Stupid Capitalist Tricks

[The Architect Of Fate]

All Rich people started from the bottom or their parents did. Or they risked their life earning their money through crime. So, go work hard and your childern will be rich, or their children will be. This bitching is pointless.

Getting rich on exploitation or perpetuating  an wage slave system is immoral . That's not bitching that's a fact . And social mobility and intergenerational wealth is not as your trying to paint it .

[Sal]

What do you suggest, worker co-ops?

[The Architect Of Fate]

What do you suggest, worker co-ops?

Workplace democratization is definitely essentially to fixing the issue though i'm not 100% sold on it as a end game in itself

[Deesse23]

Just to be clear, Sungula, i have basic objections to two distinct things:

#1 slavery
*classic* slavery and *modern wage work* are not remotely the same. Imho it is a serious mistake of equivocation which does no favour at all to the workers and their case. That being said, i agree that in some places, under certain conditions workers have to endure slave-like environments, and this needs to be adressed.

#2 Capitalism
I have similar objections here. You cant flat out say that capitalism is bad and necessarily involves *slavery* (as you are using the term, see #1). We have lots of economies based on capitalism, with decent and effective regulations. The brush you are painting with is way to broad imho.

From what i have read and understood you may identify as a very left, maybe communist. If so let me add that i think much of Marx´ analysis of late 19th century economy was correct, but i strongly disagree with lots of his conclusions, particularly because i think he ignored human nature, or overestimated its ability to be changed.

Also, imho, we never had any communist state (to compare anything to), because every single one who tried failed in one way or the other without even getting past some stages of socialism at best.

[Foxaèr]

Capitalism is bad on its own terms. We don’t have to add anything. The issue is that capitalism is the veritable hoarding of monetary wealth that hypocritical religious and humanistic people should be fighting against.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Just to be clear, Sungula, i have basic objections to two distinct things:

All right 

#1 slavery
*classic* slavery and *modern wage work* are not remotely the same. Imho it is a serious mistake of equivocation which does no favour at all to the workers and their case. That being said, i agree that in some places, under certain conditions workers have to endure slave-like environments, and this needs to be adressed.

1.They really are very similar and classic slavery ? you realize there has been more than one kind of slavery ?

Is the difference pay ? What's the difference the material between wages and the material compensation slaves received hell some slaves were able to make money  . Slaves in Brazil were often quite materially well off . 

Is it being sold ? What's difference between being sold into slavery and selling yourself into it vai (selling your labour) You do realize that in Greece , Rome in even some of the Atlantic slave states people willingly sold themselves into slavery  

Is it ownership? . What's difference between being owned by one master as opposed to a whole system that is made up of masters 

Is it force ? I would call poverty a form of force and one artificially created 

I could keep going . You say they are different but provide no differences . You say i conflate but were ?

#2 Capitalism
I have similar objections here. You cant flat out say that capitalism is bad and necessarily involves *slavery* (as you are using the term, see #1). We have lots of economies based on capitalism, with decent and effective regulations. The brush you are painting with is way to broad imh

Yes i can if capitalism requires wage slaves and wage slavery is a form of slavery then yes i can . Slavery also had regulations on how you could treat slaves etc . Regulated slavery is still slavery.

From what i have read and understood you may identify as a very left, maybe communist. If so let me add that i think much of Marx´ analysis of late 19th century economy was correct, but i strongly disagree with lots of his conclusions, particularly because i think he ignored human nature, or overestimated its ability to be changed.

Actually i'm an anarcho syndicalist and Marx is a relevant now as he was then . He may not have everything right but if he had been born today in don't think DAS KAPITAL would look that different . Are you suggesting human nature is Capitalist ? 

Also, imho, we never had any communist state (to compare anything to), because every single one who tried failed in one way or the other without even getting past some stages of socialism at best.

Yes we never had a socialist state only state capitalism .But never having system something is not proof something is wrong or counter to human nature .

[Brian37]

Whenever i engage a Capitalist defender generally some form of ANCAP it generally get these lines thrown at in defense of Capitalism on moral grounds  . They aren't very good .

Capitalist take all the risk thus they should make the profits they do 

A plantation owner makers takes all the risk when opening a plantation and buying slaves .Does that make his profits moral ?

Capitalism is voluntary 

Nope wage slavery 

You get to choose your boss 

Oh goodie in get to choose between slave masters on which one will fuck me over .

