What it is to be "free" under capitalism

[Lyev]

I have had trouble ordering my ideas recently, and would like some people's help just clarifying a few things in my head. I have a few questions (so please move this to learning if it's unsuitable here) but maybe some OI views might help as well. Some of what I discuss is probably mentioned all the time, so if there's something else already around on this site (or anywhere else in fact) then ignore the question and direct me towards the link.

So, firstly, I know it isn't, but what are the rebuttals to those that say something along the lines of: "wanting money (i.e. greed) is one of the biggest impetus for people doing well in life. Everyone wants to make money, communism wouldn't work because there's no drive for people to want to work." I know this kind of stuff is mentioned all the time.

My second question kind of links in. And this all links into the whole human nature canard - a profession, for example something like a highly specialised brain surgeon, or even a banker, takes lots of training, and lots of hard work. They get paid £1 million a year for this. Whilst this is completely unfair, as it's probably off the backs of others, and there's others who contribute just as equally, but get paid a fraction, if you cut this person's pay by, say, 90%, how are you going to attract them to work? Won't they just pack up and go elsewhere to work for more than you offer? They'll be so used to getting paid so much money, and will think they deserve (or will be very comfortable with) extortionate amounts of money.

Thirdly (and I think lastly) is a question in reference to the title of this thread. I hope it generates at least a bit of good discussion. This doesn't apply to third world or poorer countries, due to the lack of substantial infrastructure and jobs etc. Basically, what there is to stop your average proletarian taking out a loan and going out and starting his own business? Obviously not everyone could do this, because becoming rich in capitalist society usually means exploiting someone, so if everyone started their own business there would be no-one left to exploit.

Oh and also, is there ever a time in capitalist society where one can become rich without exploiting others, bar something which is just luck (i.e. the lottery)?

Anyway, thanks a lot. Don't feel at all obliged to answer every single question at once, thanks for your time comrades.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Freedom to starve.
Freedom to be homeless.
Freedom to exploit people.

This is the type of freedom offered by capitalism.

[Lyev]

Freedom to starve.
Freedom to be homeless.
Freedom to exploit people.

This is the type of freedom offered by capitalism.These are extremes though. What about people who are poor, but still have a house? People who are hungry, but still have food? What's stopping them becoming as rich as a bourgeois?

[Lyev]

Maybe they can't partly because of competition. Poor people trying to become richer by starting their own business or something are like small trees trying to grow. There's already lots of other bigger, more powerful trees in the forest that starve the little of nutrients and light, so it doesn't have a chance as soon as it sprouts. This is obviously a metaphor for monopoly of big business casting a shadow over the petit-bourgeoisie.

[mikelepore]

These are extremes though. What about people who are poor, but still have a house? People who are hungry, but still have food? What's stopping them becoming as rich as a bourgeois?

Let's try the saving method. If a person is able to save $20 per week, the person will have saved a million dollars in about 1,000 years.

[Lyev]

Let's try the saving method. If a person is able to save $20 per week, the person will have saved a million dollars in about 1,000 years.What about a loan or borrowed money? And then if this loan bought some means of production that could eventually pay itself off? Thanks for responses, I just feel as though I need to question my thoughts, because then they start to become more solid and concise.

[Bud Struggle]

Freedom to starve.
Freedom to be homeless.
Freedom to exploit people.

This is the type of freedom offered by capitalism.

You are free to work the system and succeed or to work the system and fail. It's not for the faint of heart or the talentless or the unlucky. It's a winner take all, the best and the brightest go to the top scenario--and to be sure, there are plenty that get ahead by birthright, fuck them. But some good people climb to the top on their own. I've seen it done thousands of times. Did it myself.

[Edit] I know it's no the message you folks around here want to hear, but in America it's the way it is. Somewhere in South America or Africa--not the case at all, but in America and Europe (I guess) there is a chance to do well.

[Jazzratt]

But some good people climb to the top on their own. I've seen it done thousands of times. Did it myself.

To be glib about it, there is a saying: "Scum floats".

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people can and do claw themselves from out of all sorts of horrible situations but such things are aberrations they are not the norm. That is ultimately the problem I have with a certain kind of apologist, you being the best example I can think of, that takes these anomolous anecdotes and uses them as a way to argue that capitalism isn't "all that bad" or whatever. It's bullshit. The fact is that to sustain the winners capitalism needs untold millions, even billions of "losers".

The stories of "losers" can be just as interesting. I've known people with MENSA level IQs floundering and failing. I've seen people with damn good starts in life (private schools, good grades) end up as miserable fuck-alls like me. This is how capitalism works, it needs its fuck alls to make all the shit that its great achievers sell. I'm reminded a little of the famous "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote by Newton. Capitalists stand raised above and supported by us but they do not even have the decency to even show us respect.

[Robert]

It's true that there is nothing about "capitalism" that guarantees everyone his daily bread.

