4 ms·

There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism

There's a difference between having less choices by being less wealthy than being forced by others to do things. Can you point out an example in pure capitalism where people are forced by others and not the laws of nature?

Analemma_ 8y ago
Is there really, though? If I can't do X, then I can't do X: whether that's from an oppressive government or my own lack of wealth as the result of a rigged economic system is a distinction without a difference.
- thinkloop 8y ago
  From what I see labour has become less valuable now than previously, and capital (land, resources, robots, AI, etc.) has become more valuable and therefore more highly rewarded. Whereas previously you needed thousands of workers to produce something, now you can create enormous wealth with much fewer. Craigslist at one point was making hundreds of millions of dollars with just 19 employees (they had the record for revenue per employee at one point). What's a specific example of the rigged'ness?
Emma_Goldman 8y ago
There's a difference between someone physically constraining you so that you can't eat and from not having enough money to eat, but that doesn't mean the one is free in the latter case. Indeed, presumably one does not want to be physically stopped from eating because one wants to eat - i.e. substantively we want to be free to do things, and can only do things if society grants us the means to. What are 'the laws of nature'?!!?
- thinkloop 8y ago
  The laws of nature are simply that life is inherently a struggle. Imagine being born on a planet with no-one else, if you don't gather food and build shelter you will die. You are constantly on a path of poverty and death unless you fight against it. Since humans are social creatures that love each other we don't like letting that happen to others even if they can't create enough value to sustain themselves. But once society gets big and anonymous enough, that requires force (taking something from someone else that provides greater net happiness for them both). For the record I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force and reduces freedom.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    One could just as well make the opposite argument (and many have, mostly famously Rousseau): humans originally lived in a condition of equanimity and plenty and it was the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies which you ascribe to 'the laws of nature'. IMO there is no 'neutral' description of the abstract nature of the social condition as such. All forms of social organisation require force. Capitalism is based on a particular configuration of property and contract relations established and upheld through coercion. It is not 'neutral' or 'natural'.
    - thinkloop 8y ago
      > the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies Wait are you arguing for or against social cooperation? I would definitely disagree that social organization cause more harm than good. I would say that it is humanity single most important strength. Imagine a place with complete anarchy and disorganization. > property Do you think that there was never any property? I am not sure which era you are referring to but when things are infinitely abundant relative to the population there is no need or concern for making them property. No one cares who owns which land when there is endless land. If you decided to take your fellow caveman's spear tho, you would probably get a knock on the head. Have you seen children's natural reactions and jealousy when another child takes their toys? Material is fundamental to survival, and gets more pronounced when things is scarce.
      - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
        > Do you think that there was never any property? The concept of owning land/estate other than your dwelling is very modern.

Analemma_ 8y ago

Is there really, though? If I can't do X, then I can't do X: whether that's from an oppressive government or my own lack of wealth as the result of a rigged economic system is a distinction without a difference.

thinkloop 8y ago
From what I see labour has become less valuable now than previously, and capital (land, resources, robots, AI, etc.) has become more valuable and therefore more highly rewarded. Whereas previously you needed thousands of workers to produce something, now you can create enormous wealth with much fewer. Craigslist at one point was making hundreds of millions of dollars with just 19 employees (they had the record for revenue per employee at one point). What's a specific example of the rigged'ness?

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

There's a difference between someone physically constraining you so that you can't eat and from not having enough money to eat, but that doesn't mean the one is free in the latter case. Indeed, presumably one does not want to be physically stopped from eating because one wants to eat - i.e. substantively we want to be free to do things, and can only do things if society grants us the means to. What are 'the laws of nature'?!!?

thinkloop 8y ago
The laws of nature are simply that life is inherently a struggle. Imagine being born on a planet with no-one else, if you don't gather food and build shelter you will die. You are constantly on a path of poverty and death unless you fight against it. Since humans are social creatures that love each other we don't like letting that happen to others even if they can't create enough value to sustain themselves. But once society gets big and anonymous enough, that requires force (taking something from someone else that provides greater net happiness for them both). For the record I am pro balanced socialism, just making the point that it inherently requires force and reduces freedom.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  One could just as well make the opposite argument (and many have, mostly famously Rousseau): humans originally lived in a condition of equanimity and plenty and it was the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies which you ascribe to 'the laws of nature'. IMO there is no 'neutral' description of the abstract nature of the social condition as such. All forms of social organisation require force. Capitalism is based on a particular configuration of property and contract relations established and upheld through coercion. It is not 'neutral' or 'natural'.
  - thinkloop 8y ago
    > the development of complex social organisation and property which led to all of the maladies Wait are you arguing for or against social cooperation? I would definitely disagree that social organization cause more harm than good. I would say that it is humanity single most important strength. Imagine a place with complete anarchy and disorganization. > property Do you think that there was never any property? I am not sure which era you are referring to but when things are infinitely abundant relative to the population there is no need or concern for making them property. No one cares who owns which land when there is endless land. If you decided to take your fellow caveman's spear tho, you would probably get a knock on the head. Have you seen children's natural reactions and jealousy when another child takes their toys? Material is fundamental to survival, and gets more pronounced when things is scarce.
    - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
      > Do you think that there was never any property? The concept of owning land/estate other than your dwelling is very modern.