Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

11 Arguments Against the Core of Capitalism

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since there's an overwhelming number of Right-wingers, I thought I'd attack the core of the core of Right-wing economics. The core of Capitalism. Here they are:

Arguments Against Capitalism

Capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit." [1] Because Capitalism's goal is profit, it creates a great hindrance to many things.

Contention 1:

- Products are purposefully built to make products that don't last. If products lasted a significant amount of time, this would be a detriment to companies who seek to profit from customers who keep coming back and repeatedly buying their perishable products. This leads to the next point below.

Contention 2:

- Capitalism breeds a demand for more labor rather than efficiency and less labor. We have the production ability to have many processes automated, but because of Capitalism, workers have to do useless, inefficient jobs that could be automated.

Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable. So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged. Profit is. We could get rid of gas cars and instead have cheap, green, fuel-efficient, and advanced vehicles, but if it's not profitable, we won't do it (*cough* oil companies *cough*). In fact, there's many suppressed technologies out there that should be available but aren't partly due to Capitalism (and in today's society, partly due to government regulation).

Contention 4:

- Cancer research teams are discouraged to find a cure for cancer because if they find the cure, they lose their job and their means of income, aka profit. So long as the search for a cancer cure exists, there will be a need for a cancer research team.

Contention 5:

- Pharmaceutical companies seek profit, not your health, and thus don't provide products that actually better your health, but rather act as a bandaid so that you keep coming back for more to keep purchasing their pharmaceutical products. In fact, there are cases where there are natural remedies which actually heal health problems, but because they're natural, pharmaceutical companies can't patent it and thus won't provide it unless they try to artificially create a chemical which mimics it in order to patent the natural remedy and thus make a profit off of a less efficient product.

Contention 6:

- Owners of companies leech off of the workers who actually create the tangible value. Owners make the majority of the money and do absolutely no real productive work. Because the goal of Capitalism is profit, owners have no incentive not to provide the lowest wages possible and keep the most amount of money for themselves.

Contention 7:

- Profit isn't based on resource needs. We live in a country where overproduction is a problem, yet we have a high rate of poverty. This makes no sense. Money and prices therefore don't accurately represent the available resources. There's an overabundance of food on the planet, yet there are millions of starving babies. In fact, our government pays farms to burn their crops to maintain a scarcity to keep food prices high (because the government and Capitalists are working with each other).

Contention 8:

- Those who accumulate Capital gain power and thus have social influence (control) over how society works, thus creating an authority/slave relationship. More capital, more power, and if someone has more power than you, then you have less power. That's just the trade off that inherently exists in the accumulation of power.

Contention 9:

- Workers don't own the products of their own labor. If a worker creates a clock, it belongs to the company and is sold by the company for it's own profit. And if the worker wants that clock, they have to spend their own wages on the clock that they built. Yes, they get paid to work, but they get paid pennies compared to the undeserved money that the owners accumulate.

Contention 10:

- The mindset that wishes to accumulate wealth is a mental illness. Why? Because the Capitalist wants excess wealth that no longer has a purpose or instrumental value. (Aristotle made this argument.)

Contention 11:

- Capitalism turns the means (monetary exchange units) into the end. Instead of seeking money to obtain viable resources, the Capitalist simply seeks to accumulate money. But once you turn the means into the end, then there is no end and the accumulation of wealth is pointless and out of control. (Aristotle made this argument.)

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

.
.

- Basically, if it's profitable to screw you over, Capitalists will do it!

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 4:50:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"We could get rid of gas cars and instead have cheap, green, fuel-efficient, and advanced vehicles, but if it's not profitable, we won't do it"

That one made my day. Apparently the cars are cheap to produce, but somehow they won't do it because it won't make a profit. How does that make sense at all?

If its so cheap to produce, why don't they sell it at a high price and make a huge profit then?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:03:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For number 9, if somebody can make a clock, all by themselves, then why the hell are they working for someone?

Get a life, and make them, and sell them for yourself.

See, the problem is, a lot of people that are laborers can't do anything special without the companies resources.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 5:03:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For number 9, if somebody can make a clock, all by themselves, then why the hell are they working for someone?

Get a life, and make them, and sell them for yourself.

