California Education Dept. Proposing to Treat Capitalism as Oppressive

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

rambot said:
You are conflating unjust with oppressive and they are not the same thing.

They are the “same thing” in that both are subjective, a theme I’ve reiterated in the thread. If you think otherwise, fine, but I’d like to know what objective metric you are relying upon to determine what is unjust.

And, for purpose of clarification, “unjust” is one word underlying the meaning of “oppressive” that Illuvatar quoted.

JackRT · Aug 8, 2019

I will attempt a definition of "unjust". Justice is getting precisely what you deserve. For example, if a full time worker is not paid enough to live on, that is unjust. If there is no other work available, that is oppressive.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
But the overwhelming majority of your complaints in this thread so far have been about whether or not people (or the program) have substantiated their claims, leaving the rest of us (some of whom do actually try to substantiate their claims within reason) guessing as to what terms we have to define explicitly and which definitions we can assume everybody shares. That’s the kind of thing I, and I suspect most others, find puzzling and aggravating.

There is of course a simple remedy. You, and whoever else you may be referencing, should take some time to analytically dissect your own argument, because in doing so, one can then know "what terms we have to define explicitly." Logically, oppression was going to need to be defined by anyone alleging it is factual that capitalism is oppressive. The next logical step, for anyone devoting even a modicum amount of forethought, would be to know the language underlying the meaning of oppressive may need to be defined. The next logical step would be coming up with some metric, a standard, to show how and why any example, instance, scenario, conduct, etcetera, meets and satisfies the meaning of oppression. That logical progression eliminates the "guessing." What is "puzzling" and "aggravating" is, apparently, the aforementioned logical progression expects too much from some of the people asserting it is a fact capitalism is oppressive.

The conversation is presently stalled because, at the moment, despite having provided a meaning of oppressive, you have not, and the reality is you cannot and will not be able to espouse an objective metric establishing as factual that capitalism is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment...the state of being subject to unjust treatment."

To explain #1, you could have explained the logic behind requiring what I earlier described as an absolutist interpretation of the program. You eventually did explain your logic to a degree, though it took some prodding. I don’t find it to be a particularly convincing argument, being little more than an argument from incredulity (i.e. “it doesn’t make sense” any other way), but whatever. I don’t think we’re going to convince each other on that.

Nope. You can’t even accurately convey what I said. What I said is vastly more than “argument from incredulity.”

The argument below, which has been made more than once to you in various iterations, is more than being incredulous:

Some examples of systems of power are: white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy.

In introducing this theme, teachers should consider taking one system of power, like sexism and patriarchy, and offering perspectives across the various ethnic groups. Discussions of systems of power should include both the struggles that come with being entangled and impacted by these systems, but also resistance to them. Systems of power can be analyzed using the four “I”s of oppression (ideology, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized).

Building on the theme of sexism and patriarchy, teachers can concentrate on the various ways in which women and femmes of color have been oppressed and resisted. For example, teachers could introduce Ethnic studies concepts like machismo[1] and misogyny/misogynoir[2] to discuss how women of color are impacted by overt displays of patriarchy and sexism within the context of their respective communities. Alternatively, this section can also include a discussion on how women of color resisted and elevated women’s rights issues (e.g., adequate reproductive health care and equal pay)

The “struggles” and “entanglement” with the systems of power and “resistance to” the systems of power telegraph the proposal is treating systems of power, like capitalism, as oppressive. The guidance to the teachers is to look at how the systems of power, like capitalism, oppress by highlighting how the systems of power result in "struggles" by people, how the systems of power have "oppressed" people and how the people have "resisted" the systems of power. Augmenting the aforementioned parts of the proposal is that the systems of power, in which teachers are given guidance to look at how these systems create "struggles" for people, and "oppressed people" and people "resisted," is that these same systems of power can be analyzed by the four "I"s of oppression. Of course the systems of power can by analyzed by the four "I"s of oppression, because they are oppressive regimes, regimes in which teaches are guided to look at the "struggles" and "oppression" and "resistance" to the systems of power. Yet, despite those facts and argument based on those facts, you continue to make the argument the proposal is not treating capitalism, a system of power, as oppressive, which is comical. I mean, it is soooo common for people to resist non-oppressive systems!

