Is capitalism exploitative

argue

Yes.

Being a capitalist, you must have "things" under you that can keep you rich even if when you are asleep 24/7. What exactly are these "things"? To a modern millionaire, it might mean portfolios, stock investments and real estate. But once you get greedy and start becoming a billionaire, there might be chances that people die to get in your company, only to be squeezed by machines.

I mean, today, this issue is better than the 1800s. In the 1800s when the pollutions wasn't being aware of a problem and the industrial revolution was an unstoppable force, so much as child slaves got their jobs at the puppeting hands of the greedy business owners who had taken luxurious carriages in an out of their workplace, while the child workers get less than what we currently consider the minimum wage.

If you have worked in the United States, chances are that you worked your asses off to get a pay and a raise, only to live paycheck to paycheck with barely enough money to buy a single car. That is exploitative. You deserve to thrive, not just to survive. You deserve to think, to find your meaning, instead of stumbling among the rubble of mediocrity. That is what capitalism is doing to you. It is exploitative.

We can't exactly say when Smith wrote the barebone theory for capitalism, he wanted exploitation. However, it would be inevitable that some greedy bastard would overuse the interests of the people that loved working for him, until the cashflow is doubled or tripled, and those people are no longer interested in working for him but had no choice but to be kept bound to the workplace because that is the only way they will live to see their children grow old.

However, as technology gets better and better, most exploitative work, such as picking cotton and assembling kitchen gadgets(which may even be in vain at this moment[1]), will be replaced by machines that can make perfect stuff as we say(and if they don't, it will be our fault for not being excellent enough at designing). Machines have no feelings and they don't feel bad when bosses order them to make 100,000 products a day, unless they have codes necessary for Artificial Intelligence, which, at all times should be kept out of factory houses.

We would have more time to think and design, because the issue of the quality of the product at the back end would be not a concern anymore, seeing machines can carry out the job basically perfectly. 

What do we need next? Automated assembly lines that make automated assembly lines. When these are circulated within society, we can say that capitalism is possible to not be exploitative anymore. If they still do, then the corporative owners are at fault.

But people sitill have to make those machines or the machines that make the machines and the factory the machines are made in

depends on the society,

Unfettered Capitalism is unmeritocratic nepotism to the hilt where the rich passively snowball a permanent lead and maintain inherited wealth and power within the society perpetually in dynasties. This is still the case here in 2021 in severely Capitalist societies such as Kenya, Nigeria, Argentina, Chile, India and more.

Unfettered Socialism (which becomes brutal Communism) is eventually unmeritocratic nepotism as well but the path towards it is far less straightforward. Instead of the initially earned wealthy and influential passing it down their bloodlines and to friends (which happens in unfettered Capitalism), the cycle of anti-meritocracy in unfettered Socialism begins due to anti-corruption it seems to be. The elite in the society seek to stamp out any and all organisations that can stand in their way, if you rise in the society it cannot be via wealth, since it's socialist, rather it is by knowing the right people (which all answer equally to an untouchable elite 'up top' that run the society). 

Both are toxic, a sensible balance is best.

Better late than never.

At least making something that actually has a good use is better than making useless stuff for the average worker.

by near definition yes

How do you define "exploitative"?

Capitalism - aka as free enterprise - aka as laisse faire aka as the ability to pull oneself out of the gutter - aka known as the only fair and just way for an economy to prosper, succeed, and be just. 

Every other alternative to capitalism is slavery.  Socialism, communism, fascism, dictatorship, etc al are exploitive and cruel and modern forms of slavery. The difference from past slavery is that it is not a person who is the master - it is the state. 

And a slave to the state is still a slave. 

Only capitalism is anti-slave.  Since Capitalism can only work in a system of contract, integrity, and agreement it is the only way to promote freedom. 

When Capitalism is mixed with other forms of political economy, then it is not  Capitalism, or it is a distorted form of Capitalism.  Then it really morphs into a form of socialism.  

When the taxes are too high, it reduces the freedom that people within the economy have - because it reduces the choices people can do.  Socialistic practices deceive people into thinking they are getting free stuff - but it is their children who will ultimately suffer. Or it is the poor who will remain poor and suffer. 

Communism is evil.  It makes the state and its numero uno party - god. If you do not obey it - it will hurt you, it will fine you, it will close down your business. It will put you in prison. It will kill you. And it will do this all for the honor of the party. The people MUST be sheep in communism. In Capitalist countries people have the choice and the freedom to challenge the government or the state. This is its strength. And its weakness. 

I would rather live in a capitalist country than a communist country. Socialist countries are deceivers - and lie through their teeth about how good they are doing. Mostly they rely upon previous capitalistic principles in order to progress.  Yet when they get in control - as they have in the West now for the past 50 years in politics, in universities, in scientific organisations - the society around them collapses as it has now in the West. 

The West has abandoned Capitalism and taken on Socialism. Now it is dying. Collapsing under the weight of oppression and regulation and taxes and debt. Its schools are suffering - it students are not learning. Crime is increasing. Prisons are full.  People disrespect their government as never before. And society is in chaos. People don't know who they are anymore. We have a million different genders. People can identify as whatever they want.  There is no real right or wrong. 

The embracing of the post modern - mind - in the cloak of Socialism has destroyed us. 

And the rejection of capitalism - means the rejection of freedom and choice and love. 

Why do you post this ignorant nonsense without offering an opinion? 

Yes it is exploitative, by the way. I think it's a truism. Now the real question is, does society benefit from it, or is their an alternative that serves society just as well, which is less exploitative?

Why is it "ignorant nonsense"?

Because he is just conducting a poll, instead of opening with his opinion on the topic.

Presumably that is because he wants to see the opinions of others, no?

Obviously. 

@Wylted

Stimulating discussion is not a bad thing, in this case. I would agree, though, that if he shared his opinion, it would be better.

I don't exactly understand what you mean by that, but debate judges would disagree with you, seeing drlebronski is doing a similar job at this moment.

@drlebronski

What is your opinion anyways?

What's wrong with that?

My opinion is yes it is exploitative.

Do you advocate,

For a specific different system?

That we ought find a new, yet tried system?

That we ought increase regulation on the capitalist system that already exists?

That our current system works, but is one society ought keep an eye on?

That we ought mix and match 'elements of capitalism, with other systems?

Other?

Currently i would say "That we ought increase regulation on the capitalist system that already exists?" i think we should first stray for a social democracy and then slowly progress towards market socialism.

Market socialism definition--- Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy

I think that cirrently we should be more like Nordic countries such as denmark ect. 

Sounds like Too much bureaucracy, Communism, and lack of freedom, to me.

What aspects or methods in particular?

I would say market socialism provides more freedom especially to the workers. 

Its like democracy in a workplace instead of all the decisions being made by the higher ups.

Higher social safety net such as healthcare for all when you get out of jail you can still vote i believe and when you get out of jail you can still progress without having the fear of not getting a job because of something you did when you were 18. these are only a few aspects.

I think 'crowds of people, often don't know what's good for them and everyone, nor do 'crowds always deserve the property of an individual's effort.

Socialism would bother me 'less, if say a group of Socialist/Communist minded individuals,

'Founded a new city in some location, with the infrastructure to 'provide that which they claimed.

And lived 'themselves, the lives they thought others ought live.

There's a book I tried reading once, I couldn't really understand it, or follow it well at the time, maybe I should try reading it again.

. . . 'Anyways, this conversation sparks that book in my mind somehow.

Though I mention it merely because I like to see the title in words out before me, not because I'm trying to get you to read it, or hold it up as any sort of proof or argument. Just for myself, though it's odd to say something publicly, just for oneself.

Moved to economics

You mean education?

If capitalism were exploitive, that would mean there is a ceiling to the money supply; once reached, there would be no more money to be had. Well, Oba'a taught that, but he was and is dead wrong. That is not the case. Capitalism encourages individual ambition, planning, and execution, 00and that, alone, allows the initiative for innovation which, itself, increases the money supply, which is infinite. The fact is, anyone using those three elements [ambition, planning, and execution] can succeed. Anyone. How is that exploitive? People do get there [acquire personal wealth] without them, but they both limit their potential, and they do pray on others in the process. That is not capitalism; that is pure greed. There is a difference, but too many see them as one in the same. Too bad; they don't get it, and will likely never get it [sustainable wealth] as a result.

What about monopolies?

They control a 'percentage of the market, rather than an 'amount of wealth, I 'think.

And can lead to unequal working conditions, possibly requiring Theodore Roosevelt the Trust Buster, at times.

As well as often try to hinder any competitions existence, I 'think.

What about monopolies? That they exist means nothing to me. They do not stop me. Sure, they represent an element of greed, but who ever said there is a ceiling to hte money supply? People who don't have it, that's who. And people, like Oba'a who have it and are jealous. He's wrong, and doesn't deter me.

While I can understand the concept of it being unlikely for someone to seize 'all the money supply,

Monopolies still seem worthy of concern,

A common understanding of monopolies 'is their ability to stop others from competing with them.

We like multiple branches, checks and balances in government, would it be bad to implement to a degree in economics?