Is capitalism inherently classist and elitist?

[Jay GW]

Classism
is any form of prejudice or oppression against people as a result of their actual or perceived social class (especially in the form of lower socioeconomic status).

Elitism
is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are mostly likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

Isn't capitalism inherently classist and elitist?

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as capitalism, in action.

There are some mixed economies that some call capitalism.

But the thing only exists in theory.

You have the US society, which always has been and still is extremely stratified in terms of wealth and opportunities and freedoms and worth of the individual to the government.

[coloradoatheist]

The answer is no, human nature itself is classist but capitalism allows you to overcome and choose your own class.


Mike

[Hawkeye]

Nah, in theory Capitalism isn't classist. How it pans out in reality might be different, though.

[untermensche]

The answer is no, human nature itself is classist but capitalism allows you to overcome and choose your own class.


Mike
What the evidence on human nature shows is that the nature of the person is dependent on the circumstances the person finds themselves in.

If a person finds themselves in a corporate atmosphere, where increasing profit and share-holder return is the only legal motive, you will assume the nature of an uncaring brutal plunderer, and not care about the human cost, only the legal cost, of all actions taken.

[countjulian]

No. Quite the opposite, in fact: capitalism in inherently anti-elitist

I would highly recommend Gordon Wood's excellent book on the American Revolution "The Radicalism of the Americna Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4737289-8320161?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179924862&sr=8-1)." In it Gordon Shows how America's liberal[libertarian], capitalist revolution washed away previous social impediments of class,"honour", and breeding, and left America as a place renown for upstarts and lower class people making it to the top. Wood shows how fundamental attitudes about respect for one's "betters" and ritualized rules of conduct relating to social class were swept away by what he calls America's particular "worship of commerce."

Dynamic capitalism, by its very nature, breeds constant chang,e which robs true social elites the chance to solidify. Just look at Europe, capitalism is less dynamic. Of the 10 biggest European corporations, most of them are dinasours from over 50 years ago. If you do the same comparison with the 10 biggest in America, you'll find that for most of them 60 years ago they either did not exist or were tiny joint ventures being run from people's garages (like Windows and Apple).

[countjulian]

where increasing profit and share-holder return is the only legal motive, you will assume the nature of an uncaring brutal plunderer, and not care about the human cost, only the legal cost, of all actions taken.

What nonsense. Increasing "profit" or utility is the only thing that causes you or anyone else to do anything. Why did you get out of bed this morning? Because you made a value judjment that you would reap more "profit" from getting up than staying in bed. Why did you choose what you chose to eat this morning instead of what I eat every monring, bran and oatmeal? Because you saw the marginal "proift" of having your meal as great than the marginal "profit" of having mine. When you go to the store, why do you not just choose all of the cheapest items on the shelf (or if you you do do this, why?) It's because you judge whatever extra qualities you pay for to bring you more "proift" than holding onto the extra money would have. Tell me, untermensch, how have you been "brutalised" today?

[untermensche]

What nonsense. Increasing "profit" or utility is the only thing that causes you or anyone else to do anything. Why did you get out of bed this morning? Because you made a value judjment that you would reap more "profit" from getting up than staying in bed. Why did you choose what you chose to eat this morning instead of what I eat every monring, bran and oatmeal? Because you saw the marginal "proift" of having your meal as great than the marginal "profit" of having mine. When you go to the store, why do you not just choose all of the cheapest items on the shelf (or if you you do do this, why?) It's because you judge whatever extra qualities you pay for to bring you more "proift" than holding onto the extra money would have. Tell me, untermensch, how have you been "brutalised" today?
I am not the person under the boot of so-called American capitalism. For that you would have to travel to Central and South America, and to places like Indonesia and China, and now Iraq.

And you must read carefully. I said the problem is when increasing profit is your only legal obligation. Not profit itself.

It is very possible to make a just profit. And a just profit would be shared by all who labored to make it, equally, and by none who did no labor.

[general_koffi]

No.

A completely capitalist system doesn't care where you came from, where you were born, or whether you drink tea with your pinky up. It only cares about how much money you can make.

