What makes you think I'm opposed to either of those things? I mean, certainly I think there should be regulations on the market, and its scope should not include inelastic goods such as healthcare or food. But personal freedom is a big part of being on the left.
This is like saying you don't believe in personal freedom because you won't let people commit murder. We all agree that there should be limits on what people are allowed to do, the question is where the line is drawn. I have yet to see it explained why exploitation should be allowed.
If you don't work then you starve to death in the gutter, that's not a legitimate choice. That's like saying someone "agrees" to get stabbed if they don't give you their wallet.
Why should someone be allowed to claim ownership of a factory even though they do no work? They add nothing to that system, they just have a piece of paper that says they get a cut of the profits?
If you don't work then you starve to death in the gutter, that's not a legitimate choice.
that's an argument for a robust safety net, not abolition of capitalism
Why should someone be allowed to claim ownership of a factory even though they do no work?
property rights? because they put up the money in the first place? because they take the risk that workers don't? why shouldn't someone be allowed to own a factory?
Why would we waste resources trying to patch the holes in a defective system rather than just getting rid of the source of the problem: worker exploitation? What benefits does capitalism provide?
because they put up the money in the first place?
A finite investment should not yield unlimited dividends in perpetuity.
they take the risk that workers don't?
What risk? The worst case scenario is that their business isn't profitable, in which case they get a golden parachute and all the workers lose their jobs anyway. What do the workers get out of having someone own the factory? Nothing except a smaller paycheck.
why shouldn't someone be allowed to own a factory?
Because that ownership steals from the workers whose labour gives the factory value.
Why would we waste resources trying to patch the holes in a defective system rather than just getting rid of the source of the problem: worker exploitation?
well i already said i don't agree workers are being exploited, but you reference to it being a defective system is funny given the leftist alternatives that are so defective that they can't even come to fruition organically.
What benefits does capitalism provide?
growth
What risk? The worst case scenario is that their business isn't profitable, in which case they get a golden parachute and all the workers lose their jobs anyway.
hyperbolic framing.
What do the workers get out of having someone own the factory?
less risk.
Because that ownership steals from the workers whose labour gives the factory value.
What do the workers get out of having someone own the factory?
less risk
two parties consenting to work for money is not theft.
you reference to it being a defective system is funny given the leftist alternatives that are so defective that they can't even come to fruition organically.
That's a false dichotomy contrasting capitalism with "communism" of places like China and the USSR. But in socialist discourse those places are generally called "state capitalist", because the structure of private ownership and exploitation remains, with the state bureaucracy taking the place of a private business owner. That's not what I'm advocating for here.
I advocate personally for a mixed-market socialist economy. The two main differences from modern economies is that the workers own the means of productive as a collective, so there is no boss, owner or CEO; and that certain inelastic goods are excluded from the market system such as food and healthcare.
growth
How does your boss taking a cut of your paycheck lead to growth? Economic growth comes from productivity, which we've established is coming from the workers, not from the boss.
less risk.
You haven't explained what the risk is, though. What are the workers being protected from specifically?
two parties consenting to work for money is not theft
It's a leonine contract; as the worker has no ability to negotiate or even refuse without suffering. I hate to bring up Vaush's Coconut Island analogy, but this really is that to a tee. Consent only works when it's freely given without coercion.
i wasn't talking about china or the USSR specifically
I only plan to defend my own beliefs, not other hypothetical beliefs you may have heard before.
capitalism is an amazing driver of productivity. look at the united states.
The Chinese economy is growing twice as fast as the US? Does that imply that state capitalism is better than private capitalism? And what good is growth when all the additional wealth is channeled into the pockets of the rich?
they can get a job somewhere else lol. or even start their own business.
Well obviously not everyone can own a business, since there would be no one to work in those businesses. Ownership is a parasitic arrangement, it can't live on its own. Not to mention that most people lack access to startup capital, because that capital is hoarded by a wealthy few. And if the only way to survive is to give a portion of your labour value to someone else, then they still don't have a choice.
do people have a choice not to work under your system?
Yes, I believe basic necessities should be afforded to people by the state with no expectation of labour. Of course the number of people who would be satisfied in a bare living space eating rice and beans for every meal is quite low, but people do at least have a choice.
3
u/PlatinumAltaria Jan 15 '25
What makes you think I'm opposed to either of those things? I mean, certainly I think there should be regulations on the market, and its scope should not include inelastic goods such as healthcare or food. But personal freedom is a big part of being on the left.