Why Capitalism is way better than any other economic system!

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it is also more nourishing.H. L. Mencken
So you think you're powerless and that we need the elite and the state to function. We don't need them and we don't need to have a society based around exploitation either. People are getting progressively more aware and awake and will not tolerate the oppression and exploitation forever. Capitalism is literally unsustainable, it is based on endless growth and the exploitation of labor and resources. It will be replaced with something and I want that something to be good for everyone and not just the few. Better societies are certainly possible, you just have to make it happen.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
So you think you're powerless and that we need the elite and the state to function. We don't need them and we don't need to have a society based around exploitation either. People are getting progressively more aware and awake and will not tolerate the oppression and exploitation forever. Capitalism is literally unsustainable, it is based on endless growth and the exploitation of labor and resources. It will be replaced with something and I want that something to be good for everyone and not just the few. Better societies are certainly possible, you just have to make it happen.
I don't know Capitalism has been pretty sustainable, definitely increased the standard of living. Maybe not equal, but there is no such thing as total equality. Its an illusion.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
So you think you're powerless and that we need the elite and the state to function. We don't need them and we don't need to have a society based around exploitation either. People are getting progressively more aware and awake and will not tolerate the oppression and exploitation forever. Capitalism is literally unsustainable, it is based on endless growth and the exploitation of labor and resources. It will be replaced with something and I want that something to be good for everyone and not just the few. Better societies are certainly possible, you just have to make it happen.
*Wow in the world of make-believe and economically-stupid people*
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Plus employees benefit from the money. The "exploitation" is just to make Capitalism look bad.
CEOs make millions while the workers who work for them are living in poverty, that's exploitation. The CEOs become rich off the worker's labour. The workers work just as much as the CEOs... maybe even more but they are not benefiting.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
CEOs make millions while the workers who work for them are living in poverty, that's exploitation. The CEOs become rich off the worker's labour. The workers work just as much as the CEOs... maybe even more but they are not benefiting.
Where do you base this off of? You don't know that employees could be doing well.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
CEOs make millions while the workers who work for them are living in poverty, that's exploitation. The CEOs become rich off the worker's labour. The workers work just as much as the CEOs... maybe even more but they are not benefiting.
Yea and under socialism it would be better? Piss off with your fantasy-based ideology.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
CEOs make millions while the workers who work for them are living in poverty, that's exploitation. The CEOs become rich off the worker's labour. The workers work just as much as the CEOs... maybe even more but they are not benefiting.
And guess what Mecca Life isn't fair, equality is an illusion.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
CEOs make millions while the workers who work for them are living in poverty, that's exploitation. The CEOs become rich off the worker's labour. The workers work just as much as the CEOs... maybe even more but they are not benefiting.
We can heavily improve Capitalism, but I am not going to accept that socialism is the best way to go.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
CEOs make millions while the workers who work for them are living in poverty, that's exploitation. The CEOs become rich off the worker's labour. The workers work just as much as the CEOs... maybe even more but they are not benefiting.
Oh yea a whole 15.2% of Americans.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Yea and under socialism it would be better? Piss off with your fantasy-based ideology.
In a communist society, people would not sell their labor. They would have control over their workplace because it would be democratically controlled and owned by themselves. The products of their labor would directly benefit them and their community as well.
Where do you base this off of? You don't know that employees could be doing well.
http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/
CEOs are not working 271 times harder but they are getting 271 times more money.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
In a communist society, people would not sell their labor. They would have control over their workplace because it would be democratically controlled. The products of their labor would directly benefit them and their community as well.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/
CEOs are not working 271 times harder but they are getting 271 times more money.
Doesn't mean there aren't douchebags under Capitalism. Plus why would I trust Fortune.
 

