News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

capitalism = exploitation

Started by ped, November 21, 2010, 11:42:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ped

Quote from: "hunterman317"It is because they have no other options. It's hard to explain, but corporations choose to pay less and consider their effort pushing paper more than the one building their 50 million dollar house. I swear if I didn't know the entire system (being as beautiful as it is) didn't have just that one flaw, greed, then I would drop out of college and get hired immediately. Private businesses are the same. Intelligence is crucial.

employeers dont choose to pay less, they actively seek it. its kinda the point. thats called the profit margin and what you just pointed out is the function of the apparently all beautiful  market.

the magic and mysterious "invisible hand of the market" solves all societies problems! ..its a wonderful piece of propaganda, but its not entirely real.

capitalism consumes itself because of its own greed. its downfall is the over-exploitation of the working class. because barring a massive export market, the worker is the consumer. its fundemenatally flawed at it very core because of this and thats why government has to regulate it so strictly to even be able to function on its own over time.

its always the same when these arguements are brought up, a strict alliegence to the psuedo-theory masquerades as sufficient logic... like discussions with any other dogmatist. for example - "if you're not happy with what you're making, simply negotiate a higher pay."  (as if the real world works this way, unless we're talking about labor market monopolization through unionism, something im willing to bet the author of the statement is ironically opposed to)

Wilson

The employer expoloits its employees; the employee exploits the employer.  

The reason capitalism makes for good economy is that it is efficient.  The end result is usually that the economy is better for all levels of society than communism or pure socialism.  The great experiment was during the cold war.  The capitalist country always did better economically than the communist country - Germany vs West Germany, South Korea vs North Korea, US vs Soviet Union, Taiwan vs China, etc.

The down side of capitalism is that it has the potential for abuses, and there must be restrictions in place to prevent those abuses.  Monopolies should not be allowed, for example.  The banking and credit industries need more regulation.  There's the danger that people will fall through the cracks and have it harder than in socialist systems where everybody is taken care of to some extent.

A postive aspect of capitalism is that it encourages innovation and hard work, and it tends to keep supplies up and prices down.  

The old saying about Marxism is: Wonderful theory, wrong species.  It kills initiative.  The poor people in capitalist countries tend to be better off economically than the middle class in Communist countries.

Exploitation is just a word.  If you earn what seems to be a fair salary, why in the world would you worry about whether your employer is making a profit off your work?  The employer is providing a job to you, and unless he makes a profit, he won't stay in business.  Some people just aren't happy unless they have something to complain about.

Asmodean

Quote from: "ped"really? linking capitalism to exploitation is odd views? is this the first time you've heard the comparison?
From an entity seeking a serious discussion, in regard to the negatively charged definition of exploitation, yes. I have, of course, heard of corporations exploiting employees and governments exploiting the people, but not of the capitalist model being at its core exploitative.

Quoteno if i need help i split the profit like any decent person would do.  generally i have a friend or two help out when work becomes too much to handle myself. i would be totally ripping them off if i just said id give them $8 hr
You do know that temps are supposed to be more expensive than ye old regular workers..? It's only natural that when you need people on short notice and possibly have a deadline to meet, that those you hire for short periods of time know that they can squeeze quite a bit out of you. An exception is high unemployment. Then you don't have to pay more than the average within a profession - if that.

Quotelike to pay bums with bags of pennies and some grape 20/20 to fight each other for my entertainment.
I find my entertainment in watching the police remove the bums - for free.

Quoteyou guys seem to have a very odd ethics and be really bogged down in the capitalism dogma, which is why i thought you might be kids or something..
Actually, I'm a shameless materialist. My ethics though are those largely accepted by my government's laws and regulations. I'm no more ethical than I need to be, really, but not un-ethical either.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "ped"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, a snippet of lyric from Neil Peart seems appropriate here:

QuoteSo the maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights --
"The oaks are just too greedy, we must make them give us light!"
Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law,
and the trees are all kept equal,
by hatchet,
axe,
and saw.


lol neal peart....the libertarian. lmao. you going to quote rand next too?

Ad homineim attacks are the surest sign of a weak argument.  Why don't you answer the point, instead of the source?

Assuming, of course, that you can glean the point.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "ped"capitalism consumes itself because of its own greed.

Again, you mised my point earlier.  Capitalism is not, and cannot, be greedy, as greed is a quality of people.  All people are greedy to one extent or another.  Changing the system under which they operate does not remove the greed.  It only forces it to work through new channels.

I'm still awaiting an answer to my question:  without the profit margin, how do you propose to motivate start-up businesses?  

Quoteits downfall is the over-exploitation of the working class. because barring a massive export market, the worker is the consumer. its fundemenatally flawed at it very core because of this and thats why government has to regulate it so strictly to even be able to function on its own over time.

Pray tell, what human isn't a consumer?  Name one.

Quoteits always the same when these arguements are brought up, a strict alliegence to the psuedo-theory masquerades as sufficient logic... like discussions with any other dogmatist. for example - "if you're not happy with what you're making, simply negotiate a higher pay."  (as if the real world works this way, unless we're talking about labor market monopolization through unionism, something im willing to bet the author of the statement is ironically opposed to)

Oddly enough, I've negotiated for my pay several times, and managed to do quite well, thanks -- and I'm not a contract employee; I'm a business manager by trade, and the negotiations were with corporate representatives, not private owners  The real  world doesn't work the way you seem to think it does, at least not on a universal basis.  It is not so didactic as your rhetoric would portray.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

elliebean

Quote from: "ped"you guys seem to have a very odd ethics and be really bogged down in the capitalism dogma, which is why i thought you might be kids or something..
:hail:

I for one am really enjoying following this discussion. I've had the same one soooooo many times, but bc of my lapses of memory and attention, I rarely have the kind of clarity on the subject that Ped seems to have (I'm a terrible debater). Nor have I ever had the confidence to attempt to go all socratic about it, either.

Love you guys, but I'm with Ped on this one.
[size=150]â€"Ellie [/size]
You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?â€"Ricky Gervais

Wilson

Question:  Would you rather live in a society where everybody is scraping by, just enough to eat simple meals, minimal shelter, but everybody is in pretty much the same boat.  Or .. a society where there are large differences in economic level between the high earners and the low earners, the low earners have just enough to eat and minimal shelter, the high earners live in luxury.

That's kind of the choice between communism/strict socialism and capitalism.  There are a lot more chances for people to take advantage of others under capitalism, but the drives are similar under both, and there's a lot of corruption under both.  It's a natural human impulse to want to do better than our neighbors; that's in our DNA, and it has obvious survival advantages.  You can call that greed, and it's more acceptable under capitalism, but universal.  Under central planning everybody is trying to scam the system, under capitalism everybody is trying to get ahead.  There are some unattractive things about capitalism - the gap between rich and poor in particular - but communism simply doesn't work very well, because while the theory is based on benevolence toward our neighbors, the people in some capitalist nations actually have more spirit of charity than people in central planning nations.  Also, look at communist leaders; very few statesmen.  So the theory is nice but not compatible with human nature.

In my opinion, the best system for the people is a capitalist economy with well thought out controls to prevent abuse and make sure nobody falls through the cracks.  But we must remember that unless there is true price/quality competition in a particular area of business, the market forces aren't going to work to keep prices down and quality up, and government regulation may be needed.  I believe that medical care is one of those areas, and a single payer, universal coverage system is the ideal.  Unlikely in the US, however.

Thumpalumpacus

I agree about medicine: I find the idea of profit attached to the medical care of humans to be obnoxious.  

But the idea that you can remove profit without sapping motivation for improvement is not only silly, but historically unsupported.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

elliebean

Quote from: "Wilson"Question:  Would you rather live in a society where everybody is scraping by, just enough to eat simple meals, minimal shelter, but everybody is in pretty much the same boat.  Or .. a society where there are large differences in economic level between the high earners and the low earners, the low earners have just enough to eat and minimal shelter, the high earners live in luxury.
I wish those were the only two options. What of those who have not enough to eat and no shelter?

Anyway, as to "high earners" and "low earners": to 'earn' means to work for something or produce something valuable, does it not? You contribute something; you get something back, ideally of equal value. It seems to me the high earners (the bulk of the population) "scrape by" (or not) with what little their allowed to keep from the produce of their efforts, while the low earners (or non earners, in some cases; a tiny percent of the population) swindle them out of almost all the fruits of their labor and hoard it amongst themselves, without actually creating anything or performing any service (at least not any that serves anyone but ultimately themselves or each other). That's fair, right?  :hmm:
[size=150]â€"Ellie [/size]
You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?â€"Ricky Gervais

elliebean

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But the idea that you can remove profit without sapping motivation for improvement is not only silly, but historically unsupported.
The idea that you can't remove profit without sapping motivation for improvement is not only silly, but historically untested.
[size=150]â€"Ellie [/size]
You can’t lie to yourself. If you do you’ve only fooled a deluded person and where’s the victory in that?â€"Ricky Gervais

Whitney

Ped, it's very obvious you've never had to run or manage a business.  First off, your boss goes out and finds people to pay him for the services or products you produce and your boss needs to get paid too (and probably works very hard trying to find income sources).  Then you have overhead costs like electricity, water, internet, phone, paper, computers, etc. Companies much bigger than 10 people typically have a dedicated secretary to answer the phones and that must also be covered through the money brought in by employees who are directly producing the product/service.  Not to mention that companies need to maintain profit to put into savings so that when the economy takes a dip they don't have to lay off employees.

So, it is necessary that you get paid less than what you produce in order for the company that hired you to exist and if you aren't able or motivated enough to find self employment opportunities this is simply a reality you have to face no matter what kind of economic system you are under.

Whitney

Quote from: "Asmodean"You do know that temps are supposed to be more expensive than ye old regular workers..? It's only natural that when you need people on short notice and possibly have a deadline to meet, that those you hire for short periods of time know that they can squeeze quite a bit out of you. An exception is high unemployment. Then you don't have to pay more than the average within a profession - if that.

I'm wondering if he has a business that somehow does not require he own any tools or equipment that can break.  Because if he did and his contract workers are using that equipment (which, btw, would technically makes them a temp employee rather than contract...affecting tax withholding) then it is bad math to split the profits equally with the workers since that profit needs to be put in business savings for when the equipment breaks.  The only time splitting profits equally could make good business sense is if two self employed individuals equally pursue a job in a collaborative effort, both using their own equipment, and both attending sales (or similar meetings).

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "elliebean"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"But the idea that you can remove profit without sapping motivation for improvement is not only silly, but historically unsupported.
The idea that you can't remove profit without sapping motivation for improvement is not only silly, but historically untested.

Untested?  I suppose the USSR and its attendant bloc was capitalist?

inb4: "not real socialism".  Of course not. "Real" socialism, like "real" libertarianism, is unobtainable, because both systems ignore human nature.  This is, it should be noted, exactly my point.

Not to mention, it's a No True Scotsman.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

ped

Quote from: "Whitney"So, it is necessary that you get paid less than what you produce in order for the company that hired you.

so you agree with me!

ped

QuoteI'm wondering if he has a business that somehow does not require he own any tools or equipment that can break
.  
 
the tools for my trade are easily made by myself.

Quote(which, btw, would technically makes them a temp employee rather than contract...affecting tax withholding)

it would make them subcontractors. clearly you dont own your own business. are you familiar with stockholm syndrome?

QuoteBecause if he did and his contract workers are using that equipment  then it is bad math to split the profits equally with the workers since that profit needs to be put in business savings for when the equipment breaks.  

 who says that isnt taken into account? we're talking about profits not eletricity, fuel costs, broken equipment, paper, etc. thats taken care over before profit is calculated. its obvious you understand little about business.

QuoteThe only time splitting profits equally could make good business sense is if two self employed individuals equally pursue a job in a collaborative effort, both using their own equipment, and both attending sales (or similar meetings).

again gross income and profit are two different things. is you're whole arguement going to come down to a strawman?