Capitalism is Stupid and it Sucks.

[karaddin]

 

wealth in a capitalist system represents service to one's fellow man; a morally virtuous enterprise

Keep on proving the point. Wealth in a capitalist system frequently represents having the wisdom of being born to rich parents. It frequently corresponds with the willingness to exploit other people for your own profit.  Try to reframe it as service all you want, the ones doing the service are the labourers getting paid shit all.

[IamMe90]

 
wealth in a capitalist system represents service to one's fellow man; a morally virtuous enterprise

Yeah, I find inheriting the financial legacy of the exploitation of international child labor to provide superfluous crap to one's fellow man the height of morality.

[Frog Eater]

Keep on proving the point. Wealth in a capitalist system frequently represents having the wisdom of being born to rich parents. It frequently corresponds with the willingness to exploit other people for your own profit.  Try to reframe it as service all you want, the ones doing the service are the labourers getting paid shit all.

But in a capitalist society, the person providing the service, if he/she had sufficient skills could go into business for themselves, and if he/she were providing that service superior to others, would no longer be getting paid "shit all". 

 

That's what makes capitalism great. If you don't like getting paid "shit all" you can do something about it. 

[Commodore]

Keep on proving the point. Wealth in a capitalist system frequently represents having the wisdom of being born to rich parents.

Sure, but the origination of that wealth was service to one's fellow man. The original creation of that wealth was a morally virtuous enterprise.

It frequently corresponds with the willingness to exploit other people for your own profit.  Try to reframe it as service all you want, the ones doing the service are the labourers getting paid shit all.

"Shit all" is relative, and better than the alternative. Otherwise the labor would not be performed. Both parties are better off, which makes it morally virtuous.

[Altherion]

wealth in a capitalist system represents service to one's fellow man; a morally virtuous enterprise

This is occasionally true. However, it was always the case that a wealthy person was more likely that to have inherited that wealth than actually done something to earn it. Nowadays, it's also quite likely somebody truly wealthy is mainly a gambler who benefits from rules rigged such that all winnings go to them while the losses are absorbed by society in general.
 

But in a capitalist society, the person providing the service, if he/she had sufficient skills could go into business for themselves, and if he/she were providing that service superior to others, would no longer be getting paid "shit all".

That's what makes capitalism great. If you don't like getting paid "shit all" you can do something about it.

That's the ideal. In modern societies, most enterprises require not merely skill, but also a non-trivial amount of capital as well as contacts with various power structures. Furthermore, the skills themselves [i]also[/i] often require capital to use: even if one knows how to do something, one often cannot legally do it without a license or certification or something of the sort.

[Commodore]

it's also quite likely somebody truly wealthy is mainly a gambler who benefits from rules rigged such that all winnings go to them while the losses are absorbed by society in general.

sure, but bailouts aren't capitalism
 

Furthermore, the skills themselves also often require capital to use: even if one knows how to do something, one often cannot legally do it without a license or certification or something of the sort.

Again, licensing is not capitalism

[Seli]

I see your point.However

 

Child sacrifice has largely (Thankfully) fallen out of favour with the majority of cultures worldwide, partly because anyone with a moral compass dislikes the idea of killing children, but mostly because somewhere between the last ice age and the publishing of Darwin's origin of species, we caught onto the idea blood sacrifice has little to no effect on whether lightening, floods or disease will come knocking.

 

Capitalism on the other hand, isn't just  practise, its an entire system, a way of organising entire human societies, you might say that coming up with alternatives is besides the point, but it shouldn't be, because it wasn't the argument that killing kids was immoral that stopped the practise, but the proof backed assertion that it was pointless. and it wont be a simple "Well its just wrong" that make up enough peoples minds, itl be clear proof that there's a better, more just, workable way to organise ourselves. 

In what way is the way capitalism currently implemented different from child sacrifice? Just because we don't kill children outright? We tie up their carers in long hours at jobs, we punish them for who their parents are, we burn their hopes and energy with the promise of a better future. And that is simply what we do in our own countries. 

[Durckad]

But in a capitalist society, the person providing the service, if he/she had sufficient skills could go into business for themselves, and if he/she were providing that service superior to others, would no longer be getting paid "shit all". 
 
That's what makes capitalism great. If you don't like getting paid "shit all" you can do something about it. 

But it does not make the accumulation of wealth an objectively moral or virtuous activity. The two can be linked but they are not always. Just because someone provides a service does not mean it's a good service or that they are good people.

I quite enjoy the benrfits that capitalism provides but this linking of wealth, the accumulation of said wealth, and one's moral purity is fucking sickening. It's not even really a problem with capitalism, it's more just a problem with Americans in general.

[Seli]

sure, but bailouts aren't capitalism

But stock owners getting rich on their stocks is. And stock owners not being responsible for the waste left over when one of the properties they own goes bankrupt is as well. They are isolated from the debts, the physical pollution, everything but the value of their investment. So yes, it is rigged in their favour.

