Zone1 Predatory Capitalism

[Orangecat]

the entire point of capitalism being to use of one's capital advantage(s) to leverage more capital(profit) from the efforts or savings of others. Generally using one's unfair advantage(s) to screw people into helping them gain more, one way or another.

That’s untrue. Capitalism is the ability to own things and the freedom to sell them at a mutually agreed upon price. Without limits, it can lead to monopolies, which are generally unacceptably coercive and oppressive.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It's not as easy as simply having excellent credit, having a business plan for a worker-owned cooperative, then going to the SBA (Small Business Administration) and getting a loan. The banks are even worse than the SBA when it comes to applying for a loan to start a co-op. The system is essentially rigged, to stop the working-class from organizing cooperatives.

The capitalist elites see "worker-owned" anything, as a threat, because the bottom line of a co-op isn't profits (private capital accumulation), it's job security. If I start a privately owned business, my bottom line is to generate a surplus a.k.a. a profit, not to create jobs, or provide a product or service to consumers. That's at best a secondary, peripheral concern, not the priority of my business.

The worker-owners of a cooperative generally consider the purpose of their business as a means to provide job security to its members. Profits are at best secondary. The cooperative isn't burdened with making huge profits for shareholders or the owners of the business. It can often survive without generating a profit and whatever profits it generates can be reinvested into the company, allowing the co-op to offer more competitive prices, product warranties, excellent customer service..etc. Well-run cooperatives are really scary competitors to compete against.

As long as this capitalist system and privately owned business enterprises exist, the contradiction between the interests of the capitalists and their employees will continue. To avoid gross inequality in society, and the abuse of workers by their employers, there has to be a robust social safety net to mitigate the tension between the "haves" and have-nots, and the rights of workers to unionize must be respected. Well-run labor unions negotiate terms of employment with employers that benefit both parties. Poorly run labor unions hurt workers and leave people unemployed.

If a cooperative doesn't make a profit it's going to go out of business. The owners aren't going to have any job security. Profits are a critical indicator that the business is providing a service that people want and it's a critical factor in the distribution of resources.

You shouldn't want to get a loan anyway. You'll just have to pay it back with interest and be exploited by the people wealthy enough to have savings that they can loan out. Why would you want to enrich the bourgeoise like that?

 

[initforme]

Wages and effort and directly related. Pay more get more. Pay less then I slow my effort down. It's capitalism 101. How can this be argued against?

 

[TruthNotBS]

While I sympathize with the position, if the capitalist class didn't exist that wouldn't mean that the working class suddenly had access to capital. They'd still be starving and living under a bridge in winter. Historically the workers seizing the means of production has been a disaster (see, for example, communist Russia). The problem isn't profits or private ownership of the means of production. The problems are that we don't have enough capitalists and that the big corporations are in bed with the government.

When the new Soviet socialist nation was founded in October 1917, it was an unindustrialized, agrarian society, with a low literacy rate. In twenty years, socialists built Russia into an industrial juggernaut, with what at the time (the 1930s) was considered modern infrastructure. It even had a subway in Moscow, and several impressive hydroelectric plants, providing its citizens with power. The literacy rate skyrocketed to 92% by 1941, when Germany invaded them.

You need to factor in the fact that Soviet Russia was invaded in 1918 by the United States and 14 other countries. Over 220 thousand foreign troops invaded Russia, to fight the socialists (red army), in support of their enemy, what was then called the "White army", a coalition of anti-socialist forces. By the mid-1920s the "Whites" had been defeated by the Reds.

The USSR was in a state of war from its founding in October 1917 to its collapse in December 1991. It didn't have a year of peace. All resources were constantly being allocated for war, in order to defend itself. It was invaded in June 1941, by 4 million Nazis, in "Operation Barbarossa". This led to the death of nine million Soviet soldiers and 18 million Soviet civilians (14% of their population). Seven out of ten Germans were fighting on the "Eastern Front" (In Russia).

After WW2, the United States was the biggest winner of all. A nation surrounded by two vast oceans, in a very special place, thousands of miles away from Europe and Japan. Where the Soviets lost 27 million people out of a population of 190 million, amounting to 14% of their country. We lost 460 thousand people, out of a population of 134 million or 0.3% of our population.