[countjulian]

For that you would have to travel to Central and South America

You mean like Chile, where people like capitalism so much even the socialist president doesn't want to touch their privatised pention plans or nationalize any of Chile's many privatised industries?

and to places like Indonesia and China, and now Iraq.

Yes, I would so much more like to be under the socialism of Chairman Mao or Saddam Hussein.

I am not the person under the boot of so-called American capitalism.

Umm since you live in America I don't see how you could not be "under the boot of so-called American capitalism."

[Loren Pechtel]

It is very possible to make a just profit. And a just profit would be shared by all who labored to make it, equally, and by none who did no labor.

The problem is that money is really nothing but stored labor. The capitalist *IS* contributing labor!

By your standard there is no investment. There is no reason to save more than you will personally need. Capital is all but wiped out--and the human race will soon follow.

[Rudolph]

A completely capitalist system doesn't care where you came from, where you were born, or whether you drink tea with your pinky up. It only cares about how much money you can make.

But this is the problem surely? There's a difference between making money, and making as much money as possible. The latter usually involves the abandonment of civil and ethical behavior, and comes at the expense of other individuals.

[untermensche]

The problem is that money is really nothing but stored labor. The capitalist *IS* contributing labor!

By your standard there is no investment. There is no reason to save more than you will personally need. Capital is all but wiped out--and the human race will soon follow.
Accumulated capital is usually stolen labor, not the product of labor by the possessor.

A scheme is set up to steal a little of the fruits of many people's labor and keep this for yourself.

Investment in my scheme is made just the same as today. People go to a bank with a business plan to get a loan.

The difference is that the people who secure the loan have no special rights to the profits. The labor done in the enterprise entitles a person to a part of the profits.

People would have incentive to make profit. They would make more if the company made more.

However, there would not be this parasitic investment class living off the labor of others, but there would be investment and businesses.

[Nitrousoxide]

Accumulated capital is usually stolen labor, not the product of labor by the possessor.

A scheme is set up to steal a little of the fruits of many people's labor and keep this for yourself.

Pah, come now. It's silly to think that people who agreed of their own violation and with full knowledge of the contract are having captal stolen from them when the stipulations of said contract are being met.


Investment in my scheme is made just the same as today. People go to a bank with a business plan to get a loan.

The difference is that the people who secure the loan have no special rights to the profits. The labor done in the enterprise entitles a person to a part of the profits.

People would have incentive to make profit. They would make more if the company made more.

However, there would not be this parasitic investment class living off the labor of others, but there would be investment and businesses.



So, what you're saying is that you want everyone, no matter how much effort or risk is put into an investment, to get the same as if they were merely working as an employee of a risk taker? Why take any risks then if you're expected returns are in fact greater if you don't invest because you don't have that looming factor of risk involved which lowers your expected returns. Intelligent people would NEVER invest where we to implement what you want.

[untermensche]

Pah, come now. It's silly to think that people who agreed of their own violation and with full knowledge of the contract are having captal stolen from them when the stipulations of said contract are being met.
It is silly to not see when fruits are stolen ONLY because one party has much more power than another. Power enforced by the state. Nobody would willfully do it.
So, what you're saying is that you want everyone, no matter how much effort or risk is put into an investment, to get the same as if they were merely working as an employee of a risk taker? Why take any risks then if you're expected returns are in fact greater if you don't invest because you don't have that looming factor of risk involved which lowers your expected returns. Intelligent people would NEVER invest where we to implement what you want.
It is interesting you say some vital person, obviously since they are fullfilling a role, is a "mere" employee.

What you fail to understand is that this attitude is created by the system that wants to take people's fruits.

No person in the enterprise is a "mere" employee. This is a mental abstraction used to belittle people so you can steal from them with a clean conscience.

[Rudolph]

Pah, come now. It's silly to think that people who agreed of their own violation and with full knowledge of the contract are having captal stolen from them when the stipulations of said contract are being met.

I guess you meant volition! What you're assuming here though is that all contracts are fair... the fact is that when bargaining power lies with one party over another, then there is an element of theft involved, even if it is consented to by both parties! So, there kind of is violation here...

[Nitrousoxide]

It is silly to not see when fruits are stolen ONLY because one party has much more power than another. Power enforced by the state. Nobody would willfully do it.

You seem to have a misunderstanding as to what is going on in such a contract. Each side is offering the other terms and conditions. The employee is offering his mental or physical services in exchange for a fee, much like how a company can offer it's services to an individual for a fee to, say, repair a basement. Each side must agree to the contract before it can be effected so each side has veto power over the whole ordeal.


It is interesting you say some vital person, obviously since they are fullfilling a role, is a "mere" employee.

What you fail to understand is that this attitude is created by the system that wants to take people's fruits.

No person in the enterprise is a "mere" employee. This is a mental abstraction used to belittle people so you can steal from them with a clean conscience.

"mere" employees have fewer risks in doing buisness. Suppose that you had the choice between taking out a loan of 1 million to build a buisness which will return to you the exact same amount that you can get in the form of a salary from another company. You would choose the salary job rather than the investment position because you don't have the prospect of buisness failure resulting in you being bankrupt. In other words, the cash being offered by the employer and investment is the same but the risk of investment is greater than being an employee. So why would you ever invest? You wouldn't unless you were a fool who doesn't understand how to best maximize your personal benefit.

[Nitrousoxide]

I guess you meant volition! What you're assuming here though is that all contracts are fair... the fact is that when bargaining power lies with one party over another, then there is an element of theft involved, even if it is consented to by both parties! So, there kind of is violation here...

Oops, yes, I did mean volition. And that's why kiddies, you read your post out loud before posting.

Anyway, so long as there are a number of business which you can offer your services to, there is no monopoly on one side or the other. Monopolies are not conductive of the free market anyway though, so you shouldn't be assuming that that's the norm of things and then claiming that it's inherent to capitalism. So long as we have good competition in both the market for end goods and we'll have good competitive demand for people wishing to sell their effort we don't have this problem.

[enoch007]

Capitalism is only one of many social dynamics at play within the American economy (as it is within the social dynamic of any other country with a mixed capatalist system). Ethnicity, perceived social class (independant of one's labor value), etc exist according to the dynamic of the particular countries' history. Capitalism would not be inhearantly elitist etc could it be seperated out of the context of history of whatever place one wishes to examine. Since this is impossible, Capitalism in theory should not be elitist, in practice, it takes the spots of whichever leopard it rides upon.

[general_koffi]

But this is the problem surely? There's a difference between making money, and making as much money as possible. The latter usually involves the abandonment of civil and ethical behavior, and comes at the expense of other individuals.

"As possible..." having the natural restriction of not breaking the law.

Besides, that has nothing to do with elitism.

[Autonemesis]

So, what you're saying is that you want everyone, no matter how much effort or risk is put into an investment, to get the same as if they were merely working as an employee of a risk taker?

Risk-taker? You mean gambler. The worker in the mine is the real risk-taker. He's putting his life on the line. The mine investors are speculating with merely money. You can always get more money and start over. You can't get another life. Talking about the investor class as risk-takers just sounds totally foolish and disconnected, and I mean that in a Foxnews sort of way.

[Nitrousoxide]

Risk-taker? You mean gambler. The worker in the mine is the real risk-taker. He's putting his life on the line. The mine investors are speculating with merely money. You can always get more money and start over. You can't get another life. Talking about the investor class as risk-takers just sounds totally foolish and disconnected, and I mean that in a Foxnews sort of way.

Workers in high-risk jobs also tend to get back substancial sums of money because of a small pool of available workers from which to choose from and because people aren't willing to work for less.

This is true in dangerous mining, Alaska crab fishing, and other dangerous jobs.

But, when someone is considering whether to invest in a project or not, they need to consider their best alternative. If they are forced to earn exactly as much as their workers (and I don't know how untermensche would think pay scales would work, how much do you pay the owner? The amount you pay a janitor, a computer programer?) you never get rational people to invest. They must consider their best alternative, no matter the instance, one of those alternatives will be as an employee in the same industry that they are seeking to invest in. If they invest in the company, the will recieve the same sum that they would have recieved as an employee in an existing company. In the case of mining they would recieve as much as they would recieve as much as a miner would, in the case of software design, they would recieve as much as one of their programmers. Should they decide to invest, they would recieve this amount, but it would be offset by the chance that their buisness will fail. The chance of sucess (or 1 minus the chance for buisness failure) multiplied by the amount they would earn is called the "expected earnings." Had they chosen to be employees, they would recieve what a normal employee would earn but since the chance of buisness failure is 0 for them so their expected earnings are exactly what they recieve in compensation.

So, we have the expected earnings for investment which are S (Salary) * CoS (Chance of success, a number somewhere in between 0 and 1 but not either presumably).

The expected earnings for being an employee are then S * CoS (in this case, it's 1 or very near 1)

It's clear then that supposing we enact untermensche's plan the investor will always have a smaller expected return than his employees and so it is irrational for the investor to invest. This must also be the case for the mining example you gave, although the chance for success for the worker is substancially lower than chance for sucess in our software company example. This is why the amount of compensation people are willing to accept for such a high risk job is higher.

The calculation must still result in the investor having a higher expected income for him to invest though otherwise he would just become a miner instead, even with the chance of injury and death.


I'm sure you would agree with this at least, in low-risk jobs like software design, untermensche's plan would result in absolutely no investment at all.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, it's not.

[Stinger]

No.

A completely capitalist system doesn't care where you came from, where you were born, or whether you drink tea with your pinky up. It only cares about how much money you can make. This is very true. In the capitalist system, I am judged by how much money I generate. In another system, I'd be judged by my skin color, family background, connections, and etc.

[Metaphor]

It is both.

It is classist because merit is hardly the only factor to govern success in a capitalist system. This is true of some other systems as well.

It is elitist because it simply sets up a different marker for worth. Your worth is your economic worth. Your economic worth is, of course, due to a number of factors, including skin colour, family background, connections, personal merit, luck, geographic location and luck.

[Stinger]

It is both.

It is classist because merit is hardly the only factor to govern success in a capitalist system. This is true of some other systems as well.

It is elitist because it simply sets up a different marker for worth. Your worth is your economic worth. Your economic worth is, of course, due to a number of factors, including skin colour, family background, connections, personal merit, luck, geographic location and luck. You have it completely backwards! I do agree that luck is an important factor in the capitalist system. In the socialist system, if you were born into the party- you can live the life of a king. If your a regular guy with no connections, you live the life of a slave.

[Jay GW]

A completely capitalist system doesn't care where you came from, where you were born, or whether you drink tea with your pinky up.

Then why do the poor stay poor?

[untermensche]

The bare bones of capitalism is some with capital are able to use that capital to get others to do their bidding.

At the outset you have two classes of people.

The "masters" with capital, and the "slaves" that do the bidding of those with capital.

[coloradoatheist]

The bare bones of capitalism is some with capital are able to use that capital to get others to do their bidding.

At the outset you have two classes of people.

The "masters" with capital, and the "slaves" that do the bidding of those with capital.

So walking down the street you could tell who is a slave and who is a master?


Considering most people are in both categories.....


Mike

[untermensche]

So walking down the street you could tell who is a slave and who is a master?


Considering most people are in both categories.....


Mike
Rediculous. Very few are capitalists.

Having some pathetically minor stake in some business you have no power to control or power to gain information from does not make you a capitalist.

[coloradoatheist]

Rediculous. Very few are capitalists.

Having some pathetically minor stake in some business you have no power to control or power to gain information from does not make you a capitalist.

You own stocks, your a capitalist and a lot of people have owned their own business at one time.


Mike

[untermensche]

You own stocks, your a capitalist and a lot of people have owned their own business at one time.


Mike
If you own your own business, and work there, you are not a capitalist. You are a shop keeper.

Merely owning some pathetically small stake in somebody else's company makes you a petty gambler, not a capitalist.

There are very few capitalists.

[langseax]

Merely owning some pathetically small stake in somebody else's company makes you a petty gambler, not a capitalist.

No, it makes you a small capitalist, it's just a matter of degree

[untermensche]

No, it makes you a small capitalist, it's just a matter of degree
A capitalist has control over what it invests in. It does not simply hope the good people are doing good things.

[langseax]

A capitalist has control over what it invests in. It does not simply hope the good people are doing good things.

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean a capitalist has to have a choice as to what to invest in? Or do you mean he has to have a controlling stake?

[untermensche]

I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean a capitalist has to have a choice as to what to invest in? Or do you mean he has to have a controlling stake?
Large enough to have a say.

Not a voiceless, powerless, giving to others to do as they deem fit.

[Metaphor]

You have it completely backwards! I do agree that luck is an important factor in the capitalist system. In the socialist system, if you were born into the party- you can live the life of a king. If your a regular guy with no connections, you live the life of a slave.

Born into the party? Are you reading 1984?

[Metaphor]

You own stocks, your a capitalist and a lot of people have owned their own business at one time.


Mike

Being forced to live in the system does not make you a supporter of the system.

In Australia, all superannuation money is managed by super companies via investment in, among other things, stocks. Every time you deposit or withdraw money from a bank (a necessary activity if you are to participate in society AT ALL), your money is used to purchase stocks.

Just as someone could fairly call themselves a capitalist if they lived in a communist country. It's a philosophy.

[Bonniedundee]

The answer is no, human nature itself is classist but capitalism allows you to overcome and choose your own class.Aren't generalisations great, socialability, mutual aid and comradeship are just as important in human nature.

[langseax]

Aren't generalisations great, socialability, mutual aid and comradeship are just as important in human nature.

It would be naive to ignore the human tendency in all situations to dick each other over when it suits them too.

[Bonniedundee]

It would be naive to ignore the human tendency in all situations to dick each other over when it suits them too.
As it would be naive to ignore the counter-tendency towards comradeship and mutual aid that is a strong, human nature is complex and generalisations like that are silly.

History is full of the noble and the evil, the selfish and the selfless.


Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.

Emma Goldman

[Nitrousoxide]

The bare bones of capitalism is some with capital are able to use that capital to get others to do their bidding.

At the outset you have two classes of people.

The "masters" with capital, and the "slaves" that do the bidding of those with capital.

So, I take it you accept that your proposed system of compensation for investors in buisness will result in no investment at all?

[untermensche]

So, I take it you accept that your proposed system of compensation for investors in buisness will result in no investment at all?
I would like to make it illegal for one person to take the fruits from another person's labor. This is a form of theft.

This would drastically reduce individual investments.

Societal investments would have to replace this.

So a person, say a person like GW Bush right after graduating from Harvard, a person with no money of their own to buy or start a business, but some great desire to be the boss.

That person would first have to convince others of his incredible business skills and get them to agree to join him in a business. Then they would have to convince others that the business was necessary and sound.

He could not simply get money from the Bin Laden family, demonstrating nothing but the desire for it, to start the business, as occcured.

[Nitrousoxide]

You know, you're going to need to explain what exactly "theft" is because we seem to have a drastically different understanding of what it means to be a thief.

As I understand it, theft is the coercive and non voluntary denial of some good (or perhaps service) from another and the obtaining of said good by the denier.

[untermensche]

You know, you're going to need to explain what exactly "theft" is because we seem to have a drastically different understanding of what it means to be a thief.

As I understand it, theft is the coercive denial of some good (or perhaps service) from another and the obtaining of said good by the denier.
If I labor to produce something and you take it and give me less than the value of what I produced, you have stolen.

It is only difficult to those indoctrinated into accepting this kind of theft as natural, and so to speak "a fact of life".

But this theft is the basis of profit and the basis of capitalism.

A system founded upon theft is not a very good one.

We see the other kinds of theft it engenders. All we have to do is look at the history of capitalist nations and we see their unending, if strong enough, taking from weaker nations anything they possess of value.

[Nitrousoxide]

If I labor to produce something and you take it and give me less than the value of what I produced, you have stolen.

First we need to focus on this "definition" of theft. First of all, it doesn't seem like it is a definition, it's merely an example. Socrates would be displeased with such a response to a request for a definition.

If this was a definition of theft, then breaking into your home and removing your tv for my use is clearly not theft if you did not produce that TV.

So it's either it's not what I asked for, or a very poor definition of "theft."

[premjan]

Classism is primate nature. Capitalism does nothing to discourage it, and potentially encourages human tendencies toward (economic) classism.

[untermensche]

Classism is primate nature. Capitalism does nothing to discourage it, and potentially encourages human tendencies toward (economic) classism.
The research shows human nature is incredibly malleable, and dependent on circumstances.

There is no such thing as the "human nature" to maximize profit despite how this might effect other humans. This kind of nature is the product of carefull indoctrination and fostered by a heirarchical adherence, which is indoctrinated into all from an early age.

[premjan]

Human nature is plastic but it has a few constants in there - one is the desire not to be dominated by others (which we may call anarchism) which is evident in the desire even for infants not to be dictated to. Another is the will to power / fame, which may or may not involve gaining social recognition or, failing that, social domination. I think given a chance though, people prefer to be liked than to be tyrants. So I would prefer to modify the will to power => will to gain social status. This can lead to classism as most of us are not capable of gaining enough absolute recognition to satisfy ourselves (a problem of bounded rationality perhaps or could be a property of information systems - there not being enough ways to distinguish yourself in a social group for everyone). Then there is the desire for meaning - a reaction against the angst of existence. These define a lot of human behavior I think. Of course there is also the more basal stuff - need to eat and opportunities to mate or get a mate.

[untermensche]

Human nature is plastic but it has a few constants in there - one is the desire not to be dominated by others (which we may call anarchism) which is evident in the desire even for infants not to be dictated to. Another is the will to power / fame, which may or may not involve gaining social recognition or, failing that, social domination. I think given a chance though, people prefer to be liked than to be tyrants. So I would prefer to modify the will to power => will to gain social status. This can lead to classism as most of us are not capable of gaining enough absolute recognition to satisfy ourselves (a problem of bounded rationality perhaps or could be a property of information systems - there not being enough ways to distinguish yourself in a social group for everyone). Then there is the desire for meaning - a reaction against the angst of existence. These define a lot of human behavior I think. Of course there is also the more basal stuff - need to eat and opportunities to mate or get a mate.
Power and fame are defined externally. They are not products of human nature, but products of human design.

We can set up a system of power in many ways.

Anarchism is not opposed to any heirarchy. They would still want people who commit violent acts apprehended and society protected from these kinds of people. This would involve a power heirarchy. But a heirarchy that did not serve the heirarchy, but served society.

Anarchists are opposed to illegitimate heirarchies of power, heirarchies that use their power to serve the heirarchy and exclude others.

[Nitrousoxide]

So, then I take it you either have a horribly flawed understanding of what "theft" is and would not charge a person with theft if they broke into your home to steal a television or your car.

Or that you didn't answer my question because you don't really have an idea of what "theft" is an instead, the best you can do is give examples of "theft".

Either way, you really shouldn't be claiming that capitalists are "thieves" until you know what the word means.

[untermensche]

So, then I take it you either have a horribly flawed understanding of what "theft" is and would not charge a person with theft if they broke into your home to steal a television or your car.

Or that you didn't answer my question because you don't really have an idea of what "theft" is an instead, the best you can do is give examples of "theft".

Either way, you really shouldn't be claiming that capitalists are "thieves" until you know what the word means.
I have defined it.

It is a theft capitalists indoctrinate others to accept as a natural part of life.

But it is not a theft I ignore when considering a just society.

[Nitrousoxide]

So, something is theft if and only if one labors to produce something and another take it and give that person less than the value of what they produced.

So, say you were gifted a television by a family member. Perhaps they bought a new one and no longer needed that one.

Now, clearly you did not produce that item and of course, if you didn't produce it, you didn't labor to produce it.

So then, suppose I picked the lock to your house and took that TV for myself. Would it be stealing? One would normally say yes, but looking at your definition for "theft" one must conclude that it isn't. One half of your conjunction is false (one labors to produce something) and thus the conjunction is false. Since the statement as a whole is in the form of an if and only if statement, if one side is false, then the other must also be false. So clearly, picking the lock to your house and taking for my own use the TV which was gifted to you by a family member is not theft.

You really want to say that this is a good definition of theft? Surely you think that there is something wrong with what I did you and your TV there.

[Nitrousoxide]

Also, it seems as though gifts produced by a person and given to another for free would be theft on the part of the reciever.

You might be married. Suppose you recieved a handwritten card from your wife saying how much she cared for you. Unless you pay her back the exact value of that mental and physical effort she put into that card, you are a thief.

If your child produces coupons which grant the parent the right to demand certain chores for them as a mother's day present, does the parent need to compensate the child for the effort he put into the coupons?

If I build a ramp for my local charity which is intended to help them load up their trucks easier, are they stealing from me if they don't pay me back even if I refuse that money?

Yes, not only does your definition of "theft" fail to call out fairly obvious forms of theft as "theft." It calls out all forms of gift giving and charity as theft. An awful awful definition if I've ever seen one.

[untermensche]

So, something is theft if and only if one labors to produce something and another take it and give that person less than the value of what they produced.
I never said it was the only form a theft. Just A form of theft.
So, say you were gifted a television by a family member. Perhaps they bought a new one and no longer needed that one.

Now, clearly you did not produce that item and of course, if you didn't produce it, you didn't labor to produce it.
The theft that might occur with a commodity is the theft of selling the commodity and not paying the person the amount their labor produced, but paying them less so some can be taken from them and called profit.

Theft is given a respectable name here. Profit.

As opposed to a respectable profit which is the profit of a whole enterprise divided by those laboring in the enterprise according to democraticly agreed upon divisions. Not divisions imposed by some onto others forced to accept because there is no other game in town. Accept or steal or starve.

[psikeyhackr]

In a society where people make statements like:

"In order for there to be winners there have to be losers."

Elitism is to be expected. But CAPITALISM is merely a rationalization for the social psychology. You don't hear the advocates of capitalism promoting the idea of mandatory accounting so the losers can play the game better.

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu

Especially economic warfare.

What happened to the depreciation on all of those crappy cars for the last 50 years? What kind of science is this that can't do algebra 30 years after the moon landing? ROFL

psik

[Nitrousoxide]

I never said it was the only form a theft. Just A form of theft.

You said

I have defined it.

Which means that you have provided a statement which points out all the sufficient and necessary conditions for something to be “theft” That’s why definitions are translated into logic as “if and only if” statements. So if it’s merely an example, you’ve not defined it and like I said earlier, Socrates would not be pleased with your answer.

So again, it seems like you don’t actually know what “theft” is. You can’t seem to state what it’s definition is and can merely give what you think are examples of it. You clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about with regards to “theft” and don’t have a clear meaning of the term yourself despite your constant use of it to make your point.




The theft that might occur with a commodity is the theft of selling the commodity and not paying the person the amount their labor produced, but paying them less so some can be taken from them and called profit.

Theft is given a respectable name here. Profit.

As opposed to a respectable profit which is the profit of a whole enterprise divided by those laboring in the enterprise according to democraticly agreed upon divisions. Not divisions imposed by some onto others forced to accept because there is no other game in town. Accept or steal or starve.



And still, you’ve ignored the fact that what you think of as theft would require that all forms of charity and gift giving to be examples of thievery. Even if what you’ve given me is not a complete definition (and I suspect I’ll never get one out of you because you yourself don’t have a complete definition of what theft is) one of those sufficient conditions for theft which you seem believe requires that free gifts or charity be called out as theft.

I’m terribly sorry, but I simply cannot accept such a fundamentally flawed notion. That I should not be able to hand out freely some sweaters I knitted or gift someone something which I created for their birthday is preposterous. That these things are somehow just as bad as breaking into a house and stealing a TV is silly to say the least.