But you have to try pretty hard to starve in the USA due to social programs and charities; nothing about capitalism prohibits charity and government safety nets, and we have both, just as nothing about communism guarantees them. There is a lot of obesity in the USA, but pockets of "food insecurity (http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html)" too.

If the community decides I'm not pulling my weight after the revolution, they might cancel my meal ticket, and who could blame them?

[anticap]

What it is to be "free" under capitalism?

Simply put, to be "free" under capitalism is to be free to exercise power over others.

You can practically substitute "power" for "freedom" in any capitalist apologetic without changing the real thrust of the argument. In fact it will probably clarify things greatly and save people having to ask your question.


You are free to work the system and succeed or to work the system and fail.

If by "work the system" you mean "join the exploiting class," then, sure, you can hang out your shingle, hire your wage-slaves, and see how it goes; but there's nothing "good" about robbing people and successfully hawking their wares on the market.

I forget which billionaire said it, but it's as true as any statement can be with the word "never" in it: You'll never get rich working for someone else.

Now that I think about it, that famous paraphrase is tantamount to an endorsement of Marxian political economy, and sums it up rather nicely. Actually, I've always suspected that the most successful capitalists are secretly fans of Marx, since his work could be seen from their perspective as an instruction manual.

[mikelepore]

What about a loan or borrowed money? And then if this loan bought some means of production that could eventually pay itself off?

Sure, some working class people could do that. But I was replying to the question, "What's stopping them becoming as rich as a bourgeois?" Someone who takes out a loan to start a small business is unlikely to catch up with someone who is also investing in business but who inherited millions of dollars at birth. Likewise if we were running a 100 meter race, and you and I have to start 100 meters from the finish line, but there's someone who is permitted to start only 10 meters from the finish line, then we won't catch up.

[LeftSideDown]

Its really very simple: Are you more free when you have more obligations or less?

[Conquer or Die]

Freedom under capitalism means the ability to buy product based on what you've approximated from an owner. In most capitalist states there are welfare systems that prevent revolution and indoctrination schools promoting consumerism in the name of diversity. Concievably it also means that by buying a product you are casting a vote in terms of what you want to see occur more frequently in the world. IE buying cornflakes is a vote for cornflakes and a no vote for Cheerios.

Capitalist states are not dog-eat dog. Physical competition between humans is relegated to entertainment venues and games that value little in the world in terms of advancement.

[Robert]

Freedom under capitalismI never once thought that "capitalism" either bestowed, guaranteed, protected, denied, undercut, or compromised anyone's "freedoms."

That's the function of a constitution, not an economic system.

The USA's constitution would have to be substantially re-written to accomodate a communist economic system, starting with re-writing of the commerce clause, but it could be done, I guess. You'd also have to re-write the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom to peaceably (sp?) assemble.

The Cuban Constitution guarantees rights and freedoms along the lines you guys want, but notice the power given to the state and the primacy of the Communist Party.

http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

It's chock full of all the usual slogans and truisms that communists trot out at every opportunity.

Yeah, I know, "yay Communism!" right? but how can you ever feel comfortable knowing that you cannot form a rival party, even a rival Marxist party, in that country? You're just going to trust that one single political party can be flexible enough to accomodate your view of how Marxism should be implemented?

How can this possibly not concern you?

[Lyev]

Yes, thank you for the responses. My dad the other day asked me all these questions about people wanting to be rich etc. in accordance with socialist principles, and my answer seemed to just backtrack on itself and progress nowhere. I think it's fair to say becoming very rich in capitalist society is mostly down to luck. And people that "work hard up the ladder" are usually just anomalies. Those that do "work up the ladder" will almost definitely have done it by kicking off others that were trying to get up the ladder as the same time as them, so to speak. Could you say it's some sort of economic law that it's impossible under capitalism, in most cases, to become rich beyond a certain point without exploiting people?

[Bud Struggle]

I think it's fair to say becoming very rich in capitalist society is mostly down to luck. Luck does play a part--but that's really not it--it's having the understanding of a certain market well enough to know what is needed in a particular time and place and the ability to figure out how to deliver it. It's mostly a knack--but one that can be taught and developed.


And people that "work hard up the ladder" are usually just anomalies. Some are--but in the USA at least there is a reasonable reward if enough effort is produced. It's not and exact correlation--but close.


Those that do "work up the ladder" will almost definitely have done it by kicking off others that were trying to get up the ladder as the same time as them, so to speak. Again, some do--but that's largely unproductive. There's competition but in most cases there enough to go around. Scarcity is a figment of people's imagenation.


Could you say it's some sort of economic law that it's impossible under capitalism, in most cases, to become rich beyond a certain point without exploiting people? It all depends what you mean my exploitation. For the most part someone like a doctor can--he gets paid from using his skills.

But the real question is: "what is rich?" Is it millions and millions of dollars or a nice comfortable living?

