Capitalism And Government

[SavagePostModern]

Capitalism is merely a symptom of centralized governance.

Capitalism has existed long before it was a known concept illustrated by Adam Smith in that even ancient forms of governments aspired towards it. ( This is how capitalists see their systemization of things as historically inevitable in that they view the past history of governance in civilizations everywhere inevitably leading up to capitalism or a capitalistic state.)

(All centralized forms of governance are capitalistic. )

( All centralized governments, authorities, and power tend to lean towards a capitalistic state or enterprise.)

( Even present so called communist China leans towards a sort of conglomerate of corporations.)

( Can you name any present modern socialist, fascist, or so called communist state that doesn't lean towards the application of capitalism?)

The reason capitalism in the past century has taken over the world by storm is because centralized government entities over the past couple hundred years have become global.

Capitalism will only be destroyed when all governments are destroyed in that capitalism is a inevitable manifestation of centralized power.

As long as any government exists capitalism as a consequence will exist too.

As long as any centralized form of power or authority exists capitalism as a consequence will exist too.

( This is why the only way to dismantle capitalism is to aspire towards a existence of anarchism.)

[Kronos]

Unless, of course, a centralized government is made up of the working class.

The defining characteristic which distinguishes capitalism is that it is a system which permits citizens to own means of production. If the means of production are collectively owned, by the governing working class, you no longer have formal capitalism. You no longer have one citizen making a profit from the labor of another citizen, but instead, a 'state', organized by the working class, making profit off of the labor of everyone. That profit should, in theory be used to everyone's advantage.

Now the question will be asked- why 'money' at all. The answer is simple. It is a regulating third entity in a system which prevents economic stagnation (which would be inevitable in a communist system because such a system's audacity to deny man's selfish nature....or attempt to re-engineer it through propaganda and psychosocial conditioning....is doomed to fail). In a system where property is administrated and organized through executive control, which must also concede the inequality of men, there is the difficulty in determining who should have what. To prevent this, the only solution is to maintain a non-fiat monetary system, private property rights, and a competitive wage structure in production.

Corporatism should be allowed to exist, but the 'owners' would not profit from the labor of the wage workers. The state would accumulate all profit and redistribute it back into the modes of production. The state would be a form of regulation between the proletariat and bourgeois, and the politician would be a proletariat himself.

You have a hierarchy here- proletariat works for the bourgeois, bourgeois works for the proletariat. The reciprocating structure of this system prevents any accumulation of wealth by any corporation.

All this seemingly complicated organization is only an expediency to serve a simple, but unavoidable purpose- to retain the competitive structures necessary in production for the individual to have incentive to work. In this system, better people will have the right to own more property as well as choose what they want.

You can only assimilate man's selfish nature and inequality. You can never abolish it. Empathy altruism and unconditional cooperation is a myth. You have to control man's relations in such a way that it does not result in segregation between classes.....as capitalism has done.

Your favorite statesman,

Kronos, ruler of the golden age, leader and youngest of the Titans

[Havet]

Unless, of course, a centralized government is made up of the working class.



Unless it is formed by all (without excluding anyone) working class (who'd work then?), then the people in such government will have a position of authority over the others. So much for equality.

[IcarusAngel]

Unless it is formed by all (without excluding anyone) working class (who'd work then?), then the people in such government will have a position of authority over the others. So much for equality.

I agree. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom and there isn't much equality when there is a government.

[IcarusAngel]

Savage. I think you're on to something, although this really isn't a "Marxist" analysis.

I think what is true is that capitalists put a heavy emphasis on property rights, when historically govenments were created to protect certain property to the detriment of others. For example, protecting the property of aristocrats, or slave owners, while the slaves of course had little property. In that sense capitalism has been around for a long time, but I see capitalism more or less as a series of attempts at reforming other bad systems (such as feudalism) in order to keep an elite group of people ruling society.

[Kronos]

Equality is a prerequisite for freedom and there isn't much equality when there is a government. Semantics. It could be argued that treating exceptional people as ordinary people are treated is, in fact, diminishing the exceptional people's freedom.

If I produce more units in less time than you, are you entitled to the same rewards as myself? If so, why then would I aspire to work so hard if I could work as little as you, and get the same?

Communism destroyed in one stroke.

Next.

Nine billion people and no government is a disaster in progress for the very same people who rail against the old government they sought to abolish; before, anarchists complained about exploitation....after, they were begging for their old job back and what little security they did have because everything was a disorganized mess, falling apart at the seams.

Could it be that those who seek equality are in fact the bad ones? Strange how only those who feel cheated want 'equality'. Why not simply admit that man is not equal, and take what you feel entitled to? You will never convince those above you through diplomacy that you ought to be equal to them. You have to take it, comrade. Like Nike, just do it.