See, the problem is, a lot of people that are laborers can't do anything special without the companies resources.

yes but the evilz corporations hoard the resources necessarily for the masses to produce things, making us slave to them and our labor exploited because of it. Its one of those problems with individual ownership of production.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:17:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And it's largest problem of all is that it's primarily run by humans. This has an interesting way of always screwing things up.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:17:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Phew, this post made me remember how f*cked up this country is. I pretty much agree with what you say. It's all about the profit and not about progress.

Also, with capitalism, the people who have a lot of power/money will use it to control how the government is run. So, they progressively get away with more and more sh!t that poisons us, rips us off, and turns us into brainwashed puppets.

It's pathetic really. :\
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:20:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 5:08:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/5/2012 5:03:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For number 9, if somebody can make a clock, all by themselves, then why the hell are they working for someone?

Get a life, and make them, and sell them for yourself.

See, the problem is, a lot of people that are laborers can't do anything special without the companies resources.

yes but the evilz corporations hoard the resources necessarily for the masses to produce things, making us slave to them and our labor exploited because of it. Its one of those problems with individual ownership of production.

^Please note the above is a complete joke until people start taking it seriously.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:34:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 5:20:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/5/2012 5:08:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/5/2012 5:03:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For number 9, if somebody can make a clock, all by themselves, then why the hell are they working for someone?

Get a life, and make them, and sell them for yourself.

See, the problem is, a lot of people that are laborers can't do anything special without the companies resources.

yes but the evilz corporations hoard the resources necessarily for the masses to produce things, making us slave to them and our labor exploited because of it. Its one of those problems with individual ownership of production.

^Please note the above is a complete joke until people start taking it seriously.

Lol well it's true in the sense that the large corporations have the buying power and can get resources much more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else. so someone has to be extremely innovative with their product in order to make much off of it.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:38:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Since there's an overwhelming number of Right-wingers, I thought I'd attack the core of the core of Right-wing economics. The core of Capitalism. Here they are:


Arguments Against Capitalism

Capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit." [1] Because Capitalism's goal is profit, it creates a great hindrance to many things.

Contention 1:

- Products are purposefully built to make products that don't last. If products lasted a significant amount of time, this would be a detriment to companies who seek to profit from customers who keep coming back and repeatedly buying their perishable products. This leads to the next point below.

Not true. If one makes products that are of good, long lasting quality, than establishing a reputation which leads to a brand name. Band names, and good reputations, mean more money.

Contention 2:

- Capitalism breeds a demand for more labor rather than efficiency and less labor. We have the production ability to have many processes automated, but because of Capitalism, workers have to do useless, inefficient jobs that could be automated.

Actually it's cheaper to have a machine do the worker's job.
It is however true that capitalism allows for more jobs, but that is a good thing.

Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable. So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged. Profit is. We could get rid of gas cars and instead have cheap, green, fuel-efficient, and advanced vehicles, but if it's not profitable, we won't do it (*cough* oil companies *cough*). In fact, there's many suppressed technologies out there that should be available but aren't partly due to Capitalism (and in today's society, partly due to government regulation).

harmful products hurt the reputation of a company, and thus hurts businesses. It is good marketing for companies to have a charitable arm to their company, or to help the environment. Green products, of bad quality, sell because they are green; often time green products are more expensive than other better quality products, but sell over the better quality product because they are green.

Contention 4:

- Cancer research teams are discouraged to find a cure for cancer because if they find the cure, they lose their job and their means of income, aka profit. So long as the search for a cancer cure exists, there will be a need for a cancer research team.

Cancer research teams would make a fortune if they discovered a cure to cancer.
It is more profitable to produce a cure, than to continue research for a cure.
Many companies have suffered financially because the research stage has lasted too long, draining their money supply.
Once a cure has been found, money will continue to come because new cancer patients would require the cure.

Contention 5:

- Pharmaceutical companies seek profit, not your health, and thus don't provide products that actually better your health, but rather act as a bandaid so that you keep coming back for more to keep purchasing their pharmaceutical products. In fact, there are cases where there are natural remedies which actually heal health problems, but because they're natural, pharmaceutical companies can't patent it and thus won't provide it unless they try to artificially create a chemical which mimics it in order to patent the natural remedy and thus make a profit off of a less efficient product.


this is not true. If company A produces a pill that cures illness X, and Company B produces a pill that simply relieves the symptoms of illness X, than company A would profit, and their competitors Company B will suffer from lack of business.

