Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
How capitalism works by 13VAK How capitalism works by 13VAK
Not my cartoon, i just found it ina IWW booklet years ago.
This design shows all brutal truth of irrationality of capitalism.
Add a Comment:
 
:icondigiquilldraws:
DigiquillDraws Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2014  Hobbyist
No that's what happens when places have too strict of labor laws and let unions run the country. Jobs are out sorced.
Reply
:iconmayopencil:
MayoPencil Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I remember seeing this image in a geography class two years ago, the school had made a little power point about sweat shops and how evil they are. The part of the image they didn't include, however, was the heading, and I think I know why.
Reply
:iconthecommieturnip:
thecommieturnip Featured By Owner Aug 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist

That is so true. Here in Finland it's almost imbossiple to tell wether someone is poor or not, because almost everyone can afford expensive clothes. You have to know the person for a while to be able to tell if he/she is rich. There are lots of unemployed people here and everything is expensive.

Reply
:iconlerevolutionnaire:
LeRevolutionnaire Featured By Owner Feb 12, 2013
this pretty much sums it up!
Reply
:iconcolonial-marine:
Colonial-Marine Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Funny.
Reply
:iconamericancomrade:
AmericanComrade Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Too true. Good Job
Reply
:iconmillion7:
million7 Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
irrationality capitalism? If he has no job how did he get the 70€ shoes? Most likely because of the social services or living allowances he received in some european country.

Which is an irrationality of the welfare state in europe, backed by the socialists and social democrats. It's irrational that someone has no job and can afford 70€ shoes, if there was a smaller safety net he would be working for those shoes.

Time and time again, opponents of capitalism blame the irrationalities and short falls of their own policies on the free market.
Reply
:iconplanitboob:
planitboob Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2012
too true
Reply
:iconisaacbaranoff:
isaacbaranoff Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
No, this is NOT how capitalism works. Capitalism is the exchange and goods and services without coercion and interference. In a free market, NEITHER of these scenarios are true.
Reply
:iconbronzesultan:
BronzeSultan Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2012
ANARCHISM IS THE SOLUTIONS< EVERYONE TAKING CARE OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITY, ALSO NO GOVERNMENT, if we have issues wen can elect a temporary congress, then back to Anarchism, :) I want Real Freedom For ALL
Reply
:iconmineralz4dream:
mineralz4Dream Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2011
Are you kidding yourself or what? GHAAAA

BECAUSE OF GLOBALIZATION, THAT LADY IS ABLE TO GET OUT OF HER VILLAGE WITH HORRIBLE LIFE CONDITIONS AND EXTREME POVERTY AND EARN A DAMN LIVING! YOU THINK THERE WOULD BE TOWERING SKYSCRAPERS IN HONG KONG, SHANGHAI, KUALA LUMPUR, SINGAPORE AND GUANGZHOU WITHOUT THE MANUFACTURES THAT SPAWNED BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD CARED TO BUY FROM CHINA? WHAT WOULD YOU NEED IN ORDER NOT TO PISS ALL DAY LONG ON CAPITALISM? ASIA TO GET RICHER OR MORE DEVELOPPED OR SOMETHING? WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IDIOT!!!

ugh, that felt good.
Reply
:iconmaximk:
MaximK Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2009  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other ones that's been tried, that are even worse.

Unless you know of a place that has a good working non-capitalist economy (actually if you do, I really would like to know about it, no sarcasm, because that would be interesting)
Reply
:iconleekduck:
Leekduck Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2010
CHINA!
Reply
:iconmaximk:
MaximK Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2010  Hobbyist Digital Artist
PRC is quite capitalist, and their police are bought and sold by the corporation far worse then in the west...
Reply
:iconkindpyralguy:
kindpyralguy Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2011
Native american's villages that we destroyed, Zapatist villages, Autonumus Social Centers (anarchist squats) in Europe, 'sin patrones' villages from Agentina, madagascar pirat island (in 1680, well that one isn't sure cuz it's so far from us that history isn't clear).

What I can figure out is that as soon as there is a leader and that people feel the need to have a leader, we get a bad system ruled by a fucking leader. Why not give the real power to the people by building a world were no other human being would control another human being? Well, people are trying to do that all over the world.
Reply
:iconmaximk:
MaximK Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah, but as you point out none of these are competitive with other countries, they are either very small or have been wiped out. Capitalism may have a lot of problems, but it has proven survivable so far and it can exist in as large a scale as necessary, I'm not aware of any other system that can compete with it.
Reply
:iconkindpyralguy:
kindpyralguy Featured By Owner Aug 21, 2011
Of course but our goal is to fight against this opression at all costs evry fucking day. Once people will realise that, the alternative mouvements wouldn't be small anymore. "It was too small" is not an argument because the time it has worked, it worked. So our goal is to reproduce it as much times as possible.
Reply
:iconcurru:
Curru Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2009
[link]



asi quedo
Reply
:iconcurru:
Curru Featured By Owner Sep 19, 2009
Hello

Sorry.

