NationStates Jolt Archive

Long story short, I just got out of Philosophy class and we were talking about capitalism. My professor detailed a process by which candles that are made in China, are sold in America. The catch is that the factory in China makes $.05 profit from each candle and Wal-Mart makes $2.00 profit from each candle sold. And the average Chinese worker earns $100 a month.

Is this a model of exploitation? I argued that it isn't exploitation because everyone involved in the process, from the Chinese candle maker to the shopper at Wal-Mart, participated voluntarily.

Of course, then there is the argument that the Chinese worker has no other choice but to work in the candle factory for rice money and is thus reduced to slavery. This is a different situation that would be the classic Marxist example of the working class being exploited, but my argument to that, is that without this system, there would be no candles, and the Chinese worker would have no job and no rice money.

The reality, as we discussed in class, is that many rural Chinese living in simple farm communities, are being attracted to cities by factory wages. That sounds like a choice to me, but I want to hear what you guys think of course.

No, exploitation is exploitation.

hmmm... borderline

That's not philosophy, it's economics and politics! /pedant

Have you read much into the industrial revolution in Europe?

I'm not sure how much of a choice the person has, because industrialization takes industry away from the countryside, forcing people into the city. For example, said person may have been a traditional candle-maker. But technology means candles can be mass-produced in cities, so they have no choice but to get another job - and where are jobs the most plentiful?

The question of 'what is a fair wage' is more difficult. Is it a living wage? An arbitrary percentage of the final price? Fuck knows.

Not at all. $100 per month may be miniscule by our standards, in a country like China it is not only good money when adjusted for PPP but is far greater than what that same worker would have earned under the CPE socialist model in China prior to economic reform, with more goods and services available for them to spend those earnings on. Capitalism in China is directly responsible for reducing poverty and eliminating the threat of famine and starvation, both of which were very real and frequently occuring threats only a few decades ago..

If that's exploitation, I'd be very interested to know what the alternative is.

Capatalisme is always about exploitation.

But I really want to be exploited.

Capitalism is the understanding that each is out to fuck the other and may the best fucker win.

That's not philosophy, it's economics and politics! /pedant
"Exploitation" can be construed as a philosophical attribute. ;)

Any advanced question of semantics is philosophy :P

There's a difference between calling an individual incident exploitation and damning an entire system. Companies, like governments, can be either good or evil, with every shade in between.

"Exploitation" can be construed as a philosophical attribute. ;)

Any advanced question of semantics is philosophy :P

No, it's just a question for someone with a better knowledge of semantics :p

Unless ANY advanced question is a question of philosophy (hence the "PHD" qualification)

Long story short, I just got out of Philosophy class and we were talking about capitalism. My professor detailed a process by which candles that are made in China, are sold in America. The catch is that the factory in China makes $.05 profit from each candle and Wal-Mart makes $2.00 profit from each candle sold. And the average Chinese worker earns $100 a month.

Is this a model of exploitation? I argued that it isn't exploitation because everyone involved in the process, from the Chinese candle maker to the shopper at Wal-Mart, participated voluntarily.

Of course, then there is the argument that the Chinese worker has no other choice but to work in the candle factory for rice money and is thus reduced to slavery. This is a different situation that would be the classic Marxist example of the working class being exploited, but my argument to that, is that without this system, there would be no candles, and the Chinese worker would have no job and no rice money.

The reality, as we discussed in class, is that many rural Chinese living in simple farm communities, are being attracted to cities by factory wages. That sounds like a choice to me, but I want to hear what you guys think of course.

Capitalism is intrinsically exploitation. The need for me to make advantage means it costs you something. It's only ever a question of degree.

this is really not abnormal. your retailer normally has the highest market up in price on most goods. Walmart normally has to pay for storage and air conditioning and heating a building. the difference in price market is determined by cost of living.
As energy gets more expensive in china their market will increase as well.

Capitalism is intrinsically exploitation. The need for me to make advantage means it costs you something. It's only ever a question of degree.
This.

Exploitation is inherent to the system; it's how capitalism works. Whether that exploitation is that of sweatshops and whips or 'merely' profit-margins is another question entirely.

Does profit always equal exploitation?

Does profit always equal exploitation?

Effectively... yes.

(Depending on definitions, you could argue that exploitation doesn't always have to mean 'profit').

Effectively... yes.

(Depending on definitions, you could argue that exploitation doesn't always have to mean 'profit').

That's quite an assertion. Can you prove that in every case, necessarily, profit must have been made through exploitation? Or does "effectively" mean something else?

Effectively... yes.

(Depending on definitions, you could argue that exploitation doesn't always have to mean 'profit').

really, what if I help you earn more money than you could have before, but I also profit, still exploitation, even if both parties benefit?

At this point we should really define exploitation...

I would think something like this "1. unfair treatment or use: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain" but 2 is just as valid, but the term we're going for seems to be 1. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861609889/exploitation.html

Capatalism is exploitation. Capitalism on the other hand, isn't in my view.

This.

Exploitation is inherent to the system; it's how capitalism works. Whether that exploitation is that of sweatshops and whips or 'merely' profit-margins is another question entirely.

Assuming that profit is exploitation (something I do not assume in reality), this is still false. This is assuming that humans will naturally start businesses, instead of voluntary associations or whatever, when there's nobody to stop them. But what if you don't believe that? And if they do, then that's a fault with humanity, not with the system. You could say that capitalism makes it inherently easier for exploitation, but that isn't the same thing.

Yes, see also Feudalism, Socialism and Communism. If we're not exploiting each other to varying degrees, we'll always be exploiting the environment.

Assuming that profit is exploitation (something I do not assume in reality), this is still false. This is assuming that humans will naturally start businesses, instead of voluntary associations or whatever, when there's nobody to stop them.
I suppose, but if we've got a system of voluntary associations (mutualists, or whatever) then we haven't really got capitalism, have we?

Or am I missing your point?

I suppose, but if we've got a system of voluntary associations (mutualists, or whatever) then we haven't really got capitalism, have we?

Or am I missing your point?

Well, people still own capital, and there is still a government, so I don't think it's the same.

One thing we like to forget is that for all its flaws, capitalism has achieved what no other system in human history could: lifting the majority of the population out of poverty. Humanity has spent the bulk of its existence on the brink of poverty, and we now enjoy surplus. Sure, millions remain in poverty, but if we look at long term historical trends, we're actually still increasing the base of people living in surplus.

The is of course, the counter-argument our entire system is a fictional house of cards based on the faulty assumption that surplus can exist in the face of insurmountable credit debt

I suppose, but if we've got a system of voluntary associations (mutualists, or whatever) then we haven't really got capitalism, have we?

Or am I missing your point?

People are free to incorporate their businesses how they choose, and invest their capital how they choose, just because people choose an unusual structure, does not mean it isn't capitalism

Well, people still own capital, and there is still a government, so I don't think it's the same.

People are free to incorporate their businesses how they choose, and invest their capital how they choose, just because people choose an unusual structure, does not mean it isn't capitalism
Ahh, I thought you were meaning abandoning the capitalist economic model.

Capitalism is intrinsically exploitation. The need for me to make advantage means it costs you something. It's only ever a question of degree.

Can you explain this to me? Because I love capitalism, I participate in it everyday and I don't feel exploited. Am I not seeing something here?

Ahh, I thought you were meaning abandoning the capitalist economic model.

As a classical liberal I don't believe in abandoning the free-market model, even if we experiment in more mutually beneficial exchanges. Economic freedom is always an individual right

Can you explain this to me? Because I love capitalism, I participate in it everyday and I don't feel exploited. Am I not seeing something here?
Well, arguably your comfortable position in Western society is only made possible through the exploitation of others; usually in developing countries.