There’s no example, language, or phrasing in the proposal of a balanced approach. The language, guidance, examples, and instances, are treatment of systems of power as oppressive and the guidance is to treat them as oppressive, as creating "struggles" for people who were "oppressed" and they "resisted." The proposal contains no language, no phrasing, not a single instance where any system of power isn’t oppressing people. Odd phrasing, language, and examples for what you allege is occurring, but not so odd when the proposal is treating the systems of power as oppressive, as the language, examples, and phrasing is harmonious with treating systems of power as oppressive.

the guidance given to the teachers is to discuss how systems of power create "struggles" for people, "oppressed" people, and how the people "resisted." That is ENTIRELY one sided! There is not any counterexample in the proposal as guidance for teachers to use. There is not any suggestion of looking at systems of power as " alleviating the hardships" in contrast to the "struggles" or "liberating" people in contrast to them being "oppressed" and working harmoniously with the system they benefit from rather than "resisting." That is ENTIRELY one sided! The relevant language from the proposal is ENTIRELY one sided.

There is no basis in the text of the proposal for you baseless claim of, "debate/discuss[ing] whether capitalism is oppressive" is exactly what the program is prescribing."

That is a part of my argument. That is more than mere incredulity. That argument above has not been rebutted by you or anyone else.

To explain #2, you could have described how capitalism isn’t oppressive.

Yeah? How? How does one show that negative? You are suggesting a negative be established, how exactly is a negative established? This is the type of nonsense you peddle. The other nonsense is obfuscation, insisting someone show a negative before you do what can’t be done, which is support you myopic subjective beliefs by some objective metric Strawman arguments.

Rather than provide a definition of those words myself that would be open your criticism (and thus result in even more beating around the bush), I asked you for a definition that I assumed you would be happy with, namely the definitions understood by the law. But apparently I can’t even get that out of you.

You have given a meaning of oppression as "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment...the state of being subject to unjust treatment" and I have asked repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, for you to show and explain how it is a fact capitalism, or those instances you referenced, constitutes as "unjust treatment" and/or "prolonged cruel treatment." You have not done it. Trying to blame me for what you have not done is asinine! You gave a meaning, I asked you, in post after post, to show factually how capitalism or those specific instances you referenced, meets and satisfies the meaning. I asked you, I asked you, to take the next step and show how it is factual that capitalism/your instances, meet and satisfy the meaning you gave, and yet you want to blame me for what you have not done. Get outta here with that man.

One more point. I am not assisting you in making your argument man, it is your argument, these are your beliefs, you defend them. If you cannot make a claim and subsequently defend your claims on your own, then maybe you have no business throwing them out there as truths. I am not interested in potentially sandbagging you with a meaning I can come up with.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

JackRT said:
For example, if a full time worker is not paid enough to live on, that is unjust.

How do you, I, or anyone else know that to be unjust? It cannot be unjust on the basis you said so. It is not as simple as saying it is unjust, therefore, it is unjust. The employer/business can just as easily make a converse assertion of a wage paid that is not sufficient to live on is not unjust but just!

You certainly are not going to accept as true the business owner's assertion the wage paid to you is just, despite the wage is not "enough to live on." You certainly are not going to accept as true the business owner's assertion the wage is just on the basis the business owner said so.

whatbogsends · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
First, your view is too broad and consequently, not aligned with what I have said.

But for fun, let’s test your sarcasm.

Let’s allow schools to treat, as a fact, the subjective belief Islam is oppressive. To treat as a fact that the Democratic platform, and Green New Deal, is oppressive. Treat as fact that FDR and his New Deal was oppressive and tyrannical. Treat as a fact that Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act is oppressive. Treat as a fact that U.S. Supreme Court decisions recognizing a right of same sex marriage, a right of interracial marriage, separate but equal as unconstitutional, a right to same sex sodomy, a right to have an abortion, are all oppressive. To treat as a fact those laws requiring public accommodations to service/sell goods to gays and transgender is oppressive. Laws prohibiting employers from refusing to hire on the basis of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, are oppressive.