Contention 6:

- Owners of companies leech off of the workers who actually create the tangible value. Owners make the majority of the money and do absolutely no real productive work. Because the goal of Capitalism is profit, owners have no incentive not to provide the lowest wages possible and keep the most amount of money for themselves.


Employers compete for the better quality employees. Better employees means better business. Because of this employees are paid what their value of labor is worth.

Marx theorized that any profits made from sales = the base product value + the value of labor.

This of course is wrong. Product Value is determined by Supply and Demand. Companies purchase a large quantity of the Supply for a higher equilibrium of price and quantity. The company than resells it at a lower quantity according to the store's supply, and the customer's demand.
Organized buys also have a different demand than that of the final consumer.

Contention 7:

- Profit isn't based on resource needs. We live in a country where overproduction is a problem, yet we have a high rate of poverty. This makes no sense. Money and prices therefore don't accurately represent the available resources. There's an overabundance of food on the planet, yet there are millions of starving babies. In fact, our government pays farms to burn their crops to maintain a scarcity to keep food prices high (because the government and Capitalists are working with each other).

0% of America is in poverty according to the international poverty line. US poverty line is drawn at $10.75 an hour, but the international poverty line is drawn at $2 an hour.

Since when has the government ever paid farmers to burn crops?
Unless the government paid them enough to purchase the crops, I doubt the farmers would waste their money. Profit is determined by the demand, all supply does it change the equilibrium of quantity and price.

Contention 8:

- Those who accumulate Capital gain power and thus have social influence (control) over how society works, thus creating an authority/slave relationship. More capital, more power, and if someone has more power than you, then you have less power. That's just the trade off that inherently exists in the accumulation of power.

It's better to live in a society where power is determined by your own hard work, rather than who you know. This is why Capitalism is better than Socialism.

Contention 9:

- Workers don't own the products of their own labor. If a worker creates a clock, it belongs to the company and is sold by the company for it's own profit. And if the worker wants that clock, they have to spend their own wages on the clock that they built. Yes, they get paid to work, but they get paid pennies compared to the undeserved money that the owners accumulate.

The company paid for the material, and the marketing of the product. The worker is compensated for his work by wages, according to his value to the company. If the worker is not that important it is reflected in his wages. If the worker is a screw up, it is reflected in his wages.


Contention 10:

- The mindset that wishes to accumulate wealth is a mental illness. Why? Because the Capitalist wants excess wealth that no longer has a purpose or instrumental value. (Aristotle made this argument.)

Wealth = more security, and more comfort. The more wealth you have, the more peace of mind. Their concern is providing for their family, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Socialism is based on envy, and jealousy of those who are more successful. One should be contempt with what they have, and not look to what others have to evaluate their own well-being.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:41:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I got cut off

At 4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Contention 11:

- Capitalism turns the means (monetary exchange units) into the end. Instead of seeking money to obtain viable resources, the Capitalist simply seeks to accumulate money. But once you turn the means into the end, then there is no end and the accumulation of wealth is pointless and out of control. (Aristotle made this argument.

Money is simply a representation of a commodity. Instead of bartering we use money to represent the worth of an actual resource. This way instead of trading the actual item, we are trading part of it's value, for an object of equal value to that which is being traded.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:45:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Capitalism sounds like something the NWO would come up the way Geo puts it, doesn't it?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:49:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


Contention 1:

- Products are purposefully built to make products that don't last. If products lasted a significant amount of time, this would be a detriment to companies who seek to profit from customers who keep coming back and repeatedly buying their perishable products. This leads to the next point below.

Contention 2:

- Capitalism breeds a demand for more labor rather than efficiency and less labor. We have the production ability to have many processes automated, but because of Capitalism, workers have to do useless, inefficient jobs that could be automated.

As opposed to what? Firing people and increasing unemployment? Then what?

