Kapitalism101

[trivas7]

Wonderfully clear presentation of Marxist thought:

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

[Post-Something]

Yeah, this is a great website. I'm not too sure why you're promoting though Trivas..?

[#FF0000]

Perhaps he's coming to his senses again :p

Fantastic site, though.

[trivas7]

Perhaps he's coming to his senses again :p

Perhaps. I can't deny the cogency of Marxian analysis re captalism & the economy.

[Robert]

It's pretty clear, but I'll have to take your word for it being an accurate presentation of Marxist thought. I find it utterly uninteresting. Look at this:


If we aren’t producing surplus value directly for a capitalist we are aiding that process: moving credit, education workers, cleaning up, protecting private property, etc. Regardless of whether or not we directly produce surplus value, the wages of all workers are a direct cut out of the profit returning to capital. Because workers are a variable input (the price of their labor does not determine their output), there is always the possibility of getting more value out of them for the same or less money. Just because a worker doesn’t produce surplus value for a capitalist doesn’t mean they aren’t producing use values in an exploitative relationship. Capitalism as a whole seeks to make labor more productive through exploitation, regardless of whether this labor directly produces surplus value. This is aimed at me and many of the other counterrevolutionaries here who don't control any means of production. But we're still guilty for collaborating, for aiding and abetting, just like the getaway driver in a bank robbery who never goes into the bank. I get it.

The problem with the indictment of capitalism is that there are going to be people like me rendering the same services to society after the revolution, too. The toilet cleaner won't rejoice after the revolution that "at least he is no longer participating in the protection of property rights."

Nothing changes at the top, either: as Napoleon Bonaparte reportedly remarked, there will always be kings, no matter what name they may go by.

The problem with the last sentence is that it views the capitalist only through Marxist lenses; the capitalist no doubt wants profits and he needs labor to help, but he is not exclusively concerned with profits. Nor, more importantly, does he care about forcing laborers to remain laborers all their lives. You'll never get anyone to buy into this class struggle bullshit until you convince him that he can never be more than what he is absent a revolution.

Good luck with that.

[ZeroNowhere]

Nothing changes at the top, either: as Napoleon Bonaparte reportedly remarked, there will always be kings, no matter what name they may go by.
And as Kropotkin said...
Please, what Napoleon thought on something is irrelevant.

[Dean]

Perhaps. I can't deny the cogency of Marxian analysis re captalism & the economy.
You have to appreciate that these ideologies and theories have real-world consequences. It is not enough for efficiency and productivity to be maximized in this model; what matters is the existence of the human being in that system. Look at what you are proposing as a goal - do you want to live in that situation? That is just as meaningful as any mechanical analysis; if people will reject the system, it will fail regardless.

[Robert]

And as Kropotkin said...
Please, what Napoleon thought on something is irrelevant.

Did Kropotkin really say that? Why is Marx any more relevant than Napoleon. At least Napoleon had a fine pastry dish named after him.

[ZeroNowhere]

Did Kropotkin really say that? Why is Marx any more relevant than Napoleon. At least Napoleon had a fine pastry dish named after him.
No, my point was that I could just quote Potkrakin asserting the opposite, and it would be as valid as your argument. And anyways, Napoleon didn't have a beard.

[trivas7]

You have to appreciate that these ideologies and theories have real-world consequences. It is not enough for efficiency and productivity to be maximized in this model; what matters is the existence of the human being in that system. Look at what you are proposing as a goal - do you want to live in that situation? That is just as meaningful as any mechanical analysis; if people will reject the system, it will fail regardless.
Perhaps it's a matter of recognizing the devil you know, rather than the angel you imagine. Please don't tell me that the horrors of Stalin's gulag or the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge had nothing to do w/ leftist ideology. For all the real suffering under capitalism, at least that suffering isn't man-made.