You can open a business if you want 

Some you go from slave to slave owner ? Does this justify Capitalism ?

People under capitalism can be materially well off 

Slaves can be  materially well off  and historically many have been .

Capitalism innovates 

Nazi Germany innovated in fact any economic system has innovated so nothing special here 

Capitalism has raised people from poverty 

Yup into slavery

Capitalism is the only surviving system 

 Feudalism was once the only surviving system 

Venezuela 

Most of it's economy is privately owned  and most of it's problems are caused by internal corruption that's existed for decades . 

But look at North Korea compared to South Korea 

South Korea has had huge amounts of government control over it's economy .Trying to prop it up as a success of Capitalism is laughable 


I think that cover most of them

Not sure what you mean by the last one. The Kim Family are capitalists, they just fuck over their population to do it.You cant pay an army to defend your family if you are not selling something to make money to keep that army.

Fidel Castro died with an estimated $800 million in personal wealth. The Saud Royal Family owns banks and oil companies. 

There is not one nation friend or foe in the world that does not have powers that don't invest in the global market.

The global market isn't a matter of open vs closed states. The private sector even existed under Hitler and the Nazis. 

The real issue is open vs closed societies combined with anti monopoly laws.

[Deesse23]

#1 slavery
*classic* slavery and *modern wage work* are not remotely the same. Imho it is a serious mistake of equivocation which does no favour at all to the workers and their case. That being said, i agree that in some places, under certain conditions workers have to endure slave-like environments, and this needs to be adressed.

1.They really are very similar and classic slavery ? you realize there has been more than one kind of slavery ?

Is the difference pay ? What's the difference the material between wages and the material compensation slaves received hell some slaves were able to make money  . Slaves in Brazil were often quite materially well off . 

Is it being sold ? What's difference between being sold into slavery and selling yourself into it vai (selling your labour) You do realize that in Greece , Rome in even some of the Atlantic slave states people willingly sold themselves into slavery  

Is it ownership? . What's difference between being owned by one master as opposed to a whole system that is made up of masters 

Is it force ? I would call poverty a form of force and one artificially created 

I could keep going . You say they are different but provide no differences . You say i conflate but were ?

I think i already have told it. I am living in a country with a capitalist economy. One which is fairly strongl yregulated, resulting in what we call a "Free market Economy". Still its based on capitalism.
I work for a wage. I dont feel enslaved, and i am factually not enslaved. Noone forces me to work, not even indirectly. If i wante dto stop workign i could do it within 3 months after i quite my job. Sure i couldt keep my standard of living, but i would still have  aroof on top of my head and wouldnt starve.

Your claim clearly fails, i am the very thing that disproves you.

Where do you conflate? At the point where you conflate classic slaves who were property of their owners, all of them, their well being notwithstanding, and on the other side are epeople (like me) who work for a wage and arent owned in any way by anyone, who arent all *enslaved*, only in certain places. You are conflating twice, once the situation where all are enslaved to where only some are enslaved, which is not the same. Then you conflate owning someone as property with someone sellig his workforce. I chose to work, because i like to afford certain things, not because i would have to starve to death otherwise. I also work because i like to be productive.

#2 Capitalism
I have similar objections here. You cant flat out say that capitalism is bad and necessarily involves *slavery* (as you are using the term, see #1). We have lots of economies based on capitalism, with decent and effective regulations. The brush you are painting with is way to broad imh

Yes i can if capitalism requires wage slaves and wage slavery is a form of slavery then yes i can . Slavery also had regulations on how you could treat slaves etc . Regulated slavery is still slavery.

You cant because everything after the "if" just isnt, thats the issue. You just keep stomping your feet.

Its useless.

[brewer]

I love being called stupid.

I didn't call you stupid . But if you use any of the above arguments then those arguments are stupid .

I'd call them positions, not arguments, but potato................

Then you are calling me stupid because I do agree with most of them, if only in part or with qualifications. I don't agree with most of your retorts. 

Have you sued your parents for being born yet? (that's about at the intellectual level that I consider this)

[Anomalocaris]

capitalism is a heuristic system that has proven competitive in many cases in the sense it enables the society that adopted it to out compete rivals.  That’s it.  

There is no moral underpinning to it, as There could never be for any effective Practical social economic system because moral ‘underpinning‘ is never an underpinning, but always funded upon some ex post justification to those for whom it didn’t really work out, concocted by those for whom it worked out well.