership of performing assets -- then the process of *exploitation* remains the same kind of "wage-slavery", no matter how much one may have gained from employment. On the upper end of things are celebrities like actors and athletes -- while often better-compensated than average they *still* don't control the output of their own labor efforts.

Lack of ownership of performing assets? What does this mean? If I have $1000 of Apple do I own performing assets?

If "wage slavery" just means you are paid a wage but don't own the company that pays you, then this is more of a misuse of the term "slavery" than anything else. Non-shareholding CEOs who bury their money under their mattresses are "wage slaves?"

There's a marginal return to labor and a marginal return to capital. Laborers get the former, capital holders get the latter. Everybody gets something for what they put in.

[RGacky3]

So labor is a commodity, but unlike any other? Why consider it a commodity at all? Unlike every other commodity, there are lots of qualitative and relevant differences among different laborers: physical strength, IQ, etc.

I don't consider it a commodity, but it is treated as such under capitalism.

Why should the fact that prices move impact your ability to buy or sell?

... really? are you really asking that question? Also your totally missing his point.

Why would marketing costs be so high if unskilled labor is completely interchangeable for other unskilled labor, i.e. if labor is a commodity?

Because the costs include not eating, getting evicted and so on.

Lack of ownership of performing assets? What does this mean? If I have $1000 of Apple do I own performing assets?

Perhaps if your getting dividends on that.

If "wage slavery" just means you are paid a wage but don't own the company that pays you, then this is more of a misuse of the term "slavery" than anything else. Non-shareholding CEOs who bury their money under their mattresses are "wage slaves?"

A wage slave is someone who is forced to work for a wage of which they have no say over, ot survive. A CEO picks his own pay, and really has many other options, and no CEO puts their money under their mattress, the CEO also allocates the recources of the company, its not your average shareholder that has no real control over the recoures.

There's a marginal return to labor and a marginal return to capital. Laborers get the former, capital holders get the latter. Everybody gets something for what they put in.

Not at all, Laborers do not get a share of what they produce, whether they produce $1000 worth of value an hour or $2000 has nothing to do with their pay.