5 ms·

Capitalism means a society ruled by Capital owners, who happen to love child labor. That’s the justification. It makes them money, so it’s good!

colechristensen 3y ago
This kind of knee jerk snarky comment doesn’t really contribute to the conversation at all. If you want to make that point, make it better.
- raphaelj 3y ago
  Unless you can prove them wrong, the parent's is still right: these child labor laws have been revoked to benefit a minority's financial interests.
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    It's the burden of the person putting forward a proposition to prove it, or at least provide some kind of argument or evidence. It's not the burden of everyone else to disprove it. Think about what that world looks like.
  - kbelder 3y ago
    >these child labor laws have been revoked to benefit a minority's financial interests. The children's?
- berdario 3y ago
  Of course it contributes to the conversation: 1- it calls a spade a spade: we already have theories of how Capitalism works, and none of the other replies named it. Giving a name to the problem is the first step in fighting it. 2- it explicitly calls out: "it makes them money", which is also factual and not explicitly mentioned by the other comments. They mention a "perceived labor shortage", but it doesn't clarify the fact that fighting that gets more money in the pocket of some people Of course, the grandparent comment should've been a bit clearer in how this makes people money. I think the answer is twofold: 1- it increases the reserve army of labor 2- the minimum wage is often lower for younger people (the excuse is that this is training for them)
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Yes, they love child labor for material reasons, not villainous ones: it generally costs less money or puts downward pressure on the price of competing labor.
  - adasdasdas 3y ago
    Socialists will attribute any societal problem to capitalism. Of course, capitalist critics online will never mention that capitalism drives down labor demand by incentivizing technological innovation.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      “Societal problem” is doing a lot of work in your comment. Politicians repealing child labor laws so that corporations don’t have to pay more money for workers is not a “societal problem,” but one resulting from the naked reality of the wage relation.
    - effable 3y ago
      So the argument is that since this criticism came from presumably a socialist, which we have no evidence for, we should not consider the criticism on its own merit?
      - adasdasdas 3y ago
        I literally responded to the parent argument though. And yes I do assume vocal critics of capitalism online to be socialist, I'm happy for parent to prove me wrong :)
    - eyelidlessness 3y ago
      > Of course, capitalist critics online will never mention that capitalism drives down labor demand by incentivizing technological innovation. I’d be delighted to concede that if it were true. To the extent capitalism does relieve demand for labor, it perpetually creates more demand however artificially, often explicitly on the arbitrary basis of labor itself as duty. To the extent it has yielded to a constant or increased demand for labor, it’s been a result of resistance to capitalism.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  It's not quite snarky, it's more reductionist. He's making two assertions: (1) Capitalism tends to shift power to those with capital, and (2) those with capital tend to benefit from cheap child labor. Will you argue against his central points, or will you dismiss them based on how they were delivered?
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    Unless you define capitalism as “things I don’t like” then 1) broad individual freedoms have advanced the most in capitalist countries and those freedoms have not seen monitonic decrease since some founding date, rather have seem back and forth swings with a general trend towards more individual freedom in long time scales 2) child labor laws were enacted first in capitalist countries and continue to be stronger in capitalist countries I don’t see any rebuttal to these that don’t boil down to defining capitalism narrowly enough to exclude countries/economies that the commenter likes more and instead they would define as some brand of socialism. Capitalism I’m defining here broadly as an economy characterized primarily by individual ownership of resources and production.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  How would one contribute to the conversation better than stating what is plainly true: child labor laws are being repealed because Capital owners want them to be and pay politicians to make it so. Is it more useful to engage with whatever sophistry is used to justify their repeal as if it was legitimate or well-reasoned?
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  I think it was a point well made. It’s not an outlandish or niche idea. It’s lacking neither in plenty of readily available academic source material nor major cultural works. The only thing which would make it a claim so extraordinary that it begs special citation is on the presumption that capital’s appetite for child labor decreases along with regulatory structures limiting it. But that’s self evidently untrue. The only thing limiting that appetite has been regulation, and the appetite has both informed deregulation advocacy and taken advantage when such advocacy succeeds. But all of that should be taken as read, unless a reader is inclined to disregard a vast wealth of relatively uncontroversial documentation of labor history.

