Capitalism an Inherently Exploitative System
Debate Rounds (4)
Exploitative - describing the treatment of someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
Round 1: acceptance/introduction
Round 2: opening arguments, no rebuttal
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: responses to rebuttals and closing statements
Judging: minimum 2500 elo with select winner.
MaesterAemon, I saw your previous debate and copied your round 1 definitions into this verbatim. You had a debate with an unfortunate FF. If you would take this debate, I believe I can be a suitable opponent for you on this topic. If you would like to take this debate at a later time, please leave a comment listing when I should attempt to reopen it. Thank you and good luck.
I'm sorry to read that people have trouble getting your username right. I try to be thorough, but no one's perfect. If I can be informal here for a little longer... Although I may be wrong, my impression from reading your previous debate  and your profile  is that your consider yourself a socialist. I have a conjecture that your attack on capitalism is more about this preference that you have. After all, it is very common for theists to attack and insult atheists and vice versa. I tend to be open minded towards views I don't hold and understanding of why someone would believe in them. One my my goals is to promote peace and understanding among those who disagree with each other, and that was partly my motive for initiating this debate. I hold that whether or not socialism is better than capitalism is debatable and has everything to do with morality of those in government. That is a good lead into the actual debate.
Pro maintains that capitalism is inherently exploitative. If this is the case, then it is impossible to have capitalism without exploitation. For the purposes of this debate, then, all that must be proven to show Pro wrong is that it is theoretically possible to have a capitalist economic system without exploitation. To that effect, I argue that exploitation is a moral choice, and that moral choices are dictated by individuals regardless of economic systems.
I'm fairly certain that Pro would agree that exploitation can happen in any economic system, including socialism. If Pro takes argument to that, I will address it in future rounds by means of examples. I say this to support my claim that exploitation has more to do with morality than economic systems, not to directly support the claim that capitalism is not inherently exploitative.
Before we go any further, I should say more about what exploitation is and is not. Some may argue that everyone should receive the same wage, regardless of occupation. However, some occupations are harder than others, even if they are both just as necessary to society. It can be considered unfair for someone who has a desirable job to be paid more than someone who has an undesirable job requiring a comparable skill level.
There are many factors that play into capitalism. One of the leading factors is self profit. It is generally agreed that profit is driven by supply and demand. In capitalist systems that prevent monopolies, supply and demand is used to determine prices for products sold to consumers, but it is also used to determine wages paid to employees. As a side-effect, companies compete with each other for employees by means of wages and benefits. In places that have a minimum wage, companies that pay above minimum wage tend to retain their workers better than those who don't. Retaining workers decreases the costs associated with replacing workers and increases productivity because the level of experience held by the workers increases. These benefits alone had lead some companies to pay above the minimum wage .
As an example of what capitalism can be, in America, the democrats are pushing to end wage inequality while the republicans are pushing to end opportunity inequality . Either one of these solutions could put an end to employers exploiting workers, because workers will either be paid a fair wage for their work, or have the opportunity to do so if they are willing to work for it. It is worth noting that if the republicans have their way in that fight, retaining workers could become a larger issue, giving companies a larger incentive to treat their employees better.
Summary of Argument
I am not so naive as to believe that the only source of exploitation is employers, however, the definition of exploitation I copied from Con's debate  only included it. Thus, I focused my arguments specifically on that issue. Exploitation has more to do with the moral choices made by individuals with power than with economic systems. Capitalism can provide employers with incentive to treat workers fairly instead of exploiting them, because exploited workers have worse performance and are more likely to look for a better opportunity.
I know that source 4 is a bias republican website, but it does a good job of supporting my claim about what republicans and democrats are arguing about in American politics. To that effect, it is a good source. I am not explicitly supporting either republicans or democrats in my use of it. Politically speaking, I am personally an independent with libertarian leanings.
MaesterAemon forfeited this round.
The wage system itself is exploitative, it buts the laborer works under external control, in the words of Wilhelm von Humboldt,"we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is." . Until "industrial feudalism" is replaced by "industrial democracy," politics will be "the shadow cast on society by big business" the employment contract is a legal fiction in that it treats human beings juridically as mere tools or inputs by abdicating responsibility and self-determination.
(sorry this is so short I am beeen really busy )
As my opponent has given an informal and off topic round, so I will reply in kind.
I work for a small business with a very generous CEO. When I was hired as an intern, the CEO took time to come introduce himself and meet me at a work function when I'd only been there one week. In my five years at the company, I fell ill with an unknown illness. Even without a diagnosis, my company repeatedly encouraged me to take medical leave to figure it out. It took me two years, and four medical leaves to get on track, and they bent over backwards to bring me back every time. Without me working, my company suffered in terms of getting things done and billing our customer for my labor. We recently converted to being an employee-owned company  which is a way that businesses share profits with employees.
Another way is through Christmas bonuses which are usually in proportion to profits made that year and value to the company. These are both purely capitalist ideas to make employees happy. Making employees happy isn't inherent to capitalism, but it is certainly part of it. What is unfair isn't unequal wages. What's unfair is unequal opportunity.
Yes, I know the first source is someone's opinion. It is used to provide definition to the term, not as a supporting argument.
Wage work has been considered a negative relationship at least since Cicero noted " ...vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour, not for artistic skill; for in their case the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery. "  Wage labor not only bolsters inequality it is incredibly wasteful, wasting of workers' efforts and resources on producing useless luxuries;the waste of goods so that their price may remain high; and the waste of all those who sit between the producer and consumer, taking their own shares at each stage without actually contributing to the production of goods (the middle man). High salaried work (editor,manger,etc)perpetuates the hegemony of the employer class through manufacturing consent and eliciting false consciousness. A professional " is an obedient thinker, an intellectual property whom employers can trust to experiment, theorize, innovate and create safely within the confines of an assigned ideology." Marginally, both chattel and wage slaves may become bosses espoused by "rags to riches" or "slave to master" stories that occasionally occur/occurred marginal cases of "success" are not justification for a system that squanders human potential so that some may live like kings while others starve.
2 Disciplined Minds - Jeff Schmidt P.16
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.