I took the liberty of translating this ...

If you have any problems talk to me.

To remove the


I hope you understand ....

successful throughout

PD: Excuse my English



saludos desde sudaamerica chile
Reply
:icon13vak:
13VAK Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2009   Interface Designer
wow! what a great discussion i provoked with this picture :) thanx.
Reply
:iconakaishizuku:
AkaiShizuku Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2009  Hobbyist Writer
Capitalism can burn. I refuse to sleep in a mansion with a king size bed while children starve and die in the streets. Capitalism is a minority making the most profit without regards to others. In a capitalist world, it is impossible for everyone to live comfortably and happily. There is no equality and many are always destined to suffer with little control over their fate. If you think everything is okay, it's because when you aren't eating, you don't want to.
Reply
:iconhnbbtf:
HNBBTF Featured By Owner May 23, 2012
You'll do a lot more good for those starving people in the streets if you you build a factory that can provide them with jobs and an income that allow them to improve themselves, that creates products that people can afford and want. And if you make millions of dollars you can give it to charity.

I find that there is nothing more selfish than a socialist(communist being the extreme case) They bitch moan about the poor and supposed disadvantaged, but instead of spending their time, money, and effort helping them. They have government take other peoples hard earned money and give it to others for to rectify some wrong. They also never take into account how their actions affect those involved because they never feel the direct consequence of those actions. Often the socialist greedily demands government programs to provide him food, housing, a job, healthcare and other amenities to no charge to himself. And doesn't take into account these things require someone else labor to produce. Also because someone isn't being properly compensated to produce those things, you tend to have less people producing and more consuming. This ultimately leads to shortages. The businessman making a profit by selling goods and services at a competitive price does far more good, than government bureaucrat who simply moves money around and takes his fee for moving it around.
Reply
:icondavyjames:
davyjames Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2008   Interface Designer
Irrationality of capitalism? Lol.

You might as well say the irrationality of allowing people to freely trade with one another.

This cartoon is unrealistic, the vast majority of people in rich countries work, they don't lean against walls.

If you stopped people in poor countries working for low wages they would be out of work. How do you think a country becomes prosperous? It has to go through a period of industrialisation, Britain and America went through a period of industrialisation, a lot of low paid factory work, and over time capital was reinvested and wealth increased.

Capitalism is the only system proven to increase the lot of the average person, and maximise the efficient use of scarce resources.

In an ideal world we'd all be living on clouds with everything we ever wanted, but that world doesn't exist and people who have a problem with companies opening their factories in poor countries and injecting capital into those under developed societies are ONLY HURTING THOSE POOR PEOPLE who are working by choice in those factories because it is BETTER than the next alternative.

Almost all the problems in the world are caused by a bad understanding of economics and politicians fooling well meaning people with buzzwords like "capitalism run amok" and "unbridled capitalism" like freedom to exchange things voluntarily could ever be bad.

bleh
Reply
:iconentropic-64:
Entropic-64 Featured By Owner May 25, 2009
Dearie, dearie me...

Firstly, capitalism =/= free-trade; you're confusing free-markets (non-government interference with buying and selling) with capitalism (private property, enforced by de jure property rights such as patents and trespassing laws).

Secondly, people do not need wages to work - unless you believe that people will not work to maintain and improve their own surroundings and livelihoods unless they are commanded by someone. Countries become prosperous by people laboring, not by certain parts of society forcing other parts to labour.

Thirdly, capitalism categorically DOESN'T increase the lot of the average person, nor dose it maximize efficient use of scarce resources - it concentrates resources (ultimately ALL resources) in the hands of the few (the landlords) at the expense of the many (the workers); discrepancies in capital are magnified because the market is always biased in favour of those with more capital, thus the rich inevitably get richer whilst the poor get poorer.
Reply
:icondavyjames:
davyjames Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2009   Interface Designer
The only alternative to widely accepted private property (and thus landlords) would be a system where nobody can legitimately own anything, and everything is shared. If you think that system will increase the lot of the average person you're wrong because it will disincentivise anybody doing anything significant or large scale with their resources because people will just claim them as their own, and it will reward laziness because you can loot off motivated hard working people.

I agree with you however that government doesn't work and I'm not in favour of patents or government granting eminent domain or special favours to certain corporations. I'm in favour of the libertarian homestead principle that if you improve some land in some way like build a house on it or plant crops they become yours and the only way for somebody to justly take your home or food you've grown is through voluntary exchange.

