23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[Santa_Claus]

Just to clarify - I am not here to convert anyone, nor even to educate. I've got my view of the world (which is right) and most of you have another view (called "wrong") - but that's just how it is, I ain't gonna bust a gonad and waste my time trying to convert the heathens. or Council Workers.

But on the Cheap Labour front - some may have noticed that when Labour got organised it does increase cost. Times passed that was stopped with Violence from Capitalists - including via the State. Nowadays more sophisticated from Propoganda "The people who fought to give you the weekend are bad people" to divide and rule and from anti-union laws. Appreciate that "Violence" is bad (blah blah blah) but if you take from me and mine (by firing me and my colleagues) when looking for a bigger share of the pie then you'd better be prepared for the consequences. As they say in Asia - you don't shit in someone's rice bowl without expecting payback (I paraphrase).

Of course nowadays the easy route for Cheap Labour is exporting jpbs to the 3rd world - where Capitalists can obtain goods from Workers employed on terms and conditions that (if directly employed in the west) would see the employer in Prison.............that would have been an easy thing to fix, just a few strokes of the pen and require many imports to have been produced by workers enjoying the same standards as in the West (with verification at the cost of the importer / retailer / supplier) - would still be a cost advantage of being in the east, but no longer a no brainer - but even that too late now as the days of (wholescale) dirt cheap foreign production are drawing to a close, just that when the music stops and the Chinese will have "our" Factories so higher cost (for them) not such a problem as no one left to undercut (on the scale needed)..........that's if China don't go all Pete Tong!

As I said at the beginning, whether you agree with me or not is irrelevent to me. It's like Gravity - no need to be a beleiver to experiance the effects.

[PsychoSerenity]

Seth's world-view is so far away from mine on this issue, I don't think I could ever have have a meaningful conversation with him. Morticia's right, it would take more than a book. There is no crossover, no middle ground. Obviously my opinion is that I'm right and he's wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold the views I do. And he'll have the opposite opinion. But I wouldn't know where to start showing him why I think he's wrong. The world as he sees it, is a very different world to the one I see.

Actually, all it requires is scholarship and erudition.

Actually, I completely disagree with you.

My views are based on the total accumulation of everything I've ever seen, heard, read, thought - every experience I've had in this world. And so are yours. And with those experiences we've come to wildly different conclusions about certain aspects of life. And I've spent time exploring this stuff, and I'm sure you have too - so just having a bit more education on the subject isn't going to cut it. - If it was as simple as logical argument and knowledge there wouldn't have been century upon century of disagreement already. Sure we could come to an agreement eventually, but I think it would require us to share half our lives with each other.

I'm always happy to explore a subject, including Marxism, in painful detail so long as my fellow participants are willing to put forth the same level of effort. But when faced with illiterate one-liners and hyperbolic platitudes, there's little reason to put more effort into educating the uneducatable than superficial debunking and scorn.

If you think you can successfully defend Marxism, have at it. The fact that I hold a diametrically opposed opinion doesn't make debate impossible, it makes it vibrant and exciting. But I do expect you to know your own position, and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Well I have little interest in Marxism, from what I've seen of it, it's almost as outdated as capitalism is.

It might take books, but that's how we learn new things, isn't it? Isn't that part of being "rational?" Of course if you expect to spout platitudes and propaganda and get me to admit defeat, you're in for a shock. If you don't have the knowledge or understanding of Marxism from which to argue persuasively, then try taking the opposite position. State some principles or arguments of Marxism as a question and ask "what's wrong with that," and you'll find that I'll be happy to tell you exactly what's wrong with it, in excruciating detail. But don't expect bald assertions of Marxist propaganda to carry any weight with me. I've literally heard them all, and they are all specious, ignorant nonsense.

But I expect the people you were talking to didn't think they were "bald assertions of Marxist propaganda", but rather, well reasoned arguments. And what they hear from you probably also sounds like specious ignorant nonsense to their ears.

[Animavore]

Every single fucking day of the week around here.

I don't live where wherever "around here" is.

No, we wouldn't, because unlike the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, where children were put to work in textile factories because the jobs they had to do only required the intelligence and training of a child, today's industry is much more sophisticated, and there are laws which prevent "sweatshop" working conditions and child labor.

Businesses operate on free market principles, and they don't "hoard" moneyar "at the top" because capital is required to keep businesses running and expanding. Sure, they don't want to pay any more for labor than they absolutely have to, but by the same token, labor has power when the skills required are more than minimal because the rarer the skill set required the higher the wage to find and keep skilled workers.

