What is capitalism ?

[Tank_Guy#3]

A system in which the rich get richer and the poor just stagnate and die.

 

[amadeus]

And how much do a normal employee earn?

That depends on what their job is. Receptionists and accountants are pretty "normal" but their salaries differ.

Yes I know that mainly during the struggle of organized labour against those corporations some things has changed to the better. But the fact remains that the economical differences are still enormous, which is also a democratic problem, and that many people live an undignified life.

Not everything is democratic nor should it be. Dignity is also not what you have but who you are. There's plenty of people with lots of money and no dignity and vice-versa.

Regarding minimum wage, if it is so low that welfare is better (which I doubt any way), then it just illuminates the ills of such a system. Why not increasing the minimum wage so people could live on it?

First, welfare is "better" in the sense that you don't actually have to work for it. It just comes to you in the mail. Why not make the minimum wage higher? Economically unfeasible. You know who would wind up for paying the tax, which is basically what it is, is the consumer.

If I drop out of high school, don't get any education, become a gas station attendent, why should I earn as much money as someone who went to a technical college and became a mechanic or took an business course and became an accountant?

If freedom means to sell your labour in a system which is favouring the buyer of labour then I guess I have to brush up my English.

If you have the right skill, it favors the individual. If your job is to restock the candy display at the movie theater, there's a hundred other people out there to do it.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

It is not so easy.
In a democracy the principle is one person one vote disregarding of wealth.

A corporation lives to serve its shareholders and its clients. If you don't agree with its policies you can chose not to be a shareholder and not to be a customer. Nobody is coercing you to do anything.

But perhaps you will answer my question; what would you call a political system organized in this way?

It's not a political system. A political system pertains to a state and its institutions. Companies, corporations are private.

If corporations were allowed to keep their unearned privileges no. If not, yes.

You didn't answer my question. In what way are people worse off as a consequence of of the mentioned corporations? In what way have corporations (in general) acted to cause harm?

This is not about free markets, it is about the real existing capitalism.

We both agree we live in an imperfect world. But do you think Capitalism is the cause of those woes? There we disagree -- I think it is Statism and state-Socialism (not Socialism per-se; If it does not apply force or threat of force on me or my peers then I would have nothing against it).


OT: I get the impression that while you are vehemently against a state, you support an increase in its power (via higher taxes -- be they for social programs & the likes; power to legislate and regulate). There seems to be a contradiction there. If the purpose is the dissolution of the system, why would one want to grow ever bigger? (critical mass conspirationism? )

 

[Richard Cribb]

That depends on what their job is. Receptionists and accountants are pretty "normal" but their salaries differ.

It depends a lot I guess. But in any case it would be substantially less than the CEO's who are fewer who get substantially less than the big shareholders...
What those on the floor get I don't even want to dare thinking of.

Not everything is democratic nor should it be.

Most things should, especially when we talk about politics; at least as long as we claim that everybody is equal. I for one see a huge problem in a society where wealth can give political power(already Aristotle did, by the way, so I don't claim any originality for this!). And just to make it clear, that is a problem in my society as well, even if to a smaller extent.

Dignity is also not what you have but who you are. There's plenty of people with lots of money and no dignity and vice-versa.

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. While I fully agree that not every rich individual has cultivation or manners, you are usually feeling better when you are rich in a society where wealth is worshipped. I was homeless for a while and I couldn't afford any dignity.You have other things on your mind when you are in such a situation.

First, welfare is "better" in the sense that you don't actually have to work for it. It just comes to you in the mail.

I think you overlook a couple of things here.
First of all, the social aspects. Both in your and in my country most social life is concentrated around work. Very often unemployed people get isolated and passive.This is also connected with:
the shame. People have a tendency to look down on you.Try go to some social gathering and on the obligatoric question "what are you doing for a living?" answer: "Oh, I am on welfare".Only on this board I have read expressions like lazy bum more than once.
But apart from that, I am a bit puzzled. In my country you only get welfare if you are unemployed an unable to find suitable work or you are ill. And work are much better paid.
I guess I will have to do some more research on this, as I doubt that this is the factual situation.

Why not make the minimum wage higher? Economically unfeasible. You know who would wind up for paying the tax, which is basically what it is, is the consumer.

Taxpayers also pay for welfare, and presumably get less back for it. Suppose you took a bit from the spoiled billionaires and Pentagon, and funneled it into investment in public sector; health care, education, transport etc. Then you employed people, people earned money, paid taxes...
This is really just a question of priorities. You can choose to use the carrot only on those on the top, or you can extend the principle to the whole society.
I happen to think that it is not about economical feasiblility, but about what is politically possible and then I am back on the connection between power and political influence (buying a congress-man,owning media, etc ).

If I drop out of high school, don't get any education, become a gas station attendent, why should I earn as much money as someone who went to a technical college and became a mechanic or took an business course and became an accountant?

Why not?

If you have the right skill, it favors the individual. If your job is to restock the candy display at the movie theater, there's a hundred other people out there to do it.

Yes I know it works like this now. I just question its validity, especially since I don't really know what "the right skill" is or who are to decide that. Is Britney Spears really worth that numbers of medical nurses and bus drivers?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Why not?

I would think that if all jobs paid the same no matter the training involved, fewer people would spend the money to go to graduate school and get advanced degrees if they didn't get more money out of it as a result. Therefore, fewer PhD's and a shortage of necessary occupations. This is a simple supply-and-demand problem.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I'm a bit confused here. So, in your opinions(which I assume are very similar in this issue), is there an inherent value of labour and effort or not? If not, how come you still want to dictate or interfer in one's earnings based on effort? If yes, how come I don't get paid to dig holes in my backyard?

In principle yes, in reality not pratical, and no you shouldn''t get money for digging hols in your back yard because that isn't a service to anybody apart from yourself.

The state of 'dictating' towards earning I support is a minimum wage, which is working very well in the UK thank you very much, and taxation. Taxation pays for services. Rich people can use these services to ya know.

 

[Richard Cribb]

A corporation lives to serve its shareholders and its clients. If you don't agree with its policies you can chose not to be a shareholder and not to be a customer. Nobody is coercing you to do anything.
It's not a political system. A political system pertains to a state and its institutions. Companies, corporations are private.

First of all, I am mainly talking about those who sell their labour to corporations, not about potential shareholders or customers.
But basically you are saying then, that you find it OK that people should renounce their political and human rights once they enter their work-place? This is exactly one of my reasons for being against private property (and to keep this short, possessions are something differnt, I am not going to take your toothbrush).Also see below.
Besides, keep in mind that there is no absolute barriere between the political and economical sector of society.

You didn't answer my question. In what way are people worse off as a consequence of of the mentioned corporations? In what way have corporations (in general) acted to cause harm?

Yes I did, but I can elaborate. Corporations are, as exponents of private property, coercive and exploitative.
They like the states writ small, only that you indeed have less influence on them than on a democratic state.Indeed it gives more association to Feudalism or Monarchy, since you are forced to follow the rules of your master as long as you are on her or his property.
Earlier in this thread I quoted Marx, now it is time for some Prodhon:

"the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order"Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is property, p 128

And yes, nobody forces you to work for that corporation. But it forces you to work for somebody unless you have property, which in reality is most people. You may not call that coercion, but I certainly do.
They are also exploitative, since they take the wealth produced by the many and give to the (usually)un-productive few.Excuse me, but I am struggling with a broncitis and am to tired to elaborate on this righ now. Check out section B3 in the Anarchist FAQ in my sig.

We both agree we live in an imperfect world. But do you think Capitalism is the cause of those woes? There we disagree -- I think it is Statism and state-Socialism (not Socialism per-se; If it does not apply force or threat of force on me or my peers then I would have nothing against it).