Voluntary Trade (free trade, capitalism, absense of regulations, whatever you want to call it) HAS increased the lot of the average person. If you compare countries with no respect for property rights vs ones with solid property rights throughout history you will see people trying to get out of the socialist countries and emigrating to the free ones. The poor people of today in the developed countries are wealthier in real terms than the wealthy of 200 years ago. In REAL terms not in relative terms. Relative terms don't matter, that's just people's egos getting upset that their neighbour has a nicer car or whatever.
Reply
:iconentropic-64:
Entropic-64 Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2009
"The only alternative to widely accepted private property (and thus landlords) would be a system where nobody can legitimately own anything, and everything is shared. If you think that system will increase the lot of the average person you're wrong because it will disincentivise anybody doing anything significant or large scale with their resources because people will just claim them as their own, and it will reward laziness because you can loot off motivated hard working people."

The irony is that is what capitalism encourages - those with the capital (the landlords and aristocracy) don't need to do anything to maintain, or even better, their position, they merely use their resources to exploit (loot off) others via rent and interest. In fact, they are motivated to diminish the lot of tenants/workers, to maintain their privileged position (free-markets do slightly mitigate this, granted, but those with more capital are always at a starting advantage, and hence disparities between those with more capital and those with less only increases over time).

Significance is subjective; the key point here though is the difference between private property and personal possession. Anarchism isn't against ownership, merely against people inalienably owning the means of production (land in particular) - that is, against allowing people to dictate the use of those resources that they themselves do not use. A person may own the crops he grows, for example, but not the land he uses to grow them; a person may let someone else improve the land, but he must still grow his own crops.

"I agree with you however that government doesn't work and I'm not in favour of patents or government granting eminent domain or special favours to certain corporations. I'm in favour of the libertarian homestead principle that if you improve some land in some way like build a house on it or plant crops they become yours and the only way for somebody to justly take your home or food you've grown is through voluntary exchange."

Improve is subjective; as above, no-one has a right to evict you from your home or take your crops - you have no right to stop others from using your home for shelter your absence, though, or to grow crops on your land. Within reason, to be fair - ideally communities would agree upon (temporary and circumstance-dependent) guidelines whereby housing/land reverts to common-usage after a certain period of time.

"Voluntary Trade (free trade, capitalism, absense of regulations, whatever you want to call it) HAS increased the lot of the average person."

Anarchism is not necessarily against voluntary trade, free trade, or absence of regulation; capitalism is against all three, though, because it's based on regulation of private property, and trade based on the terms of those who hold the private property.

"If you compare countries with no respect for property rights vs ones with solid property rights throughout history you will see people trying to get out of the socialist countries and emigrating to the free ones."

Can't say I do - if you're referring to the former Soviet, Eastern Bloc countries, they were statist, capitalistic countries (de jure property rights enforced by and for a central authority - hence contrary to both socialism and libertarianism, respectively).

"The poor people of today in the developed countries are wealthier in real terms than the wealthy of 200 years ago. In REAL terms not in relative terms. Relative terms don't matter, that's just people's egos getting upset that their neighbour has a nicer car or whatever."

Developed =/= capitalistic.
Reply
:iconhnbbtf:
HNBBTF Featured By Owner May 23, 2012
"The irony is that is what capitalism encourages - those with the capital (the landlords and aristocracy) don't need to do anything to maintain, or even better, their position, they merely use their resources to exploit (loot off) others via rent and interest."

The big problem with the rent example is the landlord has to contend with hundreds of other landlords trying to convince people to rent their land instead of his. In order to compete the landlord has to lower his prices until, one the other landlords stop lowering their prices, or two it no longer becomes profitable to lower the price further.

"to maintain their privileged position (free-markets do slightly mitigate this, granted, but those with more capital are always at a starting advantage, and hence disparities between those with more capital and those with less only increases over time)."

First of all most people do not start out their working life in the privileged class. Most start out in low paying jobs and wages considered to be in poverty. As they get older and more experienced they become more valuable workers and attain higher paying wages. Most people don't stay in poverty. Over 90% of the people in the bottom 10% in 1975 are are no longer their today. About 30% are in the top 10%. They are then replaced by young people and immigrants.

The markets are not a zero sum gain. In order to get dollars I need to PRODUCE(add to the economy)goods and services people want. Also keep in mind the good and services tangibly is worth more than dollars. Physically a dollar is pretty worthless, it's basically an IOU, but it solves the problem of trying to save up for something with parishable goods, and trying to barter with things not everyone wants. Even if a company has more dollars it does not have more wealth.

"Significance is subjective; the key point here though is the difference between private property and personal possession. Anarchism isn't against ownership, merely against people inalienably owning the means of production (land in particular) - that is, against allowing people to dictate the use of those resources that they themselves do not use. A person may own the crops he grows, for example, but not the land he uses to grow them; a person may let someone else improve the land, but he must still grow his own crops."