Yeah, let’s allow public schools (grades 1-12) the discretion to treat, as factual mere subjectivity that some system, laws, practice, are oppressive, and pawn that off to students as factual.

Let's assume that I agree with your interpretation of the curriculum to say that "capitalism is oppressive" (I don't). The argument you've mounted thus far hasn't been any defense of capitalism. It has been that "oppressive" can only be subjectively defined, therefore calling capitalism oppressive is subjective propaganda.

By extension of your argument:

We cannot call slavery oppressive, as we don't have an objective standard defining "oppressive".

We cannot call Hitler's Third Reich oppressive, as we don't have an objective standard defining "oppressive".

Again, no one in this thread other than yourself has interpreted that curriculum to mean that capitalism is, in its entirety, oppressive. The curriculum described capitalism as a "system of power", the course analyzed in terms of oppression.

super animator · Aug 8, 2019

Someone have not heard about the gilden age.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

JackRT · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
How do you, I, or anyone else know that to be unjust? It cannot be unjust on the basis you said so. It is not as simple as saying it is unjust, therefore, it is unjust. The employer/business can just as easily make a converse assertion of a wage paid that is not sufficient to live on is not unjust but just!

You certainly are not going to accept as true the business owner's assertion the wage paid to you is just, despite the wage is not "enough to live on." You certainly are not going to accept as true the business owner's assertion the wage is just on the basis the business owner said so.

Check my definition of justice again. If the worker does not receive a fair wage for a fair days work --- that is unjust.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

whatbogsends said:
The argument you've mounted thus far hasn't been any defense of capitalism. It has been that "oppressive" can only be subjectively defined, therefore calling capitalism oppressive is subjective propaganda.

By extension of your argument:

We cannot call slavery oppressive, as we don't have an objective standard defining "oppressive".

We cannot call Hitler's Third Reich oppressive, as we don't have an objective standard defining "oppressive".

The curriculum described capitalism as a "system of power", the course analyzed in terms of oppression.

We cannot call slavery oppressive, as we don't have an objective standard defining "oppressive".

We cannot call Hitler's Third Reich oppressive, as we don't have an objective standard defining "oppressive".

Depends on the class, right? Or depends on the manner in which those statements are treated in the classroom, or phrased in the classroom. There is a reason why I said, "First, your view is too broad and consequently, not aligned with what I have said." Indeed, elsewhere I had stated or suggested under what set of some circumstances those two phrases are more acceptable or may be acceptable.

Your first statement has me recalling my high school and undergraduate philosophy classes, where we explored the societal differences not only in morality but concepts of justice. For instance, pedophilia, morally reprehensible today, was an accepted practice in Greece and Rome (B.C.E. to C.E time frame), and did not have the moral stigma of today. Same sex conduct in Greece and Rome was also not understood as morally bankrupt, whereas subsequently same sex conduct was viewed as immoral, but more recently the immoral attitude towards same sex conduct has changed. Slavery in Greece and Rome, indeed in many nations during the B.C.E. and early C.E. era, was not viewed as unjust, unlike today. Labor, work, was derided by the ancient Greeks, the Romans, and others, as disgusting, a sentiment also found in English society from approximately late 1500s to the late 1800s to early 1900s. Interestingly enough, the colonists, the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, and the American Republic founded in 1789, glorified labor.

My point is concepts like justice, injustice, acceptable and unacceptable behavior, morality, are all malleable, they are not static, and change from age to age, and differ from society to society, from nation to nation. Notions of oppression are no different. There is not a universal code or law pertaining to justice/injustice, morality, what is or is not oppressive, or if they do exist, they cannot be shown to exist as a universal code or law.