[Bud Struggle]

To be glib about it, there is a saying: "Scum floats". Why, thank you! :D


I've said it before and I'll say it again, people can and do claw themselves from out of all sorts of horrible situations but such things are aberrations they are not the norm. That is ultimately the problem I have with a certain kind of apologist, you being the best example I can think of, that takes these anomolous anecdotes and uses them as a way to argue that capitalism isn't "all that bad" or whatever. It's bullshit. The fact is that to sustain the winners capitalism needs untold millions, even billions of "losers". See, in Capitalism right now, I agree there are a lot of loosers--way too many and I think that can be ameliorated to a good extent when societies and governments become more responsive to the needs of their citizens. that's something that will happen over time as economies develop more. capitalism really doesn't NEED poor people--as a matter of fact the people that are doing well would do even better if more people did well.


The stories of "losers" can be just as interesting. I've known people with MENSA level IQs floundering and failing. I've seen people with damn good starts in life (private schools, good grades) end up as miserable fuck-alls like me. This is how capitalism works, it needs its fuck alls to make all the shit that its great achievers sell. I'm reminded a little of the famous "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote by Newton. Capitalists stand raised above and supported by us but they do not even have the decency to even show us respect. As I said in the post above there is bit of a knack to doing well--but it'sn NOT about making millions. It's about making a comfortable income and living well. Not everyone needs a Farrari, but everyone needs good basic transportation--not everyone need to dine out in fancy restaurants every night but they do need to eat well and often, not everyone needs a mansion but everyine needs a safe warm place to live in. And I think Capitalism could deliver those things if managed properly. I agree we don't have that now--but it can and should be achieved in the near future without Revolutions and vanguards--all we need is a bit of common sense and fairness.

I also think Communist could actively contribute to that kind of a world--even of the end product isn't Communism itself. Really--I think the thing we need is a fair world--not some specific Economic or Political order that may or may not deliver what it promises.

[Robert]

That is ultimately the problem I have with a certain kind of apologist, you being the best example I can think of, that takes these anomolous anecdotes and uses them as a way to argue that capitalism isn't "all that bad" or whatever.

Rags to riches is unusual, even anomalous, yes. Middle class to rich is unusual. Rich to super rich is unusual.

But going from rags to "very comfortable" in the USA (a decent apartment and 3 squares, public education, access to much free medical care and medicine) at least is not anomalous or unusual at all. No capitalist here wants [I]anyone in the gutter. What would be the motive?

[Dean]

Thirdly (and I think lastly) is a question in reference to the title of this thread. I hope it generates at least a bit of good discussion. This doesn't apply to third world or poorer countries, due to the lack of substantial infrastructure and jobs etc. Basically, what there is to stop your average proletarian taking out a loan and going out and starting his own business? Obviously not everyone could do this, because becoming rich in capitalist society usually means exploiting someone, so if everyone started their own business there would be no-one left to exploit.
It's called high-risk lending, comes with incredible interest rates or simply doesn't happen. That's what all of the sub-prime lending is you've been hearing about. If this was extended to business-lending systems (if it isn't already), banks would be lending out money they knew couldn't be repaid, and seize your business when the inevitable flop occurs.


Oh and also, is there ever a time in capitalist society where one can become rich without exploiting others, bar something which is just luck (i.e. the lottery)?
"Getting rich" is a patently exploitative act, because it positions one or a few people to control more wealth while the rest of us suffer decreased buying power (by nature of the fact that production and distribution serves those who can pay well, a basic economic fact some of the local propertarians laughingly reject).

[Dean]

The stories of "losers" can be just as interesting. I've known people with MENSA level IQs floundering and failing. I've seen people with damn good starts in life (private schools, good grades) end up as miserable fuck-alls like me. This is how capitalism works, it needs its fuck alls to make all the shit that its great achievers sell. I'm reminded a little of the famous "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote by Newton. Capitalists stand raised above and supported by us but they do not even have the decency to even show us respect.

I've known so many great people that fail in our system. A lot of those characteristics actually can hurt you in a capitalist market.

But being "smart" and/or "able" is no moral proof, and that's why I reject that kind of justification for capitalism. There is nothing about heightened abilities that means you should prosper while other fail. There are legitimate uses for those kinds of abilities but they simply don't justify excessive inequality, even if we did have a purely meritocratic system.

[Ele'ill]

Luck does play a part--but that's really not it--it's having the understanding of a certain market well enough to know what is needed in a particular time and place and the ability to figure out how to deliver it. It's mostly a knack--but one that can be taught and developed.

And knowing what barriers to trade can be exploited-removed that will then severely mess up tens of thousands of people's chances to get where you are.


Some are--but in the USA at least there is a reasonable reward if enough effort is produced. It's not and exact correlation--but close.

I think it has less to do with effort and more to do with people not wanting to climb over bodies to get to the top- which is absolutely necessary in capitalism.


