Does Capitalism treat Human Beings as Commodities

Post Reply New Topic

Just want to know. I been pondering this issue for a while.

capitalism understands each person has there place in society, they look at humans as clumsy and un educated, like they only deserve to work there asses off like slaves and we have to be cheerleaders whenever they choose to go to war...

obviously im taking the piss, but still it makes sense

Communism is understanding everyone is working for a better world, of course there is exeptions to this for a small percentage of people but ultimately it is a more think before doing mindset, in other words more intelligent stategy

In western capitalism, everyone who work for it have more than they need. In communism, people only get the breadcrumbs from the dictator's table.

Capitalism treats people as walking wallets. All that matters is getting the consumer's money spent their product or service, whether the consumer needs it or can afford it. Is that what you mean?

Under Capitalism, man exploits his fellow man.
Under Communism, it's the other way around.

"His fellow man" exploits "man" instead? Communism is the government's capitalism.

It's somewhat of a shock to see those of us so concerned with fairness and justice advocate the initiation of violence.

There are two ways to accomplish things with others: voluntarism, and the use of force (the initiation of violence). One of these ways is good and one of these ways is bad. A state which proposes to own your body by claiming rights to income and personal perference (marijuana smoking for example) is fundamentally an institution which uses force to accomplish its goals. Capitalism, private business, accomplishes its goals by way of voluntarism.

You see corporations grabbing up public subsidies and bailouts, you see corporations stealing pensions from employees, you see corporations creating monopolies by rampaging over their competition, and you come to the conclusion that corporations are the source of the evil. While the people who do these things from the private business world are evil themselves, their actions would never have taken place if they did not use the conduit of government to achieve their monopolistic holds over so many industries and services.

You see corporations grabbing up public subisides (tax dollars) and bailouts (inflation - hidden taxation). Yes, they are immoral for doing so, but they could not do so if there were no initiation of violence against "taxpayers". Who threatens you with jail if you don't pay the taxes required to pay the interest on the bailout for the airlines? The institution which threatens you with jail, thereby carrying out the dastardly deed, is no the private corporation - it is the state.

You see corporations stealing pensions from employees, and getting away unpunished by greasing the hands of the state with some kickback from the stolen pensions. If you take away the evil CEO you will still be left with an evil state who will kidnap you and lock you away for excercising your human rights. But if you take away the evil state, the evil CEO has no way to buy protection against mobs of victim employees.

You see Walmart rampaging over its competition and setting up monopolies all over the place. What you may not have know is that Walmart is in bed with the state - being in bed with the state is really the only way to achieve a monopoly in the first place (through the initiation of violence). Walmart typically uses state funds to build its supercenters, and Walmart offloads some of their employee wages to welfare and other state wealth redistribution schemes. With all the money saved in their relationship with the state it's no wonder why they can afford to set such low prices and drive out their competition so quickly. Take away the evil Walmart CEO and you are still left with the same state institution which helps CEOs like this one do what they are currently doing. But take away the instution which allowed this to happen in the first place and Walmart is vulnerable to the free market.

Please visit freedomainradio dot com if you would like to learn more or challenge things that I've just said; many in these forums will love to debate with you.

No. Captialism and Communism both allow one person to exploit another, but for different ideologies.

Communism is a socialist form of government in which the state is the sole owner of all property and industry. The Communist Party is the only political party allowed. The party and the government are virtually the same. The government is run by a committee chosen by its members and the committee chooses its head of state, who with the committee has soul power. Local governments also are run by committees elected by local members of the party. Citizens have limited rights and freedoms and in theory the goverment provides all basic services at no costs to its citizens. Opposition to local and national rule is prohibitted and punishable with inprisonment. Social groups, such as religious organizations and private agencies, are banned unless sanctioned by the Communist Party and government.

On the other hand, Capitalism in its purest form describes a free-market economy where the Law of Supply and Demand reigns supreme, and where greed is the essential motivating factor. Under Capitalism, no person is required to purchase goods or services that they do not need or want; nor is a merchant required to forego profit on goods or services sold. The main drawbacks to Capitalism are: If a person can not afford what they need, then they can not obtain it (unless they establish good credit); If a merchant can not sell his goods at a profit, then he is likely to go out of business (unless they receive a bailout); and, in many cases, taxes on sales and purchases fall short when the barter system is introduced (unless quarterly audits are performed).

So, under Communism, market conditions are maintained by government-enforced quotas on what a person may purchase, what a persom may sell, and what a person may own. Under Capitalism, what a person wants to purchase, sell, or own may simply not be available at any price, even if that person has a life-critical need for a specific product or service.

It can in Nevada.

Yes. Yes it can.

You win the Internet.

Capitalism treats human labor as a commodity. People don't literally sell themselves, in a slave-market, so human beings cannot be commodities. However, it is true that under capitalism, people are expected to treat other people as a means to their own ends.

Well the idea is for everyone to be on an even ground and to all get the same. But what tends to hapen is that the governments which are controling everything realise that certain people should get extra because the jobs are 'tougher' or more important. This leads to government giveing themselves more money, and they become wealthy, while they would look lowely at those that are not high on with education or have intelectual jobs. This splits it so you end up with two groups, a good book to have a possible good idea of this is the book "Animal Farm", where there was two groups, pigs and the rest of the animals. What does eventualy happen is that the 'pigs' end up just like what they were against in the first place, in fact probably worse then when they started as communism tends to be based off of introduction to war and this war stays.

They forget that everyone is supposed to be the same and instead treat the lowers like assets to there country wich has now become like one big business. If it could be done without coruption or greed then maybe it would be different.