What is capitalism ?

[carniflex]

Carniflex, so you're saying everyone should be completely self-sufficient?

The best would be that everyone "work for the betterment of community", as Communisto said. I call this utopia communism.
A more reachable utopia would be that we no longer work for the aristocracy of the shareholders. I call this utopia socialism.

How do you explain Hitler's election, then?

Hitler was not elected.
By the way, please put this question in another thread.

different socialist systems have different rules. Take National Socialism, for example...

It seems that you dont know more about socialism than about nazi Germany.
However, National Socialism is indeed a good example of the link between capitalism and freedom...

 

[WillJ]

The best would be that everyone "work for the betterment of community", as Communisto said. I call this utopia communism.

But by your logic, everyone would then be slaves to the community.

 

[Communisto]

But by your logic, everyone would then be slaves to the community.

no, because it wouldn't be "work. die. born. work. die" we live like ants. Working for a community would be easier on everyone.

 

[newfangle]

lol! Working for the "community" is significantly more antlike than working for oneself. God Lord man, who feeds you this rubbish?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

no, because it wouldn't be "work. die. born. work. die" we live like ants. Working for a community would be easier on everyone.

What would be the borders of individual action in such a system?

 

[amadeus]

no, because it wouldn't be "work. die. born. work. die" we live like ants. Working for a community would be easier on everyone.

That worked so well in Tanzania, right?

 

[WillJ]

no, because it wouldn't be "work. die. born. work. die" we live like ants. Working for a community would be easier on everyone.

So you consider posting on CFC work, or what?

 

[mdwh]

The core principle of capitalism is that the shareholders are free to enjoy the fruits of the workers labour.

No, the workers are free to enjoy the fruits of their labour. However, they are also free to exchange their labour for money. The employer-employee relationship is something which people choose to do that grows out of the concept of trade; it is not a fundamental part of capitalism.

The utopia where everyone is free to enjoy the fruits of their own labour, id est where exploitation is abolished, is called socialism.

The key point being *everyone* - ie, others will enjoy the fruits of your labour.

Working for a guy is certainly not freedom.
Working for a guy is slavery.
Freedom is working for yourself or for a democratically ruled collectivity.
That is not prohibited under socialism, if you want to know.

And it's not prohibited under capitalism either!

If you really believe that, then either work for yourself or start up some company where the workers are the shareholders. You are free to do that in capitalism. The question is, for those of us who want to work for private companies, or run our own business and employ someone, can we still do that under your preferred system? Why do you wish to change the current system, when it allows to do what you want to do anyway?

I'd also like to know how working for someone in capitalism is slavery, but being self-employed, or being forced to work for the collective isn't.

 

[mdwh]

no, because it wouldn't be "work. die. born. work. die" we live like ants. Working for a community would be easier on everyone.

You forgot to explain how working in a community would be easier than working for yourself or a private company.

Many "capitalist" countries are actually partly socialist - but I don't see everyone rushing to work for the state owned companies.

 

[carniflex]

But by your logic, everyone would then be slaves to the community.

Not so simple. If the members of the community can say their word, it's not slavery, but democracy.

start up some company where the workers are the shareholders. You are free to do that in capitalism.

Not so simple. If the "shares" are equal and inalienable, as the right to vote is in a democracy, it's socialism, not capitalism.

I'd also like to know how working for someone in capitalism is slavery

1. You cannot say your word.
2. You're exploited.

A good defintion for slavery, isn't it ?

 

[mdwh]

Not so simple. If the "shares" are equal and inalienable, as the right to vote is in a democracy, it's socialism, not capitalism.

I presumed we were arguing from the point of view of a society, ie, which society is better, rather than which type of company is better.

If you want to run a company and call it "socialist", then that's fine, as long as you don't claim that the other types of companies shouldn't exist.

Whether a socialist company is better than a private one with shareholders depends on many factors - some people prefer to work for publicly owned companise, and other people work for private ones. Choice is good.

1. You cannot say your word.

I'm not sure what this means?

2. You're exploited.

Exploitation, although bad, isn't slavery - and I'm certainly not exploited anyway. It may be possible to exploit people, but that's possible in all types of societies or companies. If you want to run a company without exploiting people, then that's great - but that's a statement about individual human behaviour, and not to do with economic systems. What is so inherently exploitative about a private company with shareholders, as opposed to a company where the workers are shareholders, or a Government owned company?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Not so simple. If the members of the community can say their word, it's not slavery, but democracy.

Say their word in what? Do I get to have a say how and in what manner you screw your girlfriend, what and what kind of food you eat, what kind of toothbrush you use, what to watch on TV, what kind of people you can talk to or to be associated with.