Again, some do--but that's largely unproductive. There's competition but in most cases there enough to go around. Scarcity is a figment of people's imagenation.

In the last week I've talked with several people here in Portland Oregon that have been looking for *entry level positions* for about six months. Oregon has the number one unemployment rates in the country. Employers will take advantage of this by lowering working conditions to dismal levels, requiring unreasonable quotas be met, and generally abusing the idea of high turn over jobs that shouldn't be such.


It all depends what you mean my exploitation. For the most part someone like a doctor can--he gets paid from using his skills.

But the real question is: "what is rich?" Is it millions and millions of dollars or a nice comfortable living?

Rich is irrelevant when there are sidewalk ordinances being passed so that the hundreds of homeless cannot exist in reality- Apathy is the issue- there is no comfy living when your neighbors in your community are sleeping in the gutter. Period.

[Cal Engime]

It's true that you can fail under capitalism even with a MENSA-level IQ and a good start in life; success is not based on intelligence, or strength, or moral virtue, if you don't know how to use those things. It is purely a question of who most satisfies consumer wants at the lowest cost.

The entrepreneur sees that there is something consumers want (be it something world-changing like the telephone or something trivial like shaped rubber bands), that there is a price they would be willing to pay for it, and that he can produce it for less. Obviously, none of this can be known with certainty in advance, so I will grant that entrepreneurial success requires superior judgment and foresight. Staking his own hard earned capital, or taking a loan with interest because he anticipates a greater return, he invests in capital goods and offers his product on the market. I don't just mean factories and big business here; the man who grows marijuana in his backyard and sells it is just as much an entrepreneur as the man who founds AMD and competes with Intel. If he makes a profit, we say his venture has been a success; he has increased value productivity and raised standards of living. If he records a loss, it has been a failure; he has misdirected labour and capital that could have been used to produce something consumers wanted to buy. If he makes a great profit above what can be gained in other industries, others will enter the market in the belief that they can do it better, so over time there is a tendency for profits to equalise to a normal level.

Is the boss exploiting his workers when he makes a profit? Well, is he giving them a gift when he makes a loss? People condemn the entrepreneur for excessive or windfall profits, but does anybody pity the entrepreneur for a "windfall loss" or propose a windfall losses subsidy?

We can say that production should serve purposes other than consumer wants, and that's fine; economics can tell us how society might be organised to attain our ends, but not what the ends should be. We can also say that the recipients of wages could direct production just as well if they owned all capital goods collectively, but I do not see how that is possible; we can directly compare the labour we will ourselves put into a project and the output we will receive to decide whether it is worth our trouble, but the workers do not think with one mind. Without a price system, we cannot know how much capital we are really using, nor can we know how much the work is worth to others.

[Ele'ill]

It's true that you can fail under capitalism even with a MENSA-level IQ and a good start in life; success is not based on intelligence, or strength, or moral virtue, if you don't know how to use those things. It is purely a question of who most satisfies consumer wants at the lowest cost.

The lengths that companies will go to in order to meet consumer wants is what's causing issues. By companies I mean corporations and corporations involve various individuals making these harmful decisions. They remain unaccountable.




Is the boss exploiting his workers when he makes a profit? Well, is he giving them a gift when he makes a loss? People condemn the entrepreneur for excessive or windfall profits, but does anybody pity the entrepreneur for a "windfall loss" or propose a windfall losses subsidy?

If the entrepreneur put people over profits there wouldn't be as much of an issue. It isn't just the workers of the company that are being exploited it's the people in the surrounding area, it's the people's environment, mental and physical that are being fucked on a daily basis.

[trivas7]

Marx defined freedom somewhere as the recognition of necessity. I think this applies equally to socialism as well.

[Dean]

Marx defined freedom somewhere as the recognition of necessity. I think this applies equally to socialism as well.

Probably because not having what you need whilst others controls the tools necessary to provide it creates consistently exploitative relationships, fr obvious reasons.

[LeftSideDown]

Probably because not having what you need whilst others controls the tools necessary to provide it creates consistently exploitative relationships, fr obvious reasons.

Need is subjective. If I'm hungry, but all I will eat is apples then I need apples. You, however, hate apples and will not eat them. Apples therefore are a need for one person, and not a need for another. If I'm suicidal then I need a knife to kill myself. If I am not suicidal I do not need a knife to kill myself, I might need an apple or maybe I do not need an apple. Its all rather subjective.

[LeftSideDown]

Marx defined freedom somewhere as the recognition of necessity. I think this applies equally to socialism as well.

What is "necessity"? It certainly isn't a necessity for humanity to exist.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

But some good people climb to the top on their own. I've seen it done thousands of times. Did it myself.


Hm, a claim that the rich are deserving, brilliant, and smart from a rich guy.