The US became the manufacturing hub of the world, providing Western Europe and Japan with the "Marshal Plan", to rebuild these nations and turn them into our close allies (rightly so). The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was devastated, losing over half of everything that it had built, in the 20 years before the war, from its founding to the German invasion. There was no "Marshal Plan" for the Soviet Union. The Soviets (the socialists) had to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and rebuild their new nation, which had been so brutally violated and turned to rubble.

By the mid-1950s, less than 12 years after WW2, the Soviet Union was once again a world power but this time it was a nuclear super-power, in a Cold War with the United States and its allies. It became the second economy in the world, rivaling the US, and had an extremely impressive military. There were four periods in Soviet history when there were breadlines, food shortages, and famine within its borders:

1) Shortly after the founding of the new nation in 1917, into the mid-1920s, when the socialists were at war with 14 other countries, including the US.

2) In Ukraine, in 1931-32, due to climate, and the Kulaks (feudal land owners, refusing to collectivize).

3) WW2 (for obvious reasons, described earlier)
...and

4) The 1980s, when the Soviets decided to placate the United States and enact "Perestroika" and "Glastnos" reforms, to avoid nuclear war and relieve their economy from the cost of defense and the oil price crisis of 1986.

Other than being in the middle of a war in Russia, with invading forces, or fighting Kulaks in Ukraine (and in mother Russia as well), or in the 1980s, introducing capitalism into the Soviet economy, because the Soviets were shell-shocked after over 50 years of continuous hot-wars, and an expensive cold war. Other than that, no one ever starved or had to stand in a breadline to eat.

The standard of living for Soviet citizens was much higher than it was before the socialist revolution, under capitalism. The Soviet Union was growing economically, until the late 70s, and if it had not tried to become a "Care Bear":

In the middle of a cold war, it would now be, economically equal if not superior to us here in the US. The Soviets were much more sophisticated than the Chinese.

Are there famines now in capitalist economies? Yes. How many dirt-poor, failing states are there in the world, that have capitalist-run economies? They're all over the place. Many.

Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class of Europe to replace the kings and feudal aristocracy. It didn't happen with one single swoop of the sword, in one battle or war. It occurred when the technology and the right political, and social conditions were present for the merchants to become powerful industrialists. The capitalist Republicans didn't replace the powerful monarchists, and kings, until they had the technology and resources, in the age of industrialization.


Why do you then demand that socialists replace capitalism in one single swoop of the sword, to prove its legitimacy? As technology advances, eventually, inevitably, society will have to adopt a non-profit system of production. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence will reduce human labor to unsustainable levels, requiring the adoption of socialist, non-profit, publicly owned, democratic production. It may not happen in the 2020s, or even in the 2030s or 2040s, but eventually, nonetheless, it will happen.

​

 

[TruthNotBS]

If a cooperative doesn't make a profit it's going to go out of business. The owners aren't going to have any job security. Profits are a critical indicator that the business is providing a service that people want and it's a critical factor in the distribution of resources.

You shouldn't want to get a loan anyway. You'll just have to pay it back with interest and be exploited by the people wealthy enough to have savings that they can loan out. Why would you want to enrich the bourgeoise like that?

If a cooperative doesn't make a profit it's going to go out of business.

No, not necessarily. It's a more robust business model, due to the lack of obligations towards private investors or remote shareholders who demand a return. Is it good to have a profit? Yes. But if you're working in a cooperative, and all of the bills are being paid, including your salary, you're good to go. There are expenses that have to be covered, but that overheard, or cost of doing business, is less than it is for a profits-oriented, privately owned enterprise. Profits is rarely the bottom line and purpose of a worker-owned cooperative, it's job security. Not becoming filthy rich, but having a good job.


The owners aren't going to have any job security. Profits are a critical indicator that the business is providing a service that people want and it's a critical factor in the distribution of resources.

Not for a cooperative. You're thinking in terms of a privately owned business enterprise, with the priority of generating profits for their owner/s. In a worker-owned cooperative, if all of the bills are paid, including salaries, there's no need for a surplus, as it is in a privately owned business. More, when there is a profit, it is reinvested into the company, improving the facilities, equipment..etc. It makes the cooperative even more productive and competitive.

You shouldn't want to get a loan anyway.

If workers can start a business without a loan, great. But usually, workers lack the capital, so they need a loan, Just like millions of private business owners, get loans. Entrepreneurs get loans. So it's a bit, odd, to assume that workers who want to launch a cooperative, shouldn't be concerned about how the system sabotages their ability to acquire a loan. Ideally, you're correct, it's better to avoid getting a loan, but that option should be open to workers and now it's not due to how the system is rigged for private owners.


You'll just have to pay it back with interest and be exploited by the people wealthy enough to have savings that they can loan out. Why would you want to enrich the bourgeoise like that?

Unfortunately, most workers don't have the resources to start a cooperative, without getting a loan. I also believe the US government should help workers start cooperatives since those are the factories that will be manufacturing everything for us in the future, using advanced automation and artificial intelligence. The manufacturing infrastructure of this country has to be re-developed and I believe it should consist mostly of worker-owned cooperatives.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wages and effort and directly related. Pay more get more. Pay less then I slow my effort down. It's capitalism 101. How can this be argued against?

They expect you to provide the employer with more value than what you're getting paid for. That's how the employer extracts "surplus value", (a profit) from your labor. They want to juice you dry and when you resist they accuse you of being a lazy ingrate. The one who is exploiting you, isn't the parasite, you the laborer, the wage slave, is the problem.

 

[MarathonMike]

I agree. You're most likely a working-class person, who started a small local business. Under our capitalist economy, it makes perfect sense, and it's natural, for an employee to want to become an employer.

When a person strives to improve their position in life, under this type of economic system, where one is by default, being exploited and commodified in a "labor market", in order to eat and have a roof over their heads, they're not thinking in terms of "exploiting" others when they see themselves as an employer (they don't want to exploit anyone).

This capitalist system is so effective in its exploitation of human labor, that both the exploiters and the exploited, often don't even recognize that they are functioning within a system of human exploitation and commodification. The small business owner that hires others to work for him or her, is not an evil, malicious oppressor, who doesn't care about his or her employees. Generally, these employers are good, decent people.

In the 1800s, African Americans were enslaved and even though there were some very decent, good, compassionate, generous slave masters. They were still within that system of slavery. It's the institution or system that is evil, not necessarily those who are by fate, of no fault of their own, trying to survive within that system. A slave might want to one day, free himself and his family, have his own plantation and then buy some slaves and treat them well. That's the system.

"If I ever become a freeman, I'm going to have my own land and I will own slaves, but I will treat them as if they were my brothers and sisters. I will treat my slaves, well, because they're made in the image of God, as I am. I will never abuse them. God is my witness."

A righteous slave master. A good decent human being, who is within a bad system. It's not really his fault. The institution is evil. Human beings shouldn't own or exploit other human beings, but those who are in that system, have been forced to function within that institution. They're not necessarily "EVIL".

My criticism is mostly, if not entirely, directed at the big money masters (the big gangsters), not the owner of a mom-and-pop Pizzeria around the corner. My critique applies to those who corrupt our government with their wealth and power, and right now have us all on the brink of fighting WW3 with Russia in Ukraine.

Those who keep us addicted to fossil fuels when we could very easily generate and draw all of our electricity from modern, safe, and clean nuclear power plants. Wall Street, the bankers, big pharma, big agra, the billionaires who have way too much power in their hands, undermining our democracy.

Those multinational corporations destroying local economies throughout the USA, taking out all of the mom-and-pop stores in whatever community is unfortunate enough to fall victim to them.

I'm for labor rights, including the right of workers to unionize and negotiate collectively, as an organization, with their often, wealthy, powerful employers. I would advise workers "Don't demand too much, be fair". The master needs to benefit too, not just his employees. Let the employer make a profit, or else there's no employment.

Even if this capitalist system is one of "human exploitation and commodification", its evils can be mitigated. Softened. Making capitalism benefit everyone rather than just a few people at the top.

I agree in part with what you are saying here. I have many posts calling out Big Pharma, the food industry and to some degree the medical industry for putting profits ahead of people, and in the case of Covid, putting profits ahead of lives.

In general what I read is an idealized view of what the perfect society should be, a Communist Utopia where everyone benefits, not just those at the top. That has never happened and never will happen because Communism by design concentrates wealth and power to the State. So the only people who flourish are the Statists running the government and their inner circle of Elites.

Communism works well in the jungle amongst primitive tribes. but once you expand to a large population of people, it fails because humans are inherently corrupt. Capitalism has it's flaws for sure, but there is no other system that allows the freedoms for a poor person to create a better life for himself and his family. I'm an example of that as are many of my friends. Communism sounds wonderful on paper but fails miserably in practice.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I agree in part with what you are saying here. I have many posts calling out Big Pharma, the food industry and to some degree the medical industry for putting profits ahead of people, and in the case of Covid, putting profits ahead of lives.

In general what I read is an idealized view of what the perfect society should be, a Communist Utopia where everyone benefits, not just those at the top. That has never happened and never will happen because Communism by design concentrates wealth and power to the State. So the only people who flourish are the Statists running the government and their inner circle of Elites.

Communism works well in the jungle amongst primitive tribes. but once you expand to a large population of people, it fails because humans are inherently corrupt. Capitalism has it's flaws for sure, but there is no other system that allows the freedoms for a poor person to create a better life for himself and his family. I'm an example of that as are many of my friends. Communism sounds wonderful on paper but fails miserably in practice.

I agree in part with what you are saying here. I have many posts calling out Big Pharma, the food industry and to some degree the medical industry for putting profits ahead of people, and in the case of Covid, putting profits ahead of lives.

In general what I read is an idealized view of what the perfect society should be, a Communist Utopia where everyone benefits, not just those at the top.

So you believe we should have a system where only a small minority of wealthy people should benefit? What happens to the working class?

Communism works well in the jungle amongst primitive tribes. but once you expand to a large population of people, it fails because humans are inherently corrupt. Capitalism has it's flaws for sure, but there is no other system that allows the freedoms for a poor person to create a better life for himself and his family. I'm an example of that as are many of my friends. Communism sounds wonderful on paper but fails miserably in practice.

Human nature doesn't prevent people from living in a civilized society, with a social safety net for working-class people. The alternative is an uncivilized society, where no one can live, including the wealthy elites.

More, I didn't say anything about communism, in the near future. That would only work in a very technologically advanced society.

 

[MarathonMike]

So you believe we should have a system where only a small minority of wealthy people should benefit? What happens to the working class?

Of course not, that is exactly why I stand by Capitalism with it's inherent flaws. You ignored the part where I cited myself as an example of one who emerged from a poor working class family to become financially independent as many of my friends and co-workers have done over the years.

"Working class" is a very broad term, do you mean minimum wage workers? Plumbers are working class and I know a few who are making bank.

If you are not advocating for Communism then I'm not sure what form of government you are talking about.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Of course not, that is exactly why I stand by Capitalism with it's inherent flaws. You ignored the part where I cited myself as an example of one who emerged from a poor working class family to become financially independent as many of my friends and co-workers have done over the years.

"Working class" is a very broad term, do you mean minimum wage workers? Plumbers are working class and I know a few who are making bank.

If you are not advocating for Communism then I'm not sure what form of government you are talking about.

Of course not, that is exactly why I stand by Capitalism with it's inherent flaws. You ignored the part where I cited myself as an example of one who emerged from a poor working class family to become financially independent as many of my friends and co-workers have done over the years.


OK, so correct me if I'm wrong. What you're saying is that everybody should have a business and no one should have a job, working for someone else? Everyone should be self-employed? No one should be employed by anyone else, correct?

"Working class" is a very broad term, do you mean minimum wage workers? Plumbers are working class and I know a few who are making bank.

I use the term working class for those who need to sell their labor-power to a capitalist for a wage. That includes everyone from the person flipping burgers to a professional making 100K yearly. They're all within the labor market. Self-employed workers and also workers who hire other workers, to help them with their work. Such people are also working-class. The mom-and-pop hardware store or Pizzeria, is more of a traditional business, but nonetheless, generally, the owners are right there working with their employees. The owner works just as hard as his employees, if not harder. In a way, although technically he's of the capitalist-master class, he's a good capitalist. He's not a free loafer or parasite, exploiting others to generate a huge income, while he lounges at the pool in the country club or at the beach.

There are members of the working class who work for large corporations and constitute the "enforcement arm" of the ruling elite. These execs and high-level managers can be more oppressive and destructive than the big-money capitalist masters. The "HEAD SLAVE" is often worse than the slave master. Anyways, the working-class is generally, those who need to rent their labor-power to a capitalist for an hourly wage. It's that simple.

If you are not advocating for Communism then I'm not sure what form of government you are talking about.

Communism at a national scale can only exist in a country where everyone is a born-again, spirit-filled Christian or not a Christian, but with extremely advanced technology, eliminating all scarcity. We now lack the production technology that would allow countries to adopt a communist economy. Christian communities at a much smaller scale, can and should become communalistic (i.e. communist) as the first Christians lived under Jesus and His 12 apostles.

Act 4:32-37 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (33) And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. (34) For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need. (36) And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, (37) having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.


Act 2:42-47 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. (43) And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. (46) And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.


Theistic communism is Biblical. Without Jesus and His Holy Spirit, there is no true communism. The best communism includes a commitment to God.

 

[MarathonMike]

Of course not, that is exactly why I stand by Capitalism with it's inherent flaws. You ignored the part where I cited myself as an example of one who emerged from a poor working class family to become financially independent as many of my friends and co-workers have done over the years.


OK, so correct me if I'm wrong. What you're saying is that everybody should have a business and no one should have a job, working for someone else? Everyone should be self-employed? No one should be employed by anyone else, correct?

"Working class" is a very broad term, do you mean minimum wage workers? Plumbers are working class and I know a few who are making bank.

I use the term working class for those who need to sell their labor-power to a capitalist for a wage. That includes everyone from the person flipping burgers to a professional making 100K yearly. They're all within the labor market. Self-employed workers and also workers who hire other workers, to help them with their work. Such people are also working-class. The mom-and-pop hardware store or Pizzeria, is more of a traditional business, but nonetheless, generally, the owners are right there working with their employees. The owner works just as hard as his employees, if not harder. In a way, although technically he's of the capitalist-master class, he's a good capitalist. He's not a free loafer or parasite, exploiting others to generate a huge income, while he lounges at the pool in the country club or at the beach.

There are members of the working class who work for large corporations and constitute the "enforcement arm" of the ruling elite. These execs and high-level managers can be more oppressive and destructive than the big-money capitalist masters. The "HEAD SLAVE" is often worse than the slave master. Anyways, the working-class is generally, those who need to rent their labor-power to a capitalist for an hourly wage. It's that simple.

If you are not advocating for Communism then I'm not sure what form of government you are talking about.

Communism at a national scale can only exist in a country where everyone is a born-again, spirit-filled Christian or not a Christian, but with extremely advanced technology, eliminating all scarcity. We now lack the production technology that would allow countries to adopt a communist economy. Christian communities at a much smaller scale, can and should become communalistic (i.e. communist) as the first Christians lived under Jesus and His 12 apostles.

Act 4:32-37 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (33) And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. (34) For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, (35) and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need. (36) And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race, (37) having a field, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.


Act 2:42-47 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. (43) And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. (44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. (46) And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.


Theistic communism is Biblical. Without Jesus and His Holy Spirit, there is no true communism. The best communism includes a commitment to God.

There is nowhere in my replies to you that I said "everyone needs to be a small business owner". That was only one of the things I did to achieve financial independence. Most of what I built was through the good old labor for money exchange agreements. The point I thought I made clearly is that Capitalism, for all it's flaws, is the only system that has proven in practice to allow true upward mobility to "the working class". Other systems promise utopia and deliver misery.

I'm going to stay away from the religious aspects of your reply since it is not my intention to offend your beliefs. I think you have some interesting perspectives and I enjoyed the discussion. That's not to say "later dude", if there's something else I will reply.

 

[TruthNotBS]

There is nowhere in my replies to you that I said "everyone needs to be a small business owner". That was only one of the things I did to achieve financial independence. Most of what I built was through the good old labor for money exchange agreements. The point I thought I made clearly is that Capitalism, for all it's flaws, is the only system that has proven in practice to allow true upward mobility to "the working class". Other systems promise utopia and deliver misery.

I'm going to stay away from the religious aspects of your reply since it is not my intention to offend your beliefs. I think you have some interesting perspectives and I enjoyed the discussion. That's not to say "later dude", if there's something else I will reply.

Thank you.

When I said that capitalism, should benefit everyone, not just those who are wealthy and powerful, you objected, by calling me a Utopian. That implies that you think capitalism can't meet the needs of the working class, only those who purchase their labor. Is that what you meant? Can capitalism meet the needs of everyone in society, not just the people at the top of the "food chain"? If everyone becomes a chief or employer, then where are the Indians? The tribe needs a chief or some leadership, but it also needs Indians. So if the needs of the "Indians" aren't being met, but only the needs and interests of the chiefs, how is that a sustainable system? Eventually, there's going to be social unrest, and the Indians will eat the chiefs. There are a lot more Indians than chiefs. In our society only 6% are employers or of the wealthy and 94% of the population belongs to the working class (need to sell their labor power to an employer).

 

[LeroyDumonde]

If a cooperative doesn't make a profit it's going to go out of business.

No, not necessarily. It's a more robust business model, due to the lack of obligations towards private investors or remote shareholders who demand a return. Is it good to have a profit? Yes. But if you're working in a cooperative, and all of the bills are being paid, including your salary, you're good to go. There are expenses that have to be covered, but that overheard, or cost of doing business, is less than it is for a profits-oriented, privately owned enterprise. Profits is rarely the bottom line and purpose of a worker-owned cooperative, it's job security. Not becoming filthy rich, but having a good job.


The owners aren't going to have any job security. Profits are a critical indicator that the business is providing a service that people want and it's a critical factor in the distribution of resources.

Not for a cooperative. You're thinking in terms of a privately owned business enterprise, with the priority of generating profits for their owner/s. In a worker-owned cooperative, if all of the bills are paid, including salaries, there's no need for a surplus, as it is in a privately owned business. More, when there is a profit, it is reinvested into the company, improving the facilities, equipment..etc. It makes the cooperative even more productive and competitive.

You shouldn't want to get a loan anyway.

If workers can start a business without a loan, great. But usually, workers lack the capital, so they need a loan, Just like millions of private business owners, get loans. Entrepreneurs get loans. So it's a bit, odd, to assume that workers who want to launch a cooperative, shouldn't be concerned about how the system sabotages their ability to acquire a loan. Ideally, you're correct, it's better to avoid getting a loan, but that option should be open to workers and now it's not due to how the system is rigged for private owners.


You'll just have to pay it back with interest and be exploited by the people wealthy enough to have savings that they can loan out. Why would you want to enrich the bourgeoise like that?

Unfortunately, most workers don't have the resources to start a cooperative, without getting a loan. I also believe the US government should help workers start cooperatives since those are the factories that will be manufacturing everything for us in the future, using advanced automation and artificial intelligence. The manufacturing infrastructure of this country has to be re-developed and I believe it should consist mostly of worker-owned cooperatives.

Reinvesting profits doesn't mean that the company didn't have any profits. That's just a word game.

 

[MarathonMike]

That implies that you think capitalism can't meet the needs of the working class, only those who purchase their labor. Is that what you meant? Can capitalism meet the needs of everyone in society, not just the people at the top of the "food chain"?

That is obviously not what I meant since I have twice now stated I am a living example of how capitalism can and does work to provide opportunity for everyone in society. Now that is NOT saying that Capitalism guarantees equal outcomes for everyone. Just equal opportunity for anyone to work their way up the food chain, in their own

I agree with you that Capitalism does have a problem at the top of the food chain. There is the court system that prosecutes greedy bosses but does little to help the people that worked for them. Like I said, Capitalism is flawed but is has proven to be better than any alternatives for doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Ultimately, I believe that is the best you can do.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That is obviously not what I meant since I have twice now stated I am a living example of how capitalism can and does work to provide opportunity for everyone in society. Now that is NOT saying that Capitalism guarantees equal outcomes for everyone. Just equal opportunity for anyone to work their way up the food chain, in their own

I agree with you that Capitalism does have a problem at the top of the food chain. There is the court system that prosecutes greedy bosses but does little to help the people that worked for them. Like I said, Capitalism is flawed but is has proven to be better than any alternatives for doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Ultimately, I believe that is the best you can do.

So capitalism, in your opinion, defines success as not being an employee or worker, who sells their labor power to a capitalist. Everyone must be a capitalist, to benefit from the capitalist system. Workers can't define their lives, as financially successful, and live a decent life, without becoming a capitalist? Only the people at the "top of the food chain", are successful, not the workers who produce everything.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Reinvesting profits doesn't mean that the company didn't have any profits. That's just a word game.

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

 

[MarathonMike]

Only the people at the "top of the food chain", are successful, not the workers who produce everything.

That is clearly what you want to believe, so by all means continue to believe that. I will believe my own life experience that proves a "worker" can progress up the food chain to be successful in a Capitalist Society.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That is clearly what you want to believe, so by all means continue to believe that. I will believe my own life experience that proves a "worker" can progress up the food chain to be successful in a Capitalist Society.

So to be successful under a capitalist system, you can't be a worker? You don't agree that capitalism, should benefit both the rich and their workers? Just the wealthy benefit?

 

[MarathonMike]

So to be successful under a capitalist system, you can't be a worker? You don't agree that capitalism, should benefit both the rich and their workers? Just the wealthy benefit?

Your replies are getting more confusing. Maybe we should define what "successful" means in the context of this discussion. To me, it means having in your possession enough assets to be financially independent of the government or a job. What does "successful" mean to you? Is "wealthy" and "successful" the same thing?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Your replies are getting more confusing. Maybe we should define what "successful" means in the context of this discussion. To me, it means having in your possession enough assets to be financially independent of the government or a job. What does "successful" mean to you? Is "wealthy" and "successful" the same thing?

For me success isn't defined by material riches, but by having an intimate relationship with God, in His Son Jesus Christ. However, a sustainable economy and system of production needs to at least meet everyone's needs, or it will become unstable and collapse into social unrest and violence. The workers who mine the materials from the mines, and process those raw materials. The people who transport the materials to the factories, in order for the workers in those factories to produce the goods that everyone consumes. The workers who transport the goods to the warehouses that distribute the goods to retail stores and the workers in those distribution centers and those who work in retail, have to eat, have housing, clothing..etc. Being "successful" isn't necessarily having a big bank account, it's having a steady income that pays your bills and puts food on the table. If capitalism is unable to provide for its workers (96% of the population), then it fails as an economic system and will permanently collapse.

Capitalism constantly needs to be bailed out and subsidized by the government, due to its "boom & bust" business cycle. The way to mitigate all of these problems is by having a social safety net for the working class/workers. The wealthy elites have their own version of a "social safety net" in the form of the government providing them with bailout money and subsidies, when capitalism goes through its "bust" cycles, to prevent the rich from losing their shirts. The working class, needs a social safety net as well, that provides them with the rights and services that they need to adequately live and work.

You seem to be saying that, capitalism only benefits those who are at the top, as if that is normal and unable to be mitigated or fixed. You kind of have a very nonchalant attitude, about capitalism not providing at least the bare necessities of life for working-class people. People who sell their labor power to capitalists. That's a recipe for disaster. It can't just be socialism for the rich, where only the rich benefit, and the workers are left out in the cold. That just leads to extreme socialism or communism. The pendulum will swing to the extreme left and no one will be happy. The smartest course of action is to have capitalism, with some socialism. Socialism mitigates the problems that are endemic to capitalism. It softens them, allowing capitalism to function.