this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
32 points (79.6% liked)
Socialism
5252 readers
243 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My point is that this isn't a binary situation, but rather a spectrum. Some systems do a better job than others in mitigating these problems. In general, a system needs to be structured in such a way where personal interest aligns with the common interest. Capitalism does the opposite by creating competition between individuals at the cost of social cohesion.
I disagree. It is binary, either the word is meaningfully applied in this context or it isn't. You said that capitalism "enables" exploitation. Being alive enables exploitation. Capitalism may encourage exploitation, it may increase exploitation but I wouldn't say it "enables" exploitation.
Unless you have some argument that capitalism somehow provides some specific cause to enable exploitation which is absent from all other systems, while all other systems also provide some different cause which also happens to enable exploitation, your statement that capitalism enables exploitation is incorrect. The specific cause that enables exploitation is being alive and is nothing specific to capitalism. Capitalism is not what enables exploitation. Capitalism does not enable exploitation.
Yes, capitalism enables exploitation by allowing people who own capital to decide working conditions for people who do not. This is why exploitation is seen everywhere capitalism has ever been tried. I've also gave you a concrete example contrasting communism in USSR and the transition to capitalism along with all the horrors that followed. You just proceeded to ignore that.
People deciding working conditions for others is not absent from all other systems.
@rah @yogthos That's literally the system Americans live under right now. It would be best if workers had a say in the place they spend most of their waking hours in!
Which is an argument nobody made here.
In response to my comment asserting
you stated
which appears to be you attempting to make that argument.
No, the argument being made is that having a handful of oligarchs who own capital make such decisions leads to exploitation. People who have been appointed democratically by the people to represent them deciding such things is a completely different matter. A government in a communist society represents the people, and the means of production are publicly owned by the people. That's what prevents exploitation that capitalism enables by allowing people to rule over others.
You've introduce a new term here, "leads to". The discussion we've been having was about whether it is valid to say that capitalism "enables" exploitation, not "leads to". They're not the same thing.
It's clear from this change in your wording and from this discussion in general that you're being loose in your use of terminology. We're having a discussion about whether a particular term is used in a valid way so being loose in the use of terminology completely obviates the discussion.
I think the problem is that you don't want to have a discussion about the use of the word "enable", you want to rage against capitalism.
Capitalism isn't what enables exploitation.
Take care.
I use leads to as in systemically creates a situation that results in exploitation. You're just playing word games here now. Once again, I've explained the precise mechanic responsible, and you continue to ignore that while fixating on the type of wording I'm using instead of addressing the substance of what's being said.
I think the problem is that you're not engaging with what I'm saying and have not put forward any coherent argument.
Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
Take care.