Why is Capitalism seen as a system of oppression?

Even if that is absolutely true, we know that ANY type of engine requires 'regulation' and/or 'control'; otherwise the effects are typically disastrous. There is no getting around that.

 

None of them has capitalism ever allowed to try, as very well you know: mass murder inevitably follows any attempt. The capitalist dictatorship is universal.

 

I don't know if you can actually call it, 'wealth'.. most of it is fiat money, & is an illusion. So to fix inequality & injustice, you propose taking from those who've acquired the current 'wealth', & giving it to those who have not worked for it? This is just, to you?

I don't see 'attitudes' from the wealthy as being the problem, but corrupt govts.. who SHOULD be providing a level playing field & a stable currency. Instead, they are plundering the people with monetary policy, & favoring the moneyed elite. That's the 'attitude' i have a problem with, not home depot trying to make a profit.

Meanwhile, useful socialist idiots are ranting about safeway & dial, ignoring the cronyism & backroom deals their elected politicians are making to enrich their donors.

 

First, as John Maynard Keynes noted "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."

First, and this is just a guess, when you're living in two rooms with five other people, can't find a job and neither can 30% of the people in your neighborhood, and you see Mitt Romney talking about the cars he owns and his garage with the elevator, you might suspect there was a flaw in our system of economic distribution.

And you'd be right. Jack Smith never contributed as much to GE's success as it's 60,000 production workers in Mexico, but he was paid as much as they were collectively. Survival of the fittest applies to economic systems too. Unregulated capitalism is about to go the way of the dodo for the same reasons.

 

Nice job deflecting from your claim that only socialists and the government create barrier to entry.

 

The thoughts, ideas and values of the wealthy have sought to game the system and accomplish the same; that is why their 'thinking' is now a problem. THis is nothing new or sensational.

It is the GREED which corrupts; money infused into the workings of government (which in America is essentially THE PEOPLE)... is the primary problem. And there is essentially no need of people TALKING about 'corruption', unless they are willing to DIRECTLY address how MONEY served as a catalyst which FUELED the same. Sex scandals (lust) doesn't come close to comparing with money (greed), where corruption of the workings of government are concerned.

Correct. But Home Depot (and many other wealthy entities) need to keep their MONEY away from politicians.

It is clear (enough) that money isn't valuable or helpful in EVERY way and Americans need to WAKE UP to that reality.

 

You're still not getting it. And I would expect this from someone who's never learned how to maximize their own potential. Someone who's never learned how to do what I'm talking about. Do me a favor. Actually, do yourself a favor. Start reading some biographies of successful self-made people and see if you don't start to notice a pattern. See if you don't start to notice the exact pattern I've laid out here. Success leaves clues. The market isn't really controlled by anybody. But the only reason there is a relatively small (not very small) group of people at the top is because those are the only people that have truly put themselves out there, taken the risks, and had the tenacity to overcome the obstacles in order to get where they are. People who see the world the way that you do have already made up their minds that the system "must be" rigged and so they've closed their minds to seeing any other possibilities. That "must be" the only explanation for unequal distribution of wealth or lack of social mobility. It can't possibly be just because the people are comfortable and unmotivated or too afraid to significantly challenge themselves. That would put the responsibility on the individual. Which would prevent them from being the victim. And we can't have that. So in order to preserve your view of the world in a way that makes sense to you, you then piece together rationalizations for why successful people's behavior must be nefarious. Because the simple fact that they are successful and others are not clearly "must be" evidence of malfeasance. It "must be" bribery, force, blah blah blah. It can't just be honest blood, sweat, and tears. It just can't be!

This is human nature. It's called confirmation bias. Looking for things to validate what we already believe; whether it's accurate or not. We all naturally feel the need to be able to explain our environment. Because the unknown is scary. And it's more comfortable to think we have it all figured out. Even if the conclusion we reach is disempowering to us and makes us feel helpless.

Now, I'm not a motivational speaker. So if you want to live your life feeling helpless, you go right ahead. I don't care. But I'll continue to take advantage of the wonderful system around me. Because I believe pissing away opportunity is not only cheating yourself but it's also a slap in the face to the people in parts of the world who do not have access to these same opportunities.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting point, but what does that have to do with what I said?

 

Right. I'm sure.

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

Well, sorry, but this is just idealistic bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and ignores the economic reality of many peoples' lives.

