Why is Capitalism seen as a system of oppression?

I've heard many minority groups say that capitalism is the system that is keeping them down and oppressed. I've tried to figure out why a free market economy is seen as such a bad thing, but aside from obvious anti-capitalist groups, I fail to see how it's a form of oppression.

Can anyone explain why?

 

I think it mostly comes down to how capitalism is implemented in the real world. Completely free markets generally only exist in textbooks.

What usually happens is that markets become oligopolistic through both governmental means and private means.

Also, the process of industrialization in the developing world typically involves a lot of oppression for the sake of long term growth.

On the one hand, industrialization gradually raises the average standard of living in a country, but there usually is a lot of pollution involved, and social reforms including human rights typically lag behind economic growth.

It's only once a population reaches a certain level of education and wealth that the people are able to effectively demand more rights.

 

No problem: there can never be a free market under capitalism. Capitalism requires private ownership of land (i.e., natural resources), which inherently subsidizes the landowner at the expense of the producer. Free markets can't include welfare subsidy privileges to greedy, idle parasites. It's not surprising that people feel oppressed when they have to pay rich, greedy, idle landowners just for permission to exist, or to use what nature provided for all to sustain themselves and their families, or to access the services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities the community provides. Why wouldn't they feel oppressed? They are BEING oppressed, as proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in every country where private capitalistic landowning is well established, but government does not intervene massively to rescue them from its inevitable economic and social effects through minimum wages, welfare, publicly funded pensions, health care and education, union monopolies, etc.

 

Because too many people are cluless wretches that equate being paid a market value for your labor as oppression rather than exactly what you deserve.
There are legitimately two ways to get paid more in a capitalist society, you acquire a better skill set or you sit back and wait for labor demand to kick up, which if the government didn't go out of it's way to penalize capital formation and thereby entreprenurialism, would be constantly ratcheting upward instead of being stagnant like it is.

 

That isn't the concern, actually, and is actually a sign that you have no idea what the "other side" is arguing. Your comment about market value being "exactly what you deserve" highlights EXACTLY why there are so many people arguing that capitalism has a systematic problem with exploitation.

 

It's all about mentality. Scarcity vs. abundance. People with a scarcity mentality will see the world in terms of limited resources. So they will always be worried about running out or not having enough. And that means that somebody having more must inevitably mean that somebody else won't have enough. Everything becomes win/lose. And so they seek to micromanage resources out of fear. This is the allure of collectivism.

People with an abundance mentality are never worried about not having enough. Because they focus more on giving and/or serving instead of taking. And as a result, they create an ecosystem of flow. Where everything they contribute to the world comes back to them. Often times in exponential numbers. It is this attitude that allows them to get the most out of the capitalist system. In fact, it is this attitude that actually powers the capitalist system. People with a scarcity mindset cannot grasp this. And so they have to reframe these people's actions as somehow malicious or evil or predatory in order for the world to make sense to them.

This is also why collectivism never works. Because the vast majority of the people who want it are coming at it from the wrong angle. They're coming at it from a scarcity position of trying to take instead of from an abundance position of giving without expecting anything in return. That's the sad irony. If Marxists, themselves, were more generous, then their system could work fine. It is their own selfishness that prevents it from working. Not anyone else's.

 

And those people would be wrong. Because in order to justify their claims of "exploitation," they'd have to first define "deserve" in entirely arbitrary terms. Capitalism's definition makes no judgment and simply defines it as whatever the market determines it to be. Any argument for an alternate definition is not based on anything substantial. Only empty feelings and a misplaced sense of self-righteousness.

 

Do you understand the theory of exploitation as espoused by Marx? Because your assertion seems to be based on a very naive view about Communism's critique of Capitalism.

 

Feel free to educate me, but I operate on something called common sense. Which says that in a free market, someone cannot be exploited without their own consent. To believe otherwise is to lie to oneself about one's own freedom and potential.

Also worth noting; the turnabout. Capitalism's critique of communism is exponentially more damning. Capitalism aims not for perfection but simply for the best of what's possible. Conversely, communism aims for utopia. And thus inevitably results in tyranny.