Yes of course I think capitalism is mainly to blame as the dominating system in the world for a some hundred years.
Please note that I did not say that capitalism is to blame for everything bad(neither is the US, by the way), keep in mind that I also on more than one occasion noted that it was in its time a progressive system far better than what it replaced, keep in mind that I never said that everything about it was evil - far from it. And it is also not the worst thing in the world; Kim-Il Jung for instance is worse, but he is quite impotent outside his little absurd tyranny, which is anything but socialistic(unless you want to say that he has socialized the people).
About the part on socialism. As a labour historian I can but disagree. Almost every important political or social reform, every democratical step forward has been implemented by the struggle of organized labour which was socialist in one way or another. It is my clear cinviction that without socialism if we can think such an absurd thought; I think it grows naturally from the rise of capitalism and the formation of an industrial proletariat, most people would have been much worse off. Universal suffrage? Hardly. Shorter work days? No way. Public education? I don't think so. The list could be very long.
And remember also that slave trade and colonialism hardly can be blamed on socialists.
When did corporations ever champion common people's rights? Do they now? Why does capitalists love China so? Is it because of that country's impressive cultural history, or because they can get a workforce which is disciplined and supressed to retail prizes? My money is on the second option. Was there ever a regime so oppressive that it was not possible to do bussiness with it; US corporations traded with both Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.

OT: I get the impression that while you are vehemently against a state, you support an increase in its power (via higher taxes -- be they for social programs & the likes; power to legislate and regulate). There seems to be a contradiction there. If the purpose is the dissolution of the system, why would one want to grow ever bigger? (critical mass conspirationism? )

Yes, my friend, it is a good observation and a paradox. I will try to explain, and then you can judge afterwards how great a hypocrite I am...
In today's situation I regard corporations as a bigger threat to welfare and freedom than the state. Firstly the state provides us with alot of good things, what Paul Street calls its left hand, public services such as health-care, education, transport. To get those sweet things, we need tax revenues, and if we tax the rich heavily we kill two birds in one stone; we get the money and diminish their power(Actually I support a lot of tax cuts; remove certain tariffs, certain indirect taxes, income taxes for the poor, property taxes(!) for common people etc.)Secondly, contrary to the corporations, we can all have a small influence on the state through the legal political processes and the fact that it is public (this only goes for a more or less democratic state, of course). As I have mentioned before, I am not a revolutionary, I support the permanent evolution. I wrote a long post about this some time ago, but I can't find it again. But my point was, as time goes by we become aware of new discriminative (is that a word??)and exploitative relationships, they become part of the political agenda and after a while aware by almost everybody (discrimantion of women and homosexuals springs to mind).However, for such a process to continue, it is important to give everybody a chance to realize their goals in life - that is getting a good life on their own premises - and only a strong, well-functioning welfare sate can guarantee that in today's situation.
Furthermore my anarchism is a vision; I am not really sure if it can ever be implemented in practice even if I think so due to a variety of reasons. In that case I would settle for the guild socialism, which I have written about on a couple of other threads.
I hope this was more enlightening than confusing , anyway I need to take the evening now, and I am planning to leave this thread. However I have a feeling that we will have fruitful discussions on future occasions as well.
Have a nice evening

 

[FredLC]

Actually, Luceafarul, it's a very interesting point - particularly in regarding of considering corporative power a bigger threat than governmental powers.

I gotta say that so many people are so used to get scared of the monsters they already know, that they fail to see other dangers in the horizon.

That's not your case, and it shows.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Break it down to the lowest common denominator. Of course Castro or the Ayatollah couldn't run a country by themselves individually, but they still maintain absolute control over every aspect of society through proxies and puppets. Steve Ballmer certainly doesn't have as much power as someone like Castro.

The Ayatollah's grasp on his society has a much strnger spiritual base than an economical one. I doubt many people will advocate the banishing of religiosity in the US of A as a manner to prevent possible fanatic leadership, as there are others, better means avaiable. Not very pertinent to our question.