To get all Marxist on y'all, they're forced to sell their labour to make enough money to survive. As, indeed, are most of us on here.

Well, arguably your comfortable position in Western society is only made possible through the exploitation of others; usually in developing countries.

To get all Marxist on y'all, they're forced to sell their labour to make enough money to survive. As, indeed, are most of us on here.

I mean, I'm forced to sell my labor to make enough money to live also. Well, okay, so my parents support me, but when I graduate in 6 months I don't plan on starving. Am I, er I mean, are my parents who work for a living being exploited too?

All economic systems are based on exploitation. That's not a negative thing. What is being exploited is the goods produced, the workers producing them, and the consumers purchasing them. Exploitation of a worker's time is justified by payments, usually in the form of money, which come (indirectly) from the consumers. Exploitation of the consumers' money is justified by the goods they receive, which come (indirectly) from the workers. Is capitalism unjustified exploitation? Not unless workers are not compensated for their time and effort and consumers do not receive the goods they pay for, which, in ideological and theoretical capitalism, does not happen. In practical capitalism it always happens to some degree, and the goal of a capitalist government should be to minimize it.

That's quite an assertion. Can you prove that in every case, necessarily, profit must have been made through exploitation? Or does "effectively" mean something else?

"Effectively", here, means "while it may be possible to define circumstances where it wasn't quite like that... basically, it is"... or words to that effect.

In the same way that healthcare in the US is 'effectively' a monopoly - your choices boil down to healthcare, or healthcaren't.

All economic systems are based on exploitation. That's not a negative thing. What is being exploited is the goods produced, the workers producing them, and the consumers purchasing them. Exploitation of a worker's time is justified by payments, usually in the form of money, which come (indirectly) from the consumers. Exploitation of the consumers' money is justified by the goods they receive, which come (indirectly) from the workers. Is capitalism unjustified exploitation? Not unless workers are not compensated for their time and effort and consumers do not receive the goods they pay for, which, in ideological and theoretical capitalism, does not happen. In practical capitalism it always happens to some degree, and the goal of a capitalist government should be to minimize it.

I see, thank you.

really, what if I help you earn more money than you could have before, but I also profit, still exploitation, even if both parties benefit?

At this point we should really define exploitation...

I would think something like this "1. unfair treatment or use: the practice of taking selfish or unfair advantage of a person or situation, usually for personal gain" but 2 is just as valid, but the term we're going for seems to be 1. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861609889/exploitation.html

There's nothing inherent in the definition that says we can't both profit, nor is there reason to believe in closed systems. Just because you helped me profit, doesn't mean you didn't take selfish advantage, and doesn't mean our overall trade was fair... much less, to other people.

"Effectively", here, means "while it may be possible to define circumstances where it wasn't quite like that... basically, it is"... or words to that effect.


Ah, OK, so not necessarily the case then.

Pardon me if your argument doesn't appear excessively rigorous... :rolleyes:

I mean, I'm forced to sell my labor to make enough money to live also. Well, okay, so my parents support me, but when I graduate in 6 months I don't plan on starving. Am I, er I mean, are my parents who work for a living being exploited too?
Under the definition I outlined above, of course.

They, like you, are forced to sell their labour to survive, and their labour is used (exploited) to create a profit for someone else.

Adam Smith's labour theory of value, appropriated by Marx.

One thing we like to forget is that for all its flaws, capitalism has achieved what no other system in human history could: lifting the majority of the population out of poverty. Humanity has spent the bulk of its existence on the brink of poverty, and we now enjoy surplus.

Sounds good.

Sure, millions remain in poverty, but if we look at long term historical trends, we're actually still increasing the base of people living in surplus.

This is the problem. capitalism is founded on the inequal distribution of wealth, so can never be used to lift all of humanity out of poverty - poverty strengthens capitalism. Our reccent history gives the appearance that capitalism has indeed lifted the people out of poverty, but in truth poverty has just been redistributed to outside of the West. A system that is based on greed can never alone achieve something as altruistic as universal economic emancipation.

really, what if I help you earn more money than you could have before, but I also profit, still exploitation, even if both parties benefit?

At this point we should really define exploitation...

by my definition, that still counts as exploitation -- what is being exploited is whoever generated the capital that is flowing into your and GnI's hands, and the fairness of that is based on what they received in return, even indirectly.

capitalism is basically an updated form of the barter system, which is as old as civilization. that's why it took thousands of years for people to come up with collectivism, and it still doesn't work. (Collectivism is also exploitation, as it still involves workers, goods, and consumers, even though no profit is involved. The only non-exploitative relationship is that of the welfare state to its dependents, and that's a decidedly unhealthy one.)

Ah, OK, so not necessarily the case then.

Pardon me if your argument doesn't appear excessively rigorous... :rolleyes:

What would have been more 'rigorous'? An absolute?

I could have stated it as an absolute, but I'd have looked a tit for including qualifiers then, wouldn't I?

Can you explain this to me? Because I love capitalism, I participate in it everyday and I don't feel exploited. Am I not seeing something here?

I love the atmosphere, I participate in it every day, and I don't feel the pressure of it pressing against my skin.

What would have been more 'rigorous'? An absolute?

I could have stated it as an absolute, but I'd have looked a tit for including qualifiers then, wouldn't I?

Stop spoiling my fun! :p

In this case, I regard rigorous as something more than just an assertion like:

"It is, because basically, it is. Except when it isn't"

Stop spoiling my fun! :p

In this case, I regard rigorous as something more than just an assertion like:

"It is, because basically, it is. Except when it isn't"

Okay...

The two things are not 'equal', because profit isn't a necessity in exploitation (depending on your definitions), even though some degree of 'exploitation' is a necessity in profit.

Of course - by different definitions, i.e. if you consider ANY form of return on investment to be 'profit', then, the two things ARE equal in value, because SOME form of return is always going to be involved... even if it's just goodwill.

This is the problem. capitalism is founded on the inequal distribution of wealth, so can never be used to lift all of humanity out of poverty - poverty strengthens capitalism. Our reccent history gives the appearance that capitalism has indeed lifted the people out of poverty, but in truth poverty has just been redistributed to outside of the West. A system that is based on greed can never alone achieve something as altruistic as universal economic emancipation.

Actually, that is a classic fallacy. The idea that as long as I have a big piece of the pie, some else has less pie. The reality of capitalism, or free trade, is that it creates wealth. So there is a bigger pie for everyone.

Okay...

The two things are not 'equal', because profit isn't a necessity in exploitation (depending on your definitions), even though some degree of 'exploitation' is a necessity in profit.

Of course - by different definitions, i.e. if you consider ANY form of return on investment to be 'profit', then, the two things ARE equal in value, because SOME form of return is always going to be involved... even if it's just goodwill.

That's the problem - I can't see any way of saying that profit necessarily involves exploitation. On what basis do you assert that?

I agree it does hinge on a definition of profit. But such a definition should not need to reference exploitation for you to be able to prove your assertion, and if it did, your assertion would just be tautology.

As a classical liberal I don't believe in abandoning the free-market model, even if we experiment in more mutually beneficial exchanges. Economic freedom is always an individual rightTrue economic freedom menas the feds do not touch my precious money.

My poor precious money going to help others... It makes me so sad.:$

That's the problem - I can't see any way of saying that profit necessarily involves exploitation. On what basis do you assert that?

I agree it does hinge on a definition of profit. But such a definition should not need to reference exploitation for you to be able to prove your assertion, and if it did, your assertion would just be tautology.

Exploitation was defined earlier as (something like) the 'unfair' or 'selfish' advantage. Profit is certainly selfish advantage, and it is debatable whether or not it is 'fair'.

Actually, that is a classic fallacy. The idea that as long as I have a big piece of the pie, some else has less pie. The reality of capitalism, or free trade, is that it creates wealth. So there is a bigger pie for everyone.

But that assumes that capitalism works. In theory it should create a bigger pie for everyone, and everyone should be able to share in it in relation to how successful they are, right?
But inequality breeds greater inequality, so some people will ineveitably find it harder to get their slice regardless of how hard they work (see the 60 year old with two jobs trying to get enough to pay his bills compared with the investment banker getting millions, which help begat more millions...) That's why the world has such a huge wealth gap. To make matters worse, its not really unknown for the successful to try and engineer the system so that their ilk can keep their privilege at the expense of others.

Capitalism makes a bigger pie, but it still lets the losers starve.

(Btw, what kind of pie are we talking about here?)

Actually, that is a classic fallacy. The idea that as long as I have a big piece of the pie, some else has less pie. The reality of capitalism, or free trade, is that it creates wealth. So there is a bigger pie for everyone.

No, not really.

The total amount of wealth in the world is a constant. Something cannot be created from nothing; the appearance thereof can be gained by converting resources to capital, or capital to resources, or by introducing potential wealth (the province of capitalism). The problem with potential wealth is precisely that it is not real, so when it collapses it causes economic crises. Thus, unrestricted capitalism is caught in an unending cycle of growth and depression.

Yes, capitalism does create a bigger pie for everyone, but they're pies filled with air. Blow them up far enough and they explode.

Actually, that is a classic fallacy. The idea that as long as I have a big piece of the pie, some else has less pie. The reality of capitalism, or free trade, is that it creates wealth. So there is a bigger pie for everyone.

So, if I have ALL the pie, you peasants get a bigger share of... what, exactly?

So, if I have ALL the pie, you peasants get a bigger share of... what, exactly?

They can get a bigger share of a potential pie that might materialize if you juggle your pies correctly. Until the economy collapses, then they lose all the potential pie they never had in the first place and you flee the country with all the real pie.

Profit is certainly selfish advantage, and it is debatable whether or not it is 'fair'.

Depends what you mean by profit. I mean say I buy lots of wood, then spend some time making that wood into different pretty shapes, and then resell that wood for more money, I technically make a profit, but are you going to claim that it's always going to be an unfair profit? I need some sort of profit to represent the skill and time I put in to creating those wooden statues. However, not everyone would define that as profit.

Exploitation was defined earlier as (something like) the 'unfair' or 'selfish' advantage. Profit is certainly selfish advantage, and it is debatable whether or not it is 'fair'.

Why is profit "certainly selfish advantage"? What is so certain? Why does it have to be selfish?

No, not really.

The total amount of wealth in the world is a constant. Something cannot be created from nothing; the appearance thereof can be gained by converting resources to capital, or capital to resources, or by introducing potential wealth (the province of capitalism). The problem with potential wealth is precisely that it is not real, so when it collapses it causes economic crises. Thus, unrestricted capitalism is caught in an unending cycle of growth and depression.

Yes, capitalism does create a bigger pie for everyone, but they're pies filled with air. Blow them up far enough and they explode.

I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. The amount of wealth in the world is not constant.

I'll give you 1 example:

you sell me a shirt for $20
I really wanted the shirt and I was willing to pay $25 for it
And you really wanted to get rid of the shirt and you were willing to sell it for $13

Now, you gained $7 and I gained $5 and a shirt. Maybe that money never materialized, but I assure that it is real wealth.

Capitalism... exploitation... I think every economical system around exploits. To an extent.

Capitalism... exploitation... I think every economical system around exploits. To an extent.

yeah, pretty much

Long story short, I just got out of Philosophy class and we were talking about capitalism. My professor detailed a process by which candles that are made in China, are sold in America. The catch is that the factory in China makes $.05 profit from each candle and Wal-Mart makes $2.00 profit from each candle sold. And the average Chinese worker earns $100 a month.

Is this a model of exploitation? I argued that it isn't exploitation because everyone involved in the process, from the Chinese candle maker to the shopper at Wal-Mart, participated voluntarily.


It depends on how you define exploitation.

If you define exploitation as "slave labour", well, that's not slave labour.

If you define exploitation of salary workers as alienation of the plusvalue produced by the worker, things get more complex.

To judge if it's exploitation or, more accurately: unfair accumulation by the capitalist of the plusvalue (Mehrwert) created by the workers' labour, the part about dollars and US market are quite irrelevant. (This is more about the fact that value and price are different things, and about the globalisation of trade without a global currency and without global lifecost standards).

The point is: how much of the plusvalue the worker created gets back into the worker's pockets? How much work did the chinese capitalist put into his industry? Is the capitalist taking profit proportionally to the amount of the work he made for the industry, or is he taking the workers' part also?

I'd say the capitalist is taking way much more than what he would, were he to take ONLY the plusvalue he produced. This defines exploitation in a capitalist system of mass production. A capitalist society doesn't (necessarily) need slave labour.

I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong. The amount of wealth in the world is not constant.

I'll give you 1 example:

you sell me a shirt for $20
I really wanted the shirt and I was willing to pay $25 for it
And you really wanted to get rid of the shirt and you were willing to sell it for $13

Now, you gained $7 and I gained $5 and a shirt. Maybe that money never materialized, but I assure that it is real wealth.

Again, not really.

Let's say I was paid $5 to make the shirt, and the materials cost an extra $4. It's worth $9.

I sell it to you for $20. I make $11 and you gain a $9 shirt. Whether I was willing to sell it for $13 or you were willing to buy it for $25 is irrelevant: I make a profit of $2 from your hard-earned cash. The $5 you could have gained or the $7 I could have gained are the province of capitalism, which is why it leads to economic crises when I do in fact have to sell my $9 shirt for $9.

No, not really.

The total amount of wealth in the world is a constant. Something cannot be created from nothing; the appearance thereof can be gained by converting resources to capital, or capital to resources, or by introducing potential wealth (the province of capitalism). The problem with potential wealth is precisely that it is not real, so when it collapses it causes economic crises. Thus, unrestricted capitalism is caught in an unending cycle of growth and depression.

Yes, capitalism does create a bigger pie for everyone, but they're pies filled with air. Blow them up far enough and they explode.

The total amount of wealth in the world is not a constant, and the "nihil ex nihilo" rule (from nothing you get nothing again) applies to physical quantities only. Wealth isn't a physical quantity. Wealth is a phenomenon of human societies. Wealth is created by humans through work.

The problem is that often (and I'm afraid that you're doing exactly this) people mix the concepts of work, value and price, which are quite different. I'm no economist, so I won't attempt a precise definition of those here. Anyway, one can get an intuitive idea of what they are.

Money, also, has a nasty tendency to switch between the realm of price and the realm of value.

It depends on how you define exploitation.

If you define exploitation as "slave labour", well, that's not slave labour.

If you define exploitation of salary workers as alienation of the plusvalue produced by the worker, things get more complex.

To judge if it's exploitation or, more accurately: unfair accumulation by the capitalist of the plusvalue (Mehrwert) created by the workers' labour, the part about dollars and US market are quite irrelevant. (This is more about the fact that value and price are different things, and about the globalisation of trade without a global currency and without global lifecost standards).

The point is: how much of the plusvalue the worker created gets back into the worker's pockets? How much work did the chinese capitalist put into his industry? Is the capitalist taking profit proportionally to the amount of the work he made for the industry, or is he taking the workers' part also?