Also, many jobs are automated, look at the automotive industry, for example, or even computers. This also seems to be in direct contrast with your definition of Capitalism, simple supply and demand means the more supply there is then price goes down. Automating things means price goes down as there is more supply (plus you do not have to pay wages).

Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable. So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged. Profit is. We could get rid of gas cars and instead have cheap, green, fuel-efficient, and advanced vehicles, but if it's not profitable, we won't do it (*cough* oil companies *cough*). In fact, there's many suppressed technologies out there that should be available but aren't partly due to Capitalism (and in today's society, partly due to government regulation).

Isn't there a slow shift towards these advanced vehicles? Look at hybrid technology or even electric technology. There is a slow shift to this technology simply because more people are caring about the environment. Therefore, it is more profitable to create cars which are environmentally friendly.

Contention 4:

- Cancer research teams are discouraged to find a cure for cancer because if they find the cure, they lose their job and their means of income, aka profit. So long as the search for a cancer cure exists, there will be a need for a cancer research team.

These researchers would never really be out of work. I mean there are a plethora of deadly diseases to research. And many cancer research groups are non for profit organizations.

Contention 5:

- Pharmaceutical companies seek profit, not your health, and thus don't provide products that actually better your health, but rather act as a bandaid so that you keep coming back for more to keep purchasing their pharmaceutical products. In fact, there are cases where there are natural remedies which actually heal health problems, but because they're natural, pharmaceutical companies can't patent it and thus won't provide it unless they try to artificially create a chemical which mimics it in order to patent the natural remedy and thus make a profit off of a less efficient product.

There are natural remedies to some health problems. But, in many cases, there are no natural remedies for a health issue. Let's look at your cancer issue for a second, researchers are finding natural remedies, but, on a such a small scale that they would have to be artificially reproduced. Who exactly should market a cure for cancer other than a company?

Contention 6:

- Owners of companies leech off of the workers who actually create the tangible value. Owners make the majority of the money and do absolutely no real productive work. Because the goal of Capitalism is profit, owners have no incentive not to provide the lowest wages possible and keep the most amount of money for themselves.

Karl Marx's belief on the Capitalist can be summed up in the following statement "The Marxist capitalist is much more the disciplined, self-denying captain of industry who plows his profits back into the business, turning each increment of his profit into a new element of capital with which more profit is in turn realized."

What exactly is your solution? You can argue that sometimes Capitalism does not pay a fair wage, but, at least people are working. Furthermore, the rise of Labor Unions ensured all workers receive a fairer wage. Also, how can you account for those who receive "wage raises" on the job?

Contention 7:

- Profit isn't based on resource needs. We live in a country where overproduction is a problem, yet we have a high rate of poverty. This makes no sense. Money and prices therefore don't accurately represent the available resources. There's an overabundance of food on the planet, yet there are millions of starving babies. In fact, our government pays farms to burn their crops to maintain a scarcity to keep food prices high (because the government and Capitalists are working with each other).

Many more would be starving if the government did not get farmers to burn their crops. I implore you to look at the plight of the farmer in the late 1800s to the early 1900s and see what overproduction caused. Over production is simply bad.

Contention 8:

- Those who accumulate Capital gain power and thus have social influence (control) over how society works, thus creating an authority/slave relationship. More capital, more power, and if someone has more power than you, then you have less power. That's just the trade off that inherently exists in the accumulation of power.

Once again you attack Capitalism without providing any reason for us to believe another system is any more fairer in practice.

Contention 9:

- Workers don't own the products of their own labor. If a worker creates a clock, it belongs to the company and is sold by the company for it's own profit. And if the worker wants that clock, they have to spend their own wages on the clock that they built. Yes, they get paid to work, but they get paid pennies compared to the undeserved money that the owners accumulate.

If the worker is using the companies materials...it was the companies. They simply shaped it. If the worker was using their own materials it is theirs.

Contention 10:

- The mindset that wishes to accumulate wealth is a mental illness. Why? Because the Capitalist wants excess wealth that no longer has a purpose or instrumental value. (Aristotle made this argument.)

They want excess wealth to push it back into their company.

Contention 11:

- Capitalism turns the means (monetary exchange units) into the end. Instead of seeking money to obtain viable resources, the Capitalist simply seeks to accumulate money. But once you turn the means into the end, then there is no end and the accumulation of wealth is pointless and out of control. (Aristotle made this argument.)

