Or is your point that, since capitalism gets me a plumber more quickly, I have to concede that a moron who inherits half a billion dollars -- enough to buy a Presidency, say -- deserves that inheritance more than a Projects kid who could change the world if only he could stop his stomach from rumbling and hurting long enough to focus on class? It's difficult to join the dots on that one. — Kenosha Kid

Do I think taxation is theft? No, I don't.

Is there a problem in some people getting rich? No, as long the poorest don't get in absolute terms poorer. Social cohesion is important. And when wealth is created, it genuinely can happen that people are more prosperous: I assume both your and my great grandparents and their parents had less wealth than we have at similar age.

This is a psychological malfunction called the illusion of expertise. 200 people try to become successful entrepreneurs. Due to a thousand factors outside of anyone's control or consideration, one person makes it. — Kenosha Kid

You think only 0,5% of entrepreneurs are successful? You think being a millionaire is this success or what? I would think you are talking about professional athletes or something.

If it makes sense to you, though, you and you can talk in those terms. I am not obliged to entertain such silliness. — Kenosha Kid

I think you didn't get my point but anyway. You were the one saying you are a peasant, so...

You mean what is so wrong that we went from a condition where we could walk the land and hunt and gather to one where, if we wanted to eat, we had to labour for someone who suddenly claimed that land was his? Just that it's theft. Ask the Native Americans how they feel about it. — Kenosha Kid

Well, I guess they TOO were quite stringent about just who uses their hunting grounds.

So you bring up this "someone who suddenly claimed that land was his". Who are you talking about? I think that it will go further than just our historical time as animals can be territorial also.

Sorry, did the vagabonds or, ahem, Luddites own the land? Who was it stolen from? Or is the argument, as Proudhon put it, that property is a theft? — ssu

Vagabonds existed because the common land was stolen in the enclosures, with many peasants being evicted. Luddites protested the unfair situation that led to the devaluation of their skills, owing to the growing power of the capitalists as traditional economic relations were broken down. But yeah, I guess the treatment of the Luddites is not the best example of direct repression in defence of land-theft, as that battle had been mostly won already.

Well, let's remember again that they weren't as slaves forced into the factory. — ssu

Obviously they were forced by circumstances, if not by direct coercion.

Likely as factory workers, however bad the conditions were then, did get better salaries than working the fields and literally facing hunger. — ssu

What you describe here is poor farmers being forced to work for capitalists.

In any case, I don't know if anyone is saying things were better for peasants than they were for the working class, although in some cases they probably were: peasants sometimes had a level of economic independence that factory workers could only dream of.

But yes, people all over the world go for urban living and factory work instead of staying in their villages. The degree to which they are forced varies geographically and historically. That doesn't go against my points.

So, is the answer Communism or is it capitalism, where we try to fix the problems, jamalrob? — ssu

Although it's irresistible, communism seems like a dangerous utopian dream if it's meant to be an immediate aim. Even as a distant goal it can serve to justify present-day suffering. I am not sure what the answer is ssu.

Do I think taxation is theft? No, I don't. — ssu

That was not the question or anything like it.

No, as long the poorest don't get in absolute terms poorer. — ssu

At the time during which a person who could self-provide suddenly discovered they had to labour for others in order to eat, did they become richer, poorer, or stay the same?

You think only 0,5% of entrepreneurs are successful? — ssu

A fallacious argument, equivalent to saying, in response to the hypothetical "Fred and Sally were walking down a street...", "You think all women are called Sally?" The numbers were not the point. The point is that the will to become a successful entrepreneur making you become a successful entrepreneur is a myth.

I think you didn't get my point but anyway. You were the one saying you are a peasant, so... — ssu

Yes, insofar as I labour for others to eat. I do not hold inheritors of wealth responsible for the theft any more than I would hold a baby of European stock responsible for the near-genocide and theft of two continents. You seem to share Judaka's view that to say 'Y happened because of X' it follows that 'Y is responsible for X'. Capitalism is based on a theft; it did not perform the theft, rather it inherited from it.