But this is not particularly fatal in an educational setting in the classroom, as the teacher can most assuredly say America has rendered, since 1865, slavery as unacceptable, and outlawed the practice with the 13th Amendment. The world history professor can most confidently say an outcome or outcomes of WWII, developments subsequent to WWII and in relation to, in part, WWII (including the Nazi Germany), and the Nuremberg Trials from 1945 to 1946, resoundingly rejected the Third Reich's treatment of Jews, minorities, and other undesirables, as unacceptable, evinced not just by the trials but reflected in the passage of numerous international laws and treaties.

Again, no one in this thread other than yourself has interpreted that curriculum to mean that capitalism is, in its entirety, oppressive.

Others have certainly made a Strawman argument that I said "capitalism is, in its entirety, oppressive." But I never made any such remark. I have simply repeated what the proposal says, and since the proposal says nothing about "entirety" or "parts," I too have refrained from venturing any guess on either.

Let's assume that I agree with your interpretation of the curriculum to say that "capitalism is oppressive" (I don't).

Yeah, I could not care less about your public service announcement that you disagree. I of course have the text of the proposal to support my view.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

JackRT said:
Check my definition of justice again. If the worker does not receive a fair wage for a fair days work --- that is unjust.

Again, says you! Are you the final arbiter as to what is "fair"? My prior remarks are just as applicable to the above. The employer will say the worker has received a fair wage for a fair days work! You are not inclined to accept the employer's assertion the wage is fair on the basis the employer said so, and the principle is applicable to you as well. Just because you say a wage is unjust, or a wage is not fair, does not make it so.

Reviewing, once again, your meaning of justice.

I will attempt a definition of "unjust". Justice is getting precisely what you deserve. For example, if a full time worker is not paid enough to live on, that is unjust. If there is no other work available, that is oppressive.

You assume a full time worker "precisely deserves" to be "paid enough to live on." You assume a full time worker paid less than "enough to live on" is not what they "precisely deserve." Well, how do you know that? What are you basing that on?

Merriam:

Definition of deserve
transitive verb
: to be worthy of : merit deserves another chance
intransitive verb
: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital

How do you know the full time worker is "worthy," "merits," is "suitable" for a wage that is "enough to live on"? What are you basing that on?

The employer may certainly disagree, and assert the wage paid to the full time employee, although not "enough to live on," is a just wage, it is a wage they deserve, it is a wage they "merit." You certainly are not going to accept that statement, most definitely not on the basis it was said, and the same is true for you. Just because you declare a F/T worker's wage that is "not enough to live on" is unjust does not make it so! You need to do more, which is articulate how and why you know such a wage is unjust, how and why such a wage is contrary to what is "deserved," more precisely, how a wage that pays "enough to live on" and nothing below it is just, it is what's "deserved."

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

Belk said:
The question therefore becomes how do we go about examining oppression and injustice and making a determination outside of an objective standard?

The way it has always been done, since time immemorial, by societal consensus or by those those in power, and that consensus can be reflected by laws, customs, norms, mores, or practices. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not also mention public discourse, dialogue, debate, argument.

I will admit I have not examined them in depth but it seems to me that it is possible for any system to be oppressive.

Your statement above is intriguing. It is a statement that is reflecting a fact, a truth about our reality. The statement it is possible for any system to be oppressive is an assertive statement, an implication the statement is factual, it is reality that it is possible any system can be oppressive. Your statement perhaps directly addresses a fundamental issue pertinent to the dialogue. Words and their meanings are human constructs, we make em up! Sometimes we make up words that reflect objective reality, meaning the words represent something that exists in nature, in reality, independent of our existence. Some examples are words like atoms, electrons, protons, gravity, molecules, DNA, cells, mitochondria, light, photons, weight, mass, isotopes, virus, bacteria, infection, etcetera.

Can the same be said of other words humans concoct? Does there exist in reality, objective reality, independent of our own existence, factually, the concept of oppression/oppressive such that regardless of how we define oppressive, there is a meaning, an objective meaning, independent of our own human construct of the word, and therefore, it is possible for "any system" to be "oppressive." Plato, in his works discussing "Forms," devoted a lot of ink and many pages to this very issue. He argued words like justice, while being human constructs, had a companion universal meaning, a meaning rooted in objective reality, like atoms, such that at any given point in time, something may be just/unjust based on the universal meaning, regardless of whether we, humanity, or anyone individual person, has misidentified something as just/unjust.

