you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If only. Everyone can acquire capital. Under capitalism everyone is equal.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In Capitalism you must already have capital to gain more, or at the very least gain the favor of someone who already has it.

It's very rare in an entirely capitalist society to see someone go from a lowly worker to a member of the capitalist elite. It definitely happens, but it would happen a lot more in an economic system like Corporatism. (Which some people think is still Capitalism, but I see it as a syncretic ideology.)

Capitalism is definitely is not an equal society. Equality before the law cannot be present in a capitalist society, for the courts are influenced by greed. Furthermore, equality of opportunity cannot be achieved when everyone starts on a different playing field.

Meanwhile Socialism sacrifices true equality in the name of "equality of outcome," which is really just a fancy term for inequality. If someone who works hard gets the same reward as someone who doesn't work at all, that is inherently unequal.

We must reject all forms of Materialism — Capitalism and Socialism — and instead pursue a system of National Corporatism. We must devote ourselves not to greed and envy, but rather to the Nation. Only then shall true equality be possible. Only then shall the classes live in harmony.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

equality of opportunity cannot be achieved when everyone starts on a different playing field.

Equality of opportunity means that everyone plays by the same rules. That is what we have, and has nothing to do with capitalism anyway. What you are doing is twisting opportunity to mean that everyone has to have the same abilities. We are not all identical so your perverted concept of equal opportunity is not possible under any circumstances.

That perversion of meaning is being pushed in order to justify unequal treatment.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Equality of opportunity means that everyone plays by the same rules.

That's equality before the law.

What you are doing is twisting opportunity to mean that everyone has to have the same abilities.

No, I am stating the simple fact that if one starts with one dollar and another with one billion, the former will have a much harder time competing with the latter. It has nothing to do with one's ability, but rather the capability of utilizing one's ability.

It is only fair that someone who works harder and better is to receive a larger reward — but it is not fair that one with a lesser ability is given a greater capability through an accumulation of capital, and thus a greater reward than one who is more able yet less capable.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why are you focusing on how much money they "start with" and nothing else? IQ is far more meaningful and everyone doesn't have the same IQ. Give 100 people the same amount of money and no two will have the same amount after any given amount of time.

The claim that being born into wealth is the only important factor is bullshit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why are you focusing on how much money they "start with" and nothing else?

No matter how skilled you are, you can't make money from those skills unless you have the capital to make it happen. A lot of the time you can obtain it through working for someone else, or through investments, but a lot of the time it's not possible — especially for certain industries with large start-up costs.

It's not that I believe everyone should start a business — quite the opposite actually: Capitalism's requirement that every start a business in order to live comfortably doesn't make economical sense. We need Workers, as well as business-owners — thus should incentivize maintaining these classes.

The claim that being born into wealth is the only important factor is bullshit.

There's a huge difference between saying something is the only factor and the most important factor.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No matter how skilled you are, you can't make money from those skills unless you have the capital to make it happen.

Do I even have to say it? Of course I do: bullshit. Aside from the fact that you could get a loan, or sell your skills outright to a buisness (ie get a job) the costs of starting a small buisness are not what is stopping most people from opening a buisness. That is simply a lie.

Give any man 100k and he wont open a buisness that was otherwise impossible for him for lack of money 99.9% of people would spend that money and have nothing to show for it within a few years.

Of the .1% who would start a buisness 99% will start one without that donation. The remaining .o1% do not justify destroying a world that gets the .1% to invent and start businesses by rewarding them for it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aside from the fact that you could get a loan, or sell your skills outright to a buisness (ie get a job)

If you would've read my original comment — which it seems you have not — I specifically stated that those are the only ways to obtain capital.

99.9% of people would spend that money and have nothing to show for it within a few years.

Which is why we need to maintain the class system instead of forcing everyone to start a business in order to live comfortably.

Of the .1% who would start a buisness 99% will start one without that donation.

You literally just pulled these numbers out of your ass.