Go to footer

Skip to content


Capitalism rewards hard work

If you're new to Anarchism or just have a general question this is your place. Low key, no heavy theory; welcome newbies and guest posts.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe


Postby Poop » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:27 pm

Real libertarian wrote:Businesses produce money. Are farmers lazy because the seeds do most of the work?


No, mints produce money. I think what you meant to say was that businesses produce wealth, which is false. People produce wealth. I've never seen a business putting a show together, for example. Farmers aren't lazy because they work. Seeds don't do any work. That's like saying if I throw a rock, the rock does work by falling.

Uh, libertarianism opposes state intervention. :roll:


Total non sequitir. We oppose state intervention as well. That doesn't make it easy to change the system.

http://www.marxists.org


Your true nature revealed. :shock:


What exactly does that reveal about his nature?

But they denied you freedom of speech and such.


That's not the point. You argued that capitalism is justified because of social mobility. If social mobility justifies an economic system, then the USSR was justified. I believe that is what he was saying.

They can work toward it.


What's your point? Soviet citizens can work towards power, too. Does that justify that economic system?
Poop
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:01 am
Location: USA


Postby Poop » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:41 pm

Morheus, could you provide a source for the "1% of Americans owning more wealth than the bottom 95%" I've heard similiar numbers before, but if I ever use that statistic in a debate, I don't want to have to say, "Umm, an anonymous poster on an anarchist chatboard told me so."
Poop
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:01 am
Location: USA


Postby Morpheus » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:46 pm

Poop wrote:Morheus, could you provide a source for the "1% of Americans owning more wealth than the bottom 95%" I've heard similiar numbers before, but if I ever use that statistic in a debate, I don't want to have to say, "Umm, an anonymous poster on an anarchist chatboard told me so."


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0701-05.htm I also heard ralph nader use it in a speech a while back.
Homepage

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus
User avatar
Morpheus
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 10:13 am
Location: US-occupied Mexico


Postby Poop » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:48 pm

It has been bookmarked. I thank you.
Poop
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:01 am
Location: USA


Postby Guest » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:54 pm

Drop the conspiracy theories. Capitalists do not conspire to have a certain number of people succeed at business.


"Conspiracy theories" have nothing to do with it. That is just a convenient label designed to demonize a particular argument so as to draw attention away from the fact that you have no valid counterargument to present. A "conspiracy theory", by its very nature, involves speculation about the actions of specific people at a specific time and place. However, all I have done is observe general social trends and then draw a conclusion from those observations by way of deductive reasoning. To illustrate what I mean, let me break down my argument into its simplest form:

Premise 1: Capitalism necessitates wage labour.

Premise 2: If wage workers cease to exist, capitalism will cease to function.

Premise 3: If every wage worker abandoned wage labour in favour of starting their own business, wage workers would cease to exist.

Premise 4: If every wage worker abandoned wage labour in favour of starting their own business, capitalism would cease to function.

Conclusion: It is contrary to the interests of capitalists NOT to suppress a certain number of small businesses because this would mean that they would no longer have access to wage labour.

Notice how I start with the very broad statement that capitalism is based upon wage labour. From here, I go step by step and build each subsequent premise of my argument off of the ones that preceded it. By using logic, the premises of my argument gradually become more refined until I reach the very concise conclusion that not suppressing a certain number of small businesses would be contrary to the capitalists' interests.

This process of going from a broad concept to a concise conclusion is known as deductive reasoning, and it differs substantially from mere "conspiracy theories", which usually start with very specific (alleged) facts from which is derived a very broad conclusion.( This, in fact, is known as inductive reasoning; and, as you can probably guess, is the antonym of deductive reasoning.)

In short, I have sufficiently established the fact that not suppressing a certain number of small businesses is contrary to the interests of the capitalists. This, of course, would remain true even if the capitalists decided not to suppress small business which, clearly, would mean acting contrary to their own interests. Taking actions that go against one's own interests certainly isn't unheard of in our society, but it usually defies all logic. So the real question we are faced with is this: do we want to live in a society that is structured in such a way where there exists an elite class against whose interests it is to permit the self-sufficiency of the working class?

However, another point that should be raised is that is that, for the small businesses that do succeed, there will ultimately come a time when they will grow large enough that they themselves will have to start employing workers for a wage. Or, put a different way, this is what they will have to do if they want to have even a chance of competing with the major corporations. It is this fact that makes your argument inherently self-contradictory: according to you, the alternative to wage labour for the workers is to start their own business. However, assuming that their business ever does grow large enough, they themselves will have to employ workers for a wage. You asked me earlier to explain why "everyone can't start their own business". It is really quite simple: in order for a business to succeed, it must grow large enough to employ workers for a wage. This is where the big oxymoron arrizes, because for everyone to own their own business, no one could be a wage worker. The two concepts simply cancel eachother out. Therefore, the reality is that, under capitalism, someone will always have to be the boss who gives commands and someone will always have to be the worker who takes orders. If one worker becomes a boss, another one will take their place.

