4 ms·

That's not a capitalist society. This is the correct definition for Capitalism: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are

That's not a capitalist society. This is the correct definition for Capitalism: > an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It doesn't imply voluntary social interactions, it doesn't imply some sort of protection against the "superior force" you mention. The values you enounce belong to any healthy society as voluntary social interactions happen in socialism too, where the majority (the proletariat) is protected against the use of superior force by the rich. Now, would you please explain how can social interactions be voluntary in a system where property-less people have no other choice to survive but to accept the least bad offer from those who own the means of production? Interactions can really be voluntary once neither of the parts depend on the interaction to survive. Once we free exchanges from such power play, then we can talk about will. This is why the only just and free system can be one where nobody has to struggle for the material needs necessary for their survival.

_0ffh 4y ago
And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug. Capitalism thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalists made tons of profits out of it. They also profited immensely from the now cheap and union free labor force, all thanks to the fascist police beating and arresting any unionist. There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence. It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.
  - _0ffh 4y ago
    > The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. In a system of voluntary exchange ("capitalism") they can only become wealthier if they are freely given their wealth by someone, even if that someone's not you. > I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. I hold with Kropotkin, we are a social species. As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for. The best way to make sure that is the case is to maximize that wealth. That's what free, voluntary exchange does. It's not a zero-sum game but it's always win-win. Only the economically illiterate would claim otherwise. > Capitalists thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalism made tons of profits out of it. Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct. > There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence. Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"? > It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite. That was not the argument. You got it exactly backwards.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      > Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct. This is just refuting historical truth without providing any evidence. It doesn't matter that Hitler used a kind of anticapitalis rethoric before getting in power. What happened once he did, is that the capitalist of the country got cheap and obedient labor force provided by the nazist police. They got rich out the war and the extermination of Jews as well. > Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"? No, not really. You argue for the possibility of becoming wealthy. I tell you that I don't think a right to become wealthier than others should exist, nor that people being wealthy is a guaranteed benefit for society, as shown in my examples. You also keep mixing capitalism and voluntary exchange, and again as I've proven you those are not necessarily linked. I restate this, capitalists thrived during nazi germany due to the subjugation of the labor force. > As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for. This has been disproven time and time again, you're ignoring the matter of wealth inequality. The existence of wealth improves the general life conditions of the people only if such wealth is properly distributed. All the reductions in poverty we've seen in recent times are due to the conquests of the social movements, taking from the wealthy things like healthcare, retirement, decent working hours, safety on the job, unemployment benefits, public education, etc.

_0ffh 4y ago

And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> And how would you suggest that someone could become and stay wealthy, if their only legal means to acquire wealth is to provide value to society? The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. > Would you rather take what you desire by force, under the pretense that you somehow deserve to own what others have peacefully acquired? That would be the mentality of a street thug. Capitalism thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalists made tons of profits out of it. They also profited immensely from the now cheap and union free labor force, all thanks to the fascist police beating and arresting any unionist. There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence. It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite.
- _0ffh 4y ago
  > The possibility of "someone" becoming wealthier than others has no value to me. In a system of voluntary exchange ("capitalism") they can only become wealthier if they are freely given their wealth by someone, even if that someone's not you. > I care much more about the possibility of people starving or living a terrible life due to lack of basic material needs. I hold with Kropotkin, we are a social species. As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for. The best way to make sure that is the case is to maximize that wealth. That's what free, voluntary exchange does. It's not a zero-sum game but it's always win-win. Only the economically illiterate would claim otherwise. > Capitalists thrived during Nazism and Fascism. An entire economy was born out of the extermination of the Jews, and capitalism made tons of profits out of it. Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct. > There were also wealthy people during periods where only birth right could give you wealth, and those aristocrats would not hesitate to abuse of the population with violence. Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"? > It is clear that the existence of wealthy people does not guarantee free and voluntary exchanges. If nothing, it usually pushes for the opposite. That was not the argument. You got it exactly backwards.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    > Nazism and Fascism both were self-avowedly anti-capitalist Ideologies. Insofar as neither cared for peace nor for property rights, this self-assessment must be judged entirely correct. This is just refuting historical truth without providing any evidence. It doesn't matter that Hitler used a kind of anticapitalis rethoric before getting in power. What happened once he did, is that the capitalist of the country got cheap and obedient labor force provided by the nazist police. They got rich out the war and the extermination of Jews as well. > Hence not capitalist. I argue for voluntary exchange and your counter-argument is "thugs, murderers and slave drivers existed, therefore capitalism bad"? No, not really. You argue for the possibility of becoming wealthy. I tell you that I don't think a right to become wealthier than others should exist, nor that people being wealthy is a guaranteed benefit for society, as shown in my examples. You also keep mixing capitalism and voluntary exchange, and again as I've proven you those are not necessarily linked. I restate this, capitalists thrived during nazi germany due to the subjugation of the labor force. > As long as there is sufficient wealth, people will be cared for. This has been disproven time and time again, you're ignoring the matter of wealth inequality. The existence of wealth improves the general life conditions of the people only if such wealth is properly distributed. All the reductions in poverty we've seen in recent times are due to the conquests of the social movements, taking from the wealthy things like healthcare, retirement, decent working hours, safety on the job, unemployment benefits, public education, etc.