I'd say the capitalist is taking way much more than what he would, were he to take ONLY the plusvalue he produced. This defines exploitation in a capitalist system of mass production. A capitalist society doesn't (necessarily) need slave labour.

Well I don't know how much the ability to make candles is worth exactly, but one good reason I heard for the high added cost that Wal-Mart puts on is due to PPP. Wal-Mart of course has some overhead, but what you said makes sense.

The total amount of wealth in the world is not a constant, and the "nihil ex nihilo" rule (from nothing you get nothing again) applies to physical quantities only. Wealth isn't a physical quantity. Wealth is a phenomenon of human societies. Wealth is created by humans through work.

The problem is that often (and I'm afraid that you're doing exactly this) people mix the concepts of work, value and price, which are quite different. I'm no economist, so I won't attempt a precise definition of those here. Anyway, one can get an intuitive idea of what they are.

Money, also, has a nasty tendency to switch between the realm of price and the realm of value.

I am probably doing exactly that. But wealth that does not have the backing of something solid, like resources or capital, doesn't strike me as worth very much. Just sayin'. And neither resources nor capital can be created from nothing, as far as I know.

*considers founding the Saevitian Archipelago School of Economics. but that would be far too much trouble and would require me to actually learn something.*

I am probably doing exactly that. But wealth that does not have the backing of something solid, like resources or capital, doesn't strike me as worth very much. Just sayin'. And neither resources nor capital can be created from nothing, as far as I know.

*considers founding the Saevitian Archipelago School of Economics. but that would be far too much trouble and would require me to actually learn something.*

Wait. Resources are physical and cannot be created out of nothing.
Capital isn't physical AND it can be created out of nothing: it's called inflation! A common tool to create wealth (temporarily) even when you don't have value to justify it. Which takes us back to the difference between value and price.

Capital isn't very solid, because capital is money, and money is, after all, just a very complicated game we humans use to play to simplify barter and to define social superstructures.

Well I don't know how much the ability to make candles is worth exactly

You're talking price here; I was talking value.
The price is the amount of money you have to give in exchange for a good (material, like candles, or immaterial, like ability) you want to acquire.

The value is a concept more closely linked to (in ultimate analysis) the amount of energy needed to produce a good starting from scratch (that is, from a naked worker with only the things you can find in nature as tools, and no instructions on how to do it); also, inside the concept of value there are considerations about the contingent usefulness of said good. A 24kt gold bar has value zero to someone who's drowing in the middle of the Atlantic.

Again, not really.

Let's say I was paid $5 to make the shirt, and the materials cost an extra $4. It's worth $9.

I sell it to you for $20. I make $11 and you gain a $9 shirt. Whether I was willing to sell it for $13 or you were willing to buy it for $25 is irrelevant: I make a profit of $2 from your hard-earned cash. The $5 you could have gained or the $7 I could have gained are the province of capitalism, which is why it leads to economic crises when I do in fact have to sell my $9 shirt for $9.

I'm sorry, but something is not worth what it cost to make, its worth whatever someone will pay for it. That is why some things, like trash, have a negative value and you have to pay someone to take it. Free trade creates invisible wealth, I learned about this in economics class. Its called bonus surplus value or something, I forget.

in capitalism, you don't have much of a choice. either you work for someone and sell yourself for money, or starve. under a planned economy, you do what you're told, or starve. there's not that much difference to me. one way or another most people are always under somebody else's thumb, being exploited in some way. the only way to not be is a) live in the wilderness off your own resources, b) be top of the pile in capitalism, or c) work for yourself (which, itself, is fraught with issues however)

True economic freedom menas the feds do not touch my precious money.

My poor precious money going to help others... It makes me so sad.:$

In the free market, you are free to give how much money you want, when you want, to whomever you wish.

So, Chinese Commies are the new Capitalist Pigs?...

Weird, lol...Well, I guess this is Change I suppose...

Sounds good.



This is the problem. capitalism is founded on the inequal distribution of wealth, so can never be used to lift all of humanity out of poverty - poverty strengthens capitalism. Our reccent history gives the appearance that capitalism has indeed lifted the people out of poverty, but in truth poverty has just been redistributed to outside of the West. A system that is based on greed can never alone achieve something as altruistic as universal economic emancipation.

Capitalism is founded on the idea that the free trade of capital on the market allows an individual to create personal surplus, develop enterprise and utilise others to produce additional surplus. There exists both sufficient capital, and sufficient goods on the planet to allow the entire current population to live comfortably. In the last few centuries we've seen historic norm of a few thousand global fortunate, and millions in poverty, become more and more balanced, and there now exists sufficient overall surplus for capitalism to one day allow every individual to enjoy a comfortable existence.

Capitalism has not exported poverty, it cannot, and does not, poverty exists throughout and world and has existed for a long time. Through economic engagement many communities are less poor, not wealthy yet, but less poor than they were decades ago.

It is also a fallacy to assume capitalism is inherently greedy, that's an ethical call that speaks to personal values, and not to the human rights of free market participation, ownership, and disposal of property. Many of the world's wealthiest and leading capitalists are among the most generous, even when analysed comparatively to lower income brackets.

Ultimately, the free market is about the right, the freedom, and chose to carve out your own destiny, and it is up to you what that destiny will bring to your fellow human beings.

http://i43.tinypic.com/10rsuox.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation

In political economy, economics, and sociology, exploitation involves a persistent social relationship in which certain persons are being mistreated or unfairly used for the benefit of others. This corresponds to one ethical conception of exploitation, that is, the treatment of human beings as mere means to an end — or as mere "objects". In different terms, "exploitation" refers to the use of people as a resource, with little or no consideration of their well-being. This can take the following basic forms:

taking something off a person or group that rightfully belongs to them
short-changing people in trade
directly or indirectly forcing somebody to work
using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge
imposing an arbitrary differential treatment of people to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others (as in ascriptive discrimination)


I think Capitalism does exploit to some degree but what we may see as exploitation may be seen as opportunity to those who work in the candle factory in question. The concept of a "fair" wage is very difficult to workout. I guess we are lead to believe that the cost of living is much lower in China therefor they are able to offer these deep discounts. It would be up to those workers in Chia to rise up and start a union or whatever if the wage was unfair.

In response to the OP: it is culturally ignorant and most likely wrong to suppose that without the candle factory the Chinese worker would be destitute and helpless. The Chinese have been around a lot longer than MNCs have, and survived somehow beforehand. They might have been subsistence farmers, but their existences probably were not "worst" (its difficult to use such words since they are subjective, but you know what I mean) than they are now.

Cultural change is not social Darwinism! It is nondirectional!

Best thing to do in this case is if you feel you have a moral problem with workers being exploited then do not buy Chinese candles at Walmart. In fact don't stop there you can stop buying anything from China and/or anyplace else that mistreats their workers. Vote with your dollars. This can be very difficult to do these days but it is not impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation

Critics of foreign companies allege, for instance, that firms such as Nike and Gap Inc. resort to child labor and sweatshops in developing nations, paying their workers wages far lower than those that prevail in developed nations (where the products are sold). This, it is argued, is insufficient to allow workers to attain the local subsistence standard of living if working hours common in the first world are observed, so that working hours much longer than in the first world are necessary. It is also argued that work conditions in these developing-world factories are much less safe and much more unhealthy than in the first world. For example, observers point to cases where employees were unable to escape factories burning down — and thus dying — because of locked doors, a common signal that sweatshop conditions exist. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 was another example, but it occurred in the US, so the first world of then is the equivalent of the third world of today.

So stop buying Nike and Gap stuff. Even better would be to write them and tell them why you are not buying their products. If enough people do this they may re-think their positions.

Best thing to do in this case is if you feel you have a moral problem with workers being exploited then do not buy Chinese candles at Walmart. In fact don't stop there you can stop buying anything from China and/or anyplace else that mistreats their workers. Vote with your dollars. This can be very difficult to do these days but it is not impossible.

This is what I already do, and I know at least one other NS poster that plays the same game.

So stop buying Nike and Gap stuff. Even better would be to write them and tell them why you are not buying their products. If enough people do this they may re-think their positions.
I wish this worked, but unfortunately most people don't have the ability to stop buying the products of such labor because they are inherently less expensive.

One thing we like to forget is that for all its flaws, capitalism has achieved what no other system in human history could: lifting the majority of the population out of poverty. Humanity has spent the bulk of its existence on the brink of poverty, and we now enjoy surplus. Sure, millions remain in poverty, but if we look at long term historical trends, we're actually still increasing the base of people living in surplus.

The is of course, the counter-argument our entire system is a fictional house of cards based on the faulty assumption that surplus can exist in the face of insurmountable credit debt

Try about 3 billion, that live on $10 a day. If you were into the millions game, about 760 million don't have electricity in just Asia. The way capitalism is working on a global level (the World Bank and it's debt collections, etc) shows it's an exploitative game killing people like flies in Africa (a cliched image, no doubt) while you comparatively live in luxury, owning a computer and an Internet connection. Of course, I live the same way, so I'd be a hypocrite if I was criticizing you, but I'm just stating facts given (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1).

Capitalism does involve exploitation.

I read an article about some village (or was it a town) in china. They get all the recycled electronic parts. People are paid to take them apart by hand. There are abnormal cancer rates, birth defects, etc.

Problem is they can make more money then they can anywhere else. So they do the job and hope they don't get something......

Try about 3 billion, that live on $10 a day. If you were into the millions game, about 760 million don't have electricity in just Asia. The way capitalism is working on a global level (the World Bank and it's debt collections, etc) shows it's an exploitative game killing people like flies in Africa (a cliched image, no doubt) while you comparatively live in luxury, owning a computer and an Internet connection. Of course, I live the same way, so I'd be a hypocrite if I was criticizing you, but I'm just stating facts given (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1).

So over 3 Billion now live outside of poverty? Was it communism that did that? Socialism? Feudalism? No, it was our favourite enemy free market capitalism. Under capitalism, poverty in the third world continues to decline, infant mortality is lowering, and literacy is growing http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20153855~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html#trends

Is Capitalism Exploitation?

Long answer, "Yes" with an "if"; short answer "No" with a "but".[/Lovejoy]

One thing we like to forget is that for all its flaws, capitalism has achieved what no other system in human history could: lifting the majority of the population out of poverty.


I doubt this "majority of the population" thingy. Since:
about 800 M Chinese, iirc, live in the countryside on the brink of outright poverty
poverty in India is quite widespread
the greatest part of the african population, and significant parts of the south-american population are poor
even in G8 countries there are significant amounts of poor people (Italy's statistics are quite horrible, but I don't recall the USA having better ones)


...I'd say that the majority of the world's population is still poor.

Of course capitalism is better than, let's say, merchantilism powered by slave labour, or than feudal society. This doesn't mean that it will always be the best society we can get.

Long story short, I just got out of Philosophy class and we were talking about capitalism. My professor detailed a process by which candles that are made in China, are sold in America. The catch is that the factory in China makes $.05 profit from each candle and Wal-Mart makes $2.00 profit from each candle sold. And the average Chinese worker earns $100 a month.

Is this a model of exploitation? I argued that it isn't exploitation because everyone involved in the process, from the Chinese candle maker to the shopper at Wal-Mart, participated voluntarily.

Of course, then there is the argument that the Chinese worker has no other choice but to work in the candle factory for rice money and is thus reduced to slavery. This is a different situation that would be the classic Marxist example of the working class being exploited, but my argument to that, is that without this system, there would be no candles, and the Chinese worker would have no job and no rice money.

The reality, as we discussed in class, is that many rural Chinese living in simple farm communities, are being attracted to cities by factory wages. That sounds like a choice to me, but I want to hear what you guys think of course.

Nope it is not exploitation.

You're talking price here; I was talking value.
The price is the amount of money you have to give in exchange for a good (material, like candles, or immaterial, like ability) you want to acquire.

The value is a concept more closely linked to (in ultimate analysis) the amount of energy needed to produce a good starting from scratch (that is, from a naked worker with only the things you can find in nature as tools, and no instructions on how to do it); also, inside the concept of value there are considerations about the contingent usefulness of said good. A 24kt gold bar has value zero to someone who's drowing in the middle of the Atlantic.

Depends on how big the bar is. After all, gold is less dense than water, and could make for a very expensive life raft. ;)

Depends on how big the bar is. After all, gold is less dense than water, and could make for a very expensive life raft. ;)

Mmhh.

(unless you can beat it, extremely quickly, into a boat, that is...) :tongue:

I know you're writing it just in case some moron would be willing to try a REAL deluxe floater.

It can be. It isn't necessarily.

Try about 3 billion, that live on $10 a day. If you were into the millions game, about 760 million don't have electricity in just Asia...Of course, I live the same way, so I'd be a hypocrite if I was criticizing you, but I'm just stating facts given (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1)

The links internal to the site are broken, but...

The way capitalism is working on a global level (the World Bank and it's debt collections, etc)

Ah, the bogeyman of the Bretton-Woods institutions. Do tell me how the World Bank is exploitative? How is providing recovery and development loans to struggling states a bad thing? Or is it just really mean because it makes these loans contingent on states embracing sound fiscal and economic policies, rather than pie-in-the-sky utopianism?

shows it's an exploitative game killing people like flies in Africa (a cliched image, no doubt)

The fact that the problems of Africa--especially the interior states--have more to do with geography than anything else, makes your linking of it to the Bank very tenuous. After all, the lack of access to the oceanic shipping lanes cripples the ability to develop an export economy, non-navigable rivers hinder internal trade flows, and the tropical climate fosters lethal diseases, such as malaria. There are more advanced countries in Africa, but according to the HDI, they tend to be around the periphery. The lack of access to the global economy is hurting the interior of Africa, and they have their neighbors to thank for that.

while you comparatively live in luxury, owning a computer and an Internet connection. .
Not my fault.

Mmhh.

(unless you can beat it, extremely quickly, into a boat, that is...) :tongue:

I know you're writing it just in case some moron would be willing to try a REAL deluxe floater.

Ssssssshhhh! We're trying to carry out natural selection in action!

The big problem with capitalism is greed.

Most people blame the banks for the current world crisis, but as a matter of fact they are all partly guilty due greed. We all like super growing investments and we are all blind for things which are not possible.

There is a nice economic law that says: "if it sounds too good to be true then it usually is"

However, we still dance from bubble to inflation to crisis.

I can predict what will be the next bubble: the 'green' industry aka windpower, photovoltaic cells and stuff.
We will soon invest tons of money in that industry, the presidents and politicians will cry out loud about the new holly grail and the press will follow.

And you, 'dumb s*cker', you will hand over your money, you will wait too long to drop your stocks cause you suffer from silly greed. And then you'll yell that it are all liars and that the world is rotten.

It is sometimes unbelievable how dumb greedy people are. Few weeks ago on the news, some guy who worked for a bank, invested in the past all his money in that same bank. Now he lost his job and his 1 million Euro fortune is just a nice memory.

How greedy can you be to put *all* in one single stock? And we are talking about a smart guy, an insider, who should know better.

There's nothing inherent in the definition that says we can't both profit, nor is there reason to believe in closed systems. Just because you helped me profit, doesn't mean you didn't take selfish advantage, and doesn't mean our overall trade was fair... much less, to other people.

right, but it could be fair. For example I employ you, you utilize some amount of my capital, marketing, and branding for the products you produce, and in return I get a cut of the profits from your work. Assuming the percentages are "fair" however one defines it, it'd say that the above would not be exploitation. I'm not sure what you mean by involving other people, as in people who buy the product, or people who are incidentally affected by our pollution, something else?

As for pollution, thats sort of incidental to our existence, and could have little to no effect on others (in fact it usually doesn't affect anything).

In most cases, buyers are buying a product at a reasonable price, so I don't think exploitation is likely in that area (except in cases of monopoly, this seems to hold)

Ssssssshhhh! We're trying to carry out natural selection in action!

You evil Darwinist.

Darwinist as in Darwin Awards, that is.

:D:D:D

I doubt this "majority of the population" thingy. Since:
about 800 M Chinese, iirc, live in the countryside on the brink of outright poverty
poverty in India is quite widespread
the greatest part of the african population, and significant parts of the south-american population are poor
even in G8 countries there are significant amounts of poor people (Italy's statistics are quite horrible, but I don't recall the USA having better ones)


...I'd say that the majority of the world's population is still poor.

Of course capitalism is better than, let's say, merchantilism powered by slave labour, or than feudal society. This doesn't mean that it will always be the best society we can get.

This is the part I don't get. Those are the current situation, but how was it before capitalism (if such a thing can be said), and what will the future behold? he said lifting, not has lifted, and if what another poster said was accurate, already 1/2 of the people alive aren't poor. Frankly the way you put it sounds like the Obama is a failure people, making a judgment before there has been sufficient time to decide, and for the thing to have any effect. I'd also like to note that "poverty" in the US or any other of the G8 usually involves food, clean water and housing (not to mention electricity, health care, plumbing, etc.) while poverty in shitty countries actually sucks.

right, but it could be fair. For example I employ you, you utilize some amount of my capital, marketing, and branding for the products you produce, and in return I get a cut of the profits from your work. Assuming the percentages are "fair" however one defines it, it'd say that the above would not be exploitation. I'm not sure what you mean by involving other people, as in people who buy the product, or people who are incidentally affected by our pollution, something else?

As for pollution, thats sort of incidental to our existence, and could have little to no effect on others (in fact it usually doesn't affect anything).

In most cases, buyers are buying a product at a reasonable price, so I don't think exploitation is likely in that area (except in cases of monopoly, this seems to hold)

I think you're working on the misassumption that exploitation has to be a big deal. If you're gouging the customer by a million dollars a unit, that's exploitation, but if you're charging them even a penny over a fair value, that's exploitation, too - you're exploiting the demand to gain selfish advantage. Obviously, one of those is more 'unfair' than the other, but it's debatable whether either is ultimately 'fair'.

And yes - just because you and I have made our deal, doesn't mean there can be no exploitation. The guy I buy the raw materials from is going to be the biggest advantage for me - which means he's losing relative to someone else, for some reason. Maybe he's isolated, and can only provide to a limited market, which I'm capitalising on to gain my product below market average. etc.

I think you're working on the misassumption that exploitation has to be a big deal. If you're gouging the customer by a million dollars a unit, that's exploitation, but if you're charging them even a penny over a fair value, that's exploitation, too - you're exploiting the demand to gain selfish advantage. Obviously, one of those is more 'unfair' than the other, but it's debatable whether either is ultimately 'fair'.

Well, I was more concerned with fairness than anything else, I don't mind "exploitation" (quotes because I feel it would be in a different class) without unfairness.

And yes - just because you and I have made our deal, doesn't mean there can be no exploitation. The guy I buy the raw materials from is going to be the biggest advantage for me - which means he's losing relative to someone else, for some reason. Maybe he's isolated, and can only provide to a limited market, which I'm capitalising on to gain my product below market average. etc.

no argument there.

I doubt this "majority of the population" thingy. Since:
about 800 M Chinese, iirc, live in the countryside on the brink of outright poverty
poverty in India is quite widespread
the greatest part of the african population, and significant parts of the south-american population are poor
even in G8 countries there are significant amounts of poor people (Italy's statistics are quite horrible, but I don't recall the USA having better ones)


...I'd say that the majority of the world's population is still poor.

Of course capitalism is better than, let's say, merchantilism powered by slave labour, or than feudal society. This doesn't mean that it will always be the best society we can get.

Less than 3 billion people live in poverty, the world population hit 6,706,993,152 in July of last year, ergo, the majority of population do not live in poverty.

The big problem with capitalism is greed.

<snip>
That isn't a capitalist problem, though, that is a human trait. Greed is the same reason tyranny and communism have failed in the past

Less than 3 billion people live in poverty, the world population hit 6,706,993,152 in July of last year, ergo, the majority of population do not live in poverty.

The problem is A) Youd have to define poverty...and make it a definition that fits all nations and cultures...

and B) there would still be a difference between Poverty and Poor, and either one sucks balls...

If Capitalism isnt exploitation, then your not doing it right.

Less than 3 billion people live in poverty, the world population hit 6,706,993,152 in July of last year, ergo, the majority of population do not live in poverty.

To put it in perspective, the number of people living on less than $1 (real) per day has fallen from 40% of the world's population in the early 80's to under 20% today despite an almost 50% increase in global population during the same period. In a generation, absolute global poverty has been reduced by half...that's a profound accomplishment that would not have happened were it not for capitalism. Of course, that still means there's a massive amount of work to do, but given the progress in such a short period of time there is no reason to believe it won't continue.

Long story short, I just got out of Philosophy class and we were talking about capitalism. My professor detailed a process by which candles that are made in China, are sold in America. The catch is that the factory in China makes $.05 profit from each candle and Wal-Mart makes $2.00 profit from each candle sold. And the average Chinese worker earns $100 a month.

Is this a model of exploitation? I argued that it isn't exploitation because everyone involved in the process, from the Chinese candle maker to the shopper at Wal-Mart, participated voluntarily.

Of course, then there is the argument that the Chinese worker has no other choice but to work in the candle factory for rice money and is thus reduced to slavery. This is a different situation that would be the classic Marxist example of the working class being exploited, but my argument to that, is that without this system, there would be no candles, and the Chinese worker would have no job and no rice money.

The reality, as we discussed in class, is that many rural Chinese living in simple farm communities, are being attracted to cities by factory wages. That sounds like a choice to me, but I want to hear what you guys think of course.



"Capitalism is man exploiting man, Communism is vice versa"

- Professor Soldan

...that's a profound accomplishment that would not have happened were it not for capitalism.

The only reason the world is slightly non-spherical is because of capitalism.

Capitalism is intrinsically exploitation. The need for me to make advantage means it costs you something. It's only ever a question of degree.

Well, the same could be said of life itself. For me to eat, something somewhere has to die. Probably a lot of things, in fact. Like the God-Emperor of Man, I require a daily sacrifice of multitudes to sustain me.

The problem is A) Youd have to define poverty...and make it a definition that fits all nations and cultures...

and B) there would still be a difference between Poverty and Poor, and either one sucks balls...

A kindly soul has answered this for me:

To put it in perspective, the number of people living on less than $1 (real) per day has fallen from 40% of the world's population in the early 80's to under 20% today despite an almost 50% increase in global population during the same period. In a generation, absolute global poverty has been reduced by half...that's a profound accomplishment that would not have happened were it not for capitalism. Of course, that still means there's a massive amount of work to do, but given the progress in such a short period of time there is no reason to believe it won't continue.

There is a long way to go, but considering the rate we're moving at, we have reason to be optimistic

The only reason the world is slightly non-spherical is because of capitalism.

Nah, the Free Market wouldve gotten us a Perfect Sphere :p


Its those damn Socialitzts meddling...

Well, the same could be said of life itself. For me to eat, something somewhere has to die. Probably a lot of things, in fact. Like the God-Emperor of Man, I require a daily sacrifice of multitudes to sustain me.

Which... is agreement?

The only reason the world is slightly non-spherical is because of capitalism.

Well, considering that communism was responsible for much of that poverty, it sort of leaves free-market capitalism as the only real explanation as to how poverty has diminshed so greatly in the past 25 years. The biggest decline in absolute poverty is happening in East Asia, not coincidentally the same place most heavily devastated by communist mismanagement of every facet of the economic and social systems.

Nah, the Free Market wouldve gotten us a Perfect Sphere :p


Its those damn Socialitzts meddling...


Nah, socialism would have equalised the distribution of roundness. The less regulated the market, the more ovoid the planet. Ever wonder why the world is fattest in the nice bits, and thinnest in the less desirable real-estate?

Which... is agreement?

Certainly, in that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about 'exploitation' nor, by extension, capitalism.

Well, considering that communism was responsible for much of that poverty, it sort of leaves free-market capitalism as the only real explanation as to how poverty has diminshed so greatly in the past 25 years. The biggest decline in absolute poverty is happening in East Asia, not coincidentally the same place most heavily devastated by communist mismanagement of every facet of the economic and social systems.

Considering that monkeys are responsible for the plantation of banana trees, it sort of leaves sloths as the only real explanation for why bananas have continued to grow in the last 25 years. The biggest growth in banana plants is in the equatorial climes, not coincidentally the same places that monkey technology has seeded with mushroom and onion systems.

Certainly, in that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about 'exploitation' nor, by extension, capitalism.

I didn't say there was?

Personally, I do think there's 'anything inherently wrong' about both things - but it's not what I said, so I am a little confused by the responses you gave.

I didn't say there was?

Personally, I do think there's 'anything inherently wrong' about both things - but it's not what I said, so I am a little confused by the responses you gave.

I didn't say you said there was? I'm putting forth my opinion on the subject and used an analogy based on your comment to do so.

I didn't say you said there was? I'm putting forth my opinion on the subject and used an analogy based on your comment to do so.

Ah - so not actually a response to me. Okies. The first one seemed to be phrased like a kind of counter-argument, but ultimately agreed with me... it left me confuzzled.

One thing we like to forget is that for all its flaws, capitalism has achieved what no other system in human history could: lifting the majority of the population out of poverty.

indeed. any socialist worth his/her salt knows that capitalism is a very effective system for generating wealth. its what you do with that wealth afterwards that socialism tries to answer, and to fix some of the problems in capitalism. people who deny capitalism doesn't have its uses, or that it isn't effective at what it does, is perhaps a tad too idealistic. but, to me, those who say that capitalism has no problems, is equally as mistaken. slightly off topic, i know, since in my view neither socialism, in any of its many guises, nor capitalism solve the issue of dependency and exploitation.

The Marxist definition of exploitation is correct. The workers produce the value, and capitalists take most of the profits.

Imagine I buy gardening equipment, and start up a gardening business. I hire workers to do all the work. I make more money than any of these workers, while doing nothing, because I own the equipment (the means of production).

This is how our whole society works. I don't see any way in which this is not exploitation. I believe in socialism more broadly, where the community owns the means of production. But lets make it simple, for arguments sake. Lets say we simply want worker ownership of the means of production. Using the gardening business, it means all the gardeners own the business equally, and each makes the value of his/her labor, which is presumably equal. Again, imagine extending this to a broad scale.

There are problems with this model involving the issue of competition and needs not being met, which is why I find this model insufficient. However, to argue that capitalist ownership of the means of production is necessary to produce wealth seems absurd when seen in this light.

There are problems with this model involving the issue of competition and needs not being met, which is why I find this model insufficient. However, to argue that capitalist ownership of the means of production is necessary to produce wealth seems absurd when seen in this light.

Capitalist ownership is 100% necessary to produce the high living standards seen today in the OCED. While workers can pool their resources to own and operate businesses (and there are successful models of such), they are universally small, somewhat local, and most importantly none of those businesses are in fields that are extremely capital-intensive. A vast majority of the things we rely on today could not exist without capitalism, either in its free-market form or its statist form where the government replaces the conventional "capitalists" with top-level government bureaucrats.

For example, a group of people could pool their resources to buy a printing press, or several for $100,000 each to produce books; with a fairly small number of people, the average contribution falls to an easily manageable level. However, the cost of an average facility for making semiconductors and other electronic components can easily cost billions; even if the workers put in every single dollar they owned in to the plant, it would require tens or even hundreds of thousands of people to raise that kind of money. Other facilities might cost even more such as nuclear power plants and automotive factories.

Clearly, it's implausible and unrealistic to ever conceive of these developments occurring without equity and debt capital provided through the sale of shares in the corporation or borrowed from banks. At that level, the tradeoffs are so great that it's a completely uneconomical disaster to run a business in that fashion and so these specialized and wealthy entities are necessary to make it possible to produce all but the most basic goods and services.

Considering that monkeys are responsible for the plantation of banana trees, it sort of leaves sloths as the only real explanation for why bananas have continued to grow in the last 25 years. The biggest growth in banana plants is in the equatorial climes, not coincidentally the same places that monkey technology has seeded with mushroom and onion systems.

I take it you have no argument against visible and unequivocal facts?

The correlation is clear and unmistakable; capitalism is directly responsible for falling global poverty rates around the world and in many cases has been able to rapidly rebuild economies devastated by communist mismanagement in a short period of time.

I take it you have no argument against visible and unequivocal facts?


I take it you typed a load of speculation of the most random kind, as did I... only mine was fun.


The correlation is clear and unmistakable; capitalism is directly responsible for falling global poverty rates around the world and in many cases has been able to rapidly rebuild economies devastated by communist mismanagement in a short period of time.

The correlation is not clear and unmistakable. You can't show the demise being due to 'communism', because you'd have to look at dictatorships with poor food-supply problems, for the bulk of your data. You similarly can't show that 'capitalism' is responsible for the decline in poverty rates. Sure - you WANT that to be the cause, but what you 'want' ultimately doesn't matter.

I take it you typed a load of speculation of the most random kind, as did I... only mine was fun.

Shit, I've got three more hours until I turn 21. Cut me some slack. ;)

The correlation is not clear and unmistakable. You can't show the demise being due to 'communism', because you'd have to look at dictatorships with poor food-supply problems, for the bulk of your data. You similarly can't show that 'capitalism' is responsible for the decline in poverty rates. Sure - you WANT that to be the cause, but what you 'want' ultimately doesn't matter.

Global economic freedom has increased dramatically. During the same time, poverty has also decreased dramatically, most drastically in countries that showed the greatest increase in economic freedom. There's a pretty strong link.

Long story short, I just got out of Philosophy class and we were talking about capitalism. My professor detailed a process by which candles that are made in China, are sold in America. The catch is that the factory in China makes $.05 profit from each candle and Wal-Mart makes $2.00 profit from each candle sold. And the average Chinese worker earns $100 a month.

