"Capitalism is Exploiting People" - Myth
I am going to demonstrate in this thread, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Capitalism is not exploiting anybody, and it's actually the only positive economic system out there.
I have to supply very simple and very direct evidence, since the leftist disinformation is very strong and there is a lot of appeal to emotions coming from leftist circles, which is really hard to break through, so the evidence has to be very simple and solid so that anyone can understand it.
Disproving the Myth
There are 2 points that have to be addressed, the supply side and the demand side:
- The demand side is "the consumer is being exploited" myth
- The supply side is the "worker/employee is being exploited" myth
1. "Consumers are exploited" Myth
So is the consumer being exploited?
Price:Why does a loaf of bread cost only 1.5 EUR instead of 1500 EUR? If the point of a "greedy" capitalist would be to exploit the consumer, then he would charge easily 1500 EUR just to make more money. The leftist argument is that the capitalist only wants to maximize profits, so then why doesn't he charge 1500 EUR for a bread? Well it's because nobody would pay that much for it. So it looks like the consumer is in control. Food is cheaper than ever and it's price is totally shaped after the demand of the consumer. Thus the free market works exactly as it meant to work, supply/demand balance dictates the price.Quality:What determines the quality of a product? Say you have to buy a new TV every 2 years because the "greedy" capitalist has a "planned obsolescence" strategy. But why would the "greedy" capitalist do that? If the consumer is not satisfied with the TV, why is he buying one again after 2 years? Isn't it the dumb consumer that is buying a bad product at fault here? If he would not buy it, then the producer would either have to increase the product quality or lower the price, and since the price can't be lowered since most of these mass electronics businesses operate on tiny profit margins, he would have to increase the quality. A product with increased quality and matching price would be much more better for a consumer than a shitty TV for cheap. But again it's the consumer that buys it, the producer has no idea what the consumer wants and if the consumer buys his shitty product then that is a sign that the consumer really does like shitty products, so he will keep getting it.Environment:Many greens complain about environmental issues that all these products cause. Yet they don't realize that all the roads, streets and rivers are owned by the Government. So maybe they should blame the Government for being the literal worst custodian of anything of value.Surveillance:Everyone complains about the privacy invasion that all these mobile phones, social media apps and other gadgets do. But they still keep buying and using them. Well then tough luck, you are literally consenting to them, so you are a hypocrite.
2. "Workers are exploited" Myth
Wages:
If the goal of the capitalist would be to give everyone the lowest wage possible and the shittiest working conditions, then why isn't everyone on minimum wage? Why isn't everyone earning the lowest wage possible, while only the fat cats banking the profits?
How is it possible that there is a wage inequality even amongst lower ranking workers if the goal would be to literally pay everyone the least?
Or is the answer really that everyone earns exactly as much as they deserve. Yeah, in an efficient labor market, you get paid exactly as much as you deserve. Well that is your gross salary.
If you want to complain about earning a small salary, then maybe you should complain about taxes. It's these 70% tax rates that literally make you a near-slave that are the real issue, not the size of your gross salary. It's the difference between your gross and net salary that is getting stolen every single month:
Or if you want to raise your gross salary then improve your skills and find a better paying job. However the taxes are still siphoning away from your 70% of your labor value.
Working Conditions:
Again, most of the western world has really decent working conditions. I mean c'mon you can't demand a swimming pool and a 5 star buffet in a car mechanic job, but you don't really have moldy walls or rats crawling around in the office either.
So the conditions are decent, I have never really seen any kind of job in the western world that has really that deplorable working conditions, I mean unless you are like a coal miner or something that gets black lungs and dies of intoxication or something.
Now in the 3rd world, you might say that the conditions are bad. You have all those sweatshops and literal slaves in Africa. Yes that is bad. But what are people doing about it? I mean do they consent to it? Do they oppose it? What the hell is going on there? What the hell are their Governments doing about it? Or are they full of corrupt politicians that are getting bribed by multinationals? Well maybe this is the angle that people should investigate, rather than bashing the free market which is literally the opposite of slavery.
Conclusion
So there you have it I have proven that Capitalism is not the cause of these issues. It's the dumb consumer, who has been indoctrinated 12-16 years of his life in Government Schools to be an obedient stupid person, and has hardly any knowledge about the world. He is forced to go to 12-16 years of indoctrination, yet he doesn't learn anything valuable at all there, that could be used to better his own adult life and his decision making process.
So how is the Capitalist's fault that the dumb consumers are buying crap? How is the Capitalist supposed to know what the consumer wants other that from his sales figures? If the consumer buys it, then that is automatic consent that the Capitalist should make more of that crap.