Can I just ask, are the people who work at your plant honestly less worthy people, less "good" than the "thousands" of rich guys you know?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Need is subjective. If I'm hungry, but all I will eat is apples then I need apples. You, however, hate apples and will not eat them. Apples therefore are a need for one person, and not a need for another. If I'm suicidal then I need a knife to kill myself. If I am not suicidal I do not need a knife to kill myself, I might need an apple or maybe I do not need an apple. Its all rather subjective.

This is just laughable as a defense of capitalism.

And such a appeal to "subjective needs" can be used to justify any system under the sun.

Nazis seem pretty mean? Well, thats a subjective opinion. Gas chambers are useful to the suicidal.

Not that i'm doubting these things are "subjective", but your argument that this somehow justifies capitalism is not even on relevant. Dean was arguing that capitalism was bad for meeting the "subjective" needs of people, you don't refute that by pointing out that needs are subjective...

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

What is "necessity"? It certainly isn't a necessity for humanity to exist.

"necessity" is a term commonly used to refer to things humans need to continue living, and it serves usefully for that purpose because most humans really, really want to continue doing so.

By pointing out that it isn't "necessary" that they want too is just a misinterpretation of what the word means in that context. Its akin to people claiming the that homophobia must mean being terrified by homosexuals, as that is what phobia means.

[Bud Struggle]

Can I just ask, are the people who work at your plant honestly less worthy people, less "good" than the "thousands" of rich guys you know?

By "good" I meant good at business--no moral connotation connected or implied. By "worthy" I mean they took the necessary steps to make whatever success in business they were looking to achieve, again no moral connection whatsoever. I should have been more clear.

Morally--all people are equal in worth. :)

[Robert]

How does one get from this:


But some good people climb to the top on their own. I've seen it done thousands of times. Did it myself.


to this:


Hm, a claim that the rich are deserving, brilliant, and smart from a rich guy.

[Bud Struggle]

AND NOW FOR A SLIGHT BREAK IN THE POSTING LINE UP


end up as miserable fuck-alls like me.

This stuck in a craw a bit, Gov'nor.

While I would never want to "be" you or anyone else because I would miss the love of my wife and kids and family, I must say there is a bit of me that envies you your and talent and opportunity.

Being alive in today's world--in LONDON has to be the most exciting thing I could think of.

You are no different than me at your age in NYC--'cept you are smart and you have talent.

NOW BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM

[Dr Mindbender]

Need is subjective. If I'm hungry, but all I will eat is apples then I need apples. You, however, hate apples and will not eat them. Apples therefore are a need for one person, and not a need for another. If I'm suicidal then I need a knife to kill myself. If I am not suicidal I do not need a knife to kill myself, I might need an apple or maybe I do not need an apple. Its all rather subjective.

I hate steak and kidney pie with a passion.

If i lived on a hypothetical desert island where there was no escape means and nothing on the menu other than steak and kidney pie, i think i would learn an appreciation for cows muscles and piss glands in pastry pretty quickly.

[Foldered]

I've seen it done thousands of times.
http://www.epinioncity.com/glenn_beck.jpg

This guy lives better than all of us (and therefore is, according to your perspective, the best and the brightest). That should be enough for you to lose faith in the fucked up system that is capitalism.

[Cal Engime]

I hate steak and kidney pie with a passion.

If i lived on a hypothetical desert island where there was no escape means and nothing on the menu other than steak and kidney pie, i think i would learn an appreciation for cows muscles and piss glands in pastry pretty quickly.So we see that a good has various values not only to different individuals, but to the same individual at different times.

[Dr Mindbender]

Being alive in today's world--in LONDON has to be the most exciting thing I could think of.


Yes because everyone in the south east of England prances about in a bowler hat with a cane with a well to do job in the city or the east end drama circuit.

You really do have a sheltered view of the UK dont you. Living anywhere in the UK in this current climate is anything but exciting i assure you.

[NGNM85]

I'm essentially paraphrasing Chomsky, but political freedom without democracy in one's productive life is kind of a farce. It can only extend so far. That said, I'd rather be poor in Boston than in Waziristan. The US is a comparatively, very free society. Our enshrined freedom of speech and secular government are more advanced and progressive than Canada or most of Western Europe, where public expression is more limited, taxes go to religious organizations, etc. Western civilization, so far, is about the best game in town. That said, I think we can, and should, do a lot better.

[Drace]

What's stopping them becoming as rich as a bourgeois? The means of production.
Whats stopping them from becoming free? The lack of it.

[Ele'ill]

I'm essentially paraphrasing Chomsky, but political freedom without democracy in one's productive life is kind of a farce. It can only extend so far. That said, I'd rather be poor in Boston than in Waziristan. The US is a comparatively, very free society. Our enshrined freedom of speech and secular government are more advanced and progressive than Canada or most of Western Europe, where public expression is more limited, taxes go to religious organizations, etc. Western civilization, so far, is about the best game in town. That said, I think we can, and should, do a lot better.


I don't necessarily buy this statement.

The United States is powerful enough to have created not just puppets but an entire puppet theater to make the physical actions of social services, being able to demonstrate, freedom of speech etc nothing but empty shadows- This is because the United States no longer fears these things and has identified them as generally useless for social change.

The reason demonstrators get gunned down in other countries is because the government doesn't have the same overpowering grip and can topple due to public support.

[NGNM85]

I don't necessarily buy this statement.

The United States is powerful enough to have created not just puppets but an entire puppet theater to make the physical actions of social services, being able to demonstrate, freedom of speech etc nothing but empty shadows- This is because the United States no longer fears these things and has identified them as generally useless for social change.

The reason demonstrators get gunned down in other countries is because the government doesn't have the same overpowering grip and can topple due to public support.

I disagree a little bit. (Shocking, I'm sure.) Again, I'm sort of paraphrasing Chomsky, but the reason the US has such a complicated propaganda system and so forth, because it is a comparatively very free society. In China, or Russia they don't need really subtle or sophisticated systems of manipulation because they just beat the crap out of people or shoot them in the street. If you've got a gun to everybody's head you aren't under any pressure to justify anything.

[Jazzratt]

It's true that you can fail under capitalism even with a MENSA-level IQ and a good start in life; success is not based on intelligence, or strength, or moral virtue, if you don't know how to use those things. It is purely a question of who most satisfies consumer wants at the lowest cost.

Which is certainly more of a flaw than a virtue. To the mind of any sane person, anyway.


The entrepreneur sees that there is something consumers want (be it something world-changing like the telephone or something trivial like shaped rubber bands), that there is a price they would be willing to pay for it, and that he can produce it for less. Obviously, none of this can be known with certainty in advance, so I will grant that entrepreneurial success requires superior judgment and foresight. Staking his own hard earned capital, or taking a loan with interest because he anticipates a greater return, he invests in capital goods and offers his product on the market. I don't just mean factories and big business here; the man who grows marijuana in his backyard and sells it is just as much an entrepreneur as the man who founds AMD and competes with Intel. If he makes a profit, we say his venture has been a success; he has increased value productivity and raised standards of living. If he records a loss, it has been a failure; he has misdirected labour and capital that could have been used to produce something consumers wanted to buy. If he makes a great profit above what can be gained in other industries, others will enter the market in the belief that they can do it better, so over time there is a tendency for profits to equalise to a normal level.

Upshot? That there is only one kind of person that can succeed in your monolthic failure of a system - the entrepeneur (or "bastard").


Is the boss exploiting his workers when he makes a profit? Well, is he giving them a gift when he makes a loss? People condemn the entrepreneur for excessive or windfall profits, but does anybody pity the entrepreneur for a "windfall loss" or propose a windfall losses subsidy?

No. Simply failing to exploit someone profitably is not a "gift" no matter how you slice it. No one pitys the entrepeneur ever because they are all bastards.


We can say that production should serve purposes other than consumer wants, and that's fine; economics can tell us how society might be organised to attain our ends, but not what the ends should be. We can also say that the recipients of wages could direct production just as well if they owned all capital goods collectively, but I do not see how that is possible; we can directly compare the labour we will ourselves put into a project and the output we will receive to decide whether it is worth our trouble, but the workers do not think with one mind. Without a price system, we cannot know how much capital we are really using, nor can we know how much the work is worth to others.

We don't need to work out how much capital we're using because capital is a flexible and arbitraty measurement. It is far more intelligent to measure concrete uses - like materials and energy.


AND NOW FOR A SLIGHT BREAK IN THE POSTING LINE UP



This stuck in a craw a bit, Gov'nor.

While I would never want to "be" you or anyone else because I would miss the love of my wife and kids and family, I must say there is a bit of me that envies you your and talent and opportunity.

Being alive in today's world--in LONDON has to be the most exciting thing I could think of.

You are no different than me at your age in NYC--'cept you are smart and you have talent.

NOW BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM

I don't live in London. I live in a decaying small town about a half hour away from Brighton and right next to the dying, gasping remains of one of the few industrial estates in the south east. Career choices here are pretty much limited to mindless office work or something in the service industry (the latter is work that I couldn't get even if I tried).

Anyway, I didn't mean to encrouage that bit of off-topic discussion, just correcting a factual innacruacy.

[RGacky3]

Its really very simple: Are you more free when you have more obligations or less?


You ALWAYS have obligations, the question is who too, I'd rather have obligations to something which I have a say over rather than something which I have no say over.


capitalism really doesn't NEED poor people--as a matter of fact the people that are doing well would do even better if more people did well.


Depends waht you mean by that? Capitalist wants poor people, and it nessesarily leads to poor people.


And I think Capitalism could deliver those things if managed properly. I agree we don't have that now--but it can and should be achieved in the near future without Revolutions and vanguards--all we need is a bit of common sense and fairness.