Let's get serious. An anarchist is a fascist in overalls. What he wants is control.....'equality' is merely a short lived side effect of dissembling government. Not long after he's fighting with other anarchists over who gets what. And he should, because that's what it's about! I'm gonna get mines, playa. You should too.

Something to make you have trouble sleeping tonight:


Christian and anarchist.— When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend why he actually suffers—what it is that he is poor in: life ... A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way ... Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight intoxication of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too": on such logic are revolutions made.— Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself—the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter—really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering—in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian—to repeat it once more—he finds them in himself ... The Christian and the anarchist are both décadents.— But when the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches the "world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge—the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off ... The "beyond"—why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world? ...- Nietzsche

[Havet]

If I produce more units in less time than you, are you entitled to the same rewards as myself? If so, why then would I aspire to work so hard if I could work as little as you, and get the same?

Communism destroyed in one stroke.

There is a difference between natural equality (differences in production of more units and consequent reward) and artificial equality, created by a centralized entity with the monopoly of force, who decides to interfere in natural barriers to entry/barriers to exit, creates oppressive legislation and does not allow for equality of opportunity of those who are willing and able.

This is why natural equality is idiotic. It is no more desirable for everyone to receive the same reward for different quantities of units produced than it is desirable for everyone to have the same height or the same athletic ability or the same innate skills.

What anarchists (and communists) generally propose is to do away with the oppressive force (government, the state, the capitalists who are using those institutions) that is preventing people to pursue their interests, whether those are individual or collective.


Let's get serious. An anarchist is a fascist in overalls. What he wants is control.....'equality' is merely a short lived side effect of dissembling government. Not long after he's fighting with other anarchists over who gets what. And he should, because that's what it's about! I'm gonna get mines, playa. You should too. There are many types of anarchists. Some, indeed, just want control. But others just want to be left alone, to have the freedom to join with like-minded people, or to build communities with individualist goals, whatever.

Saying "an anarchist is a fascist overall" is too big of a generalization to be taken seriously as an argument. Sorry.

[Scary Monster]

Could it be that those who seek equality are in fact the bad ones? Strange how only those who feel cheated want 'equality'. Why not simply admit that man is not equal, and take what you feel entitled to? You will never convince those above you through diplomacy that you ought to be equal to them. You have to take it, comrade. Like Nike, just do it.

Wow you are not a sane person who does not have any concern at all for humanity. That is just nasty.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Semantics. It could be argued that treating exceptional people as ordinary people are treated is, in fact, diminishing the exceptional people's freedom.Exceptional idiots? Exceptional athletes - "exceptional" is an adjective, not a material class in society.


If I produce more units in less time than you, are you entitled to the same rewards as myself?So, at your job, you get paid per/unit but your boss gets no pay because he produces no units?


If so, why then would I aspire to work so hard if I could work as little as you, and get the same?Productivity in the US is higher than in Europe, but wages are lower and have stagnated during a time of increasing profits... so you think American workers are just altruistic towards their bosses? They produce more, but then offer to get paid less because they are just too proud? Or could it be that there is no correlation between wages and production in capitalism other than the desire of the owners to get the most production at the lowest cost.


Communism destroyed in one stroke.Oh god, you just had a stroke? I'm so sorry for destroying your argument so fully, I would have gone easier if I had know that you were only able to use half your brain.


Let's get serious. An anarchist is a fascist in overalls. What he wants is control.....'equality' is merely a short lived side effect of dissembling government. Not long after he's fighting with other anarchists over who gets what. And he should, because that's what it's about! I'm gonna get mines, playa. You should too.Yes, we will organize together, take democratic control over society and production; our communities and schools and workplaces. We will work together and build a society that meets our intrests just as the early capitalists threw out aristcratic privilages and laws and built a society based on their interests and needs: private property and trade and capital.

But even though you are one of the unextrodinary people in society, an unextrodinary and unoriginal little tool of the capitalist ruling class, even you can also have the opportunity to have a job and a place to live and a role to play in deciding things in a truely democratic way.

[MMIKEYJ]

you guys make my head spin around

[SavagePostModern]

I agree. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom and there isn't much equality when there is a government.

When has equality ever existed? Laughs.

[SavagePostModern]

you guys make my head spin around

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5pAbBAtDA8&feature=PlayList&p=6FEE4ACF30F4D621&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=12

[SavagePostModern]

Savage. I think you're on to something, although this really isn't a "Marxist" analysis.