They have voluntarily consented to that, whatever it is, nobody forced them to do it. Unlike with the Government, where you are forced to do things.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
Just... it's amazing. You start an article claiming you have proof, then spout an opinion as if it's fact and do absolutely nothing to back it up.
Stop treating the Government like it's the Devil. Stop treating the Free Market like it's a God.
You don't believe in Religion yet you talk about things exactly the same way a Christian talks about good and evil.
I mean, you bring up environmental issues and then just rant about government. Nothing whatsoever about capitalism, which was supposed to be your point. You can't though, can you? There's no factual discussion you can have where capitalism (God) is good for the environment, so you have to blame government (the Devil.)
Remember, the unregulated free market means people buying and selling slaves. It means companies dumping toxic chemicals in rivers. It means polluting the air we breathe.
There is no God or Devil, there are only people looking out for their own interests without particularly caring if their actions hurt others.
I laughed so hard when I read this, do you really think that I am so stupid to think that this is just a matter of belief to me. I have actually provided a logical deduction here and this is all the counter arguments that you can come up with.
We already went over this. Capitalism is the literal opposite of slavery. You own your body, therefore other's can't legitimately own you. The river has to be privatized, and then the people can sue the polluter.
On the other hand the Government does enslave people. And guess who sovereignly owns the river and doesn't do anything about the pollution problem?
Yes it absolutely is a matter of belief. You did not deduce anything, you merely declared government as the problem. You only talked about roads, without even linking poor roads to environmental issues. Meanwhile you ignored all sources of pollution caused directly by corporations.
The government, absolutely has done something about pollution in the rivers which is why they no longer catch fire. They also created clean air standards and fuel efficiency standards which reduce pollution.
Privatize the river? Brilliant idea if you want to ensure people lose access to food and water unless they're rich. But sure, count on suing a rich corporation if they pollute it. Because poor people can definitely afford good lawyers, not that there would be lawyers or public courts in an anarchist system.
And yes, we've gone over some of this before. Where you always ignore it and move on because you can't disprove things. You claim a free market is freedom when there are literally today people kidnapping women and forcing them into sex slavery. Yet you literally decide that isn't capitalism while ignoring government efforts to stop it.
Well corporations are still a government issued entity. They could revoke their business license if they are polluting, but they don't do it.
That would have been mitigated if we'd shift to solar energy, but it's the Government that is protecting the monopoly of the big oil, so it's very hypocritical.
No they didn't. They just increased the taxes and insurance on cars, to pocket more money, but the amount of lung cancer/asthma victims is still rising.
Looks like you haven't heard of a thing called a WELL.
You know back in the slavery days it was the Government that actually enforced slavery. The black fugitive slaves in the US were hunted down by government organized slave raiders.
If the slave owner had to hunt down each fugitive slave, then he would have had no slaves at all since he would have no had the resources to do it alone.
It was a government program since Ancient Egypt, slavery is the business of the ruling class.
Pretty sure you couldn't get away with that in the US. Also I was using corporations loosely, it doesn't matter much of the chemical company is publicly traded. Small companies and even sole proprietors can dump toxic waste into drinking water just as easily without regulations...
Shifting to solar energy is currently too expensive. It literally requires government subsidy to make it happen. That solar companies aren't getting that subsidy is partially due to fossil fuel company lobbying, yes, but it is also due to Libertarians voting and campaigning to keep the government from subsidizing green energy.
The countries that have made the biggest strides towards green energy are those where the government has done the most to help it out.
Nope. Blatantly wrong. The US government has most definitely created emissions standards for vehicles. https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/index.php
Wells aren't feasible everywhere, and aren't a solution to the water table becoming polluted. In fact the water table can be lowered if too much water is drawn from various sources. This is actually happening in Mexico due to companies like Coke, Pepsi and Danone drawing too much water: http://www.salon.com/2017/09/16/coca-cola-sucks-wells-dry-in-chiapas-forcing-residents-to-buy-water_partner/
It's good for a capitalist though, since by making water hard to obtain they are creating customers who need to buy their products! The government is asleep on this too, failing to do proper urban planning, dig wells or regulate the corporations.
Yes, that is true. Now the government does not do that, however, yet there are still slaves. What does that tell you?
consumerism is the problem, I agree... but if this is an argument for capitalism, then I do not get it ;)
Yes and how is consumerism a fault of Capitalism?
Consumerism might be an addiction, an inferiority complex resulting from 16 years of your childhood being wasted inside a Government indoctrination camp, beight taught that you are worthless and you should obey others.
