Pants-of-dog wrote:Not always, and we have several historical examples of socialism rising from the people as a response to rapacious capitalism.
Do these responses sometimes use violence to stop the oppression? It is often necessary.
Leftie logic: getting paid or paying someone else is "oppression", but wholesale slaving, looting and murdering is "often necessary" to stop "oppression".
Pants-of-dog wrote:Really? When modern capitalism came into being, slavery was common in the western world.
Slavery has been a feature of human relations since forever, throughout all the world, only the western world specifically Christian Europe during the High Christian period from 900 AD to almost the present day, featured any kind of serious wholesale rollback on slavery. The industrial revolution (which lefties like to pretend is full scope of capitalism though it is not) occurred in a country that was the least offensive on that score. You are trying to make a correlation into a causation which doesn't work because the actual correlation is the opposite of what you are trying to decieve us into accepting. Western Europeans, like the British, were the least reliant on slavery for labour at the time of the industrial revolution.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sweatshops are still common in the developing world, and are used by multinational corporations to make a profit.
Better in a sweatshop than a gulag. You have to talk down capitalism at least as much as you talk up gulags as being wonderful places of caring and sharing but even so all you have is "sweatshops" which are better than gulags by a country mile.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, there are historical and modern examples to disprove your refutation.
No they don't because my claim is that capitalism does not depend on sweatshops, they are optional
. What you are doing is a fallacious as this bit of faux logic:
Tobacco is a unhealthy product, some people consume tobacco and some people supply tobacco therefore capitalism depends on tobacco and will die of lung cancer.
Gulags (wholesale slavery) in contrast actually are necessary for socialism because without any private ownership there are no attractive incentives or meaningful rewards to do anything for anyone. All that is left to motivate people is terrorism. Without the carrot there can only be the stick.
Sweatshops are where sometimes the carrots don't have to be too big to be sufficient to motivate. Socialism is where all carrots large and small are banned on pain of torture and brutal death.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, by your definition of slavery, anyone who is doing work they would not otherwise do is a slave. This would be a good description of anyone who has had to work a crappy job in order to make ends meet.
No you are deceptively pretending that metaphorical force is the same as actual force. So I am hungry, the gods or darwin made me a being that must constantly be shoveling food into my gob to stay alive and I do
want to stay alive. Consequently I can say METAPHORICALLY that I am "forced" (by my own
nature!) to do some work to get some food. This is not at all the same thing as one person threatening to physically torture another person if they do not work for free; this is ACTUAL slavery.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And modern capitalism depends on a large labour force willing to accept wages that they would not accept if they did not need to buy food, etc.
No it doesn't, in fact day by day the less work is actually done by people at all and is instead done by machines. The more modern the capitalism the less labour is needed and the more "work" is really just gently tapping a few buttons now and again. @Decky is probably the only person on this entire forum that actually does something like actual labour in the course of his trade the rest of us are just gently tapping buttons. How much labour do you think I do as a taxi driver? The car does all the work, I just control it. If a customer has a bag I might help throw it into the back but that is all I do.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The ways in which this economic leverage is exploited are many. Any time people are sexually harassed at work by their boss, or had to work in unsafe conditions, or not be able to take time off work for a birth or a death, or they get avoidably injured at work because the boss cut corners and they cannot work any more.
The list is long. You probably have experienced many of them yourself.
Just because life isn't a perfect utopia populated entirely by angels doesn't mean any of us deserve to suffer the hell of socialism.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Developing countries are capitalist according to your definition. And they have less regulation than developed countries, so according to free marketeers, these countries are better governed.
And I am fairly sure they do exist in western countries. New York City has a task force whose entire job is to try and get rid of the sweatshops currently operating there.
Regulations are not an automatic good. Sometimes they make things worse and sometimes they are just a stupid waste. If regulations are a potential
good then to give that good the best chance of happening they should not be monopolised by a violent gang of ideological misanthropists such as the socialists.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since this is just an ad hominem, you have not refuted the fact that it would be rational for sweatshop workers to want something other than the capitalism that led them there.
No the rational thing for sweatshop workers to want is for more capitalism not less. A sweatshop is not the path to fame and fortune but it is probably better than subsistence farming, begging or starving. And all are better than socialism.