So you bring up this "someone who suddenly claimed that land was his". Who are you talking about? I think that it will go further than just our historical time as animals can be territorial also. — ssu

Sure, tribalism precedes feudalism, one difference being that a group that that took a watering hole by force was on a level playing field with the next group that wanted to take that watering hole by force, another being that social groups as a whole controlled that watering hole, which sounds a bit too commie, doesn't it.

Obviously they were forced by circumstances, if not by direct coercion. — jamalrob

And things would have been better if they have stayed in the countryside without an industrial revolution? I but I agree that once the changes happened, people are forced by circumstances. But so are now people here who were farmers earlier choose jobs in the local town rather than try to earn a living by farming. Again circumstances, but not so desperate ones.

In any case, I don't know if anyone is saying things were better for peasants than they were for the working class, although in some cases they probably were: peasants sometimes had a level of economic independence that factory workers could only dream of. — jamalrob

I've majored in economic history so yes, I can say that in general choosing to work in the factories was a major improvement for working the fields. Notice the differences with peasants that either owned their land or rented land and then those that were only agricultural labour. Especially for them a factory job was really a great opportunity. Even if peasants owned their land, you cannot divide the estate to your children perpetually as the land simply won't support them.

Although it's irresistible, communism seems like a dangerous utopian dream. I am not sure what the answer is ssu. — jamalrob

I only disagree with you on that I would say "because it's a dangerous utopian dream, it surely isn't irresistible".

But I can surely understand why people are drawn to it ...and other crazy ideas. My personal moment of "enlightenment" on this issue happened in Manila in the 80's when I was sixteen. I was standing in the middle of a very busy street in Old Manila with people brushing past me, when I saw something moving in this overflowing filthy gutter. I noticed it was a handicapped boy totally covered in filth and literally crawling in the sewage. I was just stunned with a "WTF"-moment and didn't know what to do until someone said that the bus we had been waiting was coming. In a society where nobody cares and just walks by I can see just why some people would be drawn to totally remold the whole society and have an especially deep hatred against the rich and those in power.

The numbers were not the point. The point is that the will to become a successful entrepreneur making you become a successful entrepreneur is a myth. — Kenosha Kid

I think people understand that you need more to be in the situation that people are willing to pay for your services. Like starting with education and vocational training.

Yes, insofar as I labour for others to eat. — Kenosha Kid

I assume you labour for yourself to eat.

I do not hold inheritors of wealth responsible for the theft any more than I would hold a baby of European stock responsible for the near-genocide and theft of two continents. — Kenosha Kid

Well, that's a good start.

You seem to share Judaka's view that to say 'Y happened because of X' it follows that 'Y is responsible for X'. Capitalism is based on a theft; it did not perform the theft, rather it inherited from it. — Kenosha Kid

Theft = the action or crime of stealing

Stealing = take another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

Hence, when you argue that capitalism is based on theft (meaning stealing), it should not be any wonder to you how I or Judaka interpret your thoughts the way we do (and now naturally speaking just on my behalf). There is someone you stole from if you steal something. And I've asked you again and again, who or what is the thief here and who is the one whose property has been stolen?

Or is then inheritance theft? Should the wealth you poses be given to the state or what? Do you genuinely think that the society would be more just if inheritance was forbidden? So you work all your life helping your mother and father in the shop they have until your father dies and the state reclaims the shop and you have to find work somewhere else and start from scratch with your mother?

Sure, tribalism precedes feudalism, one difference being that a group that that took a watering hole by force was on a level playing field with the next group that wanted to take that watering hole by force, another being that social groups as a whole controlled that watering hole, which sounds a bit too commie, doesn't it. — Kenosha Kid

So who had the right to the watering hole at the first place? And why do assume it was a "level playing field"?

Or, was ownership a way for two tribes to live peacefully side by side with mutually agreeing on that this watering hole is yours and that watering hole is ours? Or better thing would be just to say "F*k it, we'll fight you to death if we see you near any watering hole we use".

And things would have been better if they have stayed in the countryside without an industrial revolution? — ssu

No. It's really annoying when you do this. Many things got worse for many people, but it doesn't follow that I think things would have been better had the industrial revolution never happened. It's really odd that you feel the need at every turn to stamp your foot and insist that capitalism is better than what came before. It is not black and white, obviously.