Of course, a problem with Plato's approach, and anyone invoking something similar to it, is the lack of evidence, maybe no evidence, to support the existence of a universal law or code pertaining to justice/injustice, just/unjust, much less anyway of knowing, with any degree of rational confidence, what the law says and demands.

So, in the absence of a universal meaning of oppressive, or having no way to know such a meaning exists much less what it says and demands, aren't we stuck with the human construct of the word? And if we are stuck with the human construct of the word, and the word is subjective, then how can we ever know it is "possible" for "any system to be oppressive"? Isn't your statement of "it is possible for any system to be oppressive" a subjective statement? I think so.

timothyu · Aug 8, 2019

Jesus said the whole world of man was unjust. He went to the oppressed.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
There is of course a simple remedy. You, and whoever else you may be referencing, should take some time to analytically dissect your own argument, because in doing so, one can then know "what terms we have to define explicitly." Logically, oppression was going to need to be defined by anyone alleging it is factual that capitalism is oppressive. The next logical step, for anyone devoting even a modicum amount of forethought, would be to know the language underlying the meaning of oppressive may need to be defined. The next logical step would be coming up with some metric, a standard, to show how and why any example, instance, scenario, conduct, etcetera, meets and satisfies the meaning of oppression. That logical progression eliminates the "guessing." What is "puzzling" and "aggravating" is, apparently, the aforementioned logical progression expects too much from some of the people asserting it is a fact capitalism is oppressive.

This is funny. You started this thread with a positive assertion about this program constituting propaganda and, 130 posts in, you still have yet to define "propaganda". I don't see anywhere that you've even tried to define it. One would be reasonable in inferring from this lack of definition that you assumed we all shared your understanding of the definition of propaganda. To wit:

You, and whoever else you may be referencing, should take some time to analytically dissect your own argument, because in doing so, one can then know "what terms we have to define explicitly." Logically, propaganda was going to need to be defined by anyone alleging it is factual that this program is propaganda. The next logical step, for anyone devoting even a modicum amount of forethought, would be to know the language underlying the meaning of propaganda may need to be defined. The next logical step would be coming up with some metric, a standard, to show how and why any example, instance, scenario, conduct, etcetera, meets and satisfies the meaning of propaganda. That logical progression eliminates the "guessing." What is "puzzling" and "aggravating" is, apparently, the aforementioned logical progression expects too much from some of the people asserting that this program constitutes propaganda.

So... Care to define "propaganda" explicitly?

The conversation is presently stalled because, at the moment, despite having provided a meaning of oppressive, you have not, and the reality is you cannot and will not be able to espouse an objective metric establishing as factual that capitalism is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment...the state of being subject to unjust treatment."

I asked you to provide definitions of "cruel" and "unjust" as they apply to the law. You didn't. Shall I just go grab some definitions off of google and we both agree to work off of those?

You have given a meaning of oppression as "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment...the state of being subject to unjust treatment" and I have asked repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, for you to show and explain how it is a fact capitalism, or those instances you referenced, constitutes as "unjust treatment" and/or "prolonged cruel treatment." You have not done it. Trying to blame me for what you have not done is asinine! You gave a meaning, I asked you, in post after post, to show factually how capitalism or those specific instances you referenced, meets and satisfies the meaning. I asked you, I asked you, to take the next step and show how it is factual that capitalism/your instances, meet and satisfy the meaning you gave, and yet you want to blame me for what you have not done. Get outta here with that man.

One more point. I am not assisting you in making your argument man, it is your argument, these are your beliefs, you defend them. If you cannot make a claim and subsequently defend your claims on your own, then maybe you have no business throwing them out there as truths. I am not interested in potentially sandbagging you with a meaning I can come up with.

Your complaint about the definition of oppression is that it's subjective, so I've been trying to get around that subjectivity by finding some objective definitions we can all use (which is why I asked you for your definition of "unjust") yet I have been unable to find a definition of "just" or "unjust" that doesn't itself rely heavily on subjectivity. For example:

just
adjective
\ ˈjəst \
Definition of just
(Entry 1 of 3)

1a: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : REASONABLEhad just reason to believe he was in danger
b: conforming to a standard of correctness : PROPERjust proportions
carchaic : faithful to an original
2a(1): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUSa just war
(2): being what is merited : DESERVEDa just punishment
b: legally correct : LAWFULjust title to an estate

unjust
adjective
un·just | \ ˌən-ˈjəst \
Definition of unjust

1: characterized by injustice : UNFAIR
2archaic : DISHONEST, FAITHLESS

un·just
/ˌənˈjəst/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: unjust; comparative adjective: unjuster; superlative adjective: unjustest

not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

unjust
[ uhn-juhst ]
||
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR unjust ON THESAURUS.COM
adjective
not just; lacking in justice or fairness:unjust criticism; an unjust ruler.
Archaic. unfaithful or dishonest.

If the definition I provided of "oppression" is insufficiently objective to allow the discussion to move forward, what the heck am I going to do with ^^^those^^^? They're even worse.

But let's give it a try. Let's use those. And I'll use pollution as an example of capitalism's potential for oppression, since it's the easiest one to argue. Earlier, I said:

Exposing unwitting 3rd parties to pollutants (a classic example of a negative externality) is unjust and often cruel.

To expound on that point:

One of the weaknesses of capitalism is that, in the absence of strong enforcement of property rights and other forms of oversight, it can be easy for transactions to trigger negative externalities, or, harm incurred by entities not party to the transaction, and ultimately cause some real damage. A classic example is pollution. Let's say that I make and sell widgets and my customers buy my widgets, but I dump my industrial waste out in the back lot, which leaches into the groundwater and gives the neighborhood kids leukemia. In a perfectly functioning market, I would have disposed of my waste safely and the costs of that safe disposal would have been borne by me and/or my customers. Instead, they were incurred by people who had nothing to do with the buying or selling of my widgets. Those costs were foisted on them without their consent and quite possibly without their knowledge. This externality constitutes a market distortion, but is not inherently uncapitalistic.

Is that scenario "unjust"? IOW, does it fail to meet the standard of "morally right" and "fair" or "good"? I would argue that it is unjust, i.e. that it is not morally right, fair or good.

Do you want me to define "fair"? I can try, but the definitions I'm seeing of "fair" aren't any less fuzzy and subjective than the ones I've provided for "unjust".

And while I haven't yet tried to define "cruel" (and I suppose I can if you'd like), I would also assert that it's cruel to poison kids in the service of making profit.

JackRT · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
You assume a full time worker "precisely deserves" to be "paid enough to live on." You assume a full time worker paid less than "enough to live on" is not what they "precisely deserve." Well, how do you know that? What are you basing that on?

If a worker receives "less to live on" long enough he will die even though he has provided a service to the employer. To the worker this is unjust. To me as well. If you disagree this leaves me to wonder about how you regard human life and dignity.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

JackRT said:
If a worker receives "less to live on" long enough he will die even though he has provided a service to the employer. To the worker this is unjust. To me as well. If you disagree this leaves me to wonder about how you regard human life and dignity.

If a worker receives "less to live on" long enough he will die

That is not necessarily true.

To the worker this is unjust. To me as well.

Is that the metric? So the metric is what you and the worker construes as unjust? That simple? Why is your view, and that of the worker, more paramount than anyone else's? Another worker may disagree with you. A philosophy professor may disagree. An economist may disagree. The business owner may disagree. Why is their contrary assertion inferior to your own?

You and the worker asserting, believing, or conjuring the wage as "unjust" does not make it so, does not make it factual.

If you disagree this leaves me to wonder about how you regard human life and dignity.

