Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjkundert | Hacker News Reader

Let me get this straight: you are using one of the most ruthless [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_trade] command economies in the world as an example of the ills of Capitalism?

View on HN

China has been blatantly capitalist since the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping, similar to the USSR after the 1965 economic reform.

Don't fool yourself - China is capitalist. It is capitalist regardless of what its leadership claims or the extent to which it uses state mechanisms or market mechanisms.

It lacks the individual/property rights that underpin true capitalism. I think we should invent a new word for it, like 'marketism' or something.

Mercantilism with Chinese characteristics maybe? The Chinese economy seems much more mercantilistic to me at this point in time than anything else.

Yes. Perfect description.

http://www.as-coa.org/articles/2982/The_New_Mercantilism:_Ch...

Capitalism comes in many forms. I am not sure any of them are "true."

Chinese people generally are not allowed to own land. Most people are renters from the state. That doesn't sound very capitalist to me.

http://www.economist.com/node/5660833

Chinese workers are powerless and sometimes even suicidal. That definitely sounds like capitalism to me.

The capitalist exploitation of the working class comes in many forms, in China it just doesn't involve market mechanisms.

I'm not just talking about China. It really doesn't matter which country the factories are in. The poor will always get exploited. Be it child labour in India or Indonesia, or closing of GM Flint Michigan.

Exploitation of the poor is at the root of capitalism if you think about it from a basic level. It's all about making profit, and for that you need cheap labour provided by the poor, globalization provides an abundance of poor people to be exploited. Don't like the working hours here? Hey we got queues of peasants lined up outside to replace you. Get back to work.

Exactly! In the last half century the poor in South Korea and Taiwan were exploited so much that they turned those countries into first world nations.

I'll assume you're bringing up those 2 countries as a direct comparison to North Korea and China? Correct? China seems to be doing alright for now. As for NK? Well when the country was formed, it got the better half compared to South Korea, in that it had all valuable resources and manufacturing. Now you have to ask how did this country with its head start manage to fall behind to its southern counterpart? Had the playing field been level, ie no sanctions placed and NK was allowed to partake in international trade, the story today would be very different.

I'm confused. If a company pays people money to build stuff for them (as in India or Indonesia), you criticize them as exploiting the poor.

And if they stop paying people money to build stuff for them (as in Flint Michigan), you also criticize them for exploiting the poor?

Pay is certainly a good thing. But perhaps the companies need a heavy touch of social responsibility as part of their manifesto. Unfortunately social responsibility does not fly in the name of profit. That is what I mean by exploitation.

> Unfortunately social responsibility does not fly in the name of profit. That is what I mean by exploitation.

Profit? How about the buyer?

You're free to tell Apple that you won't buy unless they pay enough so workers can have BMWs. If Apple believes you, it will do so and pass along those costs.

What? You're not willing to pay for workers to have BMWs?

You're awfully free with other people's money.

Your argument is void because the buyer never finds out what conditions the products are made in unless the factory workers protest such as in this case. Social responsibility is not part of the sales pitch, all the buyer see's are the shiny packaging and the sparkly tv commercials with their favorite celebrity. Were the buyer able to make an informed decision regarding his/her purchase, perhaps they'll choose otherwise.

> Your argument is void because the buyer never finds out what conditions the products are made in unless the factory workers protest such as in this case.

Buyers find out what they're interested in.

> Were the buyer able to make an informed decision regarding his/her purchase, perhaps they'll choose otherwise.

You write that as if there's no relevant experience. "Fair trade coffee" is merely one of the examples.

How is the closing of an unprofitable manufacturing facility exploitation?

Cheap labor is not the only source of profit. Many companies employ only highly compensated individuals to create products & services that they sell profitably.

The root of capitalism is private property rights & the right to voluntarily exchange goods & services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com