I can easily see the forced school system messing up children's healthy brains and causing these sort of addictions from addiction to substance to addiction to material things.
https://steemit.com/life/@telos/what-drives-consumerism
Also remember Keynesian economics, the mainstream now, emphasizes on overspending.
Libertarian Capitalists like von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard have all opposed this.
I'll read your article later.
I'm sure consumerism has absolutely nothing to do with corporations bombarding people with advertising 24/7 in multiple forms of media, right?
But ultimately people would not buy it if they would not feel the need for it.
So you could make a case for excessive advertising being exploitive, which I actually agree with you.
But you can't say that the psychological defects in a person is a cause of capitalism.
I can absolutely say that. In fact I'd say the Status Signaling in my article is very closely aligned with the basic drivers of capitalism, which is a need to appear "better" than everyone else by being wealthier.
This article was posted in one of the comments on my article, it's also very interesting:
http://theconversation.com/the-manipulation-of-the-american-mind-edward-bernays-and-the-birth-of-public-relations-44393
Yes you are just describing the entire psychology of humans since the inception. This is what they have always been doing.
From the first caveman that invented jewelry made of bones and shiny stones to the trendy guy now that buys the latest iPhone X, it's all the same thing, and it's not a fault of Capitalism.
The current consumerist society might take it to shameless levels, but at it's core is a psychological fault.
Yes and no. There is certainly some basic impulses there, but I'd bet you anything the first cavemen were essentially communist. Survival in a subsistence hunter gatherer tribe practically requires it, and I've never seen anything in anthropology that suggests tribes have much in the way of capitalist tendencies. In fact one of the problems Native Americans had when Europeans first showed up is that the Natives didn't have a very strong concept of ownership, leading them to trade away land without really understanding what they were doing.
The problem with capitalism, especially as expressed in our culture, is that it raises that base impulse to the level of near-worship. It's an impulse that can be useful if moderated, but when it gets to the point of increasing one's own status by harming others it has gone too far. This is what is happening though.
Yet when you read my other article, it's very easy to see how encouraging that base emotion benefits companies often to the detriment of everyone.
But it's not just the "indoctrination camps", it's the whole culture. I'd like to argue that this culture is a result of decades of economic development shifting society from "needs" to "wants" in an effort to infinitely increase profits through over-consumption.
I think entertainment and advertisement industries are much more to blame than schools.
I agree, the media and entertainment industry stinks of cultural Marxism mixed with this liberal hedonist points, and spiced with some narcissism and greed.
But how are kids to know better if they have spent 18 years of their lives in an indoctrination camp learning essentially nothing to combat this immorality?
So you think schools are more to blame than greedy corporations and their tentacles in media and politics?
Yes. Overconsumption is optional, school is mandatory.
Are you familiar with Ayn Rand? I think she would like this post. 🙂 And while so many people are quick to bash her and her philosophy. Generally I wonder if these people have actually read her work? While I think she doesn't have all the answers... I think she has a lot of good stuff to say if one takes the time. Same with capitalism, which people love to bemoan as the source of everything 'wrong' with the world today... when at the end of the day individually most people aren't taking responsibility for things in their own lives. Not saying that I am the master of my own realm or anything like that but just remarking that individually we do have a lot of power, capitalism is just a system for people to exchange equal value for goods/services... it's not capitalisms 'fault' that there's dishonest or unprincipled people in the world. Money is a tool, and like many other tools out there can be used for 'good' or 'evil' depending on the person yielding it. Although I totally understand where capitalisms negative connotations come from.
Of course, she was a great thinker, but I don't necessarily agree to his "objectivist" ideas. I believe in the end everything is subjective, and it can change according to game-theory like effects on human decision. The majority of aggregate subjective beliefs create the "objective" illusion. But I don't necessarily think there is anything default set up out there in the natural world. Perhaps not even the physical constants are constants, they might as well be variables, how do we know?
yes..the demand side 'the consumer being exploited'
the supply side 'worker/employee being exploited' that is the' MYTH'
The idea of entitlement had caged most of the people to hate capitalists. Usually, capitalists tend to be opportunists who always seek for the chance to multiply their asset. While for others, we usually depend only on salary and pay a hefty amount of tax, leaving ourselves little to enjoy.
Somehow, it seems pathetic but still little did we do something about it. Those who aware about this are those going into business and entrepreneurship. They know real asset will be created by committing more to the community through value creation.
This article reminded me of one very famous quote. As capitalism owes much to Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."