What is capitalism ?

[mdwh]

I do.
Exploitation shouldn't exist.

There we have it - even when people have the choice to work in ways which you would see as not be exploitative, you want to take away my freedom to work in a job I enjoy, because you think you know better than me at knowing whether I'm being exploited.

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

That's the sacrifice you make in return for being paid money. If someone pays me to write some code, I don't have a say in what they do with it. If I pay someone to clean my toilets, that doesn't mean they have a say in anything else I do.

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

So, you don't think they deserve any money for putting up their money, and taking the risk?

Please send me £1000. I will give £1000+inflation only interest in 10 years' time. Deal?

Of course, shareholders may get more money than they'd get in a bank - but they might not. As a worker, I may not get any extra profits, but I am not liable for the losses either.

You also need to stop the worker/shareholder distinctions as if they are different people. Workers can buy shares. I prefer a system where a worker can choose to be a shareholder or not, and for which company they wish to own shares in. You want to force people so that the only companies that exist are ones which have to be funded solely by the workers.

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.

I've got nothing against these sorts of companies, which you are free to form. What I'm against is you wanting it so that these are the only form of companies allowed.

What happens in this company if you need to raise extra money, and the workers can't afford it, or don't want to risk their money?

What happens if after putting in hard work for a few years, you need to employ someone to clean the toilets - does he get a share and say in the company?

 

[carniflex]

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?

No, I am not.

1. In your two scenarios, Bob works for Tim.

2. You should have noticed I said:
"Working for a guy is slavery."

3. In both scenarios, Bob is working for a guy, and is therefore enslaved.

4. You were mistaken about my "Freedom is working for yourself or for a democratically ruled collectivity."
That does not mean that freedom is working a guy, even if this was democratically decided.
Democracy does not include the right to negate itself, that would happen if Bob would lose his freedom.

 

[willemvanoranje]

True capitalism does not excist and has never excisted outside of theory..

 

[pilight]

True capitalism does not exist and has never existed outside of theory..

Because it can't. There's no basis for determining who has the right to use the natural resources of the earth. Benefit from the fruits of your labor? OK, but why do you get to use this land instead of me using it? Because your ancient ancestors got to it before mine did? That's ridiculous.

You may be able to make something out of wood, but only God can make a tree.

 

[carniflex]

It is possible for capitalism to lead to exploitation

It might happen.

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

When the worker get the money brought by his work, there is no exploitation.
When the workers collectively get the money brought by their work thru the social intervention of a democratic governmt, there is no exploitation.
When the shareholder get the money there is exploitation.

 

[carniflex]

There we have it - even when people have the choice to work in ways which you would see as not be exploitative, you want to take away my freedom to work in a job I enjoy, because you think you know better than me at knowing whether I'm being exploited.

Well. I admit it. I think I must complain about the working child even if he has no breath to complain.

That's the sacrifice you make in return for being paid money.

Yes it is.
But it should not be.

So, you don't think they deserve any money for putting up their money, and taking the risk?

Of course, I dont.
Do you think the thieves deserve any money for putting up their money into guns, and taking the risk?

As a worker, I may not get any extra profits, but I am not liable for the losses either.

Then, you'd better be a shareholder.
As a shareholder, you may get extra profits, and you are not liable for the losses.

You also need to stop the worker/shareholder distinctions as if they are different people.

In spite of your favorite capitalist theory, they are.
90% of the shares are owned by 3% of the population in the rich countries.
And it would be worse if I put the workers of the third world into.

What happens in this company if you need to raise extra money, and the workers can't afford it, or don't want to risk their money?

Dont worry, the workers can survive without begging the extra money brought by the exploitation of the workers. They can simply abolish exploitation.

What happens if after putting in hard work for a few years, you need to employ someone to clean the toilets - does he get a share and say in the company?

Why not ?

 

[mdwh]

Well. I admit it. I think I must complain about the working child even if he has no breath to complain.

Well, I'm not a child, and I don't like the idea of our freedom being taken away by people who claim to know better for us.

Of course, I dont.
Do you think the thieves deserve any money for putting up their money into guns, and taking the risk?

You equate giving money to someone with committing armed robbery?

Are you saying that people shouldn't lend money at all, or that people should lend money and not expect any interest?

As a shareholder, you may get extra profits, and you are not liable for the losses.

There may be *limited* liability - if you are investing in a limited company. But you are still liable for what you invest. If no interest was given, there would be no incentive for anyone to lend money - everything would have to be funded by the people wanting to do it.

90% of the shares are owned by 3% of the population in the rich countries.
And it would be worse if I put the workers of the third world into.

This is only a result of inequality of wealth, which is not due to capitalism.

The inequality of wealth has been a problem throughout history - I certainly don't see that the poverty of 3rd world nations is caused by capitalism. I'd be glad to hear solutions to inequality - though that's not intrinsically an anti-capitalist issue. I'd also point out that even if rich people are getting richer, the standard of living of the average person (ie, the "worker") in capitalist nations has risen immensely. Now, this might be more due to the general increase in technology and could have happened under other economic systems - but given the facts of how things have improved for the workers, I don't see how we can point at capitalism as being a bad thing for their lot.