Is unskilled labor paid little? Yes, of course it is because it's unskilled. The best way to escape that condition is to become skilled at something and move up in the hierarchy. It's stupid to expect that unskilled labor will be paid the same as skilled labor. Even Marx didn't go that far with his idiocy. Ben Franklin said that the best way to raise people out of poverty is to make them "uncomfortable in their poverty." Minimum wage burger-flipping jobs are not intended to be career choices for anyone. They are rightfully entry-level jobs that unskilled, inexperienced people, mostly youth, can work at and get paid as they build their work history and skills and fund advancements in their education. Every time the minimum wage is increased, entry-level kids lose their jobs, which are given to more experienced workers who are more reliable and can take on greater responsibility with less supervision.

The march of technology has made Industrial Revolution sweatshops a thing of the past in the US. Unskilled assembly labor positions have been globalized and exported, and that's a GOOD thing, because even the people laboring in a Nike "sweatshop" south of the border are doing much better than they WERE doing before the plant opened up and offered jobs that, in their community, are both high-paying and relatively stable. In other words, for the residents of some village in Costa Rica or Mexico, a Nike factory is a Godsend, and it beats the ever-living crap out of poking holes in the ground to plant subsistence-level crops and taking in each other's washing, when there's anything to wash.

That they don't get paid the same wage as a high-tech computer-chip technician in the US is utterly irrelevant. They get paid what their labor is worth, which is more than they were getting paid before, which was nothing.

All you did was give a summary of the way things are now. Which is the way they should be and they are that way because there are laws in to protect workers which were established to stop companies abusing them. And being able to strike and demand a fair wage is a part of that. You're trying to make it sound like if governments stepped out and let the companies run things their way this would continue. I'm probably cynical but I see no reason to believe that. Companies will, over time, start screwing people again and worker revolts will have to start all over again.

Why is an employer obliged to hold open someone's job if they cannot perform the work required? If the employer is responsible for the injury, the employee can sue to recover damages. Furthermore, worker's compensation plans are paid into by the employer by state mandated to cover just such situations. But if the worker is permanently disabled, why is the employer obligated to keep them on the payroll forever?

Did I say they should be kept on the payroll forever? This ties in to what I'm talking about above. In a world where workers have rights companies are required to have a reasonable sick leave. In a libertarian system they wouldn't even give you sick leave. You would be replaced in days.

That said, I think we're at odds here. I don't know anyone that thinks that companies should pay unskilled people more than skilled. It seems things are different in America so I can't see much point arguing over different systems.

[Seth]

Read about the current trouble in Egypt. You'll find the government is using the military to "protect" the instruments of power,they have surrounded the key buildings with tanks, ie all the government departments.

You won't find a better current example of the use of force to keep an exploited and abused population down.

I don't see why I should limit examples to current events. So, what about Tiananmen Square? East Germany, 1953? Hungary 1956? Czechoslovakia 1968? ...

You are conflating totalitarianism , a political system, with communism, an economic system. ( though they weren't communist, they were statist)

When has Communism ever been anything but totalitarian?

[Seth]

Seth's view is not based on a provable reality and it's not my job to support or debunk his views.

Intellectually bankrupt evasion. If you don't have the capacity or knowledge to defend Marxism, just admit it.

But suffice to say, the marxist view, ie capitalism as the driving force of economics and social structure, is the accepted academic view.[/quote]

Huh?

Now you're claiming that Capitalism's effects on economics and social structure is Marx's idea? What a load of smelly bilge.

Marx didn't invent Capitalism.

[Santa_Claus]

Marx didn't invent Capitalism.

God did.

FACT.

[Seth]

Every single fucking day of the week around here.

I don't live where wherever "around here" is.

Sure you do, you just don't know it.

No, we wouldn't, because unlike the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, where children were put to work in textile factories because the jobs they had to do only required the intelligence and training of a child, today's industry is much more sophisticated, and there are laws which prevent "sweatshop" working conditions and child labor.

Businesses operate on free market principles, and they don't "hoard" moneyar "at the top" because capital is required to keep businesses running and expanding. Sure, they don't want to pay any more for labor than they absolutely have to, but by the same token, labor has power when the skills required are more than minimal because the rarer the skill set required the higher the wage to find and keep skilled workers.

Is unskilled labor paid little? Yes, of course it is because it's unskilled. The best way to escape that condition is to become skilled at something and move up in the hierarchy. It's stupid to expect that unskilled labor will be paid the same as skilled labor. Even Marx didn't go that far with his idiocy. Ben Franklin said that the best way to raise people out of poverty is to make them "uncomfortable in their poverty." Minimum wage burger-flipping jobs are not intended to be career choices for anyone. They are rightfully entry-level jobs that unskilled, inexperienced people, mostly youth, can work at and get paid as they build their work history and skills and fund advancements in their education. Every time the minimum wage is increased, entry-level kids lose their jobs, which are given to more experienced workers who are more reliable and can take on greater responsibility with less supervision.