What your talking about is social-democracy, which works yes, but it also comes with many problems along with it, and its also very hard to keep social-demcracy competing, france learned this, what is needed is to recognise that Capitalism is immoral and unsustainable, once you stop tryign to reconsile Capitalism with everything then you can start making things better. Stop latching on to it and make real solutions.


By "good" I meant good at business--no moral connotation connected or implied. By "worthy" I mean they took the necessary steps to make whatever success in business they were looking to achieve, again no moral connection whatsoever. I should have been more clear.



Why are you defending a system that only rewards things that don't benefit society at all? Like being good at buisiness? Is'nt THAT immoral in itself? (not the people working the system, but people defending it whilst knowing what it is)?


Need is subjective. If I'm hungry, but all I will eat is apples then I need apples. You, however, hate apples and will not eat them. Apples therefore are a need for one person, and not a need for another. If I'm suicidal then I need a knife to kill myself. If I am not suicidal I do not need a knife to kill myself, I might need an apple or maybe I do not need an apple. Its all rather subjective.

So in your idea, what decides what needs are more important or not is money right?

[Robert]

No one pitys [sic] the entrepeneur ever because they are all bastards.

Well, it sounds like they have mostly left your corner of England.

I know, you want jobs without the bastards. I want a lot of things too.

[Dean]

Need is subjective. If I'm hungry, but all I will eat is apples then I need apples. You, however, hate apples and will not eat them. Apples therefore are a need for one person, and not a need for another. If I'm suicidal then I need a knife to kill myself. If I am not suicidal I do not need a knife to kill myself, I might need an apple or maybe I do not need an apple. Its all rather subjective.

Need being "subjective" in no way detracts from the controlling character that a narrow milieu of producers/distributors develops. The "subjectivity" of needs for housing, electricity and the like actually develop a rather uniform character, so in the end we have a bunch of people "subjectively" involved in the same economic relations and exploitations.

Great way to shift the blame for economic relations by talking about "choice." Its rather telling that your "defense of choice" nowhere would empower consumers and laborers by allowing them to even define the choices themselves. You're defending the right of a narrow population to define the "choices" that others are forced into.

Sounds familiar... elections, perhaps?

[Bud Struggle]

Depends waht you mean by that? Capitalist wants poor people, and it nessesarily leads to poor people. No. Capitalists want people rich--rich Capitalist people buy things from other Capitalists. What good do poor people do?




What your talking about is social-democracy, which works yes, but it also comes with many problems along with it, and its also very hard to keep social-demcracy competing, france learned this, what is needed is to recognise that Capitalism is immoral and unsustainable, once you stop tryign to reconsile Capitalism with everything then you can start making things better. Stop latching on to it and make real solutions. When didn't Communism come with PROBLEMS? Stalin wasn't a problem? Mao? Kim? Lots of others. Communism has its problems. And France can't compete against Capitalism? (And obviously what passed for Communism couldn't do so either.) So.....what works best?

Comrade, you may not like it--but Capitalism works best--now we just have to make it work best for EVERYONE.


Why are you defending a system that only rewards things that don't benefit society at all? Like being good at buisiness? Is'nt THAT immoral in itself? (not the people working the system, but people defending it whilst knowing what it is)? A businessman being a decent person and being good in business brings a world of opportunity to working people--and to himself.

[Bud Struggle]

I know, you want jobs without the bastards.

Me too!

[iskrabronstein]

I get the impression (perhaps mistaken) that many of the defenders of capitalism here do not have extensive experience working in a genuine small-capitalist enterprise. Most of the small proprietors I have worked with, in restaurants and small corporate franchises alike, are competing in heavily populated markets, with only a very marginal rate of profit per man-hour. This lack of guaranteed revenue flow means that the vast majority of small businesses subsist on short-term loans from national and regional credit institutions - they exploit their workers in order to pay back, to the banks, the cost of running the enterprise.

In good times, and given a relatively uncrowded market niche, such an enterprise can succeed in profiting its proprietor financially - but this does not dispel the iron ties of financial dependency which bind the petit-bourgeois to the providers of investment capital. In times of capitalist crisis, these types of institutions fall like flies - there have even been corporate franchises, with much greater access to capital than small businesses, that failed during the recent crisis.

In truth, the real question to be addressed when considering any question of class mobility in an advanced capitalist nation is necessarily the availability of access to capital. The simple fact is that, as appealing as the illusion is, the small capitalist who works his way to the top due to hard work and a good nose for business is not a prevailing phenomenon in modern capitalism due to the very nature of capital accumulation within the modern economy.

Attempts to argue otherwise are frankly ungrounded in reality - the simple fact is that, despite still comprising a major sector of the American economy, small businesses are more dependent upon corporate financial support than at any previous point in history.

[Ele'ill]

Comrade, you may not like it--but Capitalism works best--now we just have to make it work best for EVERYONE.



It would have to change to the point of not being Capitalism anymore.