There are problem with someone not being able to own land. One is you end up with the tragedy of the common. Lets say you have a pasture their is only so much grass on that pasture. In order to not lose the vital grass to other livestock farmers you have your livestock eat as much grass as possible enough people do this and their is no more grass the land becomes useless. If you have private property then the farmer who owns is free to use it sustainably without fear of someone else getting the resource. If he can't utilize all the resources efficiently and sustainably than he may rent part of his land to someone else. The land owner gets some sort of share of the profit, and person renting has land to make a profit in the first place. Also if you had people competing for resources with out clear definition of who owns them this inevitably leads to conflict. Also if one did not have rights over his factory that produces and the right to profit from it then he may not have incentive to build it in the first place. Property rights even land property is essential for a prospering society.

"Improve is subjective; as above, no-one has a right to evict you from your home or take your crops - you have no right to stop others from using your home for shelter your absence, though, or to grow crops on your land. Within reason, to be fair - ideally communities would agree upon (temporary and circumstance-dependent) guidelines whereby housing/land reverts to common-usage after a certain period of time."

Lots of problems with this, we can cite whats above, but also, If I'm the one producing the crops, what is to prevent someone from taking as much as they want, or using what I perceive as bad practices of growing crops? If someone uses my home they do not incur the cost of maintaining it. It disincentives my production. Much of what you say is antithesis of true anarchy. You still have government(force) instead of the hands of elected officials, it's now in the hands of the mob rule of the community. Someone needs to use force to enforce those regulations? And remember these regulations go against freedom. Aren't anarchist all about freedom?
Check out this [link] and I recommend you watch part six Anarcho-Capitalism. You advocate Communal Socialism not anarchy.

I think I've already answered the last two parts.

I think what is important is you need to define your idea of capitalism. Cause from what I'm reading your definition of capitalism is different from mine and davyjames.
Reply
:iconentropic-64:
Entropic-64 Featured By Owner May 23, 2012
"The big problem with the rent example is the landlord has to contend with hundreds of other landlords trying to convince people to rent their land instead of his. In order to compete the landlord has to lower his prices until, one the other landlords stop lowering their prices, or two it no longer becomes profitable to lower the price further."

As I said, it encourages - it doesn't necessarily succeed. However, it succeeds to the extent the land is monopolized.

"In order to get dollars I need to PRODUCE(add to the economy)goods and services people want."

Not true under capitalism - you can get others to produce for you, and pay them wages less than the price of the products; you can collect interest on said profits; you can collect rent on land you own.

"There are problem with someone not being able to own land. One is you end up with the tragedy of the common. Lets say you have a pasture their is only so much grass on that pasture. In order to not lose the vital grass to other livestock farmers you have your livestock eat as much grass as possible enough people do this and their is no more grass the land becomes useless."

You speak as though people are supremely self-centered and short-sighted - which is encouraged under capitalism, granted. The commons survived perfectly well in pre-Industrial England - so much so that the only way to enforce class monopoly was state intervention in privatizing the commons.

"If you have private property then the farmer who owns is free to use it sustainably without fear of someone else getting the resource."

Or is free to monopolize the means of life.

"If he can't utilize all the resources efficiently and sustainably than he may rent part of his land to someone else. The land owner gets some sort of share of the profit..."

Without the land-owner producing anything - directly contradicting your above statement.

"Lots of problems with this, we can cite whats above, but also, If I'm the one producing the crops, what is to prevent someone from taking as much as they want, or using what I perceive as bad practices of growing crops?"

Like I said, you do not have the right to take crops you do not grow - you are prevented by growers driving you off. No one can stop you using whatever practices you like - they can refuse to stop associating (including trading what they produce) with you, though.

"If someone uses my home they do not incur the cost of maintaining it."

If they're using it, it's their home.

"It disincentives my production."

What disincentives my production is having some of the value of my production taken by someone who has done no producing.

"Check out this [link] and I recommend you watch part six Anarcho-Capitalism. You advocate Communal Socialism not anarchy."

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is an oxymoron; anarchism is, and always has been, a socialist movement, opposed as it is to the alienation of the producer from the full value of their product.

"I think what is important is you need to define your idea of capitalism. Cause from what I'm reading your definition of capitalism is different from mine and davyjames."

Capitalism is primarily any system under which the means of production can be owned by someone other than the producer - that is, can be turned into capital - and secondarily such capital being used to generate profit - that is, capital accumulation.
Reply
:iconhnbbtf:
HNBBTF Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
You talk as if that land is the only land available, the world is a big place and no one can own all the land in the world, or own the rights to all of a resource. Unless some one world government gave someone the rights to it all, you're probably never going to see it. If someone prices to high for the land then no one will buy it, they'll buy land from someone who sells it cheaper. Greed is kept in check by fear of loss.

