Capitalism Exploits Us

The issue at hand is the redistribution of property by threat of force. The product you produce is property. The fact that you made it means you have some measure of ownership, but you are trying to escape this by hiding behind law that legalizes such theft and redistribution. Taxation does the same. It requires redistribution of money you earned by threat of force, and it's completely legal. Slavery stole labor value from the slaves, and it was legal. Legality doesn't mean there is no theft. It just means there is no illegal theft.

Ohhh I LOVE such assertiveness!! Sock it to me!!!

They're all exploited since they have no say in what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, or what to do with the profits.
The third worker could quit and find a better job, right?
You're trying to make a systemic issue into a question of individuals. it's not about individuals and how well the may fare in the system. It's about the exploitive system and the theft of labor value in the system.

 

What is the process you could use to determine how pregnant the pregnant woman is? You can't. Either she is pregnant or she isn't. Exploitation is much like that.

 

Yes, and then you sell this property in trade for wage.

It's not legalized theft. It's called trade. You trade labor for wage. It's a voluntary transaction that involves the use of zero force.

Taxation, slavery, etc do use the threat of force. But then again these things aren't capitalism; the system we're talking about.

I own a car. It's my property. If I sell that car to you, do I have the right to control how you use it, how you care for it, who you sell it to? Why is labor any different?

Beyond that, how can the third janitor be equally exploited if the earning on the product of his labor is negative? You tried to claim that exploitation was based on the production of wealth which was stolen from labor. You think the destruction of wealth is exploitative? How can the first and second janitors be equally exploited if the end profit margin is so vastly different? What is the value of the labor if the job doesn't exist at all? Is the lack of a position exploitation too? I don't think you've thought this through...

 

Pregnancy begins at fertilization and or implantation. Development of the pregnancy can be measured as a function of time, growth benchmarks, chemical & hormone levels, weight gain, in fact there are numerous indicators of how pregnant a pregnant woman is. There's a whole field of medical study dedicated to the subject.

So again, what is the objective way to measure exploitation. Is there an exploitation scale, or a litmus test?

 

It seems to me that the majority of people who aren't exploited in your world view wish they could be.

 

What if the first janitor is replaced with a 4th independent contractor janitor? Is the contractor exploited too?

 

No, there is no selling involved. The item you produce is never yours under the law of capitalism. So you have no right to sell it under capitalism. Beyond that you are using the laws of capitalism to justify capitalism.

Virtually every worker has no say over what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, or what to do with the profit. He knows he can only choose to work for this capitalist or that one. He shares in producing what he produces but the business owner takes the total amount of profit for himself. The worker cannot share in the benefits of what he does. The product of his labor is taken from him, and if he tries to take any of it back for himself, there is not negotiating; he is visited by men in blue uniforms at his house and they hurt him and take him away, -by force. It is legal theft because he has no say over the product of his own labor.

A car sale is a one-time event and it is a sale of a commodity. Labor is neither. Sale of labor is a sale of productive potential, since the labor happens continuously and repeatedly after the agreement is struck, and if your labor produces a commodity, as soon as you have finished creating it you lose control of it and the profit it would generate. (I'm patiently explaining what should be obvious to you already.)

Exploitation normally results in a profit appropriated for the exploiter. But not always. Sometimes the exploiter fails at his scheme. It doesn't change the relationship of the worker to the exploiter.

Close enough for now.

Woops! I never said that.

No, actually it would be you who hasn't thought this through. "Is the lady slightly pregnant?" There are no degrees to exploitation. A worker could be exploited for large profits or small ones, but it is all exploitation without degree. The "degree" is in the amount of the theft of value. Therefore, if there is no job, there is no exploitation of worker. Clear now?

 

LOL!!! No there isn't. You are using language sloppily and improperly. At every stage of pregnancy the woman is pregnant. There are tests to determine the age and condition of the fetus, but all along the way a pregnancy test would confirm that, yes, she is pregnant.

Try being more rigorous in your use of language.

 

I earn 1,000x more in the U.S. than I could in North Korea. And my family hasn't been sent to a work/torture camp.

Give me more of this "exploitation".

 

My uninformed opinion on whether the sun is shining or not has no effect on whether it is or isn't.

 

The difference is taxation and slavery involve force.

 

Try taking home something YOU made, even if you would pay for the materials. See what happens regarding force.

Don't fool yourself into thinking capitalism is not enforced. We're just so accustomed to playing by the capitalist rules that we think it is natural and lacking coercion. And that is exactly the point to which socialism would also arrive at one day.

 

Thank you very much! Scandinavian Socialism is much more humane then Capitalism in USA or Communism as it was in USSR.

 

So now you know what kind of people you want to do business with.

Let us know how you get along with your scandanavian socialist comrades.

Sorry, but you'll have to do that nonsense without most of us, but do carry on!

 

That "most of us" is getting smaller and smaller as the days pass. Socialism is gaining popularity. Unfortunately I find that some who "approve" of socialism, and even many who live in countries they think is "socialist" don't actually know what socialism is or how it has evolved.

 

Comrade is a Communist term. Communists in USSR during Stalin's era built a penal system as harsh as US penal system today. Communist Society was as harsh as US Society today.

In Scandinavia and to a lesser degree Canada they have a working Socialist system.

 

In USA, 60,000 people a year die from overdose. USA is a society that does not care for people.

 

Then don't live here.

 

Question: if someone doesn't agree that they are being exploited, are they actually being exploited? Are you morals so superior that you deem it righteous to impose them upon people who do not want to be interfered with? Because that's what you are implying. You are like the fundamentalist right-wing Christian who insists that two gays cannot possibly live together in anything but sin. Your version of sin just happens to be economic-based, and still just as mystical in origin.

 

Let's take the extreme to show how you have forgot logic. Should a slave who has been conditioned to accept their lot be seen as exploited?

Exploitation is an objective measure.

 

You want me to watch an anti-Capitalism video made by a Marxist? LMFAO!

 

Might be scary in terms of learning gain! Best just say LMFAO to practice your shift key

 

Capitalism is the worst economic system except for everything else.

 

you assume taht I didn't anticipate a sophomoric question like this.

You question me on logic, and then you sidestep the question and argue a strawman. I never suggested that socialists not use persuasion to show laborers the errors of their ways. If their morals are superior then, maybe, they'll be broadly accepted and things may change in the favor of socialism.

A slave is a slave because there are rules, set in place by an institution with a monopoly on justice, that says he is the property, or some part property, of another person. Whether or not he knows he is exploited, he is aggressed against by that institution. Were those laws removed, then it would be up to him to decide the conditions of his service at any given time.

The correct answer is that there should be no political dictates forcing anyone to be the property of another. Do you think there are political dictates which require people to labor on behalf of another for wage?

Then, let's be really clear on your definition of "exploited." Shall we use Oxford?

Exploit
verb

1. [with object]
   Pronunciation /ɪkˈsplɔɪt//ɛkˈsplɔɪt/
   • 1Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)
     
     ‘500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology’
2. 2Make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand.
   
   ‘the company was exploiting a legal loophole’
   1. 2.1 Benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
      ‘these workers are at particular risk of being exploited in the workplace

Which version do you use and how do we objectively measure "fair", "full us of", "underhanded"?

 

Under capitalism, employers bid for my services. That guarantees maximum compensation for my talents.

Under a state-run system, my salary is pegged by an unknown, faceless bureaucrat. That guarantees I will be undercompensated, which is exploitation.