You minimize the trauma and destructiveness of capitalist ascendancy, but you don't even have to do that to defend the status quo.

I think people understand that you need more to be in the situation that people are willing to pay for your services. — ssu

It's still a myth.

I assume you labour for yourself to eat. — ssu

No, I labour for others, as the majority of people do.

Hence, when you argue that capitalism is based on theft (meaning stealing), it should not be any wonder to you how I or Judaka interpret your thoughts the way we do (and now naturally speaking just on my behalf). There is someone you stole from if you steal something. And I've asked you again and again, who or what is the thief here and who is the one whose property has been stolen? — ssu

It is illogical to say that if I say there has been a theft, it follows I personally have been stolen from. You say you've asked again and again but I've stated it again and again. Ignoring the answer is not the same as not having received it.

Or is then inheritance theft? Should the wealth you poses be given to the state or what? — ssu

I have also answered this at least twice.

Or, was ownership a way for two tribes to live peacefully side by side with mutually agreeing on that this watering hole is yours and that watering hole is ours? — ssu

You imagine it was peaceful? If you gotta believe it, you gotta believe it I guess. I'd think a glimpse at the natural world would disillusion you.

You understand that ownership of property by a social group is not capitalism, right?

No. It's really annoying when you do this. Many things got worse for many people, but it doesn't follow that I think things would have been better had the industrial revolution never happened. It's really odd that you feel the need at every turn to stamp your foot and insist that capitalism is better than what came before. It is not black and white, obviously. — jamalrob

You just feel like I'm stomping all the time for capitalism. But I'll take that as a compliment. :wink:

Problems, defects and excesses there are, but you should make the argument clear that things got worse for many people especially in the long run. Above all, the basic problem is that the most corrupt, unjust society with broken or nonexistent institutions is usually portrayed as "true capitalism" and the normal outcome of capitalism by socialists.

Let's take for example that not so long ago the majority of the people in both of our countries were working in agriculture. Now a few percent work in agriculture. So where are the roaming hordes of unemployed wandered the countryside? Did we even see them earlier? The fears of the luddites didn't materialize in the way they feared machines would take over. Because that take over has just continued for hundreds of years now. Yet seldom people understand that in the equation of supply there is also demand and if everybody is dirt poor, which can happen, there is no actual market for many things either.

You minimize the trauma and destructiveness of capitalist ascendancy, but you don't even have to do that to defend the status quo. — jamalrob

Do we discuss the trauma and destructiveness of communism?

Do we even mention how non-marxist socialism has influenced quite a lot our present day system? Do we mention the creation of the welfare state, the large income transfers and labour laws as things that have corrected the faults in capitalism?

No.

The trendy thing is to compete in describing how worse things are now than before. And that nothing has changed. So forward to the barricades!

Sorry ssu, but your post is shallow, stupid, and ignorant. Ciao xxx.

No, I labour for others, as the majority of people do. — Kenosha Kid

Yet you aren't a slave. You do get an income, I assume. And you do have the option to look for other work (I assume also).

It is illogical to say that if I say there has been a theft, it follows I personally have been stolen from. — Kenosha Kid

Someone has. Stealing MEANS that there is property.

You imagine it was peaceful? If you gotta believe it, you gotta believe it I guess. I'd think a glimpse at the natural world would disillusion you. — Kenosha Kid

It would make only my point. Animals can only learn from experience that "better not go to that watering hole, because there's a really bad tempered territorial water buffalo there", only after the have been nearly stomped to death by the crazy water buffalo. Humans can agree on issues, either the way the water buffalo does it or even peacefully.

The right to own property and that it cannot arbitrarily taken away from you is one of the basic institutions necessary for a functioning society. If this institution isn't upheld, like if I just can bribe a judge and come with a paper that the land that you have lived all your life is actually mine, there are huge problems in the society. In many Third World countries the lack of these institution of property is a major problem. Which indeed itself is a great topic when discussing communism.

Sorry ssu, but your post is shallow, stupid, and ignorant. Ciao xxx. — jamalrob

Thanks for your moderation, jamalrob. Hopefully we can find a topic to discuss later.

