3 ms·
Its interesting you keep using the word ‘redistribution’ for social services, when capitalism is by definition a redistribution from the poor to the rich. It’s
by dahart 5y ago
Its interesting you keep using the word ‘redistribution’ for social services, when capitalism is by definition a redistribution from the poor to the rich. It’s also demotivating for people to be trapped in poverty while their employers’ relative slice of the pie is growing year by year. Capitalism may well have slightly democratized the wealth generation process compared to some authoritarian regimes, and some economies have increased average standard of living while doing well under Capitalism, it’s not all bad, but there is certainly lots and lots and lots of room to improve. It’s also interesting to put the onus on the poor to be motivated, in a system designed by the rich that begins to fail, and we take corrective action, if our unemployment goes too low.
- nickpp 5y ago> capitalism is by definition a redistribution There is nothing to redistribute when we all have nothing - and that is our initial state. Then through capitalism value is created. Part of said value is retained by its creator - thus providing the motivation to create it in the first place. But the most value is distributed in the society (through regular consuming of goods and services), raising its level and thus pulling more people out of poverty. Just check out how dramatically poverty was reduced when Eastern European states switched from communism to capitalism.
- nec4b 5y agoI though the poor were living from social security checks. Working people trade labor for money. Are you claiming that you cannot make surplus from a salary? It seem you're claiming agreed upon salary is preventing you accumulating capital and the rich are to be blamed somehow.
- nec4b 5y agoSorry, I have replied to the wrong person. The above comment should be under beaconstudios's comment.
- dahart 5y ago> There is nothing to redistribute when we all have nothing - and that is our initial state. If the initial state is nothing, where, exactly, does the “capital” in capitalism come from? > Then through capitalism value is created. That is an amazing magical sentence. Capitalism creates value? How does it do that?
- nec4b 5y agoFrom your head, hands and environment.
- dahart 5y agoWhich question were you attempting to answer there? I assume it’s how does capitalism create value. Unfortunately, you just described labor, something common to all economic systems including communism. This doesn’t address how capitalism creates value.
- nec4b 5y agoFor me my head, my hands and the environment is the capital which creates value.
- dahart 5y agoRepeating your answer doesn’t help much. Have you studied any economics? Unfortunately, that’s not what capital means, it squarely contradicts the definitions of capital and of capitalism, and again, completely fails to answer the question. Communists have heads, hands, and environments. So do socialists, and feudalists, and aboriginal tribes, and, well, everyone. If you’re interested in learning how capitalism creates value, here are a couple of places you might start: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
- nec4b 5y ago
- nec4b 5y ago>> when capitalism is by definition a redistribution from the poor to the rich How is that physically possible, when poor people have nothing?
- beaconstudios 5y agoPoor people have labour. Everybody labours in a company (except the shareholders) and then everybody is paid a wage and the shareholders keep the profit. Thus the rich get richer as the surplus value created by labour is kept by capital. That's the core mode of capitalist production, better known as the M-C-M' cycle.