I'm having an argument with my sister about capitalism and communism...

I'm having an argument with my sister about capitalism and communism. Is there a way around exploitation in a global capitalist society?
For instance, some might argue that the success of western economies depends on the exploitation of cheaper labor markets elsewhere. Alternatively, if we produce our own products, they will be more expensive and so we will have to raise wages or something along those lines to account for the difference.What does Sup Forums think?

Who defines exploitation?

If we weren't "exploiting" them, their own people would. That's always been the case, Africa and India weren't some kind of utopia before Europe colonized. They had people at the top who lived by exploiting the people on the bottom.

The difference is that being "exploited" by a much larger economy is actually beneficial to the smaller economy.

the "exploitation" meme has also been false, and iirc Adam Smith refuted this LONG ago when he showed that wealth in an economy isn't a stagnant number, but something that can be built upon, also proving that trade isn't a zero sum game

Also the last part is nonsensical. It doesn't follow that more expensive labor necessitates higher wages, only that price might go up

iirc cost of labor in something like the poultry industry only accounts for something like 6% of the price of chicken, meaning those cheap mexican laborers aren't even saving the greedy fucking chicken fuckers that much money

also your sister is retarded communism is inherently flawed in myriad ways and only a literal intellectually stunted retard could read Marxist theory and think "oh boy this sounds flawless"

*always been false

capitalism is a system that's literally built on exploitation, you can't be a successful capitalist without exploiting anyone

and capitalism isn't flawed?

>exploitation

is a bullshit term made up by socialists.

dont use there terms.

tell her that socialism is slavery

and then ask her how socialist economies get around making everybody slaves.

never EVER concede the moral initiative to a commie.

They want to lie about capitalism?
Call them child molesters then.

They must always be told that their system is immoral and repugnant.

Capitalism is incredibly flawed, I never stated otherwise

also capitalism is not "built on" exploitation you intellectually lazy retard

that explains why so many sociopaths do so well in capitlist societies while the masses suffer

*capitalist

hehe yeah the masses aren't suffering under oligarchy in venezuela right now or in literally every iteration of socialism/communism that has been tried

let me guess that's STATE CAPITALISM

S T A T E C A P I T A L I S M

Is your sister single?

>that explains why so many sociopaths do so well in capitlist societies while the masses suffer

Yeah, because those masses did so well under Mao, Lenin and Fidel.

Communism is responsible for the greatest mass deaths in human history.

I didnt ask why capitalism is better than communism. im asking what can be done rectify the ills of capitalism

Also my sister is arguing that actual marxism hasnt been instantiated, that in every case the use of capital isnt abolished, rather the government controls it. you guys seem to be arguing about communist countires that aren't truely marxist. I'm talking about theoretical marxism in which capital is abolished.

define the ills of capitalism, because there are so many and they change depending on whom one asks

The point is that theoretical Marxism can never exist, and there is a reason that it never has. Every iteration of the installation of Marxist societies has been corrupted in some way because Marxism is pure conjecture and theory; it simply does not comport with human nature, from overthrow, to seizing, to distribution, oligarchy invariably forms.

I suppose by ills of capitalism I'm referring to income disparity, monopolies, exploitation of the working class, positive feedback loops across generations where rich tend to get richer and poor get poorer. Things along those lines. I feel like the way to mitigate these issues is with government regulation

Monopolies in an unrestricted market are natural monopolies that almost always arise as a result of technological innovation. They cannot keep their hold once others try to push in without lowering prices to the point that they lose profits, which they do because they want to keep their stranglehold.

It is ultimately a good thing for the consumer, because the moment the monopoly stops doing this the monopoly ends and prices go up.

Does exploitation mean colonialism or free trade?
If it means colonialism, then Milton Friedman has argued that colonialism costs the colonizing countries more than they gain from it. You can look him up on youtube.
If it means free trade, then ask her why she would deny someone who is living in impoverished conditions the opportunity to better their lives by getting a job. It is very evil of her to have an iphone and then to say that someone living in Vietnam doesn't have the right to internal plumbing because "muh exploitation."

Read the Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. The reason that no one has tried "actual Marxism" is because it is impossible. Because of the very nature of Socialism, it creates conditions that cause the worst people to rise to power (see Chapter 10, Why the Worst Get on Top). Also, the nature of centrally planning an economy leads to animosity between various groups as each group fights for preservation of its own privilege. This leads to the destruction of democracy, because no consensus can be built, and to the persecution of enemy groups (like in the Holocaust).

"Real gommunism" will be achiebed through capitalism, even then it wont be called co,munism, imagine mega corps doing masses of money which makes the gov able to insert citizen salary or buy own machines to produce simple stuff as toilet papper or shampoo, import shit from poor countries and you got citizens living free from labour.

Marxism= fascisms really... No difference in its implementations,

Capitalism isnt flawed, only downside can be financial instruments fucking up stuff, but thats usually because governments try to intervene and fuck it up

Explain that 'exploitation' is not limited to capitalism. It is just a label that can be used to describe a scenario in which a party uses another party to unethically gain something. Slave labour in gulags is a much starker example of exploitation when you actually think about it, than this general equivalence that is drawn between capitalism and exploitation.

In a decent nationalist society that Sup Forums broadly agrees on, much of our consumption would disappear and the raging economic demand for MOAR AND SHITTIER OF EVERYTHING would end. The post scarcity sci fi wonderworld that your sister (hopefully) idealises would suddenly become realistic. Just without the third worlders, with them its doomed to shite.

Tell her that user. And give her the Yuri pill while you're at it.

Youd need to conquer the entire planet for it to not be a meme, it lowers productivity dramatically (means more deaths from disease and starvation), and it fails to get rid of classs.

>Explain that 'exploitation' is not limited to capitalism.

This is a very good point. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek points out that international socialism is even worse than local socialism. This is because the differences between the different groups is too great, and it leads to some group that is able to gain power exploiting another group through limiting what industries the foreign group can engage in. The problem also exists for nation-wide socialism, but it is exacerbated when introduced on an international scale.

>income disparity

This is good, hierarchies are necessary. Marxists think of inequality as inherently bad, obviously, because their whole ideological purview is built on the foundation of equality. The Thatcherian cliche of socialists preferring everyone equally abjectly miserable and poor in lieu of a lower class that slowly gets wealthier holds true here.

>monopolies

This question will get you a different answers depending on whom you ask, meaning an ancap and neoliberal will not give you the same answer. Personally, I take no issue with state regulation.

>exploitation of the working class

Has been solved since like the late 19th century. A few labor laws, some regulation of "company stores" and "company-specific money" and it's not really an issue if the market is free enough. Exploitation is a strawman, market interactions are by in large voluntary.

>feedback loops

I disagree here. The vast majority of inheritances are squandered within some absurdly small amount of time. It is true, however, that at least the Rawlsian conception of fairness is something to consider, i.e. middle class children having a fair leg up on others. But even so, research doesn't really corroborate Rawls' conception of unfairness.

The two factors that are most desirable in a capitalist economy, unequivocally: IQ and conscientiousness. Would communists want to regulate genes now? Yes, the game is inherently unfair but there is nothing inherently wrong with that insofar as we recognize that 1) rigging the game to make all things equal produces abject misery, and 2) unfairness necessitates the some are better than others, from which it follows that some will produce more, and inadvertently lifts the poorest out of abject poverty over time (and data actually corroborates this)

I missed half my original train of thought.

In that good society, a morally strong nation would reject exploitative business at the highest level, even if the country has an economy based on the exchange of goods and services for money. Usury would be absolutely not allowed. Cynical and coniving business practices would earn the contempt of the population. And this is already true really, people like your sister tend to be the people shouting loudest about it in fact. The difference would be that the government would feel the same way and instead of enacting policy which gives more power to the guilty parties, they would in fact be a better voice for the average person.

We dont live in capitalism. Its Money Socialism. There is a CENTRALBank which PLANS how much money is being printed.

How can capitalism be responsible for exploiting the middle class when capitalism is the reason a middle class even exists?

>Rich tend to get richer and poor get poorer

In capitalism, people get rich because they are able to provide something that people need. If the descendants of the rich get richer, that is because they are still able to provide people with something that they need, and are thus making society a better place. Punishing people for producing things people need will mean less good things get produced.