Yet you aren't a slave. You do get an income, I assume. — ssu

Yes. Slavery did not enter into my argument. Are you setting up a ridiculous dichotomy in which everyone is either a slave or works for themselves?

Someone has. Stealing MEANS that there is property. — ssu

Does it? So you would argue it was all well and proper that European settlers took the land of Native Americans because it belonged to no one in particular? How horrid.

The right to own property and that it cannot arbitrarily taken away from you is one of the basic institutions necessary for a functioning society. — ssu

This is begging the question. Capitalism is a system of private ownership; communism a system of group ownership. The tribe with its water hole was a group.

If this institution isn't upheld, like if I just can bribe a judge and come with a paper that the land that you have lived all your life is actually mine, there are huge problems in the society — ssu

But that was how land came into private ownership. Is your argument that it wasn't theft back then since you personally profit from it, but if someone were to do the same to you, well that would just be awful, wouldn't it?

Yours is a very confused argument. If you're perfectly in favour of men taking the land that fed and housed a people for themselves, I cannot see how you could object to me and my army taking your house. Very hypocritical.

I notice for your voting the ballots were either yes or no. Why not both? I realize everything is everything so you can’t trick me.

In Canada we have like six parties we can choose to form government. Different for cities, provinces and the whole country. But whenever I vote I choose every party. My ballot gets quashed but I believe everyone’s right and everyone’s wrong so I’m not gunna make someone special.

The right to own property and that it cannot arbitrarily taken away from you is one of the basic institutions necessary for a functioning society. If this institution isn't upheld, like if I just can bribe a judge and come with a paper that the land that you have lived all your life is actually mine, there are huge problems in the society. In many Third World countries the lack of these institution of property is a major problem. Which indeed itself is a great topic when discussing communism. — ssu

Throughout history, the norm was that real property, i.e. land, could not be privately held. It was always held by the Band, Tribe, King or state. Individual real property is a relatively new phenomenon.

Now that doesn't mean that there weren't individual rights to certain uses of that land, so it's not a black and white issue of "full property" or "no property". However, European individualism is, historically, an anomaly.

What is so utterly wrong in the fact that the seller of a service and the buyer of a service can reach an agreement what the price of the service is? — ssu

That’s not a problem. That’s just a free market, which is not the problem with capitalism. The problem is that some people have fantastically more leverage than others in such agreements to the point that the “choices” they make are almost comparable to “your money or your life”. And that there are systemic mechanisms like rent (including interest) that continuously exaggerate differences in such leverage so that small random differences blow up over time into such huge differences which then become self-sustaining and entrenched.

The problem is far too easily people interpret today to being serfs working for a lord. For them it's just a trendy figure of speech. For historical serfs this was something different. Remember that the lord in feudal system was also the judge and the law around. You simply didn't have the option to pack your stuff and work somewhere else. You couldn't just like that move into a city and start a business there. — ssu

I didn’t say that absolutely everything today is like it was under feudalism. You point out plenty of ways that it is better. But, without contradicting any of that, I was pointing out a way that it is not better. Capitalism — which is not the same thing as a free market, NB — is precisely the vestiges of feudalism that still persist. The dependency and subservience of those with less to those with more, because they must borrow a place to live and capital to labor upon in order to have the opportunity of participating in the “free” market.

Capitalism is a non-problem to anyone with enough capital, and great for anyone with more than enough. The problem is that that’s a tiny minority of the population.

Yes. Slavery did not enter into my argument. Are you setting up a ridiculous dichotomy in which everyone is either a slave or works for themselves? — Kenosha Kid

No. You are talking that you are working for someone else and don't admit that you get a salary, income, be it large or small, for that.

Does it? So you would argue it was all well and proper that European settlers took the land of Native Americans because it belonged to no one in particular? How horrid. — Kenosha Kid

No. I say that the Native Americans saw it as their property too. I'm saying that property has existed, so when you argue that it has been stolen, where do you put the line where it wasn't stolen? I'm not sure why you don't get this.

This is begging the question. Capitalism is a system of private ownership; communism a system of group ownership. The tribe with its water hole was a group. — Kenosha Kid

Yet that group was a specific tribe or family in the tribe. And so are companies a system of group ownership. Just as cooperatives are also.