I think what is true is that capitalists put a heavy emphasis on property rights, when historically govenments were created to protect certain property to the detriment of others. For example, protecting the property of aristocrats, or slave owners, while the slaves of course had little property. In that sense capitalism has been around for a long time, but I see capitalism more or less as a series of attempts at reforming other bad systems (such as feudalism) in order to keep an elite group of people ruling society.




although this really isn't a "Marxist" analysis.


It's my own analysis and reflection on the history of things.

Thanks for the compliment. :)


I think what is true is that capitalists put a heavy emphasis on property rights, when historically govenments were created to protect certain property to the detriment of others. For example, protecting the property of aristocrats, or slave owners, while the slaves of course had little property. In that sense capitalism has been around for a long time,

Spot on! Your catching on to what I'm illustrating here.



I feel like capitalism was constructed at the moment centralized governments were in past history where capitalism and centralized governments go hand in hand in being the same exact structure to the point of being identical.

( And quite possibly being the same exact identity too.)




In that sense capitalism has been around for a long time, but I see capitalism more or less as a series of attempts at reforming other bad systems (such as feudalism) in order to keep an elite group of people ruling society.


But don't forget that the same series of attempts of world governments were going on simultaneously to the series of attempts of capitalism that were practically parallel to each other historically.

[SavagePostModern]

Unless, of course, a centralized government is made up of the working class.

The defining characteristic which distinguishes capitalism is that it is a system which permits citizens to own means of production. If the means of production are collectively owned, by the governing working class, you no longer have formal capitalism. You no longer have one citizen making a profit from the labor of another citizen, but instead, a 'state', organized by the working class, making profit off of the labor of everyone. That profit should, in theory be used to everyone's advantage.

Now the question will be asked- why 'money' at all. The answer is simple. It is a regulating third entity in a system which prevents economic stagnation (which would be inevitable in a communist system because such a system's audacity to deny man's selfish nature....or attempt to re-engineer it through propaganda and psychosocial conditioning....is doomed to fail). In a system where property is administrated and organized through executive control, which must also concede the inequality of men, there is the difficulty in determining who should have what. To prevent this, the only solution is to maintain a non-fiat monetary system, private property rights, and a competitive wage structure in production.

Corporatism should be allowed to exist, but the 'owners' would not profit from the labor of the wage workers. The state would accumulate all profit and redistribute it back into the modes of production. The state would be a form of regulation between the proletariat and bourgeois, and the politician would be a proletariat himself.

You have a hierarchy here- proletariat works for the bourgeois, bourgeois works for the proletariat. The reciprocating structure of this system prevents any accumulation of wealth by any corporation.

All this seemingly complicated organization is only an expediency to serve a simple, but unavoidable purpose- to retain the competitive structures necessary in production for the individual to have incentive to work. In this system, better people will have the right to own more property as well as choose what they want.

You can only assimilate man's selfish nature and inequality. You can never abolish it. Empathy altruism and unconditional cooperation is a myth. You have to control man's relations in such a way that it does not result in segregation between classes.....as capitalism has done.

Your favorite statesman,

Kronos, ruler of the golden age, leader and youngest of the Titans




Unless, of course, a centralized government is made up of the working class.

The defining characteristic which distinguishes capitalism is that it is a system which permits citizens to own means of production. If the means of production are collectively owned, by the governing working class, you no longer have formal capitalism. You no longer have one citizen making a profit from the labor of another citizen, but instead, a 'state', organized by the working class, making profit off of the labor of everyone. That profit should, in theory be used to everyone's advantage.



Would the workers own the means of production equally amongst themselves?

Because if they didn't I would just seem them fighting amongst themselves continually for profits and ownership.




organized by the working class, making profit off of the labor of everyone. That profit should, in theory be used to everyone's advantage.


How would that work? What would be the application of such a operation?


To prevent this, the only solution is to maintain a non-fiat monetary system, private property rights, and a competitive wage structure in production.

So in your vision there would still be a inequal wage distribution?


Corporatism should be allowed to exist, but the 'owners' would not profit from the labor of the wage workers.

How would they profit?


The state would accumulate all profit and redistribute it back into the modes of production.

Interesting. So the state would be guaranteed far reaching influential powers over the populance?

That's kinda 1984 if you ask me.

What would you do with dissidents who desire more that oppose such a system?




The state would be a form of regulation between the proletariat and bourgeois, and the politician would be a proletariat himself.



I'm confused. Although I commend you on creativity in that what you propose I believe is very different from anything I've ever heard of before.



You have a hierarchy here- proletariat works for the bourgeois, bourgeois works for the proletariat. The reciprocating structure of this system prevents any accumulation of wealth by any corporation.


What would the individual income structure look like?




