Refuting 20 Capitalist Myths (2 of 2)

Part 1 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o1TIEM--BI
#15 OK, a "work for a boss or else" status quo isn't perfect, but shouldn't capitalists be rewarded because of the hard work and risk they put into becoming capitalists?
#16 Are interest and profit not the reward for waiting or postponing consumption?
#17 Doesn't the greatest talent of capitalists entitle them to profit? And aren't their profits the result of innovation & entrepeneurial initiative?
#18 But doesn't capitalism provide us with a free press?
#19 But without privatizing the commons, won't it lead to ecological disaster, such as "the tragedy of the commons"?
# 20 But didn't capitalism make it possible for you to make this video with ur computer, isn't it hypocritical of you to criticize capitalism when you're enjoying some of its benefits?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• capitalism
• anarchism
• property
• state
• labor

[randy95023]

Free Market Capitalism (Austrian School) logically works quite well. Supply and Demand, the only workable Pricing System, etc..

That said; It's a terrible system if you are just an Average Joe and the economy is in downturn. It is a ruthlessly cruel system if you are on the receiving end of the "exploitation" that makes Production profitable enough to build Capital. Survival of the fittest? What about those that are NOT the "fittest"?? 40% of the population MUST suffer for it to work.

[randy95023]

If slavery were legal today very few Capitalists would bother. It's much cheaper to hire a Worker for $7 an hour than to "own" the person. Owning a person means you must feed, clothe, house and supply medical care. If a slave is sick you must still take care of him. When a slave gets old or unproductive you are stuck with him. For $7 and hour you can hire only the young and strong and NOT pay him when not in use. Modern slavery would be insanely more expensive than keeping "Wage Slaves"...

[MsSexySocialist]

@luvcheney1

"They exist, like them, or not"

But not in the sense you mean when you use the term "free market". Not that I would oppose one if it did exist, but I would oppose any economy where power is concentrated at the institutional level - which you fallaciously believe is a good thing.

"many people DREAM of the FREEDOM of a normal, 9-5 job"

If that's the case then why don't they get one? ^^

Oh yeah, because more money and more power is worth the extra stress.

[luvcheney1]

@MsSexySocialist I dont know how many business owners you know, but my wife and I have our own business. We work 70 hrs a week, each, and this isnt at all uncommon. Mgrs do too, and big time CEO`s work very long hrs as well. The only people with real freedom? BS, many people DREAM of the FREEDOM of a normal, 9-5 job. Freedom from stress, long hours, inability to take time off, freedom from worry about customers suing you, liabilities, etc, NO vacation 7 yrs. CANT call out sick!

[luvcheney1]

@MsSexySocialist Gee, a "Statist" economy never existed either. ALL economies an underground, black market economy develops, far more so in the economies that are closer to what are more or less Statist. So, since we cant find 100% pure Statism, nor 100% pure Capitalism, I guess we cant discuss markets? This ridiculous denigration of free markets, because it "never exists" is simply a tactic to avoid the reality of markets. They exist, like them, or not.

[MsSexySocialist]

@luvcheney1

. . . be able to offer liberty in both the negative sense (freedom FROM external authority) and the positive sense (freedom TO actualize individual potential).

Right-wing libertarianism offers the former but not the latter; effectively making its concept of "liberty" an illusury and fake liberty.

The only people with real freedom are the elite class of owners - everyone else is subordinated to their whims.

In other words, "all are free but some are more free than others".

[MsSexySocialist]

@luvcheney1

"I have values, including free markets and Liberty"

A "free market" has never existed. Every market economy has also been a statist economy so any pretentions to the alleged virtues of a market economy completely free of government interference is based on a floating abstraction at best and an outright fantasy at worst.

As for your apparent value of "liberty", that's also based on a floating abstraction as in any society that declares itself "free" must . . .

[luvcheney1]

@luvcheney1 Post 2). Oh shit, I forgot. I`m supposed to be the bad guy, hating workers. I really shouldnt have a list, and plan to create wealth for workers, should I?

[luvcheney1]

@MsSexySocialist I have values, including free markets, and Liberty. Slavery obviously is NOT consistent with either, because in a free market, individuals ought to be able to make their own decisions. Slaves have no Liberty. So, there is no argument for slavery, to a believer in free markets. I see you show NO interest in Federal Policies discouraging accumulation of capital, by the masses? Gee, I see low-mid class workers being millionaires, with ease.

[MsSexySocialist]

@luvcheney1

"the corps are able to sell for less, they control costs better"

Chattel slavery was cheaper and guaranteed lower prices than hiring people for wages.

Is that an argument for slavery?

[luvcheney1]

@MsSexySocialist Problem co-op & corps find in "competing" is that the corps are able to sell for less, they control costs better. Making profit requires market share, which co-ops dont, cant get. because they arent focused on low prices, which is the way to get market share. IF CUSTOMERS preferred co-ops, co-ops would WIN. Would you LIKE to discuss the many Federal Govt policies that discourage savings, and encourage debt? Fact SS&Med taxes would make a family millionaires?

[MsSexySocialist]

@luvcheney1

"when co-ops work, we will soon see lower prices, the end of private corps"

The dominance of private corps in the market ensures a systemic bias against democratic alternatives. It has nothing to do with whether they "work". The fact that they offer a better deal for ordinary working people is axiomatic.

"Employees dont bring the capital"

Because they don't OWN any - an elite of plutocrats do. Which is why, again, a division between capital and labor should not exist.