As for Castro, well, I'll not enter into a discussion about the fallacy of the claim that capitalism equals freedom and communism equals tyranny, nor I'll again discuss wheter Cuba is communist or not. For argumentative purposes, I'll assume both pre-requisites of your example true.

Still, Castro's grasp on the Cubans is nowhere as potent as you seen to think. Forget the Big Brother, people does not have to dodge their televisions to avoid governmental inspection of their daily lifes.

Sure that Castro have power to order even executions (though I cannot say how arbitrary they are. I tend to think that there are laws that line out even political crimes - even absolute kings used this through history instead of relying only in the I said so - but as it would be simple for him to work around that, i'll even assume that he can simply order to execute anyone at any time out of his whins.

Still, the impact of Castro in the daily life of a Cuban is virtually null. They ran their errants according to a law that is general even if unwise, and not "praise-Castro" based. Quite unlike what happens in mega-corporations, the state telling you what to do with several hours of your day is a fantasy of the Cuba-bashers, who have other, far more valid reasons, to dislike the politics of the island.

Really, corporations are highly hierarchical structures, and no government (except theocracies, which count's on the people's believe that the Lord is watching) have the kind of control of the daily aspects of people's life that a boss have over an employee.

Show me a system that guarantees full productive employment.

There is none. In fact, I hardly think that there is any that is better than capitalism. What does not change the fact that capitslaism is still very much unfair and flawed - being just less than the others.

I'm not a capitalist hater, you know? I just dislike misguided opinion - like the praising of something eons away from deserving praising.

If you look at the countries themselves, poor countries are poor not because they are the martyrs of capitalism but because of corruption, red tape, and internal political strife.

There are several reasons - mostly historical and social - for why these nations are poor. Much of the current building of modern world came from countries exploring other countries - and, save for few exceptions, the poor are invariably those which were explored by someone else.

Really history teaches us that exploitation leads to misery, and misery takes long to revert. It's as true about people as it is about countries.

I can't explain why individuals are "poor," which is in itself a relative term anyway.

Yes, it is relative. But it's very commonly accepted that living with dignity means having enough to have a house, sufficient food, clothing, education and have a few to spare with the human necessity of amusement. Many don't have that - and they will never because they don't have enough to get education, the one thing that could change their situation.

The majority of the human race is born in a circle of vice, where their poverty defines for them a lifetime of poverty. Chances of reverting that are slim at best, and the progress through work is akin to an illusion, relying on exceptions to prove it's viability.

Yes, poverty is relative, but when I talk to people who have been opressed by a lifetime of misery and became but shadows of what they could be; when I see so many potential being wasted, and so many people existing instead of living, well, forgive me if I indulge on a little of objective recrimination on the world we built.

Regards .

 

[luiz]

There IS an inherent value in labour, or else people wouldn't shy away from digging holes for no money.

Labour may not be worth anything, but it certainly costs something.

People shy away from digging holes because it takes alot of effort and is unpleasent. That doesn't mean it has value. Otherwise people would get paid for doing it.

 

[luiz]

In principle yes, in reality not pratical, and no you shouldn''t get money for digging hols in your back yard because that isn't a service to anybody apart from yourself.

The state of 'dictating' towards earning I support is a minimum wage, which is working very well in the UK thank you very much, and taxation. Taxation pays for services. Rich people can use these services to ya know.

In other words you support a bunch of bureaucrats analysing how much each kind of work is worthy based on how it is serving others, instead of just letting the people decide how much they're willing to pay for a given service.

Anyway, regardless of the fact that digging holes in my backyard isn't actually benefiting anyone, if labour has an inherent value then it should be rewarded.

 

[carniflex]

One share - one vote, there's nothing undemocratic about it.

It is not so easy.
In a democracy the principle is one person one vote disregarding of wealth. But perhaps you will answer my question; what would you call a political system organized in this way?

