I don't think this is anything to do with capitalism per se, this is the weak being exploited by the strong. Big fish eats little fish. This is the way life works. Capitalism works within the same context but is not the context.
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
37 points (81.4% liked)
Socialism
5168 readers
20 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It has everything to do with capitalism because it systemically enables this sort of exploitation. People act based on the systemic pressures they're exposed to.
systemically enables this sort of exploitation
I don't think it does enable this sort of exploitation. I think the exploitation cannot be avoided, in either capitalist or any other society, including communist.
People act based on the systemic pressures they're exposed to.
I think there is no system that can avoid the basic functions of biological life which includes the strong praying on the weak. Big fish eats little fish. This is life, regardless of what system evolves on top of it.
No system can entirely eliminate negative human qualities, but they certainly can mitigate them. The same reason you don't bring an alcoholic to a bar is why you don't want to introduce capitalism into a society. An alcoholic might be prone to drinking, but can lead a normal life if they're not exposed to temptation of alcohol. The same way, a society can function much better once capitalist incentives are removed.
In fact, we have definitive proof that exploitation in a capitalist society is far worse because we can look at USSR and what happened after. Under the soviet system, everyone had housing, food, healthcare, education and jobs guaranteed to them. Everyone had over 20 days vacation, and retirement guaranteed by 60. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or not being able to retire in dignity.
There were no oligarchs in USSR because you couldn't accumulate wealth the way you can under capitalism. If you look at all the leaders USSR had, they all came from regular working class families. That was possible because everybody got the same education and same opportunity.
Once USSR collapsed though, oligarchs appeared overnight, and incredible amounts of corruption followed. This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
That's what capitalism managed to accomplish in only a few years.
Furthermore, here are a few academic studies on USSR showing what life was like.
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possilbe:
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
Finally, we can look at how do people who lived under communism feel once that they got a taste of capitalism
-
-
-
-
-
-
Adult mortality increased enormously in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union when the Soviet system collapsed 30 years ago. https://archive.ph/9Z12u
No system can entirely eliminate negative human qualities
I'm glad we agree.
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.
this isn't a binary situation, but rather a spectrum
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.
Which is an argument nobody made here.
In response to my comment asserting
Unless you have some argument that capitalism somehow provides some specific cause to enable exploitation which is absent from all other systems ...
you stated
capitalism enables exploitation by allowing people who own capital to decide working conditions for people who do not
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.
leads to exploitation
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.
exploitation that capitalism enables
Capitalism isn't what enables exploitation.
Take care.
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.
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 don’t want to have a discussion about the use of the word “enable”, you want to rage against capitalism.
I think the problem is that you're not engaging with what I'm saying and have not put forward any coherent argument.
Capitalism isn’t what enables exploitation.
Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
Take care.