The march of technology has made Industrial Revolution sweatshops a thing of the past in the US. Unskilled assembly labor positions have been globalized and exported, and that's a GOOD thing, because even the people laboring in a Nike "sweatshop" south of the border are doing much better than they WERE doing before the plant opened up and offered jobs that, in their community, are both high-paying and relatively stable. In other words, for the residents of some village in Costa Rica or Mexico, a Nike factory is a Godsend, and it beats the ever-living crap out of poking holes in the ground to plant subsistence-level crops and taking in each other's washing, when there's anything to wash.

That they don't get paid the same wage as a high-tech computer-chip technician in the US is utterly irrelevant. They get paid what their labor is worth, which is more than they were getting paid before, which was nothing.

All you did was give a summary of the way things are now. Which is the way they should be and they are that way because there are laws in to protect workers which were established to stop companies abusing them. And being able to strike and demand a fair wage is a part of that. You're trying to make it sound like if governments stepped out and let the companies run things their way this would continue. I'm probably cynical but I see no reason to believe that. Companies will, over time, start screwing people again and worker revolts will have to start all over again.

That was then, this is now. Unions are redundant and unnecessary to secure worker safety. Adequate regulatory structure and protections exist to ensure that. It's no longer the 19th century and the law has come a long way. Their sole remaining purpose is wage and benefit negotiation. And I already said that collective bargaining is not inherently wrong, what's wrong is when the government skews the negotiations in favor of the workers and against the company.

Why is an employer obliged to hold open someone's job if they cannot perform the work required? If the employer is responsible for the injury, the employee can sue to recover damages. Furthermore, worker's compensation plans are paid into by the employer by state mandated to cover just such situations. But if the worker is permanently disabled, why is the employer obligated to keep them on the payroll forever?

Did I say they should be kept on the payroll forever? This ties in to what I'm talking about above. In a world where workers have rights companies are required to have a reasonable sick leave. In a libertarian system they wouldn't even give you sick leave. You would be replaced in days.

Why should businesses be compelled by law to offer "sick leave?" Businesses are not charitable organizations, and they have no duty to provide for the ongoing welfare of their employees. They pay an agreed-upon wage for an agreed-upon amount of work, and it's up to the employee to look after his health. What principle do you use to justify imposing a duty to care for a sick employee upon an employer?

That said, I think we're at odds here. I don't know anyone that thinks that companies should pay unskilled people more than skilled. It seems things are different in America so I can't see much point arguing over different systems.

It's not "more than" it's "as much as," and it is very typical of union bosses to demand increases in compensation and benefits for lower-skilled workers to provide them with a "fair" wage, which is usually defined roughly as the same as everyone else. That's the basis of socialist economic theory; that no individual is entitled to any more than any other individual has. "Need" is determined by the central authority, as is "ability."

[.Morticia.]

Seth's view is not based on a provable reality and it's not my job to support or debunk his views.

Intellectually bankrupt evasion. If you don't have the capacity or knowledge to defend Marxism, just admit it.

But suffice to say, the marxist view, ie capitalism as the driving force of economics and social structure, is the accepted academic view.

Huh?

Now you're claiming that Capitalism's effects on economics and social structure is Marx's idea? What a load of smelly bilge.

Marx didn't invent Capitalism.[/quote]


don't put words in my mouth, you disengenous little shit

I wrote "his view" not his idea nor taht he invented it, and didn't write "effect", I wrote, "Driving force"

if you claim to argue on facts then you are lying

So why don't you counter what I wrote, not some invention of YOURS

[Animavore]

Why should businesses be compelled by law to offer "sick leave?" Businesses are not charitable organizations, and they have no duty to provide for the ongoing welfare of their employees. They pay an agreed-upon wage for an agreed-upon amount of work, and it's up to the employee to look after his health. What principle do you use to justify imposing a duty to care for a sick employee upon an employer?

Companies can usually get insurance off sick workers so I don't see an argument against it.

[Seth]

Seth's world-view is so far away from mine on this issue, I don't think I could ever have have a meaningful conversation with him. Morticia's right, it would take more than a book. There is no crossover, no middle ground. Obviously my opinion is that I'm right and he's wrong, otherwise I wouldn't hold the views I do. And he'll have the opposite opinion. But I wouldn't know where to start showing him why I think he's wrong. The world as he sees it, is a very different world to the one I see.

Actually, all it requires is scholarship and erudition.

Actually, I completely disagree with you.

My views are based on the total accumulation of everything I've ever seen, heard, read, thought - every experience I've had in this world. And so are yours. And with those experiences we've come to wildly different conclusions about certain aspects of life. And I've spent time exploring this stuff, and I'm sure you have too - so just having a bit more education on the subject isn't going to cut it. - If it was as simple as logical argument and knowledge there wouldn't have been century upon century of disagreement already. Sure we could come to an agreement eventually, but I think it would require us to share half our lives with each other.