Oh? So, because I reject a god like power you like to think you possess, which is since you have typed it, since you have spoken it, since you have declared it, therefore it is true, you want to question how I regard human life and dignity? Telling you that your proclamation a wage is unjust is insufficient to show as factual the wage is unjust, rationally leads to questioning how I regard human life and dignity? How is that leap logical? I am not at all surprised by such a leap, there is precedent for this illogical leap, and it is your other gargantuan leap of you if you can conceive a wage is unjust, and then utter and proclaim on a forum a wage is unjust, then it is a fact the wage is unjust.

I disagree with your crazy notion that your assertion, your statement, a wage is unjust means the wage is in fact unjust, and doing so says nothing about my "regard for human life and dignity."

What I can deduce is A.) You have some beliefs about the world that B.) you cannot show to be factual or true and C.) have no idea how to establish they are true, factual, much less questioned whether they really are.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
And while I haven't yet tried to define "cruel" (and I suppose I can if you'd like), I would also assert that it's cruel to poison kids in the service of making profit.

One of the weaknesses of capitalism is that, in the absence of strong enforcement of property rights and other forms of oversight, it can be easy for transactions to trigger negative externalities, or, harm incurred by entities not party to the transaction, and ultimately cause some real damage. A classic example is pollution. Let's say that I make and sell widgets and my customers buy my widgets, but I dump my industrial waste out in the back lot, which leaches into the groundwater and gives the neighborhood kids leukemia. In a perfectly functioning market, I would have disposed of my waste safely and the costs of that safe disposal would have been borne by me and/or my customers. Instead, they were incurred by people who had nothing to do with the buying or selling of my widgets. Those costs were foisted on them without their consent and quite possibly without their knowledge. This externality constitutes a market distortion, but is not inherently uncapitalistic.

The above is not a demonstration capitalism is oppressive. What you reference above is not unique to capitalism or because of capitalism. What you reference above can just as easily occur in a communist regime, socialist regime, etcetera. Based on that logic you used, I can deride socialism as oppressive, since the Russians, Stalin, used socialist means that resulted in several thousand kids, and many others, starving to death in Ukraine when Stalin forced collectivization upon them! I can declare socialism as oppressive because in Israel the collective farms known as kibbutz, utopian communities based on a mixture of communism and socialism, never invited an Arab employee to become a member despite no shortage of them in Israel. But those actions by Stalin, by people, human beings of the kibbutz, are to blame and not the socialist regime itself within which they acted. Neither is capitalism to blame or the cause for what you described above.

What you reference above is person engaged in conduct within a capitalist regime, the said actor capable of doing the exact same thing in communist and socialist regimes. What you reference above is not because of capitalism.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
The above is not a demonstration capitalism is oppressive.

It certainly is a demonstration of how capitalism can be oppressive.

What you reference above is not unique to capitalism or part and parcel of capitalism. What you reference above can just as easily occur in a communist regime, socialist regime, etcetera.

So what? The program didn't make any claims about oppressive qualities being unique to capitalism, nor is uniqueness required for a quality to enable oppression. In fact, the program dealt with how "systems of power" can be oppressive and capitalism was merely given as one example among many different systems of power. If you want to argue that communism should be added to their list of systems of power, have at it. You'll get no disagreement from me.

What you reference above is a bad actor in a capitalist regime, said bad actor capable of doing the exact same thing in communist and socialist regimes. What you reference above is not because of capitalism but because of a punk!

In this case, the bad actor was empowered in his bad actions and incentivized towards them by the structures of a capitalist system. His bad actions were not hampered or disincentivized by those structures, and his victims had no power in that system whatsoever. And there's nothing in capitalism that prevents this from happening; it's one of the fundamental reasons why government oversight is appropriate.

To take this example further, if the families of the sick kids wanted to use the legal system to sue the factory owner, both parties would have to pony up for lawyers who, themselves, also work in their own capitalist market wherein more money generally buys you more lawyers, better lawyers, and more resources to support those lawyers. It's quite likely that the factory owner would have more money to pay for more lawyers and thus, by virtue of his greater access to capital, be better positioned to obtain for himself a more favorable outcome than he otherwise would if both sides were equally resourced. This means that, with greater capital, comes the potential to wield even more power and avoid even more consequences of bad actions - IOW capitalist power can be used to swamp the systems in place to constrain it.