I would call a political system organized in this way (one share - one vote) aristocracy.

One share - one vote...
There's certainly something undemocratic about capitalism.

 

[Stylesjl]

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man

Communism is the exact opposite

 

[ComradeDavo]

In other words you support a bunch of bureaucrats analysing how much each kind of work is worthy based on how it is serving others, instead of just letting the people decide how much they're willing to pay for a given service.

Anyway, regardless of the fact that digging holes in my backyard isn't actually benefiting anyone, if labour has an inherent value then it should be rewarded.

You obviously ignore the 'it's not practical' part of my post.

 

[Mise]

People shy away from digging holes because it takes alot of effort and is unpleasent. That doesn't mean it has value. Otherwise people would get paid for doing it.

Yes, I already said that it has no value, but it DOES have a COST, and ignoring that human cost leads to rediculous situations, like people being paid millions of pounds a week for doing very little, or starving kids in india being paid a penny a day for working in desperate conditions for 16 hours a day.

 

[Rik Meleet]

A few days ago, during the upgrade, in a discussion with Zarn I said what Capitalism is:

Capitalism is Despotism-for-sale

 

[luiz]

Yes, I already said that it has no value, but it DOES have a COST, and ignoring that human cost leads to rediculous situations, like people being paid millions of pounds a week for doing very little, or starving kids in india being paid a penny a day for working in desperate conditions for 16 hours a day.

The fact that it has a cost doesn't men that people should get paid for doing it.
------

You may think that it's ridiculous for Beckham to be paid what he is, but horny teenage girls from England to Japan disagree. If they're willing to pay, he will get paid. How is that unethical?

 

[Mise]

The fact that it has a cost doesn't men that people should get paid for doing it.
------

You may think that it's ridiculous for Beckham to be paid what he is, but horny teenage girls from England to Japan disagree. If they're willing to pay, he will get paid. How is that unethical?

The problem with capitalism is that it does not see wage-slavery as unethical, nor does it see David Beckham's salary as ludicrous, nor does it see anything the way a normal compassionate human being should see it. Capitalism says NOTHING about ethics, so to use the rules of capitalism as an ethical guideline is plainly stupid, and leads to ludicrous outcomes.

You said yourself that you would not object to someone paying the hole digging man millions of pounds, nor would you object to someone paying him nothing. Capitalism says that both those situations are perfectly valid and acceptable, even though one of them is completely ludicrous to any rational human being.

And there are less trivial examples of how blindly following the rules of capitalism lead to rediculous outcomes, such as sweatshop workers in India.

 

[mdwh]

Capitalism is about survival of the richest.

To elaborate -

Bascially, Capitalism is about making money. The more money you have, the better off you are. People talk about capitalism as the rights of an individual to make profit...whilst that it is true to an extent it is also equally about companies/corparations.

If you can't get on 'the ladder' in capitalism, then your chances of making decent money are very minimal.

Which is also true of every single economic system that has ever been tried in human history (I can't think of any counter examples).

Money is just a representation of resources. "The more resources you have, the better off you are" is basically a tautology. That people who start off with more money/resources are also in a better position to acquire more wealth in future is unfortunate, but true of other economic systems, and seems to be something more fundamental that capitalism.

The only hypothetical exception would be communism, but I'm not sure how in practice it could be guaranteed that people could not acquire more than their "fair share" of wealth, and use it to gain yet more.

 

[mdwh]

Who's expense does McDonald's profit come from?

A good question. I'd say that the profit comes from the fact that people have different wants/needs and different things they can provide. If two people make a trade, then they can both benefit - the profit doesn't come at anyone's expense.

So the profit for McDonald's comes from the fact that people are willing to pay more for their food, than the cost to make that food. I don't think they can be said to be exploited, since (a) they choose to do this, and (b) McDonald's does not have a monopoly on providing food (ie, people are free to make the food themselves for cheaper cost).