Here is why you don't always want the producer to be the one who owns and runs the land and factories. The producer will only produce what he knows how to produce. Their is only so much demand for certain products the products with higher demand will be more valuable. The non producing renter will rent the property to the person willing to pay the most. He is likely producing more than the others, or supplying a good or service with a higher demand. For example say John Doe is renting farmland. You have a guy who produces carrots and a guy who produces Turnips. They both cost the same to produce. But the Carrot's cost more due to higher demand. Who do you think is going to have more money the carrot producer. This is good because the carrot producer is providing goods that people want and the resource of land and maybe fertilizer and tools is more available to carrot producers. Nothing is wrong because the carrot producer agrees to the rent. Maybe a few years later Turnips cost more and the turnip farmer will be more likely to rent the land. Here is the problem with letting the producer run the land and factories. Do you think 400 workers can cooperatively manage a factory? Good luck getting ten people to agree on something. If you have multiple management you have conflicting interest. It is better to have one head who can make final decisions. Another problem is the workers may block out efficient practices that may cost jobs because they don't want to lose the job they have and find another. Consumer ends up paying more and society is more stagnant. The factory owner and manager will format the factory in order to make it as efficient as possible, he'll cut where it needs to be cut, he'll apply new technologies that make the products cheaper. He'll ensure the factory is as profitable as possible. As for the workers job the factory owner provides them and he should be able to cut them, only exception is unless under contract. If the workers who work there agree to work for the wage they have than all is fine. Think about the tractor. The tractor killed millions of farm jobs. If the farmers were in charge of the land they probably would never have let the tractor happen. But the tractor did happen it made food considerably cheaper and allowed people to spend their money on other things. This allowed for demand for factory goods, it freed up capital for investment in things like technology, the loss of farm jobs freed up labor for factory jobs. The economy completely re-organized for the better in the long run. No one could have possibly predicted all the results of the tractor. Only that it would produce more food, more efficiently. The free markets work in strange and mysterious ways.

When it comes to the tragedy of the commons maybe not everyone is short sighted, but chances are you're going to get people who are and you're going to likely have conflict over who gets how much grassland someone is going to try and take more than the others, people are greedy that way. Property rights contain ones greed within the property. There are a lot of issues with your commons argument. First historically commons are usually forced by government be it Feudal lords, village chiefs, or Soviet Commissars. Second I often hear socialist make the argument that government operated on behalf of the private company, sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't. I've never heard of a voluntary commons in England prior to industrialization. I'm going to need some sort of proof that they did exist, they weren't forced into existence, and that government actually destroyed them. I'm not saying you are lying, or ignorant I just need proof you aren't. But let's say voluntary common's did exist and government did destroy them. You say they existed in PRE - Industrial England. The industrial revolution greatly improved the lives of the average citizen. The property ownership allowed for strong executive decisions to be made and the application of technology that allowed for the most efficient and productive use of resources. If someone couldn't compete he had to sell the land to someone who would make better use of it. Communes were tried in the sixties by Hippies, they don't exist today anymore. I know the government didn't break them up. People realized that the communes were not as beneficial as work in the capitalist economy and left them. Essentially communes couldn't compete with capitalism that bring together are far greater array of resources.



Monopolies are hard to create and even harder to maintain. You're going to be hard pressed to find a monopoly that has lasted purely through the free markets. They only last when government is involved. Free trade with other countries also makes monopoly status in a market virtually impossible. And in order to maintain monopoly status in the free markets you have to keep the price of your goods low. AT&T is a good example, they had a monopoly on Telecommunications. Government then stopped protecting it. MCI came in with cheaper microwave communications and broke AT&T's monopoly. I think MCI later went onto buy AT&T.

It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case. People will love themselves before morals, ethics, or even hate, the only thing that ever trumps loving oneself is loving your children. You may get your saints, but they're few and far between. Minimum wage didn't apply to blacks before civil rights. Black unemployment was lower than white unemployment. Texans produced beef, a large portion of that beef goes to New York I don't think Texans like New Yorkers, but New Yorkers are willing to pay for the beef and Texans don't care. Capitalism allows million of people around the world to produce a single product. People who don't speak the same language, don't have the same culture, don't have the same religion, but because of simple profit motive they make the resulting products for peoples enjoyment.
[link]

Onto the homes. If I'm the one who bought, built, and maintain the home shouldn't I be allowed to let whoever I want in. What if the other guy is an asshole and I don't want to live with him. What if I want to simply live alone. They maybe living in it, but their use of it increases maintenance cost of the home. One person will incur the cost of the homes maintenance cause the other guy knows he will, they may both manage to maintain the home, or both won't maintain it cause they think the other guy will. It's like saying I buy a car, but someone is allowed to use it. That other person is adding miles to the car. And because he didn't spend the time and money earning the car the other guy may use it more frivolously. If I can't have full rights of my car/home I may not have the incentive to work add to society, to then buy a home.

