Capitalism Exploits Us

But that has nothing to do with socialism any more than it has relevance to capitalism.

 

Really?

Definitions of exploitation:
The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes


The act of using someone unfairly for your own advantage
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/exploitation

-----

Unfair treatment of someone, or the use of a situation in a way that is wrong, in order to get some benefit for yourself.

The process of making use of something so that you gain as much as possible from it
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/exploitation

No mention of feelings or subjectivity.

 

Private property is a more specific thing than you seem to think

 

Correct. Capitalism is a system of private ownership of "the means of production" for private profit and is supported and enabled by private property rights law.

 

In capitalism, anything, even your labor, is worth whatever someone will pay for it, and it costs whatever someone else will pay for it.

The ownership of the means of production does not extend from capitalism. The ownership of the means of production extends from private property. Private property extends from self-possession (one's ownership of oneself).
Liberty (the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self) also extends from self-possession.
Infringements upon private property or liberty, except for the private property and liberty of others, are unjust infringement upon self-possession.
Capitalism has a mutually voluntary nature; it does not infringe upon one's owner ship of them self.

Everything we need to survive and thrive is the product of industry. Industry is the combining of material and ingenuity. There are only four ways we can acquire the products we need: industry, trade, charity and theft. Industry, trade and charity have a mutually voluntary nature, theft does not. Theft is an offense because it is an unjust infringement upon self-possession.

Capitalism is the least worst economic system. It is the economic system that infringes upon self-possession the least.

An economic is a trade-off. The study of economics is the study of trade-offs. In any economic system, there are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.
Even in the economy of an individual's life, there are only so many minutes of life to allocate. It's all a trade-off. Capitalism is an economic system of mutually voluntary trade-offs.

Capitalism values self-possession above all else.

 

I told you the definition of capitalism. As to whether it is more specific than I think isn't relevant. You have the definition, so that's what you have to work with.

Good luck!

 

That is just an attempt at intellectualism. Let's get down to facts. One important fact is that you presented a philosophical look at capitalist economics without ever considering the body of laws that form and safeguard a capitalist economy and enforcement of it, like corporate law, labor laws, trade laws, and tax law. And possession? IOW "ownership of private property"? Every economic system provides for ownership of private property.

You didn't elaborate and support anything you said with logic or facts, and so much of it is your own opinion, like "capitalism ... is the economic system that infringes upon self-possession the least." I can't even be sure of what that is supposed to mean... -the right to possess yourself?

 

Capitalism is a specific arrangement. It's the system in which a boss owns a workplace and hires workers, who produce the goods and services but receive only a portion of the value, and the various social laws and systems resulting from that arrangement.

There's this misconception that capitalism is just markets and being able to have your own toothbrush, but that's horseshit. In fact, a lot of socialist (and thus anti-capitalist) movements have advocated for markets, like the modern day Center For a Stateless Society.

The critiques communists have made of capitalism are trenchant and incisive and even if you don't intend to become a communist I think everyone ought to research them if they want to adequately understand modern politics. I can produce reading lists on most broad topics by request.

 

Yes, a "boss" owns a workplace. This is called "private property".

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with the rest of that. Are there misconceptions? Of course! Let's get rid of those misconceptions by getting to the basic ideology of capitalism which is private ownership of property.

As for being able to own my own toothbrush as "horseshit", I think maybe you need to get rid of a few misconceptions. Yes, I do own my own toothbrush under capitalism. That's not horseshit. I really do own it, and it is not horseshit to say that I do.

 

There seems to have been a miscommunication somewhere. When I talk about owning your own toothbrush, I was making a nod to the common misconception that under communism your house, clothes, etc don't belong to you. I was making the point that being able to have your own stuff is not a feature intrinsic to capitalism or even necessary for capitalism.

The institution of private property leads to a divide in society between those who own private property and those that do not. Since capitalism ties one's life to the market, those classes have interests regarding how the surplus value produced by labor is apportioned, and the interests between the capitalist and worker classes are opposite. This conflict cannot be reconciled within capitalism.

 

You said "Capitalism is private property rights."
But actual definitions are much more like what "GoogleMurrayBook" said:

"CAPITALISM:

"Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services."
http://www.investorwords.com/713/capitalism.html

"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capitalism

"an economic, political, and social system in which property, business, and industry are privately owned, directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/capitalism

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production of goods or services are privately owned and operated for a profit."
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-capitalism-definition-examples.html

 

Bush was a corporatist, whoring for the banks and defense contractors, just like those before and after him

 

None of that says anything other than what I already condensed into simple private property rights.

 

The details are important because they are the basis for the reasons that we-the-people will one day end capitalism.

 

Who are the extra-human entities that define the price moves?

Value is a subjective human construct. Price fluctuates in response external forces, but it is human intervention that regulates those forces and determines a price to represent that value.

I agree with this. However, this completely contradicts what you said earlier here:

The individuals that determine value in your example are people. They are the ones that control the system. Thus, other economic systems are attempts to control the people that control the system. See why I'm trying to sharpen that point? The socialists are folks that think that the problem with our society is that people have been taught to value incorrectly, and as such, they can be forced to value in a way that is better. They believe that a system can control value, and that's not how value exists. Value doesn't exist outside of what happens inside people's heads. Not in capitalism, not in any system.

 

I wish with my whole being that those who delight in socialism had actually seen it up close and very personal. Where the simple act of taking photographs can strike fear in the heart of the capitalist who is inside of a socialist nation.



Guards in East Germany brought in to stop people from accessing freedom.

 

No, what you said was that exploitation is objective because either it exists or it does not. That is not the definition of objective. This point is disproven by my statement that feelings also exist or do not at any given situation. Feelings, you agree, are not objective.

Not only is this premised in fallacy, the statement itself is untrue. Not only is poverty not created by increasing the wealth of another, poverty is absolutely subjective. Do you think Christopher McCandless would have described his life as objectively improverished after he sold all his worldly goods and stepped off into his adventure? To him, experience was wealth, and the grueling stress of his expected success was impoverishing his life. Poverty is not about what you have in life. It's about what you want from it.

If I donate 100 dollars to a charity, have I been exploited? I have certainly increased the wealth of the charity, and decreased my own wealth, according to your description of how this works, right? That must mean they are exploiting me. Is it okay if I choose to be exploited this way, or must that be stopped?

You're saying that if I pay you for something, you accept that payment, and then I create value using that something I've stolen from you? That's ridiculous. Do you also share in the loss if that thing loses value? Say I buy a car from you and 10 years later that car is no longer worth the same amount. Have you stolen from me?

 

You want to end the consumers deciding on product and price. Why is that?

Maybe, and i hope I am correct, but perhaps you don't like mercantilism. I don't either. This is where a ruling class of the rich make your choices for you. This could happen in countries not developed but doubtful it could happen here the way this country laws work.

 

Exploitation is not a feeling.

Since 1970, real wages have been flat while those same workers produced more and more each year, and the boss/owner got rich. He didn't share it fairly with those who helped him produce it. It's hard to claim that their current borderline poverty did not develop due to their boss hogging most of the gains they produced. You are another one talking philosophy and idealism while I'm talking reality.

Why? What kind of strange logic is that? I sure never said that. And to make it appear that I did you will have to do some pretty serious spinning.

Only in capitalism.

Anyone can find obscure, vague and questionable instances, but look at actual trends.... actual facts. Analyze what really happens when a person starts a small business, hires workers, and builds the business into a mega-business in time. An honest examination will reveal legal theft.

 

You and your communist friends can end it right now, if you're serious about it. Lots of communists have gone off to start their communist utopia away from the evils of capitalism.

If you're waiting for everybody else, you're going to have a very long wait.

 

He owns the product of your labor because he purchased it with a wage that you agreed to in order to produce that labor. There's no threat of force.

Let's dismantle your labor theft issue once and for all. For the sake of argument imagine 3 identical janitors who work for three different auto makers. All three workers earn the same wage, work the same hours, clean the same square footage, receive the same benefits, in fact if you looked in on any of them at any point in the day they would all three be doing the exact same thing.

The first janitor works for the auto maker with the superior design, uses the best materials, has the best marketing team, has the best customer service, the best warrantee, and the slickest salesmen. This company made a billion dollars during the year.

The second janitor works for an okay auto maker. The design is so so. They cut some corners on the materials. The marketing team is a bit behind the times. Customer service keeps people on hold too long because they are under staffed etc... This company made 50 million during the year.

The third janitor works for the worst auto maker. The design is junk, the materials are junk, the marketing team doesn't exist etc... This company is deep in debt, bankruptcy is imminent, it lost a million dollars this year.

Which janitor was most exploited? Does the most exploited janitor have any incentive at all to trade places with the least exploited janitor for next year?

 

What is the process I would use to measure the exact amount of exploitation of one of the janitors in my scenario? Is there a formula?

 

All I did was define and describe capitalism. To the extent that the things you cite adulterate what I defined and described, so be it. You're addressing what I did not. You are not addressing what I wrote. There is no need to quote me.

 

The trouble with systems that tolerate extremists is seen clearly in the case of Islam.