That something similar can happen under a communist system and be enabled by communist structures doesn't negate the fact that it can happen under a capitalist system and be enabled by capitalist structures.

NotreDame · Aug 8, 2019

iluvatar5150 said:
But to take this example further, if the families of the sick kids wanted to sue the factory owner, both parties would have to pony up for lawyers who, themselves, also work in their own capitalist market. It's quite likely that the factory owner would have more money to pay more lawyers and thus, by virtue of his greater access to capital, be better positioned to obtain for himself a more favorable outcome than he otherwise would if both sides were equally resourced. This means that, with greater capital, comes the potential to wield even more power and avoid even more consequences of bad actions.

It certainly is a demonstration of how capitalism can be oppressive.

No it is not. It is a demonstration of someone acting in manner you construe as inappropriate in a capitalist system. The person dumping poison in the river, lake, or pond is not because of capitalism but because the person dumped it.

In this case, the bad actor was empowered by the structures of a capitalist system - or, in another way of looking at it, was not hampered by the structures of it. There's nothing in capitalism that prevents this from happening; it's one of the fundamental reasons why government oversight is appropriate.

Based on that logic you used, I can deride socialism as oppressive, since the Russians used socialist means that resulted in several thousand kids, and many others, starving to death in Ukraine, Stalin's forced collectivization upon them being a part of it! After all, the asinine idea there is nothing in socialism that "prevented that from happening," then socialism was to blame. I can declare socialism as oppressive because in Israel the collective farms known as kibbutz, utopian communities based on a mixture of communism and socialism, never invited an Arab employee to become a member despite no shortage of them in Israel, and there is nothing in socialism or communism that "prevents that from happening." But those actions by Stalin, by people of the kibbutz, are to blame and not the socialist regime itself within which they acted. Neither is capitalism to blame nor is capitalism the cause for what you described above. The pinhead dumping poison is the problem, not capitalism, capitalism does not call for people to dump poison into drinking water.

it's one of the fundamental reasons why government oversight is appropriate

Government oversight exists in socialism and communism. Government oversight is hardly this beacon of light illuminating the regime as the cause for the person dumping poison into drinking water.

RocksInMyHead · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
Based on that logic you used, I can deride socialism as oppressive, since the Russians, Stalin, used socialist means that resulted in several thousand kids, and many others, starving to death in Ukraine when Stalin forced collectivization upon them! After all, the asinine idea there is nothing in socialism that "prevented that from happening," then socialism was to blame. I can declare socialism as oppressive because in Israel the collective farms known as kibbutz, utopian communities based on a mixture of communism and socialism, never invited an Arab employee to become a member despite no shortage of them in Israel, and there is nothing in socialism or communism that "prevents that from happening."

Absolutely. Just as capitalism can be a tool of oppression, so can socialism. Or communism, fascism, religion, etc. I believe @iluvatar5150 already said as much.

iluvatar5150 · Aug 8, 2019

NotreDame said:
No it is not. It is a demonstration of someone acting in manner you construe as inappropriate in a capitalist system. The person dumping poison in the river, lake, or pond is not because of capitalism but because the person dumped it.

"because of" ??? Who said anything about causality?

Based on that logic you used, I can deride socialism as oppressive....

No kidding. Now you're starting to get it. Allow me to introduce you to the 4 I's of Oppression:

The Four “I”s of Oppression- the four “I”s of oppression are: ideological oppression (an idea, concept, or theory whose qualities advocate for or can be interpreted as causing harm or upholding the views of a dominant group at the expense of others), institutional oppression (the belief that one group is superior than another and that the more dominant group should determine when and how those on the margins are incorporated into institutions within a society), interpersonal oppression (how oppression is played out between individuals), and internalized oppression (the internalization of the belief that one group is superior to another).

California Education Dept. Proposing to Treat Capitalism as Oppressive

Domer

Well-Known Member

Domer

Domer

Senior Veteran

Dreamer

Domer

Well-Known Member

Domer

Domer

Domer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Domer

Domer

Well-Known Member

Domer

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads