Topic: Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 7. (Read 12620 times)

Unbelievable. This is your 'answer' to ktttn's argument, that this 'improved things' are exploitative and therefore not sustainable?
Why are selfsufficient, stateless, non-capitalist communities in the rain forests not affected by 'horrible conditions'?

There's the rub.  We lack that common understanding.

Slavery begins with theft/kidnapping/war, and can only be perpetuated by ignoring that theft/kidnapping/war by the governing authority and the prevailing coercive forces.
So is the capitalism as an economic theory the culprit, or is it the morays and governing authority that are the failure points?

Its fine to say that capitalism doesn't solve the problem of slavery.  It is quite another to say that slavery is integral to capitalism.
Capitalism also doesn't solve many other problems.

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps the loss of meaning stems from including the "means-of-destruction/coercion" in the "means-of-production"?  Typically the monopoly on the means of destruction rests with the state.

There are so many tempting ways to approach this -- like being loose in Willy Wonka's factory or a 20s bordello...  And being made to choose.  I'll do my best, but forgive me if i jump on more than one.

Historically, slaves and capitalism went hand in hand.  "In pre-industrial societies, slaves and their labour were economically extremely important to those who benefitted from them. Slaves and serfs made up around three-quarters of the world's population at the beginning of the 19th century."*  See where i'm going with this?  Slavery is more than integral to capitalism -- it's integral to mankind.  But nah, that's too easy.  

If capitalism means putting the means of production in private hands, and slaves are a means of production (we're assuming they're bought with the purest of motivations -- maximizing profits, and nothing off-color), buying slaves is as natural as buying a mule or a backhoe. As long as there is no law prohibiting it, and the balance sheet makes sense.  The mores will always adjust:  They're not really people, they attacked us, and deserve to suffer, they were bought and paid for (chattel slaves), they ran up a debt & now they need to work it off (bonded labor), they're on my land (serfdom), they committed a crime & it is only just that they pay (forced labor) -- the list goes on.
*Wikip.


Yes, in the sense that ears are not essential to a cat -- sure, but they're usually there & they sure do help.


I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes -- i genuinely thought we were talking about capitalism as the word is commonly understood.


Don't get me wrong, it's not like they stole something i use all the time -- i just think it's confusing & makes for 20 pages of bickering

Maybe we should just rename ourselves economic progressives 

That's easy enough to settle. Prove to me that someone is worse off from voluntarily trading. Give me an example. Just to head you off from any bad ones, "under duress" is not voluntary. "Being swindled" is close, but that's not exactly voluntary, as the other person didn't have all the information, and anyway, they would stop trading as soon as they find that information. I.e. they'll be better off knowing something they didn't before, and would be able to improve their life going forward.


Which observers ignore that? I certainly don't. There is crime, which may include coersion, theft, destruction of property, and lying about products/services. This crime exists regardless of the economic system. The question isn't whether or not this crime is capitalism/"mutual beneficial trade" (it's not, it's crime). The question is how well the different economic and political systems can deal with and minimize it.


How do you propose we stop all trade to make sure that bad trades are no longer possible?


Evolution You mean tribalism and pack mentality? You don't think tribes established territories and ownership? Or believed in scarce resources? Or traded between tribes? Or had to make choices as to whether to expand their resources to support someone, or write them off as a lost cause? Or had members that specialized in various skills, and earned differing levels of respect and resources based on what they did for the tribe?


That's funny, because evolution doesn't have "government" beyond our own species, which itself is a new invention.

Of course not. As long as you point out the flaws in the system itself, not point to unrelated things and claim that they are the system. I.e. saying "Capitalism is bad because it fails to address this crime" is ok. Saying "Capitalism is bad because this crime is capitalism" is not ok.


I am saying economists try to establish an agreed-upon definition of terms before they start deriving economic theories and debating each other. It's hard to set up a Supply/Demand graph when some people decide that "Supply" means the supply of need instead of supply of products, for example.


Me, you, everyone. We all recognize that we own the things we have, almost from birth. Moreso, we recognize that we own then in spite of laws that may say otherwise. It's why people get upset when government comes in and "legally" seizes their property, such as in imminent domain cases to use for building malls, or in nationalization cases.


Violent state can help enforce it, just as violent individuals and violent private security firms can help enforce it, but that's all they do - enforce. They don't actually create the concept of property; the concept of "I own this because I made it myself using my own stuff."


Difference of opinion? It's ok if the resource in question is just commonly owned and shared by everyone who owns and shares it. It would be a big problem if someone rightfully feels like the own something, and then a bunch of other people start coming in and claiming ownership to it too. That's when violence may come in, from state or otherwise.


Not at all. Corporations are commonly owned. Capitalism just makes sure that there is a set number of owners who are responsible for their ownership, instead of having things be unowned and in a free-for-all.


Voluntary suggests it was traded voluntarily. Trade means two or more parties. Ill-gotten stolen things are by definition not voluntarily traded away by their previous owners. So, no, I am not talking about that.


It's chaotic, that's for sure. As for whether it's inefficient, intuitively it may seen that a central planning body that can oversee everything and determine where resources are used best would be more efficient. In practice, and in history, this was shown not to be the case. The main reason is that when you have an enormous amount of constantly changing information, it's actually more efficient to only allow small groups/actors to work within the small sections of that information to make decisions. A large single planning body just can't process the information fast enough. It's decentralization, and is also why 3D printing and Bitcoin are way more efficient when it comes to giving people exactly and specifically what different people want, instead of having a single unweildy body, like a bank or a factory, produce the average of what people want, while lagging behind changing trends.


Agreed. The poor will undoubtedly rebel when they get fed up with being treated unfairly.  It has happened over and over, with disastrous consequences. But which force are we talking about exactly? Capitalism, that prices goods and labor, and gives people information about whether their skills aren't valued, and perhaps should be changed or improved to get them out of poverty? Corruption and crime, often sustained by governments that pass regulations to help keep their corporate buddies in power and use the police force, paid for by taxing the poor, to keep those very same poor from revolting? Or just plain apathy and laziness of some people, who do nothing except complain about how their lives suck, while doing nothing to change their situation, and just watch their peers take evening classes, working on developing new skills, and quickly leaving them behind, while using excuses such as that their peers were just lucky?


We, as a society, make toilers rich all the time through capitalism. Just look at India ten years ago compared to now. People with degrees were earning almost nothing, living in really horrid conditions. Then those same people started getting menial unskilled jobs, working in factories or phone support. Now those people are able to demand pay 10 to 30 times or more than what they used to get, working in research, software development, and engineering. India is no longer an ideal place to hire toilers, because millions of people were raised from the slums into middle class, not because of government programs, but because of market competition. Same deal with China. 10 years ago, people were working in horrible conditions in factories, toiling day and night for little pay, while barely earning enough to survive. Now, even though a lot of the work itself is similar, the working conditions are vastly improved. They are clean, well lit, with much better housing, resembling that of university campuses, instead of shantytowns. Sure, China has a bit to go still, but there's no argument that their toiler's situation has improved as well. And again, decades of communism and social planning couldn't do a thing to help those people out, but as soon as they allowed capitalism, however restricted, and outside companies to come in and compete for workers, things improved dramatically.

Even so, the notion that capitalism without slavery is not whole, also seems bizarre.
Help me understand.  In what way is slavery integral to capitalism? Like a cat's ears to a cat?

We agree that slavery is "not essential" to capitalism.

Slavery certainly flies in the face of voluntaryism, (which seems to be what the an-caps this thread has provoked into carrying on for so long, are more narrowly advocating as the true definition of "capitalism").
I remain skeptical that either the term "Anarchist", or "Capitalist", are reclaimable outside the realms of ivory towers by the an-caps, though I expect that effort to never cease.  (well... maybe it will after another 20 pages of posts)

Is this beyond criticism? Is it wrong to criticize the way it has been put into use? To point out the obvious flaws?
Are you saying that all economists think alike- or just ignoring all nonclassical economists?
When you say "recognition of property" who on earth are you talking about?
Is it not the supposed job of the violent state to do this? What about those who recognize all resources as commonly owned? Certainly this is a fair viewpoint, and one capitalism actively sweeps under the rug.
When you say "voluntary trade" are you not talking about ill-gotten, stolen resources?
The operation of capitalism is exploitative and inefficient according to the definition we agree on.
Any force that makes most poor and few rich, as it can be seen to have made, is a force that cannot be sustained.
Before you go back into this silly drivel about making toilers rich as well, you might consider at what cost and how often.

"Original" as in the definition that has been used for the last century or two, and is still being used by economists, as opposed to the weird revision you are using. Specifically this "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

I've bolded the keywords. In laymen's terms, recognition of property, voluntary trade, and uninhibited competition with other traders.

I'll mark this down as "Pro-Capitalist cannot interface with maximum-edgy Satanist and ragequits."
Ayn Rand would be so dissapointed.
Thx for the thoughtful comment tho.

Unless you can come up with source material ciiting the first known use of the word with clear implications about capitalism that follow along with your definition, your "original" is revisionist and inaccurate.

You are a tax payer, a protection money payer, because the state mafia tells you, that you owe them protection money. That is everybody's debt, and this is the root of the so called economy. The selfsufficient communities are forbidden and destroyed by the church and state complicity. Without a community which is taking care for the seniors, you are dependent on your savings.


Yes. A (monogamous pairing-) family is not a community, and therefore not selfsufficient. (famulus = house slave)

Let's drop the pedantry.  "Integral: 2. composed of parts that together constitute a whole." -WCD.  
Usage:  The ears are an integral part of this cast iron kitty, they don't come off unless you break them.  Of course, you are free to do so -- they're by no means essential!

I noticed you didn't mention "voluntary" or "anarchocapitalis[m]."  


You're right, it's not new, though Libertarian-specific usage is new to me.  I apologise.  I honestly didn't expect a wikip page with logos & everything.  

When you find yourself in a hole, the smart thing to do is stop digging.  I didn't come up with that morsel of wisdom -- just passing it on as a favor.
Let's start by freeing you from a few misconceptions you seem to be all tangled up in:
1.  Where you're from is irrelevant.  
2.  As are the horrors of Soviet Russia.
3.  "Engaging in trade" is done by all econo-political systems with the possible exception of total isolationism.  And even then only foreign trade.  Trade is certainly not unique to capitalism.
4.  "Your example was just bad, that's all"  
5.  Yes, i could have chosen an example which gave credence to your argument & discredited mine.  That would'a been stupid.  I didn't do that.  Sorry.


You may have a point. I guess the thorn in this whole thing is what exactly we consider "voluntary." I don't think we can argue that slaves couldn't make personal choices, and couldn't distinguish between volunteering to exchange their labor and being forced into it. But even if we ignored all that, and simply focused on "human capital," be it slavery, toil, or white-collar employment, if capitalism is about trade and competition, you can WAY outcompete someone who uses forced slave labor by using incentive-based voluntary labor. I'm not sure if this is somewhat of a tangent though, but let me know if you need more learnin on this subject.