[Frog Eater]

 

That's the ideal. In modern societies, most enterprises require not merely skill, but also a non-trivial amount of capital as well as contacts with various power structures. Furthermore, the skills themselves also often require capital to use: even if one knows how to do something, one often cannot legally do it without a license or certification or something of the sort.

I am a CPA, so I will use this as an example. 

 

I work for a CPA firm. I want to be a partner, but there isn't room for me to be a partner at my firm. I can go out on my own, but as you said, this will require capital (need to eat and pay the bills), and will require I build a client list that I will depend on to pay my bills. 

 

There are loans I can take, I can finance myself, or I can buy an existing practice and do an installment sale to pay the existing practitioner. 

 

As you said, these amounts are not trivial, and require a huge leap of faith on my behalf, but my success is only constrained by my ability. 

 

The avenues are similar for persons in other businesses. I have a client who owned a disaster recovery business, and wanted to do something else, so sold it to his general manager in an installment agreement. At one time, that general manager was the laborer, going to peoples houses and sucking up overflowed toilet water, and now he owns the business. Capitalism works. 

[Spring Bass]

Most businesses are self-funding in their early days, using their own profits as the primary source of investment for expansion (aside from exceptions like tech startups in Silicon Valley). The capital argument might apply if you decide you're going to go out and start a national wireless provider, but for most businesses?

[Wise Fool]

Guess you didn't read the last sentence:
Reality check: There is no fair system. Make the most of what you are given.

That anecdote is my life- and wouldn't be possible under any other system of government I've seen applied.
"I'll not apologize" is a statement of support...I guess you're not familiar with layman speech, interesting based on ur background.



It did, I'm smiling atm :)
cheers o7

Again, I am not saying there IS a better system than capitalism, or arguing in favor of communism, or whatever. I am saying capitalism is stupid, and it sucks. It is evil and it is unjust.

 

Reality check: if you disagree with that, go ahead and disagree. But "there's nothing better" or "lifes not fair" and "bootstraps" and "hard knocks" and "reality checks" is not disagreeing with it. It's not even addressing it.

 

Going back to the child sacrifice example, you're one of the people who are just saying "yes it's evil and its stupid, but there's nothing better, so it's awesome and I love it!"

 

Capitalism is morally indefensible. I wasn't quite convinced until I made this thread and saw all the bullshit half-assed imbecilic attempts to defend it. Like Commodore. Wealth represents moral virtue? Yeah, I'm pretty sure Satan has that on his bumper sticker.

[Iskaral Pust]

It feels like capitalism as a concept here is too wide. Capitalism is individual property rights and free markets, as opposed to communal property and/or centrally planned economies. It's an economic system, not a social order.

All of the complaints about who has status, power, etc (which seemed to be the core of the OP) would exist in any system. People cannot resist social competition and relative status. Even materialism doesn't start or end with capitalism. At most you could say the growth in productivity and disposable income from capitalism allowed materialism to flourish, but the desire for it was inside us all along.

Should we adopt wasteful, oppressive economic systems because we think people are more noble when they're dirt poor?

[Frog Eater]

Again, I am not saying there IS a better system than capitalism, or arguing in favor of communism, or whatever. I am saying capitalism is stupid, and it sucks. It is evil and it is unjust.

 

Reality check: if you disagree with that, go ahead and disagree. But "there's nothing better" or "lifes not fair" and "bootstraps" and "hard knocks" and "reality checks" is not disagreeing with it. It's not even addressing it.

 

Going back to the child sacrifice example, you're one of the people who are just saying "yes it's evil and its stupid, but there's nothing better, so it's awesome and I love it!"

 

Capitalism is morally indefensible. I wasn't quite convinced until I made this thread and saw all the bullshit half-assed imbecilic attempts to defend it. Like Commodore. Wealth represents moral virtue? Yeah, I'm pretty sure Satan has that on his bumper sticker.

Capitalism is certainly moral defensible. It is morally right to allow a person to attain as much success as his ability allows. 

 

Giving him the same allocation of goods (money) as a person with no motivation or skills is morally reprehensible. (Socialism). 

[Seli]

Capitalism is certainly moral defensible. It is morally right to allow a person to attain as much success as his ability allows. 

 

Giving him the same allocation of goods (money) as a person with no motivation or skills is morally reprehensible. (Socialism). 

You have the two backwards :p

 

You need equal opportunity to allow any person to attain as much success as their ability allows. Which capitalism does not automagically do.

Giving an allocation of goods (and education, and access) to people just because their parents were rich and well connected, regardless of skill and motivation... I would not go as far as call it reprehensible but it is a feature of modern capitalism.

[Durckad]

Capitalism is certainly moral defensible. It is morally right to allow a person to attain as much success as his ability allows. 
 
Giving him the same allocation of goods (money) as a person with no motivation or skills is morally reprehensible. (Socialism). 

So inherited wealth is morally reprehensible?

[Shryke]

But in a capitalist society, the person providing the service, if he/she had sufficient skills could go into business for themselves, and if he/she were providing that service superior to others, would no longer be getting paid "shit all". 

 

That's what makes capitalism great. If you don't like getting paid "shit all" you can do something about it. 

 

Nope, not true at all. I'm sorry dude, but how do you not understand the concept of start-up costs?

 

This is truly free market religiosity. The great lord and saviour will provide, ignore all that "economics".

 

 

 

Most businesses are self-funding in their early days, using their own profits as the primary source of investment for expansion (aside from exceptions like tech startups in Silicon Valley). The capital argument might apply if you decide you're going to go out and start a national wireless provider, but for most businesses?

 

Uh, lease on a building? Seriously, what the fuck are some of you even talking about?

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

It feels like capitalism as a concept here is too wide. Capitalism is individual property rights and free markets, as opposed to communal property and/or centrally planned economies. It's an economic system, not a social order.

All of the complaints about who has status, power, etc (which seemed to be the core of the OP) would exist in any system. People cannot resist social competition and relative status. Even materialism doesn't start or end with capitalism. At most you could say the growth in productivity and disposable income from capitalism allowed materialism to flourish, but the desire for it was inside us all along.

Should we adopt wasteful, oppressive economic systems because we think people are more noble when they're dirt poor?

Yeah. Social stratification among humans has existed either since forever, or since the adaption of agriculture around 10 000 years ago. Some societies were more socially stratified than others, and the USA is probably a good deal more so than the average Western country today, but that's about it. 

 

The historical equivalents to the people the Wise Fool is describing would be landless peasants or slaves, depending on the society, and these definitely weren't held in particularly high regard either. 

[Theda Baratheon]

This post was largely ignored by everyone, but I happen to agree with the sentiment.  WF is clearly not in a good place, either financially long term or psychologically right now, and he actually provided fuck all information about his situation beyond "financially it's not good".  People could choose to be sensitive in light of his state of mind and the fact that probably almost everyone (if not literally everyone) in this thread is better off than him and actually delve into substance, even if they 100% disagree and think capitalism is the best thing ever.  Or they can go ahead and be condescending and give unwanted advice predicated on knowing nothing beyond the poor financial standing, assume he simply isn't working hard and go from there.
 
I happen to agree with much of his criticism, particularly of the culture in the US and that somehow wealth and career success have become synonymous with moral virtue, and I've made comments to that effect before.  It's a philosophy that has been manipulated by the wealthy to ensure a society that works it's hardest to serve them, and they have certainly got it.  As far as I'm concerned someone can live a life of minimal material substance, have little career success, but still be a worthwhile and good person, fulfillment in life is more complex than that.  The branches of Christianity that have subverted the original teachings so much to actually equate material wealth with the favour of God are one of the most egregious example of the culture gone wrong, but they are just an extreme.

I wanted to echo this. I wrote quite a big post before but got rid of it because I didn't want WS to think I was talking over him but basically some of the people having a go should back the hell up. I agree with a lot of the OP; it does suck - can I think of anything better? Not right now, no. Does it still suck? Yes, royally. I have a degree I almost failed a thousand times because of mental health reasons whilst I worked for two years alongside Uni. I miraculously managed to graduate with a good grade but for the moment whilst I apply for other thigs I am stuck in a shitty retail job and can I just say...FUCK anyone who thinks retail is "easy" and "for lazy young people". FUCK. THAT. Retail is hard fucking work, it might not be "difficult" and you can make whatever dumb as shit "stacking shelves" judgements you want but it's tiring physically (lugging around heavy boxes of stock) and emotionally (being shouted at by JACKASS customers who look down on you for just "working in a shop") and mentally (you feel stupid for finding it so hard, managers constantly demanding you reach targets for loyalty cards and other bullshit schemes, internalising comments and opinions from nasty customers) I mean...I'm not saying its the hardest work ever but fucking hell when you're mentally unwell and stuck in a job that you hate and one that is constantly looked down upon by people then its NOT EASY to just suddenly become magically completely mentally healthy and sell yourself on a glowing CV and get a better job!!!! I have a freakin degree and i feel like im gonna be stuck in this store forever (am applying for loads of jobs) so I don't begrudge anyone being angry and venting because it DOES SUCK and anyone who feels the need to make personal judgements on anyone else not working "hard enough" can just Stop.

[DreamSongs]

IAMME90, its the democratization of wealth that exploits the women and children involved in what amounts to slave labor.  The people that try to intelligently spend their income aren't generally buying $10 dresses to wear once.  They are the one buying $100 dollar dresses and financing Fair Trade practices.