Is this a model of exploitation? I argued that it isn't exploitation because everyone involved in the process, from the Chinese candle maker to the shopper at Wal-Mart, participated voluntarily.

Of course, then there is the argument that the Chinese worker has no other choice but to work in the candle factory for rice money and is thus reduced to slavery. This is a different situation that would be the classic Marxist example of the working class being exploited, but my argument to that, is that without this system, there would be no candles, and the Chinese worker would have no job and no rice money.

The reality, as we discussed in class, is that many rural Chinese living in simple farm communities, are being attracted to cities by factory wages. That sounds like a choice to me, but I want to hear what you guys think of course.
It isn't quite slavery. But in terms of ethics, yes, it is exploitation to cash in on how they don't have better alternatives, even if they're providing another option in the process; what they're providing isn't a very good one. This is part of the problem with having a global economy and not a global society; provide more employee protection in some countries, and companies will take jobs to countries with less employee protection.

If only there was some way to enforce employee protection worldwide... that would imply a world government, though, and the closest thing we have to that now is the UN, which can't even enforce their own laws, so I doubt you could expect them to enforce ours. And if we were to resort to a new world order, that would be remarkably unpopular, partly due to nationalism, and partly due to the reasonably legitimate fear that you can't escape a power-mad world-government.

So it's up to us as consumers in the western world to go for the more ethical options when they're given to us. For example, if you're at a coffee shop and you have the option between fair trade and not fair trade, go for the fair trade. When businesspeople see an increasing proportion of the profits coming from customers who go for the more ethically made products, it might give them the impression that it's profitable to do what's right.

The big problem with capitalism is greed.


Funny, I would argue that the best part about capitalism is greed. Greed, like exploitation, is not inherently evil and can be used to get people to cooperate. If you want to organize people, it seems the first the you should do is assume that they are all self interested.

If you want to organize people, it seems the first the you should do is assume that they are all self interested.

I, personally, would use this knowledge to ensure that noone ends up in a position that can exploit anyone, however...

I, personally, would use this knowledge to ensure that noone ends up in a position that can exploit anyone, however...

That would be an excellent system, if it exsisted

Capitalism is founded on the idea that the free trade of capital on the market allows an individual to create personal surplus, develop enterprise and utilise others to produce additional surplus. There exists both sufficient capital, and sufficient goods on the planet to allow the entire current population to live comfortably. In the last few centuries we've seen historic norm of a few thousand global fortunate, and millions in poverty, become more and more balanced, and there now exists sufficient overall surplus for capitalism to one day allow every individual to enjoy a comfortable existence.

Capitalism has not exported poverty, it cannot, and does not, poverty exists throughout and world and has existed for a long time. Through economic engagement many communities are less poor, not wealthy yet, but less poor than they were decades ago.

It is also a fallacy to assume capitalism is inherently greedy, that's an ethical call that speaks to personal values, and not to the human rights of free market participation, ownership, and disposal of property. Many of the world's wealthiest and leading capitalists are among the most generous, even when analysed comparatively to lower income brackets.

Ultimately, the free market is about the right, the freedom, and chose to carve out your own destiny, and it is up to you what that destiny will bring to your fellow human beings.

this

Capitalism is another way for men to exploit each other, Communism is the same thing only in reverse. So are religion, politics, and most other social ideals.

Shit, I've got three more hours until I turn 21. Cut me some slack. ;)


Sweet. Happy birthday. :)


Global economic freedom has increased dramatically. During the same time, poverty has also decreased dramatically, most drastically in countries that showed the greatest increase in economic freedom. There's a pretty strong link.

'Global economic freedom has increased dramatically' - I'm not sure I even buy that. Regional economic 'freedom' has increased in several places, at the expense of fairness. At the same time, several agencies have actually targetted poverty, and some formerly poor nations have had some removal of dictatorial imposition or imperial opposition (like the softening and aid towards the former USSR and China).

That's the point of the thing - you can't just turn around and lay it at the feet of 'capitalism'. If you embargo North Korea, and you encourage trade with South Korea, what's the objective measure of the two models of economy?

that's a profound accomplishment that would not have happened were it not for capitalism
That is a very, very bold statement.

Well, considering that communism was responsible for much of that poverty, it sort of leaves free-market capitalism as the only real explanation as to how poverty has diminshed

Oh yes, because nothing else has changed since those times.

Funny, I would argue that the best part about capitalism is greed. Greed, like exploitation, is not inherently evil and can be used to get people to cooperate. If you want to organize people, it seems the first the you should do is assume that they are all self interested.
I think the point was more so that greed is the real problem, not capitalism itself. I think capitalism harnesses greed, (ie. the "it is not from the benevolence of the baker" approach of Adam Smith) while socialism focuses on fighting it, but even still, I think there need to be certain regulations (ie. employee protection, some public services) to help protect the less well off...

The total amount of wealth in the world is a constant.
No, it isn't.

The value of a given good or service (and therefore the total amount of wealth in the world) is solely determined by how much utility it gives someone. If my bicycle only gives me three utilons but it gives you five, whereas your pen only gives you two utilons but gives me four, if I give you my bicycle in exchange for your pen, we have created more wealth because together, we are now enjoying nine utilons of utility rather than five--and not only that, each of us is enjoying more utility than he did before.

No, it isn't.

The value of a given good or service (and therefore the total amount of wealth in the world) is solely determined by how much utility it gives someone. If my bicycle only gives me three utilons but it gives you five, whereas your pen only gives you two utilons but gives me four, if I give you my bicycle in exchange for your pen, we have created more wealth because together, we are now enjoying nine utilons of utility rather than five--and not only that, each of us is enjoying more utility than he did before.

Best argument for communism I ever saw.

No, it isn't.

The value of a given good or service (and therefore the total amount of wealth in the world) is solely determined by how much utility it gives someone. If my bicycle only gives me three utilons but it gives you five, whereas your pen only gives you two utilons but gives me four, if I give you my bicycle in exchange for your pen, we have created more wealth because together, we are now enjoying nine utilons of utility rather than five--and not only that, each of us is enjoying more utility than he did before.

Your concept is right, but the measure of utility is a "utile", not a "utilon".

It's exploitation only if there's a sign on my house that says "Dead Fetus Storage"

Capitalist ownership is 100% necessary to produce the high living standards seen today in the OCED. While workers can pool their resources to own and operate businesses (and there are successful models of such), they are universally small, somewhat local, and most importantly none of those businesses are in fields that are extremely capital-intensive. A vast majority of the things we rely on today could not exist without capitalism, either in its free-market form or its statist form where the government replaces the conventional "capitalists" with top-level government bureaucrats.

For example, a group of people could pool their resources to buy a printing press, or several for $100,000 each to produce books; with a fairly small number of people, the average contribution falls to an easily manageable level. However, the cost of an average facility for making semiconductors and other electronic components can easily cost billions; even if the workers put in every single dollar they owned in to the plant, it would require tens or even hundreds of thousands of people to raise that kind of money. Other facilities might cost even more such as nuclear power plants and automotive factories.

Clearly, it's implausible and unrealistic to ever conceive of these developments occurring without equity and debt capital provided through the sale of shares in the corporation or borrowed from banks. At that level, the tradeoffs are so great that it's a completely uneconomical disaster to run a business in that fashion and so these specialized and wealthy entities are necessary to make it possible to produce all but the most basic goods and services.
I think there are some issues in this still competitive market economy, which is why socialists have generally argued that the community as a whole needs to own the means of production. However, it may also be true that not all of our goods are necessary, and that a lot more things should be local when possible.