Throughout history, the norm was that real property, i.e. land, could not be privately held. It was always held by the Band, Tribe, King or state. Individual real property is a relatively new phenomenon. — Echarmion

And here it ought to be mentioned that the UK (and hence the US) has gone through this history a little bit differently than Nordic countries where I come from.

In medieval times you had the Open Field System, yet use of the forests were open to everybody...and actually is even today in Finland (you can pick berries, mushrooms and wander without the permission of the land owner) with the law existing prior Christianity. And in many places the family or people that cut down the forest and turned the piece of land into a field GOT THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT FIELD. Aristocrats were few and far between and in all Nordic countries there was a strong independent peasantry. Feudalism wasn't so tight, just like in Russia where peasants could simply go away further into the forest if forced to. So it can be quite common that the same peasant family has farmed the same plot of land since the late 15th Century or earlier. So when KK assumes that all land is stolen, I beg to differ. Hence the situation is a bit different from let's say the British Isles, which was quite well turned into fields for agriculture when the Romans invaded. And unlike the UK, there was a the Great Partition of 1757 which transformed altogether and quickly the old Open Field-system. If I remember British history correctly, these changes took a long time in the British Isles.

Now that doesn't mean that there weren't individual rights to certain uses of that land, so it's not a black and white issue of "full property" or "no property". However, European individualism is, historically, an anomaly. — Echarmion

This is true. For example until a revolution in the 1970's, land ownership in Imperial Ethiopia was quite by the lines of feudalism.

The problem is that some people have fantastically more leverage than others in such agreements to the point that the “choices” they make are almost comparable to “your money or your life”. — Pfhorrest

Yes. And when there are too many poor and few if any very rich, then at some time social cohesion is lost. Any power structure has to have enough support to stay alive. If it's just the few rich and their paid soldiers, the society is quite vulnerable to have a bad times ahead. And that's why we do have to have those safety valves called individual rights, democracy, independent legal system etc. to avoid a situation of tyranny by the ruling elite. Goes beyond simple capitalism.

And that there are systemic mechanisms like rent (including interest) that continuously exaggerate differences in such leverage so that small random differences blow up over time into such huge differences which then become self-sustaining and entrenched. — Pfhorrest

Yes, but there is a difference between a loan shark and long term low interest debt from at least somewhat respectable bank or financial institution. I'd say one of the major reasons why many Third World countries stay poor is because people cannot get a decent loan for buying a home. If the majority of the people have to rent, just barely make enough to feed their family and are outside a normal functioning financial sector, not only is the society going to remain poor. The rich people, the few there are, are going to be similarly poor compared to other countries. Aggregate demand is important, you know.

I didn’t say that absolutely everything today is like it was under feudalism. — Pfhorrest

I think this wasn't meant directly to you.

Capitalism — which is not the same thing as a free market, NB — is precisely the vestiges of feudalism that still persist. The dependency and subservience of those with less to those with more, because they must borrow a place to live and capital to labor upon in order to have the opportunity of participating in the “free” market. — Pfhorrest

Globalized capitalism gets it's current form from many different things than feudalism. You can argue that it leads to a somewhat similar situation, that I can admit. This can be seen how capitalism has developed. Take ANY field or sector of the market, be it car manufacturing, making movies, computers or whatever and the situation is that roughly about 20 large oligopolies rule the global market and small producers or providers have large difficulties to compete with them, if the don't specialize in a narrow market. Oligopolies rule the World.

And these are all stock companies, which own each other and among the various institutional investors (hedge funds, pension funds etc.) there's the small list of your billionaires that for some reason or another have a lion's share of the stock.

I would dare to say that even if this looks like feudalism, it has little if anything to do with feudalism and especially how it came to be.

I'd say one of the major reasons why many Third World countries stay poor is because people cannot get a decent loan for buying a home. If the majority of the people have to rent, just barely make enough to feed their family and are outside a normal functioning financial sector, not only is the society going to remain poor. — ssu

This applies plenty to first world countries too. A “decent loan” has to be one with low enough interest that it can actually be paid off eventually. In California here, I’d need to put hundreds of thousands of dollars down to get a loan on the remaining balance with interest not exceeding the cost of my current rent. It’s hard enough saving while paying that rent, so buying would mean it would take even longer to build up enough equity to stop owing for housing.

That is the main thing that turned me against capitalism: this realization that there is virtually no way out of continuously owing money just for the right to exist somewhere unless I magically got super rich overnight—and then that if I WAS super rich, I could get on the receiving end of people paying me in perpetuity to borrow my capital.

This applies plenty to first world countries too. A “decent loan” has to be one with low enough interest that it can actually be paid off eventually. In California here, I’d need to put hundreds of thousands of dollars down to get a loan on the remaining balance with interest not exceeding the cost of my current rent. It’s hard enough saving while paying that rent, so buying would mean it would take even longer to build up enough equity to stop owing for housing. — Pfhorrest

Do notice btw, the bigger and longer loans ordinary people can get, the more real estate will cost. The interesting phenomenon is that the modern good apartments or houses in a Third World country will cost roughly the same or even more. The difference is that those are for rich people.

And do notice that from this we get into a great topic of institutional racism. In my country no bank has in it's loan application a box for race/ethnicity. Hence how well these institutions work affects how well capitalism and the free market works in a society.

It is without doubt much more fair than the feudal system, which is why I'd prefer to be an honest capitalist than a communist. But all of this is still based on that original theft. People who inherent wealth believe they deserve it, but they don't. They are no more deserving of their inheritance than a trouserless scally playing in a gutter in a street, not entirely sure if its mother is home or not.

It's a simple matter of common sense for one familial generation to toil and acquire wealth in order to provide for the next generation, and so on. And they do deserve the wealth because it is often at great sacrifice such a feat is accomplished. Better yet, anyone, even the trouserless scally, can venture to begin such an enterprise, lest his children remain as impoverished as him.

This is the nature of family more than capitalism.

Do notice btw, the bigger and longer loans ordinary people can get, the more real estate will cost — ssu

Also note that the very existence of rent increases the cost of real estate, because people who can afford to buy in cash (the rich) can then rent out to those who can't (the poor) for effortless profit, which makes owning more houses than you need more attractive.

If it weren't for rent, people who own houses they don't live in would have no use for them but as something to sell off. But no rich people (who already own homes to live in) would be buying them as rental properties, so the only people who you could sell them off to would be poor people, who need them to live in. Who won't be able to buy unless the terms are affordable enough (small enough overall price and small enough monthly payments). So the rich who own would-be rental properties would have no choice but to either take a total loss on their "investment", or else sell it off for cheap to the people who would actually want to buy it.

Conversely, take such a market that is already like that, and make rent an option, and the cost of housing goes up.

This phenomenon is true of all rental of scare commodities, and interest on loans is just rent on money, so the existence of interest causes the same problem.

No. You are talking that you are working for someone else and don't admit that you get a salary, income, be it large or small, for that. — ssu

I did not say that, don't be silly. I said I labour for others to provide for my family. I don't think it's likely to be inferred I work for goods.

No. I say that the Native Americans saw it as their property too. I'm saying that property has existed, so when you argue that it has been stolen, where do you put the line where it wasn't stolen? I'm not sure why you don't get this. — ssu

Well, some tribes were well known for not having a concept of personal property of land, but that's fine. I'm glad we agree: land, and thus its means of provision, can be stolen from a people. And you would agree, then, that this did indeed happen in the Americas? And that the same land can be bought and inherited by the descendants of those thieves because of that theft? Because if so we're in violent agreement.

And they do deserve the wealth because it is often at great sacrifice such a feat is accomplished. — NOS4A2

Can that be right? That Trump deserves his inheritance because someone else made sacrifices to bestow theirs?

Everyone deserves his inheritance because that is the will of the bestower.

Everyone deserves his inheritance because that is the will of the bestower. — NOS4A2

Does everyone deserve a punch because that is the will of the puncher?

Given human error and greed removed, ANY system of government would probably work pretty well. The problem is, though, human error, greed, sloth, and various other tendencies are always present, screwing up all attempts at a better mass society.

Is there a way to make people better, so that better societies can exist? Maybe, but progress toward "better humans" is slow and incremental with retrograde developments along the way.

in mass societies such as exist now, it's a balancing act to avoid too much control and not enough control.

Well, capitalism certainly didn't fuck the native Americans, colonialism did.

I think you're all over the place and so is @jamalrob and it's common to see when talking about capitalism.

Wealth inequality is older than history, resources were never distributed fairly in any society. The "theft" is a part of life, it's older than capitalism. Communism recognises the imbalance but does not give a satisfactory answer, capitalism ignores the imbalance and operates on it. However, you cannot blame capitalism for not solving the problem of power and how power works.

The more resources someone has, the more easily they acquire even more. The less someone has, the more difficult it is to acquire more.

Individuals ultimately act out their human nature across time. Through the preexisting conventions of power, technology, economy and so on. It was inevitable that people with power would use their power against the weak, it seems so pointless to have opinions about it.

Should inequity be redressed in modernity? Yeah, I believe the natural conclusion of capitalism is wealth redistribution through things like a UBI. If this doesn't happen, the alternatives could indeed be grim.

Land inequality is not an issue of capitalism, it's difficult to address, many countries in South America and Africa are totally ruined by land inequality due to colonialism. Meanwhile, in Singapore, the land is mostly owned by the government. The solution Singapore used was rather capitalist in nature, forced sales of land to the government.

I'm glad we agree: land, and thus its means of provision, can be stolen from a people. And you would agree, then, that this did indeed happen in the Americas? And that the same land can be bought and inherited by the descendants of those thieves because of that theft? Because if so we're in violent agreement. — Kenosha Kid

America's colonial past is one fundamental reason for many persistent problems even today. However as Judaka said, colonialism isn't capitalism. Enlargement of ones territories really isn't only an endeavor with capitalistic countries.

You might look at the from the historical point of view of the Colonialists and the natives that lands were colonized and find yourself a thief and a victim. But go to the Eurasian landmass and where do you draw the line? Who is thief let's say in Iran? The descendants of the Timurids, the Mongols, the Muslims, the Sasanians, the Parthians, the Greeks?

What is notable that after the imperialism of the 19th Century, capitalism seldom works using direct force. Even after the occupation of Iraq, it's not only the American companies that pump oil from Iraq. American companies are a minority presence in the country, just one among many. The biggest foreign companies operating in volatile Iraq are CNPC (Chinese), Petronas (Malaysian), Lukoil (Russian), KOGAS (South Korean) among BP (British), Shell (Dutch) and Exxon (American). Hence Donald Trump is again in his ignorant dreamworld again when he talks that if US boots are on the ground, US should get the oil revenues too.

Capitalism today works globally through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, services, technology, and capital along with companies operation in various countries. This makes many times the old 19th Century or early 20th Century criticism of capitalism a bit off.

However as Judaka said, colonialism isn't capitalism. — ssu

It's not a counterargument though. Any capitalism in any part of the world at any time relied on destroying first the means of self-provision: the very theft I here claim. Colonialism was the violent means of the theft in the Americas, invasion in GB, and yes neither necessitated capitalism, but capitalism is derived on that theft. It was a necessary but insufficient condition. You cannot have a capitalism without first ruling out self-provision.

Who is thief let's say in Iran? — ssu

Iran is a theocracy. The parallel cannot be mysterious.

The biggest foreign companies operating in volatile Iraq are CNPC (Chinese), Petronas (Malaysian), Lukoil (Russian), KOGAS (South Korean) among BP (British), Shell (Dutch) and Exxon (American). — ssu

And do you think these modern Lords would have agreed to terms that the land and its resources belonged to everybody? Or does it rather necessitate that a minority can claim the power to bequeath those lands?

Capitalism today works globally through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, services, technology, and capital along with companies operation in various countries. This makes many times the old 19th Century or early 20th Century criticism of capitalism a bit off. — ssu

It makes no odds that I see. The fact that our ancestors mostly lacked technological capability to cross borders does not mean that they were socially barred from hunting and gathering anywhere they so pleased. The original settlers of the US crossed the Atlantic to hunt and gather, and without a pervasive system of private possession of land.