All this seemingly complicated organization is only an expediency to serve a simple, but unavoidable purpose- to retain the competitive structures necessary in production for the individual to have incentive to work. In this system, better people will have the right to own more property as well as choose what they want.


What would the competitive structure look like?




You can only assimilate man's selfish nature and inequality. You can never abolish it. Empathy altruism and unconditional cooperation is a myth.


Agreed.

[Kronos]

Would the workers own the means of production equally amongst themselves?Yes, they would determine the use and fate of all means of production. Any and all utilities would be state owned. The only private property would be 'personal effects', and the commodity market would be closely regulated by analysts so that popular demand is met while overproduction is avoided. This is far more complicated than a free market system, since the latter 'adjusts' by its own mechanisms.

In state socialism, three things have to be monitored in unison- the buying power of the consumers (so commodities are not overpriced), the desired profit margins from sales, and the desirability of commodities (so that they are wanted by consumers).

If buying power is low, production is low, and in turn, employment is low. If profit margin is low, state capital decreases, and new investments are avoided. When new investments are avoided, new jobs are prevented. With no new jobs to accommodate the increasing population, employment and buying power drops. The system is circular.

The ironic thing about this system is that all this extremely difficult managing is required only because money is required. Without a competitive wage system, private property rights can not exist. They absolutely must. Everything is designed around this principle. You have to avoid inflation and deflation.

There should be no more printed money at any given time than what equals the sum total wage income of everyone. Incremental increases in printed money should follow a general formula- increase in population, increase in production, increase in higher skilled workers, increase in wage, increase in buying power, increase in prices, increase in profit, increase in production- repeat. There will never be any 'dead capital', which is money that is not active in the market discourse.

State capital is made by taxing and sales profit. You cannot print extra money for this...it has to come out of the workers pocket. This way, the organism regulates itself. Taxes are adjusted in contrast to profits. If one goes up, the other goes down. Avoid depression and maintain the cycle. I repeat. Avoid depression and maintain the cycle. Over.

(now, if I were a real economists I could break it down for you further, but alas, I am not)


Because if they didn't I would just seem them fighting amongst themselves continually for profits and ownership.Correct. This is why trying to determine what the population in sector seven should get, and what they should not, is ridiculous. Can you imagine what this would look like:

"Special announcement: today is new TV day. You will receive an appointment notification via email, and are expected to be at the convention center at such time to get your new TV. Please return the questionnaire attached to the email, indicating what color TV you would like. Thank you."

(then there's a little propaganda slogan signed at the bottom)

"Strength through collective, humanitarian effort"...or some such crap.

No way. Instead of this stupid system, you have a democratic process of voting (worker syndicates), which determines what workers in what industries get what wage. Everyone votes, including workers in different industries. This way you don't get a rigged vote- you don't get the inferior workers voting against a pay raise for the better workers in the same field.

So nobody fights over what they get. If they have the money, they buy what they want. That lazy bastard Ivan can go fuck himself.


How would that work? What would be the application of such a operation?As I mentioned above, I am not qualified to explain precisely how, as this involves very advanced economic science and mathematics. But I do know roughly how it would work.


So in your vision there would still be a inequal wage distribution?
Absolutely. Meritocratic democracy, homes. I have worked beside too many proletarians that were like dead weight in the chain of production. At that profound moment it dawned on me that I could never subscribe to pure communism. The only difference between this idiot and the capitalist parasite we were working for was that this guy asked for half of my sandwich at lunch. It ain't happenin.


How would they profit?I should clarify that by 'corporation' I don't mean private enterprise. In fact, there would be no corporation in the traditional sense of the word. There would be bureaucratic management of the various industries, but the bureaucrats would be paid a wage and work as administrators.

Job placement would be determined by aptitude testing, and those who qualified for a job would be voted into that position. Again, the voting system prevents envy and jealously between workers. Except for Ivan....who can't be satisfied with anything, apparently.


Interesting. So the state would be guaranteed far reaching influential powers over the populance?

That's kinda 1984 if you ask me.The only reason why this concept strikes you as negative is because you are using concepts based from old words. Didn't you get a copy of my New Speak dictionary? Section six chapter four states that "everyone is the state, the state is everyone. Think happy thoughts, comrade!"


What would you do with dissidents who desire more that oppose such a system?A little psychotronic programming and shock therapy will fix anything.

Kidding.

Actually, no such coercion would be possible, since all policies are determined by majority decision. A small faction of subversives would literally become absolved by the majority. If Ivan and his buddies simply won't conform, they will have the opportunity to become residents in sector eighteen, reserved for anarchists. A lawless region of country where the heathens live, and where the state does not intervene.

I think the rest of your questions were already addressed above, more or less.