I thought that the goal was "meaningful conversation," not "solution to all the world's problems."

I'm always happy to explore a subject, including Marxism, in painful detail so long as my fellow participants are willing to put forth the same level of effort. But when faced with illiterate one-liners and hyperbolic platitudes, there's little reason to put more effort into educating the uneducatable than superficial debunking and scorn.

If you think you can successfully defend Marxism, have at it. The fact that I hold a diametrically opposed opinion doesn't make debate impossible, it makes it vibrant and exciting. But I do expect you to know your own position, and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Well I have little interest in Marxism, from what I've seen of it, it's almost as outdated as capitalism is.

Glad to hear it. What's your alternative?

It might take books, but that's how we learn new things, isn't it? Isn't that part of being "rational?" Of course if you expect to spout platitudes and propaganda and get me to admit defeat, you're in for a shock. If you don't have the knowledge or understanding of Marxism from which to argue persuasively, then try taking the opposite position. State some principles or arguments of Marxism as a question and ask "what's wrong with that," and you'll find that I'll be happy to tell you exactly what's wrong with it, in excruciating detail. But don't expect bald assertions of Marxist propaganda to carry any weight with me. I've literally heard them all, and they are all specious, ignorant nonsense.

But I expect the people you were talking to didn't think they were "bald assertions of Marxist propaganda", but rather, well reasoned arguments. And what they hear from you probably also sounds like specious ignorant nonsense to their ears.

Not really. The knowing evasion of rational analysis is a hallmark of Marxist rhetorical style. It's quite deliberate.

[Animavore]

Ok. I looked this up because I wasn't sure about it. In Ireland sick leave is totally up to the employer so it seems that companies I've worked for must've been giving sick leave by their own free will.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/em ... leave.html

They can claim some money on it, though.

[Seth]

Seth's view is not based on a provable reality and it's not my job to support or debunk his views.

Intellectually bankrupt evasion. If you don't have the capacity or knowledge to defend Marxism, just admit it.

But suffice to say, the marxist view, ie capitalism as the driving force of economics and social structure, is the accepted academic view.

Huh?

Now you're claiming that Capitalism's effects on economics and social structure is Marx's idea? What a load of smelly bilge.

Marx didn't invent Capitalism.

don't put words in my mouth, you disengenous little shit

I don't. I'm constitutionally incapable of the driveling that would be required to do so. I've got standards to uphold. Instead, I analyze what you write. Your implication is that "the marxist (sic) view" is "accepted academic view." This is utter horseshit. The observable fact that capitalism is the driving force of economics and social structure is not "the marxist (sic) view." It's the view of economists and literally everyone else from every side of the political spectrum. Your words implied that "marxists" (sic) have a philosophical lock on capitalism in academia. That's nonsense.

I wrote "his view" not his idea nor taht he invented it, and didn't write "effect", I wrote, "Driving force"

if you claim to argue on facts then you are lying

So why don't you counter what I wrote, not some invention of YOURS

Why don't you write something with some intellectual meat on it's bones so I can gnaw on it a bit more effectively, instead of the propagandistic drivel you've been posting?

[PsychoSerenity]

I thought that the goal was "meaningful conversation," not "solution to all the world's problems."

Clearly we're not having one here.

What's your alternative?

That's an unanswerable question.

The knowing evasion of rational analysis is a hallmark of Marxist rhetorical style. It's quite deliberate.

[Coito ergo sum]

What's your alternative?

That's an unanswerable question.
:

Well - it is answerable. If by "unanswerable" you mean that you don't have an alternative, then the answer is "none." If you have an alternative but you are unable to relate it here, then that's your answer "I have one, but can't describe it here." But, "what's your alternative" is plainly an answerable question.

[Seth]

Ok. I looked this up because I wasn't sure about it. In Ireland sick leave is totally up to the employer so it seems that companies I've worked for must've been giving sick leave by their own free will.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/em ... leave.html

They can claim some money on it, though.

Fancy that...free market forces inducing employers to provide employment benefits beyond a simple wage. Do you suppose that they might do that because it's a good way to find and keep reliable, trained employees, thus reducing the costs of staff turnover and training?

In the US, company provided health care came about BECAUSE of FDR's Progressive agenda that limited the amount of wages that could be paid to employees during WWII. Employers, desperate to find and retain skilled and competent employees, began offering health care plans as a legal inducement because they could not offer higher wages. And today, health care coverage is nothing more than wages in another form. I guarantee you that the overall wage structure in any company that provides health care insurance is reduced by pretty much exactly what the costs of the health care program are to the company. TANSTAAFL.

And smart people turn down company health care plans in favor of higher wages, which they then use to buy their own, targeted, lower-cost health care when they need it, a catastrophic health insurance policy, and they bank the surplus. When the government doesn't interfere and forbid them to do so, that is.