WHY then do you get a say in what people I associate with, in what manner I may whish to trade and to what terms?

 

[Mise]

It would be helpful to separate these into two parts.

The first part is to do with yourself:

Say their word in what? Do I get to have a say how and in what manner you screw your girlfriend, what and what kind of food you eat, what kind of toothbrush you use, what to watch on TV,

Of course, no-one should tell you what to do with yourself when it only concerns yourself.

The second part is to do with the other people in your society:

what kind of people you can talk to or to be associated with.

WHY then do you get a say in what people I associate with, in what manner I may whish to trade and to what terms?

Why shouldn't society impose limits on your business with society? Your actions affect other people; why SHOULDN'T they get a say in them?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Of course, no-one should tell you what to do with yourself when it only concerns yourself.

The second part is to do with the other people in your society:
Why shouldn't society impose limits on your business with society? Your actions affect other people; why SHOULDN'T they get a say in them?

Well, if you have two individuals that seek to engage in an action that concerns only them themselves, within full agreement between themselves, what's it to 'society'?

 

[carniflex]

as long as you don't claim that the other types companies shouldn't exist.

I do.
Exploitation shouldn't exist.

I'm not sure what this means?

Sorry. I wanted to say that, under capitalism, the workers dont control the company they are working for.

What is so inherently exploitative about a private company with shareholders, as opposed to a company where the workers are shareholders, or a Government owned company?

All real things, including means of production, are produced by the workers.
The shareholders have never produced anything real.
So, their remuneration is exploitative.

In "a company where the workers are shareholders" and where the shareholders cannot be someone else than the workers, there is somehow no shareholders, and of course, no exploitation.

In a government owned company, where the government takes money from the company, there is no exploitation IF the government is democratic, and therefore makes a social use of that money.

 

[downtown]

Sorry. I wanted to say that, under capitalism, the workers dont control the company they are working for.

well, what do you mean by control? Certainly, it isnt practical for each worker to have a say in the day to day administrative operations in how a company works (unless it is very small). They all do on a small scale though. Not every company is wal-mart you know.

Plus, if you dont like it, you and your buddies can always start your own.

I think a system where i cant turn my ideas or skills into money is a lot more like slavery then one where I can.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Exploitation shouldn't exist.

All real things, including means of production, are produced by the workers.
The shareholders have never produced anything real.
So, their remuneration is exploitative.

In "a company where the workers are shareholders" and where the shareholders cannot be someone else than the workers, there is somehow no shareholders, and of course, no exploitation.

In a government owned company, where the government takes money from the company, there is no exploitation IF the government is democratic, and therefore makes a social use of that money.

First, let me say if you honestly think that a democracy can't exploit people.

Then, let me ask for your definition of exploitation. I can just as easily say that I'm exploiting the company I work for because I don't think my job is worth what they pay me. I think I'm getting the good end of the deal. But that's just me...

Thirdly, if some "collective authority" tells me how to work and what to pay me, THAT'S worse than exploitation, no matter your definition. I'll take capitalism any day; at least then I can pretend to make my own decisions concerning who I work for. In your scenario, I have no control over my own life. That's something that people take arms and fight against. I hope circumstances never come to that.

 

[carniflex]

well, what do you mean by control?

For example, Ensuring that the money of the company is not given to parasites such as the shareholders.

First, let me say if you honestly think that a democracy can't exploit people.

Capitalism is an economic system which is part of a free society

So, you think that freedom includes capitalism whereas democracy leads to exploitation.
Are you sure that it is not: democracy includes freedom whereas capitalism leads to exploitation ?

 

[WillJ]

Not so simple. If the members of the community can say their word, it's not slavery, but democracy.

Umm, two scenarios:

1. Bob wants to work for Tim. And Tim wants Bob to work for him. They agree that Bob will indeed work for Tim.

2. Bob doesn't want to work for Tim. But Tim and five other people want Bob to work for Tim. These six people force Bob to work for Tim.

You're saying Bob is enslaved in #1, but not #2? Whaaaaaaa?

 

[Irish Caesar]

So, you think that freedom includes capitalism whereas democracy leads to exploitation.
Are you sure that it is not: democracy includes freedom whereas capitalism leads to exploitation ?

I'm saying that a free society is both democratic and capitalistic.
It is possible for capitalism to lead to exploitation, but this is certainly not limited to non-democratic societies.

These statements don't contradict; I say that democracy can lead to exploitation, not that it does.

You still haven't given me your definition of exploitation.