colechristensen 3y ago

This kind of knee jerk snarky comment doesn’t really contribute to the conversation at all. If you want to make that point, make it better.

raphaelj 3y ago
Unless you can prove them wrong, the parent's is still right: these child labor laws have been revoked to benefit a minority's financial interests.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  It's the burden of the person putting forward a proposition to prove it, or at least provide some kind of argument or evidence. It's not the burden of everyone else to disprove it. Think about what that world looks like.
- kbelder 3y ago
  >these child labor laws have been revoked to benefit a minority's financial interests. The children's?
berdario 3y ago
Of course it contributes to the conversation: 1- it calls a spade a spade: we already have theories of how Capitalism works, and none of the other replies named it. Giving a name to the problem is the first step in fighting it. 2- it explicitly calls out: "it makes them money", which is also factual and not explicitly mentioned by the other comments. They mention a "perceived labor shortage", but it doesn't clarify the fact that fighting that gets more money in the pocket of some people Of course, the grandparent comment should've been a bit clearer in how this makes people money. I think the answer is twofold: 1- it increases the reserve army of labor 2- the minimum wage is often lower for younger people (the excuse is that this is training for them)
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Yes, they love child labor for material reasons, not villainous ones: it generally costs less money or puts downward pressure on the price of competing labor.
- adasdasdas 3y ago
  Socialists will attribute any societal problem to capitalism. Of course, capitalist critics online will never mention that capitalism drives down labor demand by incentivizing technological innovation.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    “Societal problem” is doing a lot of work in your comment. Politicians repealing child labor laws so that corporations don’t have to pay more money for workers is not a “societal problem,” but one resulting from the naked reality of the wage relation.
  - effable 3y ago
    So the argument is that since this criticism came from presumably a socialist, which we have no evidence for, we should not consider the criticism on its own merit?
    - adasdasdas 3y ago
      I literally responded to the parent argument though. And yes I do assume vocal critics of capitalism online to be socialist, I'm happy for parent to prove me wrong :)
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    > Of course, capitalist critics online will never mention that capitalism drives down labor demand by incentivizing technological innovation. I’d be delighted to concede that if it were true. To the extent capitalism does relieve demand for labor, it perpetually creates more demand however artificially, often explicitly on the arbitrary basis of labor itself as duty. To the extent it has yielded to a constant or increased demand for labor, it’s been a result of resistance to capitalism.
Buttons840 3y ago
It's not quite snarky, it's more reductionist. He's making two assertions: (1) Capitalism tends to shift power to those with capital, and (2) those with capital tend to benefit from cheap child labor. Will you argue against his central points, or will you dismiss them based on how they were delivered?
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Unless you define capitalism as “things I don’t like” then 1) broad individual freedoms have advanced the most in capitalist countries and those freedoms have not seen monitonic decrease since some founding date, rather have seem back and forth swings with a general trend towards more individual freedom in long time scales 2) child labor laws were enacted first in capitalist countries and continue to be stronger in capitalist countries I don’t see any rebuttal to these that don’t boil down to defining capitalism narrowly enough to exclude countries/economies that the commenter likes more and instead they would define as some brand of socialism. Capitalism I’m defining here broadly as an economy characterized primarily by individual ownership of resources and production.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
How would one contribute to the conversation better than stating what is plainly true: child labor laws are being repealed because Capital owners want them to be and pay politicians to make it so. Is it more useful to engage with whatever sophistry is used to justify their repeal as if it was legitimate or well-reasoned?
eyelidlessness 3y ago
I think it was a point well made. It’s not an outlandish or niche idea. It’s lacking neither in plenty of readily available academic source material nor major cultural works. The only thing which would make it a claim so extraordinary that it begs special citation is on the presumption that capital’s appetite for child labor decreases along with regulatory structures limiting it. But that’s self evidently untrue. The only thing limiting that appetite has been regulation, and the appetite has both informed deregulation advocacy and taken advantage when such advocacy succeeds. But all of that should be taken as read, unless a reader is inclined to disregard a vast wealth of relatively uncontroversial documentation of labor history.