Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The practicality of capitalism

Rate this topic


Invictus

Recommended Posts

<snip>

Socialism is not rational and socialists are not rational people.

Socialism is opposed to a free market of ideas and the consistent socialists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini were also opposed to free expression.

Socialists or Communists or Fascists have no value to offer us and Capitalism Forever is spot on with his analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What are we doing talking to them?

What do you think of the rhetorical value of debating with Marxists? It provides the debater with experience in defending his ideas, and exposes other members who have just discovered Objectivism to a proper defense of capitalism. This forum is a unique place to do so – it’s an informal yet intellectually rigorous environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of the rhetorical value of debating with Marxists? It provides the debater with experience in defending his ideas, and exposes other members who have just discovered Objectivism to a proper defense of capitalism. This forum is a unique place to do so – it’s an informal yet intellectually rigorous environment.

To be honest, the young Capitalist or Objectivist would be better off reading the likes of Mises, Hazlitt and Reisman for his economics and reading Rand and Peikoff for his philosophy.

Debating with declared irrationalists is a very bad idea.

If one wanted to learn how to refute Marxist arguments, then why not come here and ask an Objectivist of some experience how to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, the young Capitalist or Objectivist would be better off reading the likes of Mises, Hazlitt and Reisman for his economics and reading Rand and Peikoff for his philosophy.
Studying philosophy and studying rhetoric are two different things, and one can often reinforce the other.

Debating with declared irrationalists is a very bad idea.

Not all Marxists (broadly defined) are irredeemably irrational, especially among students who have never been exposed to anything else.

If one wanted to learn how to refute Marxist arguments, then why not come here and ask an Objectivist of some experience how to do so?

Again, knowing the facts is not the same thing as knowing how to effectively present them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just curious. Jessie and Static, have you ever held a job, and if so what was it?

I'm intrigued to see what purpose this will serve, but, like many students in university struggling to afford living expenses, let alone tuition, I've worked a variety of jobs: waiting tables, doing inventory and accounting, camp counseling, customer service, fundraising, ski patrolling, promoting natural gas deregulation, interacting with seniors in a local penitentiary to better integrate them back into society. I must warn you capitalists, though, that some of these were volunteer positions, so you probably wouldn't consider them "real" jobs and think I'm irrational for wanting anything more than money. There's just no reasoning with me, is there? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you considered that they earn so little because they choose not to "contribute intellectually?" But as a Marxist, you don’t believe in such a thing as working with one’s mind, do you?

In most cases, you don't earn minimum wage based on your intellectual contribution to your job, you earn it because of the task you're expected to perform. If you choose a position that doesn't require intellectual contribution because you're specifically looking to avoid using your mind, then you're just lazy, not a Marxist. So, in answer to your question, yes, its been considered. Besides, my original point to Praxus was that he could do his half-assed job, devoid of intellect in our current society and still get paid, let alone in my hypothetical situation.

And please don't assume I support all Marxist doctrines just because I mention some of them. I'm a strong believer in working with your mind.

I'm not here to be refuted, my argument is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laissez Faire capitalism is as much an ideal as pure communism. Following your logic (what is moral is most practical and vice versa), GUIDED capitalism is the most moral economic system. To assert, as Adam Smith did, that an "invisible hand" steers the economy in the right direction, one must rely on faith. The economy cannot guide itself. There need to be regulatory bodies like the Fed that protect individuals from going bankrupt. In the absence of the gold standard, if your bank goes under, you lose all your money. Guided capitalism ensures economic stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely why entrepreneurs create new products at lower prices is a complete irrelevancy; all that matters is that they do it. If you knew anything you know that this is one of the central tenets of capitalism. 

"Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good" – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

You're misrepresenting Adam Smith. He's stating that it usually doesn't make a difference whether the individual attempts to promote the interest of society or his own interest, society usually gains. There's also the option (which I was initially referring to) that this individual is attempting to directly avoid society's interests in the case of bankrupting competitors and exploiting this free market you so love. Saying that motives are irrelevant is incredibly naive.

It is creed [sic]and selfishness that breeds capitalism, son.

Does that make it any easier to swallow?

It is cheaper. I thought this would have been obvious. The savings in labour costs allows businesses to decrease the prices at which they sell their goods, thereby increasing their competitiveness within the industry.

Oh, cheaper, right, my mistake for overlooking that. Let's talk Nike, shall we? See, my mind was clouded with the fact that Nike spends about 4% of the consumer cost for a pair of shoes (Nike Air Pegasus at $70 USD, for example) on production labor. According to the statistics provided by CBS News, the New York Times, the Campaign for Labor Rights, and Thuyen Nguyen of Vietnam Labor Watch, that works out to $1.60-$2.46 per day, varying between Vietnam, Indonesia, and China. A simple, basic meal (like rice, vegetables and some tofu) costs 70 cents; three meals a day costs $2.10. So depending on where they work the basic salary they receive from Nike factory jobs barely covers the cost of food, if that, let alone other costs of living and anyone they may have to support.

But oh, yeah, it's cheaper for Nike

At this rate, it would take a Vietnamese worker 40 days to make enough money to buy the shoes they make. But that doesn't matter, Indonesian children aren't Nike's target demographic. That's why they spent $140 million to have Andre Agassi to wear their apparel for a month (One ******* month!) or the $978 million they spent in 1997 on marketing and promotion.

But, oh, yeah, they have to cut costs somewhere to stay competitive, god forbid they cut them in marketing.

Even if Nike doubled the wage of it's workers and passed that 4% directly on to the consumer, the extra cost would equal the price of a pair of shoelaces. You're telling me that Nike wouldn't be able to stay as competitive as they are now?

All that crap to save a buck. I won't puke for peace, but I'll damn well puke for anyone who sees a sweatshop as a positive. (Puke for peace? Where'd you come up with that, cappie?)

You wanna see what goes on inside?

http://www.saigon.com/~nike/reports/report1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There need to be regulatory bodies like the Fed that protect individuals from going bankrupt.

Apparently that's interventionist and not capitalist by definition, or so Black Sabbath tells me

And Sabbath, I'm still waiting for those examples of government intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rise in defense of the sweatshop.

I visited "sweatshops" in Indonesia where individuals were making $1.75 for a 12 hour day -- and they were ecstatic to have the job. There was a line of people stretching down 7 city blocks waiting to apply for these jobs.

These jobs would not exist without Nike's advertising, which lowers Nike's total cost by enlarging their market and increasing their volume. Otherwise they would not make the expenditure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laissez Faire capitalism is as much an ideal as pure communism.  Following your logic (what is moral is most practical and vice versa), GUIDED capitalism is the most moral economic system.  To assert, as Adam Smith did, that an "invisible hand" steers the economy in the right direction, one must rely on faith. The economy cannot guide itself.  There need to be regulatory bodies like the Fed that protect individuals from going bankrupt. In the absence of the gold standard, if your bank goes under, you lose all your money.  Guided capitalism ensures economic stability.

This is tripe.

The Fed is anticapitalist by nature as are all central banks. A central bank is a nationalization, or theft, of the money supply.

It was the Fed which caused the boom and bust of the 20's by expanding the currency by 60 percent.

The whole purpose of central banks historically has been to expand the currency (a process better known as inflation), fund big government and create class warfare too bolster the state's power.

Guided capitalism, as you call it, is INTERVENTIONISM. As Mises points out, Interventionism is not stable and must lead to socialism if it is continued on with.

What other regulations do you favour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently that's interventionist and not capitalist by definition, or so Black Sabbath tells me

And Sabbath, I'm still waiting for those examples of government intervention.

In the case of Enron, it stood to gain by the ratification of the Kyoto treaty.

These articles discuss what really happens.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control...an's+Bubble

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=872

"Lay, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a radical environmentalist and anti-free-market organization, supported the disastrous Kyoto Accords on "global warming." Enron had banked on trading permits for carbon dioxide emissions, which would have been based upon the existing permit system for sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning electric power plants. When the Bush administration refused to sign the Kyoto treaty, however, Enron was left out in the cold."

and "Enron has given vast sums of cash to both Republicans and Democrats. While Democrats are presently attempting to link Enron and its chairman, Kenneth Lay, to President George Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, they conveniently seem to have forgotten that Enron in 1997 contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party immediately after President Bill Clinton directly intervened to help Enron gain a $3-billion project in India."

Your turn.

State your terms.

What is Socialism?

Why do you think it is beneficial and to whom?

How will it work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Static, your post about Nike spending 4% of the consumer price of a pair of shoes on labor is misleading. It ignores the 60% - 70% mark-up that occurs at the retail level. Labor actually makes up about 15% of Nike's costs.

The mark-up that occurs at retail makes the consumer product market quite sensitive to cost. Adding $1 to cost winds up adding $3 - $4 to the price, which can certainly affect market share. And profits are VERY sensitive to market share.

In short, Static, you are free not to purchase Nike's product, not work in their factory and not watch Agassi play tennis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Howard Roark could be described as being lazy during the time he worked in the rock quarry for subsistence level wages. Intelligent people often accept manual labor employment rather than employ their minds in purposeless or immoral pursuits even if the pay is better. When not working, (or sometimes while working) they can engage their minds through study or thought in preparation for some future purpose which they find of value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, cheaper, right, my mistake for overlooking that.  Let's talk Nike, shall we?  See, my mind was clouded with the fact that Nike spends about 4% of the consumer cost for a pair of shoes (Nike Air Pegasus at $70 USD, for example) on production labor.  According to the statistics provided by CBS News, the New York Times, the Campaign for Labor Rights, and Thuyen Nguyen of Vietnam Labor Watch, that works out to $1.60-$2.46 per day, varying between Vietnam, Indonesia, and China.  A simple, basic meal (like rice, vegetables and some tofu) costs 70 cents; three meals a day costs $2.10.  So depending on where they work the basic salary they receive from Nike factory jobs barely covers the cost of food, if that, let alone other costs of living and anyone they may have to support. 

But oh, yeah, it's cheaper for Nike

At this rate, it would take a Vietnamese worker 40 days to make enough money to buy the shoes they make.  But that doesn't matter, Indonesian children aren't Nike's target demographic.  That's why they spent $140 million to have Andre Agassi to wear their apparel for a month (One ******* month!) or the $978 million they spent in 1997 on marketing and promotion.

But, oh, yeah, they have to cut costs somewhere to stay competitive, god forbid they cut them in marketing.

Even if Nike doubled the wage of it's workers and passed that 4% directly on to the consumer, the extra cost would equal the price of a pair of shoelaces.  You're telling me that Nike wouldn't be able to stay as competitive as they are now?

All that crap to save a buck.  I won't puke for peace, but I'll damn well puke for anyone who sees a sweatshop as a positive.  (Puke for peace?  Where'd you come up with that, cappie?)

Aisa,

Static brings up a valid point that citizens of developing nations have been alienated and must work more to gain such a subsistant amount of pay. Perhaps these people you have seen in Indonesia line up everyday in order to find work... but once they become employed, they are exploited and are forced to make inadequate pay and must feed their family with this.

It's great that you have contributed your opinion and approve of sweatshops, but in no way should they be supported if the corporations hiring the workers are not willing to pay them adequate money for their long hours of work. Here's some proof to the inequalities going on in the world regarding wealth.... United Nations statistics... http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/we...bution1999.html

Such sweatshops are also found off the coast of Florida, in Haiti, and these people are forced to work in such poor conditions to make subsistent pay. Also, they are treated poorly by the managers of the sweatshop, who are paid far more for doing less than the workers themselves... don't believe me? Here's a good read that will fill you in on all of the details behind sweatshop labour.... "Students against Sweatshops" -Liza Featherstone... Published by Verco, in New York and London

By the way.... why is this industry called "sweatshop" anyway??? Why not just a shoe making factory or clothes making factory if the industry was so fair to its workers...

By the way, Aisa, I have held several jobs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is opposed to a free market of ideas and the consistent socialists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini were also opposed to free expression.

I suggest you read up on your political knowledge, friend...

As a politics major, I have learned over and over that there is a fine line between

-Hitler (national socialist, or fascist)

-Mao (communist)

-Stalin (communist)

and Mussolini (militarian fascist leader)

none of these leaders were truly socialist.... do you know what socialism even means??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because capitalism is such a complex social system constituted by so many institutions, debating its practicality per se in a forum such as this is unproductive. Capitalism in its entirely can only be adequetly treated in a tome like Capitalism by George Reisman.

We should discuss instead one or two particular aspects of capitalism: private property, profit motive, price system, competition, division of labor, capital saving and accumulation, relationship between the individual and the state/society, etc.

Or, the only way we can discuss capitalism as a whole properly would be to discuss its essentials: society's recognition and protection of man's rights.

--------------------------

STATIC, if you didn't know already, OBJECTIVISM advocates CAPITALISM primarily because of its MORAL--not practical--value. Now, if you know nothing of Ayn Rand's writings, you might ask: how in the world can anyone think that a system of "exploitation" fueld by "greed" and "selfishness" be a MORAL social system, much less the ONLY moral social system?

I don't think any one in here can and is willing to explicate to you the entire Objectivist theory of morality.

But the main objectivist moral argument against any form of statism is that it is EVIL for any individual to initiate the use of physical force against another for any purpose whatsoever. This entirely rules out any state that is empowered to force its subjects to do what it deems is "the good of society".

The other objectivist moral principle that precludes statism is that man (the individual) is an end in himself, not the means to any other end. Thus any society that uses the individual as a means to achieve its "good" is IMMORAL.

------------------------

We objectivist make a very crucial distinction between being "forced" to work in a sweat shop because of circumstances and being "forced" by others to do something against our will. The first is unfortunate, but by no means a justification for socialism. The second is evil--the main reason why we reject any form of statism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still at a loss for the purpose of this site. I had understood it to be a forum for Objectivists and those who are interested in the ideas of objectivism to try to grasp them. I did not understand it as a location for those who wish to attack objectivism to come and find objectivists who are willing to subject themselves to such attacks.

It might be true that arguing against non-objectivist ideas can help the objectivist learn more about objectivism and how to defend it. However, if that is an individual's goal, there are literally thousands of internet sites he could go to achieve that end. There are not the same number of locations which are by objectivists and for objectivists.

Would someone, once and for all, please state the goals of this forum. If I have been mistaken in understanding the purpose it serves in any way I would like to be made aware of that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still at a loss for the purpose of this site.  I had understood it to be a forum for Objectivists and those who are interested in the ideas of objectivism to try to grasp them.  I did not understand it as a location for those who wish to attack objectivism to come and find objectivists who are willing to subject themselves to such attacks.

It might be true that arguing against non-objectivist ideas can help the objectivist learn more about objectivism and how to defend it.  However, if that is an individual's goal, there are literally thousands of internet sites he could go to achieve that end.  There are not the same number of locations which are by objectivists and for objectivists.

Would someone, once and for all, please state the goals of this forum.  If I have been mistaken in understanding the purpose it serves in any way I would like to be made aware of that fact.

RadCap is right. I now have the answer to my original question.

(The purpose of the site can be found here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was not my intent to come here and disturb your bubble. I quite enjoy this forum and appreciate all the opinions brought forth, especially the ones that differ from mine. Its become increasingly clear, though, that most (not all) in this forum are unwilling to accept anything said that has a hint of socialist (or for that matter, anti-capitalist) doctrine, so, to use Sabbath's metaphor, I will cease to beat the proverbial air and only post on non-political issues (To tell you the truth, I don't understand why you'd want everyone here to agree with you, what's the point of bringing forth an opinion that everyone else shares? To each his own, I guess). If I've offended any of you with my RADICAL ideas, I apologize and I'll leave you to discussing important matters like what kind of nuke to use on Fallujah.

See you on the aesthetics page...

And Aisa, I'm still truly interested as to why you requested my curriculum vitae.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think of the rhetorical value of debating with Marxists? It provides the debater with experience in defending his ideas, and exposes other members who have just discovered Objectivism to a proper defense of capitalism. This forum is a unique place to do so – it’s an informal yet intellectually rigorous environment.

I have to agree with Capitalism Forever and RadCap. I find this whole thread rather offensive. It's hardly true that this is a "unique" place where a capitalist can debate Marxists--as RadCap pointed out, you can do that anywhere.

Personally, I think Static, Jessie, and dpb should all be banned. This was just too much:

"We" are not here to disrupt "your" forum...it wouldn't exist without us.

Our forum wouldn't exist without them? Wrong--it wouldn't exist without David, and the posters who are serious students of Objectivism. Our support of freedom consists in letting everyone have an equal say? That's a ridiculously relativist idea. In fact, our freedom consists in not having to waste our time on people who've demonstrated themselves to be intellectually dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

I suggest you read up on your political knowledge, friend...

As a politics major, I have learned over and over that there is a fine line between

-Hitler (national socialist, or fascist)

-Mao (communist)

-Stalin (communist)

and Mussolini (militarian fascist leader)

none of these leaders were truly socialist.... do you know what socialism even means??

Your politics major is irrelevant and an is just the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

As for socialism, it is a political system where the state owns and controls the means of production.

What is your definition of Socialism?

Do you recommend Socialism?

If you do, Why?

How does Socialism work?

Of and all the guys i mentioned were Socialists because Socialism has many variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...