 

Of course it is by their own consent, nobody is arguing otherwise. But, here is the basic argument put forth by Marx:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation#Marxist_theory

That certainly depends on who you are talking to. There are many people that idealize free markets to an incredible level, e.g. Randians.

 

Then what's the problem?

Marx doesn't sound like he understands entrepreneurship. Like number 2 is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Every single member of the "proletariat" has the option under capitalism to break off and start their own business and be their own boss.

That's still not perfectionism.

 

I was going to respond but I see Unifier has already beat me to the correct answer.

Carry on.

 

It's more a question of Marx being a product of his own time. He wrote in 1900, when you did need land and capital to have a business. In 1900, you had to make or sell a physical object in order to make money. If you had no way to do that, you had to work for someone who did that kind of thing. There was no virtual economy, no online store that just requires a server, no virtual products (say ebooks or mp3 files or online movies) that you could trade without a physical object, or for that matter without a storefront somewhere. I tend to give HIM a pass on that, though any modern Communist who still thinks you need something physical to have the ability to be in business for themselves has a huge problem with reality.

 

Come on. Are you really saying that you cannot SEE how capitalism (in at least one of its forms) has not been 'oppressive'? (I cannot take you seriously on this.)

 

Fair enough. So Marxism is simply outmoded.

 

Because there is still exploitation involved?

Except that not everybody has that opportunity due to barriers of entry, nor can every single person in America be an entrepreneur.

I was just saying that there are many people who think unrestrained capitalism can result in a utopia. How is that different?

 

All economic systems can be oppressive in one way or another. What I don't understand is how some people say that ALL forms of capitalism are evil and oppressive. I can't think of any better system that would work.

 

Even so, don't tell me that capitalism (especially laissez-faire capitalism) has not been or cannot be "oppressive"; reality and history would be very much against you.

 

Those barriers of entry exist because either socialists are trying to strangle private business or the mega conglomerates, via lobbying the government, are trying to keep competition out.

Once those are out of the way, as they should be, then the only things that would stand in your way is yourself.

 

Yup, I agree (except I think it's just the huge conglomerates, not socialists), which is why we need to discuss campaign finance reform and gettin money out of the political arena in general.

 

But you just agreed that it's voluntary. How can there be a problem if somebody can opt out of it? You're not making any sense here.

Not true. Everybody has that opportunity. That's what the free market does. Most people simply choose not to pursue that opportunity because there is more risk involved with entrepreneurship and they would rather cling to the illusion of job security via working for somebody else.

Because they don't actually think it's utopia. They acknowledge that it's flawed because it's run by humans. They just recognize it as the best system available. There's a big difference.

 

I'm not sure what you're not getting. Do you even know what the definition of economic exploitation is? It has nothing to do with whether something is consensual or not.

So you're saying every single person in this country has the funds to start up a business venture and every single person can be an entrepreneur? Who is working for these entrepreneurs?

I'm sorry, just no. Obviously you haven't talked to the same people I have. My grandfather, for instance, constantly says that the free market is infallible and can never do wrong.

 

AMEN to that!!!

 

You've never taken any classes on economics have you?

Barriers to entry can exist in cases of natural monopoly, restrictions on market size due to geographic location, high sunk costs required for entry, etc.

They most certainly do not come from "socialists and the government" only.

 

In order to gain sustenance for life, carbon based life forms need access to the natural resources, which are provided in relative abundance by mother earth. Capitalism allows relatively few individuals to monopolize the earth, leaving the rest with nothing, and no opportunity to find sustenance except to work for a monopolistic landowner. The result is that those born into families who hold government issued land title privileges can live luxurious lifestyles without ever working or producing anything, while those born into landless families must give substantial amounts of their earnings to the privileged landowners just for permission to access what nature provided for free. If the large landowners can live in luxury without ever producing anything, then obviously the landless must give up a substantial portion of their earnings to make up the difference. How is that not oppressive?