I don't know many people who care what other people earn, or how they earn it. Most are too busy and worried with their own situation. If they give labor for a wage they agree to then their is nothing wrong. What is really wrong is not being able to enjoy what you've already earned. For instance if the government taxes you too much. It creates disincentives to produce. Or someone being able to take and use your property. You may not work as hard for those things, cause you know you won't be able to fully own, or control those things, so why bother working for them.

Keep in mind that labor is a product. I'm giving the product of labor (which is subject to the rationing system of supply and demand) in exchange for money. It is no different than the store clerk asking for money in exchange for his item. Whatever the cost of the end product and remember million of people went into making that, my labor is only worth so much. And the value of stuff is subjective meaning it can change. Your wage is partly dependent on the cost of the item, but that is largely due to a greater need for that item and thus a greater need for worker to produce that product. Wage is determined by demand for your skills and ability to provide labor, and how many other people have the same, or greater skills and ability to provide the labor and willing to do it at a lower price.
[link]
Reply
:iconentropic-64:
Entropic-64 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
"You talk as if that land is the only land available, the world is a big place and no one can own all the land in the world, or own the rights to all of a resource.

You talk as if nation states have not laid claim to the rights of all the land in the world.

"Here is why you don't always want the producer to be the one who owns and runs the land and factories. The producer will only produce what he knows how to produce."

Hence the need for co-operative production.

"Do you think 400 workers can cooperatively manage a factory?

Yes. For example, the CNT during the Spanish Civil War.

"When it comes to the tragedy of the commons maybe not everyone is short sighted, but chances are you're going to get people who are and you're going to likely have conflict over who gets how much grassland someone is going to try and take more than the others, people are greedy that way."

Hence the need for resistance.

"First historically commons are usually forced by government be it Feudal lords, village chiefs, or Soviet Commissars.... I've never heard of a voluntary commons in England prior to industrialization. I'm going to need some sort of proof that they did exist, they weren't forced into existence, and that government actually destroyed them. I'm not saying you are lying, or ignorant I just need proof you aren't. But let's say voluntary common's did exist and government did destroy them."

Enclosure

"Second I often hear socialist make the argument that government operated on behalf of the private company, sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't."

I'm having trouble parsing that, but I'm not saying all states are operated on behalf of corporations.

"Communes were tried in the sixties by Hippies, they don't exist today anymore."

Communes around the world

"Monopolies are hard to create and even harder to maintain. You're going to be hard pressed to find a monopoly that has lasted purely through the free markets."

I'll let you know when someone shows me a purely free market.
- ;)

"It's nice to think that someone will stop associating with you over morals, but that is seldom the case."

Probably why I don't think it - I think people will stop associating with people they realize threaten their way of life via misuse of resources and attempts at enforcing monopoly.

"If I'm the one who bought, built, and maintain the home shouldn't I be allowed to let whoever I want in. What if the other guy is an asshole and I don't want to live with him. What if I want to simply live alone. They maybe living in it, but their use of it increases maintenance cost of the home. One person will incur the cost of the homes maintenance cause the other guy knows he will, they may both manage to maintain the home, or both won't maintain it cause they think the other guy will."

Maintain a room for yourself; you're free to do only maintenance that benefits yourself.

"It's like saying I buy a car, but someone is allowed to use it. That other person is adding miles to the car. And because he didn't spend the time and money earning the car the other guy may use it more frivolously."

He has to pay for its maintenance if he's using it; he's not going to treat it frivolously if he plans on using it for long.

"I don't know many people who care what other people earn, or how they earn it. Most are too busy and worried with their own situation."

I know a few people who realize that what other people earn, and how they earn it, directly affects their situation.

"Keep in mind that labor is a product."

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree there.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconfifcio1:
fifcio1 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2008  Hobbyist General Artist
Asia - a lot of useless work. Long Live Capitalism.
Reply
:icondaetck:
Daetck Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2008
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started.

Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.
-Ayn Rand

If the Businesspeople (Capitalists) wants to make money, he invests it in an enterprise (entrepreneur). He raises capital, purchases machinery, builds or rents a building, and hires workers to produce a product. The product is sold for a profit. The Businessperson invests capital wagering he will get this money back and make a profit for himself. Businesspeople desire to make money to improve their lives. They must organize, analyze, calculate, risk, and WORK HARD to make a company profitable. IF THE BUSINESSPERSON DID NOT WANT TO MAKE MONEY THE FACTORY WOULD NOT EXIST, THE JOB WOULD NOT EXIST. The businessperson (capitalist) does not use his muscles. He is not a grunt. These people in the factories are NOT SLAVES.The people leave the countryside and SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURE hoping that their lives and prospects will improve. They will not have to live in substance.

