3 ms·

>>Capitalism here is what you are doing once the accumulation of further capital becomes the principal objective of you activities. That is not the definition

>>Capitalism here is what you are doing once the accumulation of further capital becomes the principal objective of you activities. That is not the definition when used in the context of cross-economic-system analysis. Individual objectives, values and motivations are completely orthogonal to whether capitalism is in place. Eliminating capitalism doesn't mean changing people's objectives and values. It means depriving them of the right to keep what they produce and acquire in trade, and do with what they wish. And no, profiting has no relevance to exploitation. That is just Marxist pseudoscience to pathologize success. >>If you really care about freedom why are you happy with a system that means all but the very rich must spend the majority of their lives in toil? The amount that people toil has decreased largely as a result of the ruleset I mentioned, that is associated with capitalism.

cloudfifty 5y ago
> That is just Marxist pseudoscience to pathologize success That's not a serious way to argue at all. That is just emotional dogma that criticism can ultimately be traced to envy. > The amount that people toil has decreased largely as a result of the ruleset I mentioned, that is associated with capitalism. No, it hasn't.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>That's not a serious way to argue at all. There is nothing of substance to argue against. Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless. It's also extremely inflammatory, making this accusation totally irresponsible, and it unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. >>No, it hasn't. Economists who have studied development say it is: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill... http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...
  - cloudfifty 5y ago
    > Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless, extremely inflammatory, and totally irresponsible. Why? > It's totally irresponsible, and it's unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. More emotional stuff. > Economists who have studied development say it is: That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well), not that people spend their lives in toil.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      >>Why? Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. >>More emotional stuff. And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? >>That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well) Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous. A more developed economy also means more household chores become possible to automate or outsource to specialists who do them far more efficiently.
      - cloudfifty 5y ago
        > Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. Why not? > And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? Well, I guess some might be, but not all. Furthermore all critic of exploitation driven on by the profit incentive is not Marxist. > Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous No. They are still not synonymous. That's just a textbook example of goalpost shifting.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Why not? I'm not going to play this game. When someone says something is baseless, the onus is on you to show the substance behind the claim. Asking "why not" is not even relevant to the statement.
        5y ago

cloudfifty 5y ago

> That is just Marxist pseudoscience to pathologize success That's not a serious way to argue at all. That is just emotional dogma that criticism can ultimately be traced to envy. > The amount that people toil has decreased largely as a result of the ruleset I mentioned, that is associated with capitalism. No, it hasn't.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>That's not a serious way to argue at all. There is nothing of substance to argue against. Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless. It's also extremely inflammatory, making this accusation totally irresponsible, and it unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. >>No, it hasn't. Economists who have studied development say it is: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill... http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > Characterizing all profit as exploitation is completely baseless, extremely inflammatory, and totally irresponsible. Why? > It's totally irresponsible, and it's unsurprising that every society which has accepted this pseudoscientific doctrine has turned into a Hellish dystopia full of repression. More emotional stuff. > Economists who have studied development say it is: That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well), not that people spend their lives in toil.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>Why? Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. >>More emotional stuff. And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? >>That's regarding absolute poverty (which is a contested topic as well) Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous. A more developed economy also means more household chores become possible to automate or outsource to specialists who do them far more efficiently.
    - cloudfifty 5y ago
      > Because there is no basis provided for this absurd characterization. Why not? > And Marxist dogma calling profit exploitation isn't? Well, I guess some might be, but not all. Furthermore all critic of exploitation driven on by the profit incentive is not Marxist. > Absolute poverty means extreme toil. As the economy develops, wages rise and jobs become less strenuous No. They are still not synonymous. That's just a textbook example of goalpost shifting.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>Why not? I'm not going to play this game. When someone says something is baseless, the onus is on you to show the substance behind the claim. Asking "why not" is not even relevant to the statement.
        5y ago