Stupid Capitalist Tricks

[The Architect Of Fate]

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

[ignoramus]

All Capitalism needs some sort of moderation else it becomes unsustainable. (good in theory but human greed will always force the wealth divide apart sadly)

Look at the US stockmarket right now. Half a dozen US companies are 40% of the stockmarket. Crazy... These same big 6 have bought over 500 smaller companies in the last 10 years to ensure their corporate monopolies. Who's gonna stop them? It's the ugly side of capitalism.

[Deesse23]

Firstoff, please give a definition of "slavery" in order to avoid confusion. I suspect you are using this term in a very loose context, so your analogies will fly.

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 ?

False analogy

Capitalism is voluntary 

Nope wage slavery 

False analogy, but please elaborate and demonstrate this to be more than just that if you wish.

You get to choose your boss 

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

Doubling down on false analogy, after it being pointed out.

You can open a business if you want 

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

Straw man, based on a false analogy and shifting burden of proof.

People under capitalism can be materially well off 

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

False analogy for the upteenth time, making your objection irrelevant, for the upteenth time.

Capitalism innovates 

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

With the problem being, that "Nazi Germany" was no economic system.
Thank you for providing further evidence for Godwins law however.

Capitalism has raised people from poverty 

Yup into slavery

False analogy, gross oversimplification respectively (on both sides). 
But please, if you wish, elaborate on "wage slavery" in every capitalist 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 . 

Which is irrelevant to the general question if capitalism is a morally defensible economic system. Silly argument from both sides, again

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 

True, but the bigger problem with that silly analogy is that any country/economy looks good compared to NK.


Your schtick of "capitalism= slavery and slavery = bad" is laughably simple and laughably wrong, just as any ANCAP (i didnt bother to check if those arguments really are part of ANCAP, and giving you the benefit of doubt not to be dishonest here) arguments you tried to counter. Countering bad arguments with equally bad ones is not a good strategy, imho.

[downbeatplumb]

All Capitalism needs some sort of moderation else it becomes unsustainable. (good in theory but human greed will always force the wealth divide apart sadly)

Look at the US stockmarket right now. Half a dozen US companies are 40% of the stockmarket. Crazy... These same big 6 have bought over 500 smaller companies in the last 10 years to ensure their corporate monopolies. Who's gonna stop them? It's the ugly side of capitalism.

Capitalism is amoral so needs to be kept firmly in check because the easiest ways to obtain profits tend to be immoral.

Slavery, fraud, theft, misrepresentation all of these are easy ways to profit and coorporations have form with all of these.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Firstoff, please give a definition of "slavery" in order to avoid confusion. I suspect you are using this term in a very loose context, so your analogies will fly.

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

False analogy

Nope wage slavery 

False analogy, but please elaborate and demonstrate this to be more than just that if you wish.

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

Doubling down on false analogy, after it being pointed out.

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

Straw man, based on a false analogy and shifting burden of proof.

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

False analogy for the upteenth time, making your objection irrelevant, for the upteenth time.

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

With the problem being, that "Nazi Germany" was no economic system.
Thank you for providing further evidence for Godwins law however.

Yup into slavery

False analogy, gross oversimplification respectively (on both sides). 
But please, if you wish, elaborate on "wage slavery" in every capitalist system.

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

Which is irrelevant to the general question if capitalism is a morally defensible economic system. Silly argument from both sides, again

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 

True, but the bigger problem with that silly analogy is that any country/economy looks good compared to NK.


Your schtick of "capitalism= slavery and slavery = bad" is laughably simple and laughably wrong, just as any ANCAP (i didnt bother to check if those arguments really are part of ANCAP, and giving you the benefit of doubt not to be dishonest here) arguments you tried to counter. Countering bad arguments with equally bad ones is not a good strategy, imho.

1. I suggest you look up the term wage slavery as it is a valid economic term and is hardly obscure ever read Noam Chomsky 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slave...immediate.

2.It's not a false analogy if justification for a system and the profits earned from that system and justification is that both the capitalist and plantation both put risk into the plantation or business  (including the slaves ) Then it''s fair to ask if one would justify slavery the same way they would justify capitalism 

3.Being told to work or starve is wage slavery. It's not my fault you don't know that term 

4.It's not doubling down you realize former slaves became slave owners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison  

5.Strawman of who? It's not a false analogy .Nor am i shifting the burden of proof 

6.Not a false analogy WAGE SLAVERY IS A VALID TERM and can be compared to chattel slavery in a number of ways .

7.The analogy still works because relevant point was innovation the point being evil or immoral systems can innovate thus innovation alone cannot justify a system as good  . Seriously how did you not get that? ,And godwin's law doesn't apply because i'm not saying Capitalism is like Nazi Germany i was point out that just because Nazi innovated didn't make them good . I could just as easily used the USSR or Golden Age Islam the Nazi bit really wasn't needed but it was example of such a system . 

8.If you already validity of wage slavery (a term you should looked up before commenting if you felt i didn't describe thought didn't think i needed too as it's a common leftist term ) And you accept communism has lifted people out of poverty China and India as examples capitalists 

9.No it's not . The Capitalist argues the justification for capitalism is it's ability to  provide necessities for people  and Venezuela's poverty and lack of resource is a result of what happens when Capitalism is absent in a society . While Capitalist critic will point out that those problems stem from corruption not a lack of capitalism 

10.No that's not the problem . The Capitalist argues that South Korea success is due to the presence of capitalism and North Korea's is a lack of capitalism .The Capitalist Critic will point out it wasn't Capitalism that made South Korea prosperous  nor by the way is a lack of Capitalism North Korea's problem 

So to sum up you managed  misunderstand pretty much every point i made . Made no effort to understand a common academically valid term central to the post . But came in guns ablazing anyway 

[Deesse23]

Firstoff, please give a definition of "slavery" in order to avoid confusion. I suspect you are using this term in a very loose context, so your analogies will fly.

False analogy

False analogy, but please elaborate and demonstrate this to be more than just that if you wish.

Doubling down on false analogy, after it being pointed out.

Straw man, based on a false analogy and shifting burden of proof.

False analogy for the upteenth time, making your objection irrelevant, for the upteenth time.

With the problem being, that "Nazi Germany" was no economic system.
Thank you for providing further evidence for Godwins law however.

False analogy, gross oversimplification respectively (on both sides). 
But please, if you wish, elaborate on "wage slavery" in every capitalist system.

Which is irrelevant to the general question if capitalism is a morally defensible economic system. Silly argument from both sides, again

True, but the bigger problem with that silly analogy is that any country/economy looks good compared to NK.


Your schtick of "capitalism= slavery and slavery = bad" is laughably simple and laughably wrong, just as any ANCAP (i didnt bother to check if those arguments really are part of ANCAP, and giving you the benefit of doubt not to be dishonest here) arguments you tried to counter. Countering bad arguments with equally bad ones is not a good strategy, imho.

1. I suggest you look up the term wage slavery as it is a valid economic term and is hardly obscure ever read Noam Chomsky 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slave...immediate.

2.It's not a false analogy if justification for a system and the profits earned from that system and justification is that both the capitalist and plantation both put risk into the plantation or business  (including the slaves ) Then it''s fair to ask if one would justify slavery the same way they would justify capitalism 

3.Being told to work or starve is wage slavery it's not my fault you don't know that term 

4.It's not doubling down you realize former slaves became slave owners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison  

5.Strawman of who? It's not a false analogy .Nor am i shifting the burden of proof 

6.Not a false analogy WAGE SLAVERY IS A VALID TERM and can be compared to chattel slavery in a number of ways .

7.The analogy still works because relevant point was innovation the point being evil or immoral systems can innovate thus innovation alone cannot justify a system as good  . Seriously how did you not get that? ,And godwin's law doesn't apply because i'm not saying Capitalism is like Nazi Germany i was point out that just because Nazi innovated didn't make them good . I could just as easily used the USSR or Golden Age Islam the Nazi bit really wasn't needed but it was example of such a system . 

8.If you already validity of wage slavery (a term you should looked up before commenting if you felt i didn't describe thought didn't think i needed too as it's a common leftist term ) And you accept communism has lifted people out of poverty China and India as examples capitalists 

9.No it's not . The Capitalist argues the justification for capitalism is it's ability to  provide necessities for people  and Venezuela's poverty and lack of resource is a result of what happens when Capitalism is absent in a society . While Capitalist critic will point out that those problems stem from corruption not a lack of capitalism 

10.No that's not the problem . The Capitalist argues that South Korea success is due to the presence of capitalism and North Korea's is a lack of capitalism .The Capitalist Critic will point out it wasn't Capitalism that made South Korea prosperous  nor by the way is a lack of Capitalism North Korea's problem 

So to sum up you managed  misunderstand pretty much every point i made . Made no effort to understand a common academically valid term central to the post . But came in guns ablazing anyway 

As i suspected *sigh*, not even an attempt of defining slavery. Just the false equivocation(s) and poor analogies based on those. So i am asking you to give definition of the term for the context in which you use it.

Wage slavery
Your original claim was that "capitalism is wage slavery". Are you claiming, maintaining the claim that every employee who works for a wage is a *slave*?  If so, you need to define your usage of the term *slavery*

Comparison of plantation owners
The original claim you tried to refute was "Capitalist take all the risk thus they should make the profits they do". That has nothing to do with slavery, just with a risk/reward assessment.

You then equivocated being a capitalist with being a plantation owner who has slaves. Noone but you claimed that capitalists need slaves to make profit, just like planation owners. Asking for justification of your equivocation /strawman leads nowhere.

Being told to work or starve is wage slavery
I dont know where you live, but in my country we arent forced ot work or starve. I could stop workign tomorrow and would never starve, and i am living in a country with a capitalist economy.
Yes there are capitalist systems where that is the case, but not all of them. Sorry, your brush is way to broad.

In reference to your 8.: Are you claiming that China is a good example of communism lifting people out of poverty? Maybe there is a language barrier.

...and here i am running out of time

But, yes i know what wage slavery is, thank you for the condescension. Maybe you should realize that we are not in the late 19th century anymore. Since i am not a Noam Chomsky worshipper (although i have read quite a bit of him) i am not very impressed by your name dropping. I pretty much understood what your point was, particularly when i said your modus operandi is "slavery = bad, capitalism = slavery --> capitalism = bad), because thats exactly what you conveyed, didnt you? "Talking about misunderstanding and lack of effort: You should reflect on your usage of the term *slave* and or give a definition of the term in the context you are using it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

As i suspected *sigh*, not even an attempt of defining slavery. Just the false equivocation(s) and poor analogies based on those. So i am asking you to give definition of the term for the context in which you use it.

As i suspected not even a attempt at understanding my definition of slavery though i linked whole wiki on it . Just accusing me fallacies i have not committed. And i already answered it's in the freaking article i linked .But if you need a piffy quote

Wage slavery
Your original claim was that "capitalism is wage slavery". Are you claiming, maintaining the claim that every employee who works for a wage is a *slave*?  If so, you need to define your usage of the term *slavery*

No i'm not claiming that . For a guy who claims to know what the term wage slavery means you think you understand that it's not every worker who works for a wage . But yes Capitalism requires wage slavery .

Comparison of plantation owners
The original claim you tried to refute was "Capitalist take all the risk thus they should make the profits they do". That has nothing to do with slavery, just with a risk/reward assessment.

Yes it does both the Capitalist and the Plantation owner justify their exploitation and the exploitative system their part of by arguing they take the risk so they should keep the profits of the exploitation

. No One but you claimed that capitalists need slaves to make profit, just like plantation owners. Asking for justification of your equivocation /strawman leads nowhere.

Unless your telling me Capitalism doesn't require workers (wage slaves or a least of subset of workers who are wage slaves ) to exploit just as the plantation required chattel slaves . I don't know what to say to such silliness . But that wasn't the point the point was both use risk and investment as justification of their exploitation and there keeping of profits from said exploitation . So no my analogy was more than adequate 

Being told to work or starve is wage slavery
I don't know where you live, but in my country we aren't forced to work or starve. I could stop working tomorrow and would never starve, and i am living in a country with a capitalist economy.
Yes there are capitalist systems where that is the case, but not all of them. Sorry, your brush is way to broad.

Unless you're telling me you don't need money to live and the acquisition of that money is totally voluntary without any negative consequences to your socio economic conditions then you must live in a utopia,  So no it's not to broad a brush unless your going to tell no poverty results from not working it stands (Starve wasn't referring to food it was referring to socio economic deprivation )

In reference to your 8.: Are you claiming that China is a good example of communism lifting people out of poverty? Maybe there is a language barrier.

Capitalists argue that Capitalism has lifted people out of poverty in China (China hasn't been a pure communist country in decades ) The critic will point out that the only that's occurred is by essentially pushing their  population into wage slavery (the capitalist owned sweatshops )  So the trade is hardly a moral one .

But, yes i know what wage slavery is, thank you for the condescension.

It wasn't condescension .You didn't seem to have any clue what it meant (and still don't seem to because you keep asking to define the slavery part)

 Maybe you should realize that we are not in the late 19th century anymore. 

It applies just as much to 21 century as 19th century . Unless you're telling to say Capitalism has become more benevolent in the 21st century .

Since i am not a Noam Chomsky worshipper (although i have read quite a bit of him) i am not very impressed by your name dropping.

I don't worship him i respect him, And i wasn't dropping names as he's a great deal of work on this subject and is a good source for understanding it 

 I pretty much understood what your point was, particularly when i said your modus operandi is "slavery = bad, capitalism = slavery --> capitalism = bad),

No you apparently don't my point was every moral defense of capitalism is not because of capitalism or could equally be used to justify an evil or immoral system. Paired with the fact Capitalism is a exploitative and results in wage slavery . 

because thats exactly what you conveyed, didnt you? "

Nope 

Talking about misunderstanding and lack of effort: You should reflect on your usage of the term *slave* and or give a definition of the term in the context you are using it.

My use of slavery is fine as is the context so there is nothing to reflect on . You on the other hand have a lot of work ahead of you . Though you say you read Chomsky who literally does side by side of capitalism similarities to chattel slavery and other forms of slavery .Or 

[brewer]

I love being called stupid.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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 .

[purplepurpose]

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.