1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaNo, I asked you to think about it and gave a detailed explanation as to
Whom is forced into these poor conditions by whom? Think about it.
what I mean. The short version would be, capitalism wouldn't work unless
there are people struggling to make ends meet. Those people are the very
reason we have rich and absurdly powerful people more or less controlling
the rest.
Originally posted by stockenI guess you didn't think about.
No I asked you to think about it and gave a detailed explanation as to what
I mean. The short version would be, capitalism wouldn't work unless there
are people struggling to make ends meet. Those people are the very reason
we have rich and absurdly powerful people more or less controlling the rest.
This has got to be one of the most absurd fallacies I've ever seen.
Capitalism works regardless of the wealth of those participating. When the two cavemen hunkered down and worked out a deal - ogs rabbit skin for ugs stone with a stick attached, that was capitalism. Each recognised property, and each profited by the exchange otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
No-one is artifically held down in a capitalist society. To get a grip on your theory (guffaw) you need to identify who is supposedly held down by who.
Originally posted by WajomaIf the simple idea of fair trade is your idea of capitalism, then this
Capitalism works regardless of the wealth of those participating. When the two cavemen hunkered down and worked out a deal - ogs rabbit skin for ugs stone with a stick attached, that was capitalism.
discussion is superfluous. Every society to date has worked on the
principal of capitalism then, even communism. No, capitalism is more
than that. It is the idea that those who are best informed can aquire
property at a low cost, sit on it and when it's worth more to another group
of people sell it to make a profit. It's all about profit. And that profit
directly relies on the fact that some people needs it more than you do
and so they are willing to "pay" more for it than you did. That's
capitalism. To use whatever leverage you're given in order to exploit less
fortunate people.
The most interesting thing about this system is that if you have a lot,
you can easily get more. Like poker. If I have a lot of money going into
the game I can take risks that will maximise my profit when I eventually
win the hand. However, if I have little, I'm forced to play more cautiously,
which is immediately detected by the other players and I will either lose
completely or win a very small sum. Capitalism is an inherently unfair
system as it favours those whom already has more than they need and it
puts the real strain and hard work on those who have no real choice.
Originally posted by stockenThe state deciding when, what and how much is produced then deciding how it will be distributed is not fair trade.
If the simple idea of fair trade is your idea of capitalism, then this
discussion is superfluous. Every society to date has worked on the
principal of capitalism then, even communism. No, capitalism is more
than that. It is the idea that those who are best informed can aquire
property at a low cost, sit on it and when it's worth more to another group ...[text shortened]... n they need and it
puts the real strain and hard work on those who have no real choice.
And every day I am thankful for the profit motive it is what is lacking in your "everyone must sacrifice ant heap". All the great products developed by people desiring to better their own life. It's what motivates me to go to work, to exchange my skills and labour for a profit.
Capitalism is the recognition of individual rights one of which is the right to acquire property.
Originally posted by stockenThe reason for my comment was that Buddhism views removing desire as the key to ending all suffering. And you seemed to be advocating forcing people to desire less-- hence the contradiction.
Every actual society to date has been built on a militant approach. The
need and the required extent to use force perfectly illustrates how weak
the foundation really is. Isn't it my birth given right to take whatever
food and shelter I can find in the forests to maintain my own survival?
Humans have done it for thousands and thousands of years in pe ...[text shortened]... nd it would be militant only to the extent that no one
can grab more than they need.
As for hunter-gatherer societies -- they may look idyllic, but they aren't. And competition for resources is still going on.
As a living creature, you can't really escape from that. Even plants try to force each other out of the sunlight. As an animal, you must kill (or enslave) some other plant or animal to survive. It's an ugly truth but I am afraid we are all stuck with it.
As for societies, somebody is always trying to figure out a better method of "divying up". Capitalism is very egalitarian and moral (and democratic) in the sense that anybody who does something others view as valuable tends to have money flow to them. The more valuable the thing, the more the money flows.
You can still live in the forest and hunt for grubs if you want, but most people choose rather to do some fairly comfortable work (by comparison with previous eras) and are rewarded with a modest sum that keeps them alive, with cable, and a DVD player.
No Roman Emperor ever lived in half the luxury we have today, with wall-to-wall carpeting and ice cream in the refrigerator.
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaNo, you're absolutely wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with individual
Capitalism is the recognition of individual rights...
rights and freedom. It's the democratic state that makes it possible for
people to exercise some level of freedom. And any society can be built
on a democracy, even communism.
Without democracy, what you get is most propably a dictatorship. One
group of people controlling the rest. It can be capitalistic, religious or
communistic in nature. It all depends on the values of the leaders in
charge.
Capitalism, again, is about people having control through means of
capital wealth. Favoured are those with lots of money, and unfortunate
the rest. If I have lots of money I have many choices on how to spend
my free time (theater, restaurant, go for a casual ride in my brand new
sportscar and so on and so forth). If I'm poor I have but work to get
enough money to support my own and my families' most basic needs
with no real hope of it getting any better unless I learn to "play the
game" or come up with some ingenious invention like the flying car or
something. Capitalism is about gaining control over your own situation
through making economical profit at the cost of others.
Originally posted by spruce112358Not forcing people. I think this whole forcing issue came about as you all
The reason for my comment was that Buddhism views removing desire as the key to ending all suffering. And you seemed to be advocating forcing people to desire less-- hence the contradiction.
seem to think that if I say it's not justified to hang on to what we don't
need when others need it more, I'm saying we should forcefully strap
people down on a table and take their kidneys against their will. I never
said that. I propose that people get past their selfish desires and do it
willingly for the better of society at large. Fully aware that will never
happen, I still pose the question: "Why am I entitled to sit on a body
organ I don't really need to lead a meaningful life, when someone else
will die if I'm not donating it?"
Free choice. Does it extend so far that I have the right to let others
suffer because I don't want to share?
Originally posted by stockenDemocracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, if you're in a minority and in a unlimited democracy, look out, your freedoms are going down the toilet.
No, you're absolutely wrong. Capitalism has nothing to do with individual
rights and freedom. It's the democratic state that makes it possible for
people to exercise some level of freedom. .
Read it and weep:
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaDo you think a communist doesn't deal with money at all? Or a person
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, if you're in a minority and in a unlimited democracy, look out, your freedoms are going down the toilet.
Read it and weep:
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Capitalism.html
living in a dictatorship of some kind? Of course they do. The idea of
trading one thing for another is basic to any society I've read about yet.
It's not specific to the US and other western countries. Democracy is the
first step towards the individual freedom which is necessary to support
the kind of capitalism we experience today. That is basically what your
reference come down to. So, capitalism doesn't in fact give
individual freedom, but rely on it already existing. It also relies on the
idea that some will make bad and ill-adviced choices for themselves so
that others may make profits. It also relies on laws to protect those
profits. Capitalism is in fact taking away the freedom provided
initially by the concept of democracy through various forms of
manipulation. Any hierarchical society works that way really, so it's not
just capitalism. Capitalism is just another way of using people for your
own benefit. Nothing more grand than that.
Originally posted by stockenI never said capitalism "gave freedom". Advocates of capitalism recognise your right to be free. Rights don't come from capitalism anymore than rights come from democracy.
Do you think a communist doesn't deal with money at all? Or a person
living in a dictatorship of some kind? Of course they do. The idea of
trading one thing for another is basic to any society I've read about yet.
It's not specific to the US and other western countries. Democracy is the
first step towards the individual freedom which is necessary to ...[text shortened]... m is just another way of using people for your
own benefit. Nothing more grand than that.
Sometimes people make bad choices but generally in voluntary trade both parties benefit from the trade otherwise they would not voluntarily deal with each other. It is a system of exploitation - mutual exploitation.
Originally posted by WajomaBut rights do come from democracy. Your right to choose for yourself what
I never said capitalism "gave freedom". Advocates of capitalism recognise your right to be free. Rights don't come from capitalism anymore than rights come from democracy.
you want. That is what democracy is all about.
I'm curious, when you say mutual exploitation as if that's a good thing, do
you have in your mind a child working for practically nothing in a far away
country to support a group of people in your country? Or are you thinking
merely of two individuals living in the same society with equal opportunities
and similar capital wealth?
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenI am speaking of a people trading value for value. They have exploited each other.