Perhaps you will argue, however, that people have the right to become bosses and employ workers for a wage. Before responding with the obvious, I will first point out to you that taking this position requires you to concede that everyone can't become a business owner under capitalism. This means that you have to retract the argument that you have been making up until this point before you can approach our debate from this new angle. If you would like to know why it is you must do this, I will explain it to you by organizing my argument into its individual premises as I did earlier so it will be made perfectly clear to you:

Premise 1: As I said earlier, in order for everyone to own their own business, no one could be a wage worker.

Premise 2: The argument that a worker has the right to become a boss and employ other workers for a wage is based upon the idea that wage labour should exist.

Premise 3: The argument that everyone can own their own business ignores the fact that a business must grow large enough to employ workers for a wage if it is to have even a chance of competing with major corporations.

Premise 4: In order to maintain the argument that every worker can start their own business under capitalism, you must reject the idea that capitalism is dependent upon wage labour because, as shown by Premise 1, wage labour would cease to exist if everyone owned their own business.

Conclusion: If you wish to support the argument that a worker has the right to become a boss and employ other workers for a wage, you must first abandon the argument that all workers have the opportunity to start their own businesses under capitalism.

So, with everything that I have said in this post, what possible directions could our debate now go in? Well, let's explore our options: first, you can argue that wage labour is perfectly just and fair. However, as I have just explained, you must first concede that starting a small business is an option that is not open to most workers. This would probably be easiest for you because it means defending capitalism from an ethical standpoint rather than based upon how capitalism is actually structured. The reason I say that this would probably be easier for you is because ethics tend to be subjective and, for the most part, no one's value system is any more or less valid than anyone else's precisely because of that subjectivity. Therefore, rather than arguing about how capitalism is structured (which is fairly objective) when you may or may not have all of your facts straight, arguing from an ethical perspective would be easier because your value system is essentially on equal footing with mine.

The other option open to you is maintaining that all workers are able to start their own business under capitalism and, hence, to continue arguing in the arena of objectivity about how capitalism is actually structured. If this is the case, I will probably wind up simply reiterating the points that I have already made because, frankly, I am quite confident that I have already discredited your argument even if you are unable to comprehend how.

And this brings me to the point with which I will conclude this post. I would highly recommend that you read this post numerous times so as to understand all of the nuances it contains. Even just reading over it a second time would probably help because when you first read it, you will be reading it without any expectations. However, upon a second reading, you can read it with the knowledge that there are many subtle points that require close attention. Have a nice day. :)
Guest
 


Postby K=x'uksami » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:54 pm

Now this guy is a fine example of a troll.

Capitalism is based on the government enforcement of property and the threat of starvation and poverty. Capitalists are robbers. I suppose armed robbery is also justified because anyone can pick up a gun and threaten others. Then again, he'll probably object that property is legitimate and theft isn't or something because of using force to seize it.

This guy needs a serious reality check.
K=x'uksami
 


Postby Mind_Cemetary » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:58 pm

Last guest post is from the mind of Mind_Cemetary. ;)
And it all went quiet in the city
And the wind blew down the road.
Someone cried out "Subvert!"
And the people all went cold.
User avatar
Mind_Cemetary
Denizen
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:11 am
Location: Klanada, our home ON native land!


Postby Morpheus » Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:47 pm

I suppose armed robbery is also justified because anyone can pick up a gun and threaten others.


Muggers are hard workers! Their victims are just lazy.
Homepage

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus
User avatar
Morpheus
Zen Master
 
Posts: 2487
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 10:13 am
Location: US-occupied Mexico


Postby Guest » Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:36 am

Morpheus wrote:
I suppose armed robbery is also justified because anyone can pick up a gun and threaten others.


Muggers are hard workers! Their victims are just lazy.


heh
Guest
 


Postby Guest » Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:49 am

Real libertarian wrote:
that mark cuban, your hero, used fraud to get where he is.


Prove that all business owners did.

that the poor work hardest - you asked for substaniation and it was provided.


Where?

that you are voilating your own principles by posting here - being 16 is no excuse for not having started your own business.


Maybe I need time to develop ideas. I can't just start one instantly.

is this how you are going to run your business? ignore anything you can't refute? you'll be in bankruptcy court pretty quickly.