However, though they may work long hours and get paid little, THEY EARNED IT BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS AT A JOB CREATED BY A CAPITALISTS BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS .

1 Euro goes farther their than in Europe.

Also, business exist to make profit for the capitalists.

It was only by the capitalists desire to make money that Industrialization was possible. People created new machines and factories that increased production and lowed costs and created jobs to make money. not charity

The Asian person pictured is working hard. The European is NOT.

But...

That worker did not organize the factory. They did not work to acquire capital, take out loans, sign contracts, or invest their time, money, or energy in creating the factory. They did not organize the supply chains, acquire the raw materials, or find a market for the goods produced. THEY DID NOT USE THEIR MINDS. THEY USED THEIR HANDS. THEY DID NOT THINK!

They work 8 or 10 or 12 hours. But they never use their minds. They preform the job they were trained to do by the factory owner. They did not conceive of how to make that shoe or how to produce it. They are not lazy. They are working harder than the Europeans have in half a century. But, they did not create their job. They only fill it.

Without Capitalism there would have been no Industrial Age, no Manufacturing, No Banking, Finance, Stock Markets, or Corporations. No Computers, Electric generators, Refrigerators, No Bessemer Process to make Steel, no Steam Engines, no Radio, Television, Harvesters, Tractors, Commercial Agriculture, Medicine, Light Bulbs, Science, Technology, Health care, nothing.

Everything you take for granted. You created nothing. Everything created from the David , to Steel, to Sneakers was created for profit by an ingenious mind for their own PROFIT.

What you propose is the enslavement of the creative and capitalist class. You propose slaves to create the means of production, design products, and work hard for everyone but themselves. YOU PROPOSE A BLOOD SACRIFICE.

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

The Capitalist wants someone he can deal with by reason. He has created a job and this Asian women is willing to fill it. The income is low but it is an improvement. Otherwise she would not take the job. People seek to better themselves. If she had remained in the countryside, growing food, she would have been subject to the unpredictability of nature: Drought, Flood, Famine, Typhoon, etc. At her station in this factory, there is stability, protection form the ravages of nature. Before, she had no money at all. 1 Euro is better than no Euro. Is it not?

Capitalism is freedom not slavery.

A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.
-Ayn Rand

Capitalism makes Democracy, Middle Class, Progress, Technology, all of your lives possible.

Upper classes are a nation's past; the middle class is its future.
-Ayn Rand

Go back to the forests and hunt and gather your own food before you criticize Capitalism. Remain Ignorant, blind, and Superstitious. Do not seek edification or a hard work ethic. Damn it after you damn yourself. DAMN IT AND YOU WILL DAMN YOURSELVES.

There would only be Aristocracy, Anarchy, War, Famine, Witchdoctors, and Theology. A dark and dangerous world ruled by bruits and warriors. A world of squalor, pestilence, disease, and Subsistence.


You are an intelligent being. All I am asking is that you consider where everything comes from. People do not work for charity. They Trade labor for profit.

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.
-Ayn Rand

Please read about capitalism. Read about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I do not criticize you out of hatred. I only want you to understand. I do not seek to injure you but to show you that you are wrong in your premise. This is not an Insult but an Invitation. Join the side of freedom or do not. As an Individual, the choice is up to you.

I leave you not as an enemy but a friend.

To say "I love you" one must first be able to say the "I."
-Ayn Rand
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2008
Um??? If you look at Asia, many countries are raising their standards of living through capitalism. You can't go from rice farmers to successful international economic powerhouses overnight. Japan and South Korea are examples of how capitalism has made life better in Asia, not worse. Give it another 5 decades, an Asia will be building their sneakers in Europe.
Reply
:icon13vak:
13VAK Featured By Owner Apr 19, 2008   Interface Designer
dont make me laugh... korea and japan also other "tigers" has developed their economy because DID NOT apply the advises given by international financial institutions. there are more state intervention than you think.
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2008
lol. if you honesty think that japan and south korea don't implement capitalism in their economy, you have the intelligence of a monkey.