[Robert]

Thanks for the reference to Kropotkin; I confess I knew nothing about him. Sounds like an appealing person and philosopher:

Kropotkin returned to Russia after the February Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution) and was offered the ministry of education in the provisional government, but he rejected. His enthusiasm turned to disappointment when the Bolsheviks seized power. "This buries the revolution," he said. He thought that the Bolsheviks had shown how the revolution was not to be made — by authoritarian rather than libertarian methods.

My kind of guy. Hey, Zeronowhere, have you read his memoirs or his book, Mutual Aid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution It sounds interesting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Post Something:


Yeah, this is a great website. I'm not too sure why you're promoting though Trivas..?

Before he morphed into a rightwing apologist, Trivas used to be a fan of 'the dialectic'.

The trouble is that this site -- Kapitalism 101 -- makes all the usual mistakes over the 'dialectic', as I have pointed out to its owner, who then just ignored them.

As did Trivas.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kapitalism-101-t84250/index.html?t=84250&highlight=Kapitalism

[Robert]

Well, gee, Rosa, that was very impolite of him.

But don't take it too hard ... I can't get Kun Fanâ to listen to anything I say, either.:lol:

[trivas7]

The trouble is that this site -- Kapitalism 101 -- makes all the usual mistakes over the 'dialectic', as I have pointed out to its owner, who then just ignored them.

Your point in this forum as elsewhere, Rosa, is moot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Your point in this forum as elsewhere, Rosa, is moot.

So you have said several times, but until you show where my criticisms are in error, they aren't the least bit "moot".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R the G:


But don't take it too hard

I never take anything 'hard'.

[Bud Struggle]

R the G:



I never take anything 'hard'.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Robert]

I never take anything 'hard'.

Ahem. Very well. We now have two things in common. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

:lol::lol::lol:

You guys are good!

[trivas7]

Trivas:
So you have said several times, but until you show where my criticisms are in error, they aren't the least bit "moot".
You're being disingenuous to suggest that you are open to criticism, Rosa. You are on a mission. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Plagueround]

Perhaps it's a matter of recognizing the devil you know, rather than the angel you imagine. Please don't tell me that the horrors of Stalin's gulag or the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge had nothing to do w/ leftist ideology. For all the real suffering under capitalism, at least that suffering isn't man-made.

Why is that suffering not man-made? If leftist ideology is responsible for the suffering under those regimes, surely capitalism doesn't get a pass on all the bloodshed it is constantly responsible for?

[trivas7]

Why is that suffering not man-made? If leftist ideology is responsible for the suffering under those regimes, surely capitalism doesn't get a pass on all the bloodshed it is constantly responsible for?
This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the anarchic nature of capitalism. Unlike socialism, capitalism didn't emerge historically through the conscious intervention of human choices.

[Plagueround]

This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the anarchic nature of capitalism. Unlike socialism, capitalism didn't emerge historically through the conscious intervention of human choices.

Assuming you're talking about capitalism emerging "more naturally" than socialism because you consider socialism to be the result of force, I'd have to disagree. Really, I can only think of a few ways that people exchange goods, services, and land: Sharing, trade, and force. I honestly can't think of any others. All economics, for all their complexity, are really just derivations of these three basic concepts. Both systems are natural extensions of these, regardless of how they came about historically. The crimes of the past done in the name of both systems seem to fall under force more than anything.

Irrespective of that, however, one cannot argue that capitalism as we know it today is not the product of force and domination. If we are to indite socialism because of the things done in it's name, capitalism too is guilty. Again, if we are to accept that these things are not "true capitalism's" fault, but the result of government, corporatism, and so on, then socialism too must be given the same standard, especially when one considers the socialism or even communism of various cultures throughout the world (especially before contact with Europeans).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R the G:


We now have two things in common

I doubt it -- but any more cheek from you, and you'll lose both.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You're being disingenuous to suggest that you are open to criticism, Rosa. You are on a mission.

Whether or not I am "open to criticism", you certainly aren't up to the job.


None are so blind as those who refuse to see

May I suggest you seek help then?