Helioform

Star
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
3,195
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
In a communist society, people would not sell their labor. They would have control over their workplace because it would be democratically controlled. The products of their labor would directly benefit them and their community as well.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/
CEOs are not working 271 times harder but they are getting 271 times more money.
From Soapboxie:

Far left socialism is no less dangerous. Though I think the socialist ideal of a worldwide and local cooperation is good, the socialist model is not the way to do it.
The problem with the really far left model, involving equal work and equal distribution, has already been discussed in depth by many, so I will only cover it briefly. I suppose that it once seemed like a better alternative to capitalism-gone-wild (it prevents the wealth gap and the consequent abuse of the $ owned government), but the society based on this model quickly collapses. Look at Communist China, Cuba, or to a certain extent, today's Europe. Europe is still great, but the cracks are starting to show.
The two major reasons are 1.) Socialism discourages work and effort by shifting consequences (positive and negative) onto others. 2.) Socialism restricts freedom of the individual. I'll begin by addressing the first.
By having a "security net" so secure that it's easier to not work than to work, nobody (well, few) will work. In a future world of more resources, perhaps that will become possible. But we are not even close to being there yet, and this system is unsustainable as it takes from those who would advance society and gives to those who don't.
The entire point of a security net is to make sure those who are deserving have the ability to exercise their potential (Note: I am aware that the ultimate point is to allow the happiness of everyone. I mean in the sense of its function in a developing society.). Why work your hide off to drag along those who are just kicking back? This system encourages laziness, and after a while even those who naturally would work will stop because of their unjust load.
This problem with socialism has a solution: move towards the center. By arranging society so that those who work harder, smarter, more creatively, and more productively are rewarded, all of society will ultimately benefit from their advances. If a safety net is retained, and it should be, downward spirals can be prevented and a basic standard of living can be available to all.
However, problem 2 (Socialism restricts freedom of the individual.) is not so easily solved. In fact, I can't think of a solution at all. I believe this is socialism's fatal flaw, and it's basically the reason I am capitalist. I will address this in detail later on, when it flows more appropriately.
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
involving equal work and equal distribution
It's not equal... it's from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. Not everyone has the same levels of ability or needs.
Look at Communist China, Cuba
They are not communist, they aren't decentralized and the worker's don't have control over the means of production. You can't have communism with a state.
This system encourages laziness, and after a while even those who naturally would work will stop because of their unjust load.
The system does not encourage laziness because everyone has to contribute to keep it functioning. People have beenworking since before money was ever used... because they needed to. A great incentive to work is need, people need things and we have to work to create them for each other. A person's labor would directly benefit themselves and their community and they know that they are doing their part. Each person is a consumer and a producer. Anarcho-communism is based on mutual aid which is beneficial for both parties because everyone helps each other. Everyone would know and be able to see that their work is directly helping everyone else. People want to do things and not just sit around... if lazy people do arise, other people in the community would deal with them and get them to do something. If the work is important and necessary, then it will be done. Everyone values work that people need. Also with increasing automation, there will be less people having to do the menial labor and more people could focus on their other interests. There isn't that much work to be done in a decentralized society anyway, especially if everyone pitches in and there is automation of a lot of tasks.
Socialism restricts freedom of the individual
How? Since people would have control over their work and would not be subject to state or private authorities, they would have more freedom and not less.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
It's not equal... it's from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. Not everyone has the same levels of ability or needs.

They are not communist, they aren't decentralized and the worker's don't have control over the means of production. You can't have communism with a state.

The system does not encourage laziness because everyone has to contribute to keep it functioning. People have beenworking since before money was ever used... because they needed to. A great incentive to work is need, people need things and we have to work to create them for each other. A person's labor would directly benefit themselves and their community and they know that they are doing their part. Each person is a consumer and a producer. Anarcho-communism is based on mutual aid which is beneficial for both parties because everyone helps each other. Everyone would know and be able to see that their work is directly helping everyone else. People want to do things and not just sit around... if lazy people do arise, other people in the community would deal with them and get them to do something. If the work is important and necessary, then it will be done. Everyone values work that people need. Also with increasing automation, there will be less people having to do the menial labor and more people could focus on their other interests. There isn't that much work to be done in a decentralized society anyway, especially if everyone pitches in and there is automation of a lot of tasks.

How? Since people would have control over their work and would not be subject to state or private authorities, they would have more freedom and not less.
Yea it encourages laziness b/c there won't be an incentive to work or provide if they will get equal share. Capitalism provides incentive and competition b/c money can help them get higher and higher up.
 
Top