Creating a product the consumer wants causes people to buy that product, in turn, this creates wealth which is siphoned back into the company...and the cycle begins again.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 5:51:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 5:45:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism sounds like something the NWO would come up the way Geo puts it, doesn't it?

dun dun dun
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 6:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
for the record this is the 3,000th topic under the politics forum....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 6:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 5:45:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism sounds like something the NWO would come up the way Geo puts it, doesn't it?

which is interesting, because he's against government and he's against capitalism. So what is his ideal society? Relatively small tribal societies? (which are really just small states, but still states nonetheless)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 6:34:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 6:30:13 PM, imabench wrote:
for the record this is the 3,000th topic under the politics forum....

We are forever shamed.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:34:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 6:33:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/5/2012 5:45:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism sounds like something the NWO would come up the way Geo puts it, doesn't it?

which is interesting, because he's against government and he's against capitalism. So what is his ideal society? Relatively small tribal societies? (which are really just small states, but still states nonetheless)

I think he's a Panarchist.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bobington
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:54:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Contention 1:

- Products are purposefully built to make products that don't last. If products lasted a significant amount of time, this would be a detriment to companies who seek to profit from customers who keep coming back and repeatedly buying their perishable products. This leads to the next point below.

Ignores the basic means of competition where consumers have a wide swathe of choice and choose products of lesser quality as it makes them happier.

Contention 2:

- Capitalism breeds a demand for more labor rather than efficiency and less labor. We have the production ability to have many processes automated, but because of Capitalism, workers have to do useless, inefficient jobs that could be automated.

Incorrect. The driving force of competition and desire for profit. If it is profitable to replace jobs with automation, it will be done. If not then it won't. What is desirable is profitability.


Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable.

How can something both be harmful and profitable unless you are arbitrarily defining harm what the consumers define as happiness.

So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged.

As goods with the most utility give the most profit this is incorrect.

Profit is. We could get rid of gas cars and instead have cheap, green, fuel-efficient, and advanced vehicles, but if it's not profitable, we won't do it (*cough* oil companies *cough*).

There is something wrong with having a cheaper fuel source because?

In fact, there's many suppressed technologies out there that should be available but aren't partly due to Capitalism (and in today's society, partly due to government regulation).

If this is your premise, then it is not a point against capitalism but against government intervention.


Contention 4:

- Cancer research teams are discouraged to find a cure for cancer because if they find the cure, they lose their job and their means of income, aka profit.

Incorrect they will receive a massive bonus plus their company and their employers will keep them employed as they are clearly brilliant to find other cures to other diseases. Their company will gain the sole rights to produce this new cure and become extremely profitable. Therefore it is in the best itnerest of the workers and the company.

So long as the search for a cancer cure exists, there will be a need for a cancer research team.

There are far more diseases than cancer and there are far more types of cancer than just one.


Contention 5:

- Pharmaceutical companies seek profit, not your health, and thus don't provide products that actually better your health, but rather act as a bandaid so that you keep coming back for more to keep purchasing their pharmaceutical products.

Profit also encourages private watchdogs to find this out, publish these controversies and make a profit by informing the public of the stories via news. Fear of this happening also acts as a safeguard for predatory companies. Additionally the FDA is required to make sure the information is correct. Oversight into making sure information is accurate is still capitalistic.

In fact, there are cases where there are natural remedies which actually heal health problems, but because they're natural, pharmaceutical companies can't patent it and thus won't provide it unless they try to artificially create a chemical which mimics it in order to patent the natural remedy and thus make a profit off of a less efficient product.

Largely this is bullshitt. Also a wide range of holistic healers are available for people who enjoy this treatment and insurance polices exist solely for holistic practices.


Contention 6:

- Owners of companies leech off of the workers who actually create the tangible value. Owners make the majority of the money and do absolutely no real productive work. Because the goal of Capitalism is profit, owners have no incentive not to provide the lowest wages possible and keep the most amount of money for themselves.

This again ignores competition for the most talented workers. Clearly workers who produce huges amounts of tangible value will be in higher demand then the ones who don't. As profit is the ultimate goal, and there are few workers who produce tons of tangilble value the pay will increase due to a basic supply and demand chart with supply shrinking while demand rises at the same time.
This is the entire point HR exists.

Contention 7:

- Profit isn't based on resource needs. We live in a country where overproduction is a problem, yet we have a high rate of poverty. This makes no sense.

No this makes perfect sense. Heroin addicts produce negative value, therefore they are rewarded with nothing.

Money and prices therefore don't accurately represent the available resources.

Also ignores basic supply and demand curves and daily price changes, ignores the futures markets.

There's an overabundance of food on the planet
economic scarcity. Google it.

yet there are millions of starving babies. In fact, our government pays farms to burn their crops

also not true.

Contention 8:

- Those who accumulate Capital gain power and thus have social influence (control) over how society works

I would rather have wealthy intelligent individuals have more control then a bunch of handpicked party members. Why should a heroin addict have the same control as a surgeon who went to school for 7 years and benefits society?

Contention 9:

- Workers don't own the products of their own labor. If a worker creates a clock, it belongs to the company and is sold by the company for it's own profit.

It's called buy your companies stock if you want to own the product of your labor. Anyone can do it there is no limit or secret club.


Contention 10:

- The mindset that wishes to accumulate wealth is a mental illness. Why? Because the Capitalist wants excess wealth that no longer has a purpose or instrumental value. (Aristotle made this argument.)

define excess.

Contention 11:

- Capitalism turns the means (monetary exchange units) into the end. Instead of seeking money to obtain viable resources, the Capitalist simply seeks to accumulate money.

Again makes no sense and is arbitrarily judging a large swathe of the populations motivations with no logical backing.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 3:40:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I will refute this point below which appears to be the most common rebuttal to my arguments against capitalism.

At 4/6/2012 12:54:10 AM, bobington wrote:
At 4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable.

How can something both be harmful and profitable unless you are arbitrarily defining harm what the consumers define as happiness.

Diet soda with aspartame. Highly toxic and harmful, yet highly profitable.

So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged.

As goods with the most utility give the most profit this is incorrect.

False. See Alec Guinness' The Man in the White Suit.

"Sidney Stratton, a brilliant young research chemist and former Cambridge scholarship recipient, has been dismissed from jobs at several textile mills in the north of England because of his demands for expensive facilities and his obsession to invent an everlasting fibre. Whilst working as a labourer at the Birnley mill, he accidentally becomes an unpaid researcher and invents an incredibly strong fibre which repels dirt and never wears out. From this fabric, a suit is made—which is brilliant white because it cannot absorb dye, and slightly luminous because it includes radioactive elements.

Stratton is lauded as a genius until both management and the trade unions realize the consequence of his invention—once consumers have purchased enough cloth, demand will drop precipitously and put the textile industry out of business.
"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:32:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 3:40:04 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I will refute this point below which appears to be the most common rebuttal to my arguments against capitalism.

At 4/6/2012 12:54:10 AM, bobington wrote:
At 4/5/2012 4:20:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable.

How can something both be harmful and profitable unless you are arbitrarily defining harm what the consumers define as happiness.

Diet soda with aspartame. Highly toxic and harmful, yet highly profitable.

Aspartame is not toxic, or harmful. The only controversy regarding the supposed 'ill effects' of the drug originated due to several hoax letters, and internet chain letters that spread throughout the web. It has FDA approval, and also the GAO approval of the FDA approval. The data are all under public scrutiny.

http://www.gao.gov...

http://urbanlegends.about.com...

So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged.

As goods with the most utility give the most profit this is incorrect.

False. See Alec Guinness' The Man in the White Suit.

"Sidney Stratton, a brilliant young research chemist and former Cambridge scholarship recipient, has been dismissed from jobs at several textile mills in the north of England because of his demands for expensive facilities and his obsession to invent an everlasting fibre. Whilst working as a labourer at the Birnley mill, he accidentally becomes an unpaid researcher and invents an incredibly strong fibre which repels dirt and never wears out. From this fabric, a suit is made—which is brilliant white because it cannot absorb dye, and slightly luminous because it includes radioactive elements.

Stratton is lauded as a genius until both management and the trade unions realize the consequence of his invention—once consumers have purchased enough cloth, demand will drop precipitously and put the textile industry out of business.
"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

... It is a comedy film... fictional? Is this a joke thread?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:37:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 4:32:35 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
Aspartame is not toxic, or harmful. The only controversy regarding the supposed 'ill effects' of the drug originated due to several hoax letters, and internet chain letters that spread throughout the web. It has FDA approval, and also the GAO approval of the FDA approval. The data are all under public scrutiny.

http://www.gao.gov...

http://urbanlegends.about.com...

"Aspartame Is, by Far, the Most Dangerous Substance on the Market That is Added to Foods It hides behind brand names such as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure, but its makers cannot mask the fact that it accounts for 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA."

http://aspartame.mercola.com...

False. See Alec Guinness' The Man in the White Suit.

"Sidney Stratton, a brilliant young research chemist and former Cambridge scholarship recipient, has been dismissed from jobs at several textile mills in the north of England because of his demands for expensive facilities and his obsession to invent an everlasting fibre. Whilst working as a labourer at the Birnley mill, he accidentally becomes an unpaid researcher and invents an incredibly strong fibre which repels dirt and never wears out. From this fabric, a suit is made—which is brilliant white because it cannot absorb dye, and slightly luminous because it includes radioactive elements.

Stratton is lauded as a genius until both management and the trade unions realize the consequence of his invention—once consumers have purchased enough cloth, demand will drop precipitously and put the textile industry out of business.
"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

... It is a comedy film... fictional? Is this a joke thread?

Clearly that was a fictional film, but the example exposes a serious flaw in Capitalism. If we were able make clothes incredibly durable and stainless, for example socks, then soon as people purchase the amount of needed socks, the demand will drop devastatingly.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 3:04:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:37:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Clearly that was a fictional film, but the example exposes a serious flaw in Capitalism. If we were able make clothes incredibly durable and stainless, for example socks, then soon as people purchase the amount of needed socks, the demand will drop devastatingly.

Except most smart people like Steve Jobs realize that humans have a natural tendancy to get bored with the same and want to get new things anyway.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 3:12:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 3:04:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:37:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Clearly that was a fictional film, but the example exposes a serious flaw in Capitalism. If we were able make clothes incredibly durable and stainless, for example socks, then soon as people purchase the amount of needed socks, the demand will drop devastatingly.

Except most smart people like Steve Jobs realize that humans have a natural tendancy to get bored with the same and want to get new things anyway.

Only with certain things. I don't get bored of a pair of socks and then one day decide to be daring and buy some radical new looking socks. I play a lot of basketball and some socks get holes in them within 3 weeks. I wish there were a pair of socks that lasted 4 years and I guarantee that getting bored would not be an issue.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:37:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 3:12:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/13/2012 3:04:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:37:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Clearly that was a fictional film, but the example exposes a serious flaw in Capitalism. If we were able make clothes incredibly durable and stainless, for example socks, then soon as people purchase the amount of needed socks, the demand will drop devastatingly.

Except most smart people like Steve Jobs realize that humans have a natural tendancy to get bored with the same and want to get new things anyway.

Only with certain things. I don't get bored of a pair of socks and then one day decide to be daring and buy some radical new looking socks. I play a lot of basketball and some socks get holes in them within 3 weeks. I wish there were a pair of socks that lasted 4 years and I guarantee that getting bored would not be an issue.

You're a great candidate for monogamy.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:00:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 4:37:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/13/2012 3:12:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Only with certain things. I don't get bored of a pair of socks and then one day decide to be daring and buy some radical new looking socks. I play a lot of basketball and some socks get holes in them within 3 weeks. I wish there were a pair of socks that lasted 4 years and I guarantee that getting bored would not be an issue.

You're a great candidate for monogamy.

False. I'm in strong favor of multiple partners. Also note that I said only certain things don't get boring, not all things.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contention 1:

- Products are purposefully built to make products that don't last. If products lasted a significant amount of time, this would be a detriment to companies who seek to profit from customers who keep coming back and repeatedly buying their perishable products. This leads to the next point below.:

And yet people routinely buy Japanese because they're known as reliable, long-lasting cars, which is a selling point.

Contention 2:

- Capitalism breeds a demand for more labor rather than efficiency and less labor. We have the production ability to have many processes automated, but because of Capitalism, workers have to do useless, inefficient jobs that could be automated.:

It's the exact opposite. There used to be a huge industry of trade and factory workers that have become automated which means: 1. Increased productivity 2. Less errors by removing human error 3. Less people to pay regularly

Contention 3:

- People will make intentionally harmful products for profit and will refuse to make revolutionary and very helpful products if they are not profitable. So actual progress and utility isn't necessarily encouraged. Profit is.:

Profit is certainly a motivation. No company can survive without it, and by extension, no employee or their family can either. You make it sound like "profit" is a bad word, yet if you have a job, it's for "profit." Interesting.

Secondly, a company has interests in playing fairly because companies that kill people lose revenue in the long run.

Contention 4:

- Cancer research teams are discouraged to find a cure for cancer because if they find the cure, they lose their job and their means of income, aka profit. So long as the search for a cancer cure exists, there will be a need for a cancer research team.:

And to think of all the money lost when they cured Polio and Small Pox. Companies have enormous incentive to cure cancer. Not only might it save their own life one day, but it would be hugely profitable to be the company or individual that cured cancer.

Contention 5:

- Pharmaceutical companies seek profit, not your health, and thus don't provide products that actually better your health, but rather act as a bandaid so that you keep coming back for more to keep purchasing their pharmaceutical products.:

To a degree, I agree, but that's not a fault of capitalism. Human greed = human greed. Human greed =/= capitalism anymore than poodles = capitalism. You're conditioned to believe that "profit" and "greed" are necessarily bad things when in reality they are things (like anything else) that can be abused in excess.

... I'm bored with this.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 11:30:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 6:33:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/5/2012 5:45:15 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism sounds like something the NWO would come up the way Geo puts it, doesn't it?

which is interesting, because he's against government and he's against capitalism. So what is his ideal society? Relatively small tribal societies? (which are really just small states, but still states nonetheless)

The difference is that States have a monopoly on force, whereas anarchists/panarchists emphasize an individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any government rather than have one imposed upon them. Also I'm against both government and capitalism... duh :P
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 11:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The rebuttals to the list were all pretty lame, but the list itself wasn't great. It should have focused more on the societal implications of capitalism rather than insist that capitalists seek to provide shoddy products. That's kinda irrelevant not to mention a little bogus. I guess the list was meant to attack capitalism as an economic principle and not a political one. Obviously the two are linked, but when I think of reasons to be against capitalism, I'm thinking about inherent aspects and/or repercussions that I find immoral. I don't deny that capitalism is profitable or responsible for a lot of advancements. However I think that capitalists are naive in presuming that profit is the only motive for human ingenuity. It's really sad to have that mindset. I agree it's probably the most influential, but only because society places a huge value on it... lol it's a big catch 22. Perhaps I/we very few anti-capitalists will come up with another list, borrowing a few but not all concepts from this one :)
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 11:46:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 11:35:28 PM, Danielle wrote:
The rebuttals to the list were all pretty lame, but the list itself wasn't great. It should have focused more on the societal implications of capitalism rather than insist that capitalists seek to provide shoddy products.

That was only contention 1 - 5. Didn't you read contentions 6 - 11?

Those addressed important issues that had nothing to do with "shoddy products."

Perhaps I/we very few anti-capitalists will come up with another list, borrowing a few but not all concepts from this one :)

Good idea!

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2012 12:41:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No I hadn't read 6-11 before this, admittedly. I think they make some good points. I read DanT's responses to those in particular and saw a few holes in his arguments. I think expanding on or otherwise improving this list could be a fun project. Right now the merit of capitalism is one of the few topics I find remotely engaging on DDO (especially since the influx of conservatives): the divide between the anarchist left and right, which is based on opposing views of capitalism. I find it interesting that most leftists are morally opposed to it, whereas supporters seem to defend it with a "But there's no other way" mindset - at least that's how it seems to me. Or they ignore the moral implications all together, noting that capitalism might not be remotely fair but taking the "That's just the way it is" approach, which I don't agree with but definitely understand.
President of DDO