[trivas7]

Irrespective of that, however, one cannot argue that capitalism as we know it today is not the product of force and domination. If we are to indite socialism because of the things done in it's name, capitalism too is guilty. Again, if we are to accept that these things are not "true capitalism's" fault, but the result of government, corporatism, and so on, then socialism too must be given the same standard, especially when one considers the socialism or even communism of various cultures throughout the world (especially before contact with Europeans).
You're comparing capitalism w/ something that's never existed. Apples and oranges, IMO.

[Robert]

I doubt it

Aw, come on Rosa, let's seek out common ground: we both prefer soft to hard and we both dislike Kapitalism 101. That's two things in common.

Let me push my luck now: I'll bet you like ... hmmm ... dark chocolate and artichokes.

Am I right as usual?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R the G:


dark chocolate and artichokes

Hate both.

[Zurdito]

The problem with the indictment of capitalism is that there are going to be people like me rendering the same services to society after the revolution, too. The toilet cleaner won't rejoice after the revolution that "at least he is no longer participating in the protection of property rights."

Actually it may make a big difference, as you can see by the difference in morale of workers enterprises they have taken over themselves as compared to when they work for a boss. There is a big difference int he psychological effects of work in both cases I can assure you. I invite you to talk to any worker at the Zanon factory in Argentina for example.

In any case though, when said toilet cleaner is working less hours for the same or higher wage and no threat of job insecurity, he may well be happier.




The problem with the last sentence is that it views the capitalist only through Marxist lenses; the capitalist no doubt wants profits and he needs labor to help, but he is not exclusively concerned with profits.

In terms of his economic practice, yes he is. If the rate of profit cannot be maintained, capitalists stop producing until it steps up again. If capitalsits were prepared to ignore this problem then they would not periodically, across the world, lay off workers, shut away means of production, and hoard or destroy commodities.

Bill Clinton once said "it's the economy, stupid", and I fear to say that I think he had a more lucid grasp of capitalism than you are displaying. He knew, as any borugeois government and any corporate executive knows, that for capitalist society to function economic growth must be maintained, i.e. the growth of the profits flowing to the capitalists must be maintained, and that this is the very basis of an economy continuing ot function, that this is the very basis of our entire social system, and that if this ocnstant growth, constant invasion by capital of more and more spheres of the economy, the globe, and human activity and time, cannot be sustained, then neither can capitalist society.

In the past 30 years the richest 1% of the global population doubled its share of wealth from 8% to 17%. This neoliberal offensive provided the basis for the global ideological framework of our generation. It was hardly an accident that the latter coincided exactly with the policies necessarry for the former to occur.

Of course the ruling classes position gives it its own ideological and mroal structure, sure, but these are at the service of reproducing their own social existence. They will even contradict their own morality when material needs clashw ith it. Free market principles or bailout - which did they choose? The sanctity of the nation state or foreign itnervention - which do they choose? The sanctity of private property or confiscation of small savers - which have they chosen? etc.


Nor, more importantly, does he care about forcing laborers to remain laborers all their lives.

No. His existence however depends upon laborers and as a result only a statistically insignificant amount of workers will ever stop being workers int heir lives.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the anarchic nature of capitalism. Unlike socialism, capitalism didn't emerge historically through the conscious intervention of human choices.

Prove it, troll.

[trivas7]

Prove it, troll.
Read some history, idiot.

[Plagueround]

Read some history, idiot.

Upon reading history, I would think the proper conclusion would be that the emergence of capitalism being the sole chaotic and naturally occurring phenomena would be a highly eurocentric view of the world. Many societies outside of European influence lived in a much more socialist mode, although much of it was contained within their tribes or regions.

[trivas7]

Upon reading history, I would think the proper conclusion would be that the emergence of capitalism being the sole chaotic and naturally occurring phenomena would be a highly eurocentric view of the world. Many societies outside of European influence lived in a much more socialist mode, although much of it was contained within their tribes or regions.
If you're saying that capitalism emerged geographically from a Western European origin, I can't argue w/ you, but I don't understand what you mean by a "much more socialist mode" of pre-capitalist societies. More communal, caste-bound, and traditional, yes; socialist, no.