...Wow. Really? So, who is working the factories? Robotic men? Who is working customer service? Who is running distribution and sales? This is honestly one of the stupidest claims I've read on these forums.

I agree that many people don't want to attempt a business venture because there is little guarantee of success and a very big guarantee of forcing yourself into bankruptcy or worse, I do, which in itself is an argument against capitalism's way of doing things. But, I'm sorry, there are still people who simply don't have the kind of credit or connections to take out a loan to start a business.

Ayn Rand would be a perfect example. Also, multiple anarcho-capitalists would gleefully claim this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

Ahem, bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You're ignoring all the business ventures that put themselves out there, taken the risks, and then were driven out of business because they couldn't match a huge corporation's prices.

If you don't think that the game is rigged for the wealthy, than you're as blind as a bat. A person born poor simply doesn't have the same types of opportunities that the wealthy have.

 

Economic systems can't be bastardized, they're dynamic system which are created by a combination of factors. Making a moral judgement tat corporatism is a "bastardization" would be to assume tat capitalism was deliberatly "designed" by a person or group of people.

 

Capitalism is the only fully voluntary system capable of growth and prosperity. All other systems are inferior in their ability to bring about prosperity.

 

OK, then it's a bastardisation of the "Free market". Which has a clear definition.

 

I'm done with you. This sort of BS, assumptive nonsense illustrates the kind of man you are, forum rules prohibit me from informing you of the details.

 

How can you bastardize something that has never existed, and furthermore cannot possibly exist?

 

It can exist and did a very long time ago. I don't think we should strive for it as it's a nonsense in the modern day. But I kinda figure that you're being purposefully obtuse, so I'll leave our conversation here.

 

Pure unadulterated capitalism is the TRUE christian birth right. Says so in my bible next to Ezekiel 4:15

Then he said to me, “See, I assign to you cow's dung instead of human dung, on which you may prepare your bread.”

 

Nobody seems to have responded to what you said.

There is nothing new about the oppression inherent in a Landed Estate or any capital (property) handed down without progressive taxes to lessen the inequality.

"What pillar of security does the landed interest require more than any other interest in the state, or what right has it to a distinct and separate representation from the general interest of a nation? The only use to be made of this power (and which it always has made), is to ward off taxes from itself, and throw the burthen upon those articles of consumption by which itself would be least affected...

...Men of small or moderate estates are more injured by the taxes being thrown on articles of consumption, than they are eased by warding it from landed property, for the following reasons:

First, They consume more of the productive taxable articles, in proportion to their property, than those of large estates.

Secondly, Their residence is chiefly in towns, and their property in houses; and the increase of the poor-rates, occasioned by taxes on consumption, is in much greater proportion than the land-tax has been favoured. In Birmingham, the poor-rates are not less than seven shillings in the pound. From this, as is already observed, the aristocracy are in a great measure exempt." (Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine 1792) http://www.constitution.org/tp/rightsman2.htm

"But the chief object of this progressive tax (besides the justice of rendering taxes more equal than they are) is, as already stated, to extirpate the overgrown influence arising from the unnatural law of primogeniture, and which is one of the principal sources of corruption at elections." (ibid)

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785) http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

 

Pretty much agree. Capitalism can be pretty oppressive, but it's less oppressive than any other system that has been implemented.

 

I agree. Although, like anything, regulation has its practical limits as well.

A balance has to be maintained.

 

I agree that we do not currently have a free market, nor have we had one in many decades. So why is it that some still blame the financial crisis on the "free market?"

 

Same old stupid, evil, and dishonest "blame the victim" filth you spew in every post.

 

That is the problem. Republicans want to abolish all regulation, and democrats want to overregulate.

 

and those starry eyed dreamers who think that anyone can have a little mom & pop business in which the sky's the limit, need to consider that free market capitalism will invariably end up commandeered by the megacorps. strangling the mom & pops in the process. you bring yourself full circle back to the activism of alternate economics gurus like Scott Nearing. socialism expressed in protection of the small holder. your capitalism is actually socialism, in other words. if you don't like REAL capitalism (the capitalism which is bankrupting america as we speak), you might want to turn to your left and smile.

 

The folk who make such claims are the same folk who lust after the money of others...

 

There are no doubt more vicious, evil and depraved acts a human being can commit than to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit by it.

I just can't think of one offhand.