But rights do come from democracy. Your right to choose for yourself what
you want. That is what democracy is all about.
I'm curious, when you say mutual exploitation as if that's a good thing, do
you have in your mind a child working for practically nothing in a far away
country to support a group of people in your country? Or are you thinking
me ...[text shortened]... individuals living in the same society with equal opportunities
and similar capital wealth?
You're wrong, utterly wrong, rights do not come from democracy.
In a country run by a tyrannical dictator, some of your rights may be recognised. Democracy, dictatorship, communism under any of these systems some of your rights maybe recognised others may be violated. None of them are the source of rights.
Originally posted by WajomaCapitalism goes hand in hand with the commodification of labour. Ogs paradise was a simple barter system where each one had their needs serviced through a simple exchange. Property was hardly ever recognized in this sort of free trade market.
I didn't think about.
Capitalism exists because of industrialization. Once factories became the norm labour became a commodity like any other. In terms of 'progress' having a monetary value placed on your labour and transforming markets such that bartering no longer was the primary mode of exchange, certainly helped in the way the capital (the fruits of ones labour's) could be invested and it certainly stimulated the development of new products and services.
Unfortunately what the restructuring of the marketplace's dependency on bartering also meant, was that over time the needs of one person, which could have been met by the direct exchange of goods, as a product of a similar amount of labour compared to the person they were bartering with, now had an exchange mechanism ie:- money, that had fluctuations and valuation discrepencies independent of any ones labour.
What that has meant that over time the marketplace has been dominated by those with capital who tend to be able to control the price offered for your commodity of labour, as well as fix the threshold price for all basic commodities, in order that the overall stability and profitability of the market can be maintained.
As long as you do not have significant resources of capital and as long as you are a slave to the means of production( whether willing or not), you will be nothing more than the flotsam and jetsam of economic activity, your labour bought and sold for a price.
If you do not organize into some form of bargaining collective, you will have left yourself wide open for exploitation as market forces squeeze the value of your labour's commodity price, and the wealth which has been concentrated into fewer hands,(in part due to the way that the exchange of value is now based on a more portable form of exchange ie:- money) such that you will never be able to toil on a level playing field as every aspect of you labour and the purchasing power it rewards you with to satisfy your needs will forever be in the hands of those with the power that large sums of capital gives, to be able to structure the market to ensure that you and your labour will always be priced at a level that will prevent you from creating any real wealth of our own and locked into a cycle of docile compliance, because the crud you are offered as a worker is still better than starving.
This discussion has deviated quite a bit from the original compulsory-kidney-donor to capitalism.
On the first issue I would say that the fundamental flaw in the argument is that there would always be more than one source of meeting a particular need, and there would have to be elaborate rules to guide the decision who is to benefit and who should suffer.
On the Capitalism/Communism issue, you don't have to theorise. Just look at a country like East Germany that became West. I am very familiar with both situations. In the old days, the Ossies would look longingly to the West. Everyone (except, of course, the elite!) were equal, the doctor drove the same car as the gardener, probably a Trabant. However, with the breakdown of the wall came new inflows of "Capital". many lost their jobs. And many, many wished for the "good old days".
I guess that's human nature - the grass being greener, etc. However, the key point where I agree with the case AGAINST capitalism, is that by definition, capitalism is built on Capital, and if you don't have it, you WILL be exploited. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is written in stone, in capitalism.
That is why some mix between capitalism and communism is maybe not a bad idea....
Originally posted by kmax87Capitalism is more about free markets, I think.
Capitalism goes hand in hand with the commodification of labour. Ogs paradise was a simple barter system where each one had their needs serviced through a simple exchange. Property was hardly ever recognized in this sort of free trade market.
Capitalism exists because of industrialization. Once factories became the norm labour became a commodity like any o ...[text shortened]... ile compliance, because the crud you are offered as a worker is still better than starving.
Who should decide what you spend money on? You or someone else?
Should you be able to buy whatever you want from whomever you want? Or should there be restrictions on what you can and cannot buy?
Should you be able to buy and sell and make as much profit as you can? Or should someone step in at a certain point and say, "OK, that's enough. You have made too much. From now on, we will take an increasingly large fraction of what you make."
Capitalism does imply freedom of action with respect to Your Money.