And if you truly believe what you just said, why did you put asia in your artwork as a example of capitalism. you can't have it both ways.
Reply
:icon13vak:
13VAK Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2008   Interface Designer
Asia as maybe you know is not only Japan and South Korea, Asia is also Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Kambodia the countries where multinationals placed their sweat shops.
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2008
Guess what. Many of those countries are increasing their standards of living. Guess why. Capitalism. Those countries that are growing fastest are those who are deregulating the most. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Although sweat shops may suck, at least give the poor people the option of deciding for themselves what they want out of life. Most Asians travel vast distances to work in factories by their own free choice. It isn't slavery. Slavery is bad, but these people are trying to make better lives for themselves and their children, and don't want some egalitarian SOB telling them whats best for their life.
Reply
:iconkotsiya:
Kotsiya Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2008
the problem is that the owner of the factory treats them like shit, like slaves, while he picks up 69 euros from a shoe (let's say 30 euro, other 39 are expenses to the factory, but I assure you it's way less.) and he only gives 1 euro to the working men, while these working men can't strike to demand a pay rise, because there are about 5000 other worker that isn't employed to replace even one worker that is slaving for the same amount of money, cause he's broke, and when you're broke, you'll work for anything.


Capitalism IS bad, but giving the money to the government to build guns is also bad (communism/fascism), the only possible solution is anarchism, but let's face the truth, most ppl are assholes and only care for themselves, so that wouldn't possibly work.

outcome == it's all shit, Capitalism is only the least shitty of all, in the event that ALL workers unit and form a society for themselves to back themselves up (mini communism). but there is one, and guess what, it turned out to be also shit, cause the"leaders" are mostly shitty ppl that only care about themselves. that's why the possible solution is Anarchism-Communism. but it's hard to implement cause of the "leaders" that will kill if you cut their 50,000 euros a month profit to even 40,000 a month.

not to talk about the unknown "leaders" of the world, the economical leaders that control the known leaders, forcing them to invade other countries and to make an agenda that will help them, and they'll contribute back to the known leaders with votes and influence.


it's all about who's holding the power. capitalism = less ppl holding power.

anarchism's got it's problems i agree, everything has got a problem or an other, it's only your own status that leads you to take a stance, all stances are biased.
Reply
:icontoolshed333:
toolshed333 Featured By Owner Sep 3, 2008
1. you are not forced to work. the idea that a factory forces you to work is nonsense. they pay you a wage take it or leave it. it isn't slavery. many people travel hundreds of miles to work in factories because they are better off not worse.

2. you have to sell products for more than what you pay workers to say in business. businesses that payed workers all revenues would last about a day before they closed up shop...and increased unemployment and poverty.

3. capitalism is good, anarchism is childish

4. capitalism is mini communism...???what does that even mean???

5. anarchism-communism is an oxymoron. Communism requires a strong national government to enforce.

6. capitalism = more people holding power not less. capitalism is power to the consumer. communism is power to the government. Anarchism is power to those with guns.
Reply
:iconnapzilla79:
napzilla79 Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2011
What's funny is that while you're busy arguing that capitalism is improving the standard of living in Asia, your own standard is rapidly falling (assuming from your avatar that you live in the US). You don't have to take my word for it, either. Just see what the OECD has to say on the issue:
[link]
Reply
:iconkotsiya:
Kotsiya Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2008
let's see you work for 1 euro a week :)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconogan-kitapci:
Ogan-Kitapci Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2008  Hobbyist Digital Artist
stupid MTHRFCKR capitalist kid - who doesnt know sh*t about life or world. dont listen to them man this is a great caricature showing absolute reality
Reply
:iconrage87:
Rage87 Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2008
LOL, so that's where I get my sneakers from? Cool! I don't give a crap about asian kids working, if they're a backwards ass society like commie Vietnam it's their problem, not mine!

Screw socialism and anarchy!
Reply
:iconnazgul100:
Nazgul100 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011
at first I was mad at you, but then I saw you were from Romania, then I didnt care for your opinion.
Reply
:iconhyta:
Hyta Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2010
Good point. If they want to send these shoes, we'll take them :)
Reply
:iconbranflakes2:
Branflakes2 Featured By Owner May 26, 2009
i am neither a socialist nor a capitalist, but i have to say that is easily the most intolerant thing i have ever heard. i dont give a shit what you are, but i would gladly kick your teeth in.
Reply
:icontakagomei:
takagomei Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2008
whats your problem man? obviously your too shallow & narrow-minded to understand the problem they're facing in asia. And then here you are making fun of them after wearing the shoes they made and saying it's not your problem.

go eat shit.
Reply
:iconrage87:
Rage87 Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2008
Aren't I the type of white man keepin' everyone down? This constant hatred towards white people annoys me, that's why I said that!

Now you go and eat shit!
Reply
:iconnapzilla79:
napzilla79 Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2011
Hey, dipshit, as a white male, I can assure you that it's not about hating white people. It's about a system that privileges a handful of people at the expense of everyone else. Maybe if you spent a bit more time paying attention to what's really happening in the world and less time making a jackass of yourself, you'd know that.
Reply
:iconnazgul100:
Nazgul100 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2011
well said.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
August 16, 2007
Image Size
82.3 KB
Resolution
660×463
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
6,891
Favourites
66 (who?)
Comments
62
Downloads
221
×