Dont worry, the workers can survive without begging the extra money brought by the exploitation of the workers. They can simply abolish exploitation.

Well if you can fund your own company with your own money, then obviously that's better. But not everyone is rich enough to be able to do that - borrowing money is the only way that some people can start up a business. Surely you aren't advocating a system which favours rich people?

Why not ?

So you would be happy to give up a share of several years of your invested hard work and wealth to me, if I came along and did some random job for you that wasn't directly related to the business?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Because it can't. There's no basis for determining who has the right to use the natural resources of the earth. Benefit from the fruits of your labor? OK, but why do you get to use this land instead of me using it? Because your ancient ancestors got to it before mine did? That's ridiculous.

You may be able to make something out of wood, but only God can make a tree.

Well, since we're supposed to actually use the natural resources of the earth, you have to draw the line somewhere. The best and least ambigous manner to do it is the libertarian homesteading principle.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Well, since we're supposed to actually use the natural resources of the earth, you have to draw the line somewhere. The best and least ambigous manner to do it is the libertarian homesteading principle.

No, the best method to assign rights to the use of resources is through democratic process. That might include homesteading laws, or it might - as with the broadcast spectrum in the USA, until recently - involve leasing resources from the government.

 

[mdwh]

Because it can't. There's no basis for determining who has the right to use the natural resources of the earth. Benefit from the fruits of your labor? OK, but why do you get to use this land instead of me using it? Because your ancient ancestors got to it before mine did? That's ridiculous.

Though the initial allocation of resources is a separate issue.

You could share out resources equally, and then run things in a capitalist manner (eg, maybe I have less need for land, and am willing to trade it for something else). Maybe we could have a high inheritance tax, and use that to share equally between new people who are born.

Just because there is a need of some kind of state doesn't mean that we should do away with capitalism altogether. Sure, we wouldn't get equal allocation of resources for all future generations under laissez-faire capitalism - just as you wouldn't under many other economic systems such as anarchy, feudalism. Of course, perhaps by "true capitalism", willemvanoranje mean laissez-faire capitalism, but I would disagree that that's the only form it can take.

The big problem with this of course is that few people (even those against capitalism) seem to be okay with a large inheritance tax; they want to give their wealth to their children.

You may be able to make something out of wood, but only God can make a tree.

Men can plant trees. If someone has spent years planting trees and waiting for them to grow, why should that be taken from them?

 

[carniflex]

I don't like the idea of our freedom being taken away by people who claim to know better for us.

Well, of course, capitalist salarying dont taken away people's freedom. But anticapitalists will.

You equate giving money to someone with committing armed robbery?

You equate a shareholder with someone that gives money ?

Are you saying that people shouldn't lend money at all, or that people should lend money and not expect any interest?

I'm not speaking about financial questions, but a real one: the capitalist exploitation.

This is only a result of inequality of wealth, which is not due to capitalism.

Actual inequality of wealth is mostly due to capitalist exploitation: Inequalities of salarying among the whole population are nothing compared to inequality due to capitalist income.

I certainly don't see that the poverty of 3rd world nations is caused by capitalism.

The poverty of 3rd world nations is mainly caused by exploitation from the rich countries. This exploitation has two main means: capitalist exploitation of the workers (working in corporation owned by shareholders from rich countries) and state debt.

I'd be glad to hear solutions to inequality - though that's not intrinsically an anti-capitalist issue

Solutions to social inequality are firstly an anti-capitalist issue.

I'd also point out that even if rich people are getting richer, the standard of living of the average person (ie, the "worker") in capitalist nations has risen immensely.

The improvement of the standart of living of the worker is certainly not a standart of capitalism. There are periods in the capitalist countries during which only the standart of living of the shareholders are improving; we've been living one of these during the 25 last years. The improvement of the standart of living of the workers is the result of the workers' fight against the capitalist exploitation.

Surely you aren't advocating a system which favours rich people?

I'm advocating a system with no people rich enough to buy other people's freedom.

So you would be happy to give up a share of several years of your invested hard work and wealth to me, if I came along and did some random job for you that wasn't directly related to the business?

What do you mean with "not directly related" to the business ? If you are selling the fruit of the work of your singler worker entreprise, you will of course not get a share. Else if we decide to work together, you will of course have a share.

 

[carniflex]

The big problem with this of course is that few people (even those against capitalism) seem to be okay with a large inheritance tax; they want to give their wealth to their children.

I am anticapitalist and I am okay with a large inheritance tax.
I dont want to give my wealth to my children.

 

[Irish Caesar]

You equate a shareholder with someone that gives money ?

...

The improvement of the standart of living of the worker is certainly not a standart of capitalism. There are periods in the capitalist countries during which only the standart of living of the shareholders are improving; we've been living one of these during the 25 last years. The improvement of the standart of living of the workers is the result of the workers' fight against the capitalist exploitation.

A shareholder loans out money with the full intention to turn a profit on it. He doesn't "give" the money, but he certainly doesn't "rob" it.

The fight of the workers against the corporation IS a part of capitalism. It's when the government gets involved that the trouble begins...Government tends to intervene on the side of the corporations, which distorts the capitalist system against the workers.