[Scary Monster]

No. Capitalists want people rich--rich Capitalist people buy things from other Capitalists. What good do poor people do?

Comrade, you may not like it--but Capitalism works best--now we just have to make it work best for EVERYONE.

These are impossible and you know it. All your posts are teeming with capitalist idealism, which absolutely does not apply to reality. What good do poor people do? Why, that would be doing all the labor for the lowest wage. There doesnt need to be lots n lots of rich people, only a few who hold all capital. Goods and services all gravitate toward the highest concentration of capital (the 1st world), no matter where these are produced (mostly in the third world, who dont see the fruits of their labor in the least). This wouldnt happen unless they were poor.

Capitalists do not want people to be rich, otherwise theyd lose their reserve labor force, which is needed to bring average wages down. If everyone were well off, production would go down, while real wages would soar, since it all comes down to capitalists being able to say "Oh you dont like your job? Someone else wants your job, so youre fired.", due to the fact that there is always a large population of the unemployed- even more so now, since most jobs have been shipped overseas.

Capitalism does not work. The only reason it has survived this long is because the 1st world has forced it on the the rest of the world. This is why central asia and south america are in turmoil. The US, France and Britain mostly, have been installing fascist, theocratic or authoritarian dictatorships for the past centuries, in order to have unbridled access to resources to keep capitalism afloat. Look at the histories of Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua Afghanistan, countless more. Afghanistan for example- Their people overthrew their theocracy and put a progressive, communist government into power until the 90s. The Taliban came into power only because of the backing of the US, China, and UK. Its the same story with most 3rd world countries for the past hundreds of years.

Im sure you know all this already, but you choose to be willfully ignorant. Socialism only collapsed because of imperialist economic attack or war- this is the case with Yugoslavia, almost with Cuba, etc. Cuba is the most prosperous latin country thanks to the Cuban revolution. Capitalism only exists in the US by first exterminating its opposition- native americans, Black Panthers, Malcolm X, etc.

In short, billions have to suffer, starve, wars have to be fought, all because of capitalism's existence as a system that depends upon artificial scarcity to survive. Its a totally bullshit system. You know this, man.

[RGacky3]

No. Capitalists want people rich--rich Capitalist people buy things from other Capitalists. What good do poor people do?

Cheap Labor, allow Capitalists to control the market more, the less people at the top the better it is for people at the top, they allow for class control.


When didn't Communism come with PROBLEMS? Stalin wasn't a problem? Mao? Kim? Lots of others. Communism has its problems. And France can't compete against Capitalism? (And obviously what passed for Communism couldn't do so either.) So.....what works best?

Comrade, you may not like it--but Capitalism works best--now we just have to make it work best for EVERYONE.


The reason it beat out France is because france tried to make it work best for everyone, thats why Capitalism does'nt work, because by its very nature it cannot work best for everyone.

Also Stalin, Mao, and Kim were not problems of communism they were problems of totalitarianism.


A businessman being a decent person and being good in business brings a world of opportunity to working people--and to himself.

Just replace duisinessman with the word dictator and nothing changes.

[Ax Pamericana]

Cheap Labor, allow Capitalists to control the market more, the less people at the top the better it is for people at the top, they allow for class control.

The aim of capitalism isn't to be at the top, it's to be rich (isn't that what everyone criticises it for?) and being rich is achieved through a vast number of utility-increasing transactions. And since every transaction is voluntary, by definition it benefits both parties. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. So we're all getting richer together. Isn't life great!

Class control, "controlling the market more", these aren't aims of capitalism. The only aim is to make yourself richer.

[iskrabronstein]

The aim of capitalism isn't to be at the top, it's to be rich (isn't that what everyone criticises it for?) and being rich is achieved through a vast number of utility-increasing transactions. And since every transaction is voluntary, by definition it benefits both parties. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. So we're all getting richer together. Isn't life great!

Class control, "controlling the market more", these aren't aims of capitalism. The only aim is to make yourself richer.

Nonsense. A solid majority of rich people become so through inter-generational transfer of capital assets, liquid or concrete. This is why I find marginal utility theory such an absolute failure at describing the material structural processes of capitalism -yes, in theory the accumulation of capital is simply the result of utility increasing (read: value-adding, profitable, exploitative) transactions over the course of market cycles -but such examples are not prevalent in any market or economic system.

Wealthiness in a society is result of a confluence of material factors, the most important being access to investable capital and control over its use and distribution. This is generally termed market control. One makes oneself richer in a capitalist system through the implementation of this market control.

The social structure that arises among the controllers of capital (in Marxist terms, the bourgeoisie) is a structure of direct and indirect class domination -through control over the funding of media, the financial and direct control over the arms of the state, and various other means of self-defense.

See, that is the real problem I have with capitalist apologia - your analysis describes what capitalism can do theoretically, given perfectly ideal conditions that never exist in historical reality. Our analysis describes not only what capitalism is, but what it does.