The burden of proof is on you to prove that a system that works very well and is loved by nearly everyone is terribly flawed.

Where's the proof that there are these immense barriers to starting a business? Ponzi schemes aside, the fact that Cuban did it shows that it's possible and only excusable due to laziness.


the example you provide, mark cuban, got his start through fraud - robbing people, essentially. when this is pointed out, you withdraw him as an example and say "prove all did" ...

go the harvard or yale and check the names on the statues and halls. almost all the men that founded those instittuions got there through tthe slave trade or the opium trade - in other words through exploiting people.

it's no different with your hero, who preyed on old people to get where he is. you fail to provide an example.


substantiation has ben provided for the assertion that the poor work the hardest - just read the fucking thread, you idiot. i'm not your mommy here to read it for you. a book title has been provided to you. go fucking read it and stop looking like a fool who isn't even reading the thread you started.

"I can't just start one instantly."

Excuses, excuses. Perhaps you are just lazy? Open a fucking lemonade stand. Mary Kate and Ashley are already billionaires; you're lagging. Why don't you "innovate" - it's the exclusive domain of capitalism, right? Do you think you'll find a business idea trolling here?

you must have an excuse, because if you are not rich, then you must be lazy. being 16 is no excuse, as examples abound of teens getting rich. you'd rather spend your time here, though. the bankruptcy judge wont care what your ideology is.

you're an arbeit macht frei nazi.
Guest
 


Postby renard » Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:40 am

Real libertarian wrote:Then why does everyone but you seem to love it?

They don't: This forum is an extreme example, but there are huge numbers of people who see very real problems with capitalism as-is. A lot of these problems arise from massive multinationals owning most of the retail/production facilities.
renard
 


Postby Guest » Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:56 am

can i say something that just shows that the majority of rich and successful businessmen have done excessively little to occupy that wealthy position.
I am currently working for a fashion company.It is owned by a Mr Kamani, and his sons are the managers. Now, these sons are arrogant, ignorant, rude and demanding to their employees. And they did absolutely nothing to gain this position of very considerable wealth and power, other than claim it by being related to it's creator.
And yet, they enjoy and indeed exploit their privileged position.

Now, how could this possibly fit into the neo-conservative new right arguement that those who work hard recieve the rewards of capitalism and those who work very little or not at all or don't "play the game" don't suceed. Mahmud Kamani, the most arrogant man I have ever met, strolls into work at about 11 or 12, and throws his weight around shouting at employees, and leaves about 3.

capitalism benefits only those who are ahead in financial terms to start with.




oppose them or let them destroy us!
Guest
 


Postby renard » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:47 am

Anonymous wrote:oppose them or let them destroy us!

Why on earth would they want to destroy you? You're pumping money in to their businesses as you type, it's contrary to their interests to destroy you as you form part of their market.
renard
 


Postby Poop » Thu Apr 29, 2004 11:54 am

Real libertarian wrote:
I didn't do that. Morpheus did. And what does the say about him? You said that says "a lot" about him. What does it say? And please, spare no detail.


Your secret hatred of freedom.


I like you. I especially like your leaps in logic. You're funny. Please stay.
Poop
Zen Master
 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:01 am
Location: USA


Postby Real libertarian » Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:49 pm

I like you. I especially like your leaps in logic. You're funny. Please stay.


I'll stay as long as it takes. I can't believe you don't realize that Marxism is oppressive. I thought you of all people would have heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

can i say something that just shows that the majority of rich and successful businessmen have done excessively little to occupy that wealthy position.
I am currently working for a fashion company.It is owned by a Mr Kamani, and his sons are the managers. Now, these sons are arrogant, ignorant, rude and demanding to their employees. And they did absolutely nothing to gain this position of very considerable wealth and power, other than claim it by being related to it's creator.
And yet, they enjoy and indeed exploit their privileged position.

Now, how could this possibly fit into the neo-conservative new right arguement that those who work hard recieve the rewards of capitalism and those who work very little or not at all or don't "play the game" don't suceed. Mahmud Kamani, the most arrogant man I have ever met, strolls into work at about 11 or 12, and throws his weight around shouting at employees, and leaves about 3.

capitalism benefits only those who are ahead in financial terms to start with.


Capitalism isn't perfect and sometimes bad people do get things they don't deserve, but abolishing wealth is not worth it. I'd rather work as an employee with the hope of wealth than serve the collective.

The forms of anarchism that do retain money are just capitalism without the chance for wealth. At least I don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist. From what I've seen, anarchism is just a nicer version of Marxism.
Real libertarian
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to Anarchism 101

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests