Hey there... what the hell is wrong with Capitalism?

[Stephen Colbert]

Talking with some of my liberal friends and colleagues, when I start the harsh criticism of capitalism, I am almost always confronted with..

"It's obviously the best system. There may be problems with it, but none that warrant any overhaul."

So in the mind of the liberal establishment we have to options-- regulation and reform into bloated bureaucracy, or de-regulation, watching the economic mayhem that unleashes itself on the Third World and the safety being jeopardized of the worker/environment, as well as accelerated class divide.

Anyone have good talking points to start people on when confronted with this massive strawman of an argument that I can't seem to begin to address?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Some large points:

- Worker exploitation.
- Wage Slavery.
- Imperialism - Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc.
- Poverty.
- Third World nations.

ALL of that exists within capitalism. No exceptions. It always will. Ask them if they agree with that.

[PoliticalNightmare]

"It's obviously the best system. There may be problems with it, but none that warrant any overhaul."

"No, of course your right, capitalism doesn't set up privatised coorporations owned by individuals who exploit their workers by taking a percentage of their product."

"There aren't any sweatshops in the East where people work for 12-15 hours a day for a 3 or 4 dollars with minimal pay in order to make clothes, food and other products for capitalists to sell us to over here in the west."

"Capitalists always put other people and the environment before making products and don't ever make stupid decisions which result in huge oil spill killing trillions of wildlife and destroying local trade".

"There aren't a bunch of super rich cigar smoking Charlie's who make profit just from having large sums of money which they can invest and gain interest from or from owning a whole load of businesses which they can use to extract labour value from there workers."

"You know what, we should have a free unregulated market where corporations at the top are free to just do whatever they want without government interference. If they cause a few oil spills or accidentally blow up the occasional nuclear power station because they were trying to make money-making adjustments to them then, hey, who cares? Profit is profit after all."

"Meh, you know what, OK, so there are a couple of people who own secluded properties with 2 or 3 acres of land and an indoor swimming pool while a bunch of people in Africa barely eat a slice of bread a day. But, you know, the poor are poor because they're ... lazy."

Hope this helps :D

[Dimentio]

Some large points:

- Worker exploitation.
- Wage Slavery.
- Imperialism - Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc.
- Poverty.
- Third World nations.

ALL of that exists within capitalism. No exceptions. It always will. Ask them if they agree with that.

Those points could be overlooked. I mean, feudalism was even more repressive but it did work, at least for a while. A system where new-born children are harvested in farms to be fed to the elite could be very repressive, but its possible.

The large Achilles heel of capitalism is its inability to balance its productive output with the needs of the people and with Earth's carrying capacity.

[danyboy27]

well, what wrong with capitalism?

that its an emotion-based control of our ressources that lead to instability, crisis, war and exploitation, maybe?

[Adil3tr]

Capitalism has lived with an average of 800 million people starving for the last 30 years. We have had "good" times and "bad" times. Those people were starving the entire time. That's bad enough.

But taming capitalism was tried through Keynesian in the 50s and 60s. It inevitable has crises that move the wealth up, towards the already wealthy. Capitalism has stallled, Democracy isn't really thriving under its strict barriers in aid and action.

[mikelepore]

I have never found any serious social problem or crisis that doesn't fall into one of these two categories:

(1) Capitalism causes it -- period.
(2) Although capitalism doesn't cause it, capitalism increases its severity.

Look at society's problems reported in any daily newspaper. Not one exception can be found.

When I say that capitalism causes society's problems, I mean the problems are found to be distributed something like this:

-- here is a problem that is caused by the division of the people into economic classes.
-- here is a problem that is caused by operating industry with the profit motive.
-- here is a problem that is caused by the workers not having democratic control over their workplaces.

But, one way or another, select any serious problem that plagues society, and capitalism is implicated in it.

----

"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. -- Matthew 12:33

[Lyev]

Oh bother, I just typed loads of stuff then refreshed the page and now it's gone. The current economic crisis, and the one in the 70s, and then before that in the 30s, pretty much refute capitalism for me. I am going to research Marx's theory of the tendency of the falling rate of profit, as first espoused in vol. III of Capital, then I'll get back to you. At the moment, I feel much more comfortable refuting capitalism on an economic basis, from a point of mostly objectivity, because capitalism doesn't bloody work. And simply saying "capitalism is immoral", which is something I obviously agree, doesn't really sway people, nor does my personal opinion on its own, if you know what I mean.

[Stephen Colbert]

Thanks comrades

[DaComm]

You should seriously point out the un-reliability of a Capitalist system to maintain the well being of those who keep it moving. Brush over these concepts:
-Alienated Labor
-Exploitation
-Imperialism
-Economic Crisis'
-Capitalist interests conflicting with human survival

Any system with these factors is sure as hell not "the best system", be sure to ask him what makes communism not the best system, then you can hammer him from there.

[Stephen Colbert]

I usually pummel them when they introduce the ignoramus, " well, Communism is government control of everything" bit. :thumbup1::laugh:

[DaComm]

^ Exactly, and by the end of the argument you will find your friend a stuttering be-fuddled blob of confusion that will hopefully be open to actual teachings. Thats how it works for me at least :lol:

[Lyev]

Ok, so, you understand quite obviously that capitalism necessitates competition between rival capitalists. This is the impetus driving the mechanistic nature of capitalism, constantly investing, buying and re-investing. Capitalist no. 1 has to keep up with capitalist no. 2 and so must constantly re-think how he increases the productivity of labour. How can he squeeze yet more profit out of his already exploited worker? Well, apart from making his employees work even harder, he can upgrade his constant capital (means of production: machinery, tools etc.), in the way of faster machinery, more high-tech tools, bigger and better computers and such.

In Marx's words, competition "is the law that continually throws capitalist production out of its old ruts and compels capital to strain ever more the productive forces of labor for the very reason that it has already strained them – the law that grants it no respite, and constantly shouts in its ear: March! March! This is no other law than that which, within the periodical fluctuations of commerce, necessarily adjusts the price of a commodity to its cost of production."

At this point we should remind ourselves that value in a commodity is the socially necessary labour-time it takes to create it, so this just means the average, general, amount of hours it takes someone to build something, including learning how to make it, and finding the materials necessary for making it etc., and the adverse effect of competition -- which is inherent in a capitalist mode of production -- is that it will eventually drive down the average socially necessary labour-time it takes to make a certain product or item. How does it do this?

Well, as far as I know, this is the fundamental basis underlying the theory of the falling rate of profit. For a minute, pretend I am a capitalist, and that my production is lagging behind all my fellow capitalists in the area, who can produce double the amount of products, with the same amount of labour (variable capital, i.e. workers) as me. To stay in business I need to catch up, so I research new technology, invest in better equipment, tools and machinery (i.e. my constant capital and means of production) and now I can produce double what they can. But, technological advancement won't stay hidden for long, so they get a hold of my new machine that had greatly increased the productivity of labour of my workers, and use it themselves so that now everyone is level-pegging, and producing pretty much the same amount of commodities, for the same amount of profit. But now because we're all making much more commodities than we used to, and there's therefore more of this certain commodity in circulation (be it shoes, tomatoes, chairs, lamps etc.), it's value has gone down. Supply has increased relative to demand*, which has stayed the same.

This is a bit complex, so I apologise, but in the simplest terms possible, competing individuals have driven down the average socially necessary labour-time itself needed to make a certain commodity, therefore driving down the aggregate profit rate. (I paraphrased brendanmcooney from Youtube here a bit, but I find it quite complicated). This links directly into the crisis that is happening now, the precursors of which have been lurking around in global capitalism for a good 40 years now. But, that's quite a long explanation too, so I'll do that tomorrow. Hope that was helpful, because it's certainly helped clarify my understanding. :)

*Note that a lot of bourgeois economists will say supply and demand is the only precise determinant of value, ignoring human labour as the root of all value. Supply and demand can effect value, but it is not the only sole cause of fluctuating prices; it's peripheral.

[Stephen Colbert]

I'd like some further reading on this falling rate of profit concept. It's interesting thanks comrade

[the last donut of the night]

I recommend you look into the class background of your friends. If they're rich or middle-class, there is little to no point in trying to argue this to them. As far as they're concerned, capitalism has done wonders for them! I mean, they have nice careers, houses, and lives. It's much easier trying to turn working class people to anti-capitalism because they know something's wrong in the system: they're treated like shit constantly, from birth to death. So it really depends on class, dude.

[Lyev]

I'd like some further reading on this falling rate of profit concept. It's interesting thanks comradeBrendanmcooney of off Youtube is invaluable, not only because of his intelligent insight, but because he's entertaining and relatively easy to understand. These two videos: http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/the-falling-rate-of-profit/ are only 20 minutes combined, so they won't take you long. I usually read along with the text, whilst listening to what he says, so it stays in my mind better. There's also of course volume III of Capital by Marx, and there is this (http://akliman.squarespace.com/storage/Persistent%20Fall%20whole%20primo%2010.17.09.pdf) paper by Andrew Kliman, which I have yet to read properly because of too many confusing formulas and graphs. ZeroNowhere (a user on this sight) was the one who originally recommended to me, so you might want to query him also. I wouldn't at all recommend jumping into it straight away. Start with brendanmcooney though, he's great.

[Stephen Colbert]

I recommend you look into the class background of your friends. If they're rich or middle-class, there is little to no point in trying to argue this to them. As far as they're concerned, capitalism has done wonders for them! I mean, they have nice careers, houses, and lives. It's much easier trying to turn working class people to anti-capitalism because they know something's wrong in the system: they're treated like shit constantly, from birth to death. So it really depends on class, dude.

My housemate is very low class, in fact lower than myself. So yea I agree.

The one I used to love debating with was my insanely wealthy long islander rose tinted glasses hardcore capitalist suitemate. There wasn't any silent or civil debating with him because his life was the American Dream and it wasn't aboiut refuting his libertarian talking points, but rather explaining to him that his fortunes are created on the backs of the many, and the backs of the many have no interest in preserving this system(or at least we should aspire to achieve such a climate where the working class feels this way). Terrified him a bit it did, this notion of democracy and majority rule.

[Lyev]

So we've established that competition between rivals is clearly inherent in a capitalist system. And the way that capitalists outdo each other is that they constantly revolutionise the old means of production, their constant capital, to squeeze out a better productivity of labour from their workers. However in doing so, they drive down the aggregate profit rate. But after persistently re-inventing and renewing their constant capital, there's still another choice for the capitalist class: they can try and get more out of their variable capital, their workers. This is what happened in the 70s, with three main things: (1) outsourcing of labour to third world countries, where it's much labour is a lot cheaper (2) a unprecedented influx of immigrants were invited into rich western economies because, again, their labour is generally cheaper. And (3) people started working much, much harder for less or the same wages. Anyway, this explains it:
Labour was outsourced from the UK, USA, France, Germany, Canada etc. to third world countries where there are little political rights for workers, so the cost of investing in this variable capital is a lot cheaper.

[...]

At the same time as this outsourcing of labour, an unprecedented amount of immigrants (from much poorer countries) were actively encouraged to come to much of the west, as they generally have little rights and will work for much lower wages. I think this can partly account for some nationalist, xenophobic etc. sentiment of the past 40-odd years, because as conditions for many working people in the west have gotten worse, as people have generally worked the hardest they ever have, immigration is an easy scapegoat. This is the basic immigrants-stealing-our-jobs rationale, which is all too common.

So anyway, in order to postpone a worldwide crisis, banks began giving out loans and extending credit like they never had before, so that, in turn, people could carry on buying loads of crap. And this was whilst wages were decreasing or stagnating. As far as I know, this is what we would call the beginnings of a "bubble", as lending increased and carried on throughout the next 30 years till the 2000s. This is what we call "fake money", or something like that I think. It gives people illusions of wealth, when in fact their 34" TV and plush leather sofa has in fact been bought on credit - i.e., not with actual money.Now, as far as I know, the problem and crises occurs when these "credit bubbles" burst, and there's no "real" value in the economy to back them up. I think, but I'm not 100% sure, I'll have to ask someone else on this, or if any wants to help explain, this is what happened with the current worldwide economic crisis. It started with the sub-prime mortgages, and "toxic loans", that couldn't be repaid by anyone. I don't know this last for sure though, I'm going to check with someone else. But, in summary, crisis, which is inherent in capitalist system, means misery and hardship for most working people of the world. Just look at what's going on at the moment: the current austerity measures, along with millions out of employment, riots and general strikes on mainland Europe, *two* highly illegal and wasteful wars in the middle east, governments spending billions on bombs instead of education and healthcare. A lot of ills in the world at the moment are wholly rooted in capitalism.

[Raúl Duke]

"It's obviously the best system. There may be problems with it, but none that warrant any overhaul."There are large structural problems with modern age capitalism, but even if you were relativistic about it ("hey at least it's better than feudalism") there will always be one's own (and one's own class) self-interest to be opposed (or supportive, if you're not in the working class) to aspects of capitalism that personally effect you and people like you.

[M-26-7]

You might go the route of giving them books that explain the current economic crisis from a leftist point of view. Find a good one that explains why crises are inevitable under the conditions of capitalist competition, regulation or no regulation. If they aren't big readers, then you can read the books yourself and give them the gist of it.

It is simply a fact that capitalism is unable of creating sustained, rapid growth. Never in history have stateless markets provided anything close to this, and even regulated markets have failed to sustain growth indefinitely. This really can't be stressed enough, because in the popular mindset, the myth that capitalism can sustain such growth is its strongest ideological prop (well, just behind crude arguments such as "capitalism = freedom", but these are mostly cultural trickle-down from the more intellectual arguments in favor of capitalism).

Suggestions:
-The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences by John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff
-Panic Rules!: Everything You Need to Know about the Global Economy by Robin Hahnel
-The ABCs of the Economic Crisis: What Working People Need to Know by Fred Magdoff and Michael D. Yates
-Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It by Richard Wolff

The Monthly Review also has some good articles on the economic crisis; go to their homepage and click "Global Economic Meltdown" on the left side.

[Lyev]

You might go the route of giving them books that explain the current economic crisis from a leftist point of view. Find a good one that explains why crises are inevitable under the conditions of capitalist competition, regulation or no regulation. If they aren't big readers, then you can read the books yourself and give them the gist of it.

It is simply a fact that capitalism is unable of creating sustained, rapid growth. Never in history have stateless markets provided anything close to this, and even regulated markets have failed to sustain growth indefinitely. This really can't be stressed enough, because in the popular mindset, the myth that capitalism can sustain such growth is its strongest ideological prop (well, just behind crude arguments such as "capitalism = freedom", but these are mostly cultural trickle-down from the more intellectual arguments in favor of capitalism).

Suggestions:
-The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences by John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff
-Panic Rules!: Everything You Need to Know about the Global Economy by Robin Hahnel
-The ABCs of the Economic Crisis: What Working People Need to Know by Fred Magdoff and Michael D. Yates
-Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It by Richard Wolff

The Monthly Review also has some good articles on the economic crisis; go to their homepage and click "Global Economic Meltdown" on the left side.That's what I tried to do in my posts above, but I explained it all rather long-windedly, and my understanding of the crisis on a whole isn't quite complete yet. But, at any rate, suffice to say crisis is inherent in a capitalist mode of production: capitalism, economically, and therefore socially and politically, does not work.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Those points could be overlooked. I mean, feudalism was even more repressive but it did work, at least for a while. A system where new-born children are harvested in farms to be fed to the elite could be very repressive, but its possible.

The large Achilles heel of capitalism is its inability to balance its productive output with the needs of the people and with Earth's carrying capacity.

Capitalism works too.

It works the way it's supposed to work. In favour of a minority.

[dude6935]

Well, as far as I know, this is the fundamental basis underlying the theory of the falling rate of profit. For a minute, pretend I am a capitalist, and that my production is lagging behind all my fellow capitalists in the area, who can produce double the amount of products, with the same amount of labour (variable capital, i.e. workers) as me. To stay in business I need to catch up, so I research new technology, invest in better equipment, tools and machinery (i.e. my constant capital and means of production) and now I can produce double what they can. But, technological advancement won't stay hidden for long, so they get a hold of my new machine that had greatly increased the productivity of labour of my workers, and use it themselves so that now everyone is level-pegging, and producing pretty much the same amount of commodities, for the same amount of profit. But now because we're all making much more commodities than we used to, and there's therefore more of this certain commodity in circulation (be it shoes, tomatoes, chairs, lamps etc.), it's value has gone down. Supply has increased relative to demand*, which has stayed the same.


Why is increasing productivity of labor bad?

If the entire sum of all world labor only produced one loaf of bread, that would be bad, right? But it would be the most valuable loaf of bread ever.

[Martin Blank]

Why is increasing productivity of labor bad?

Increasing productivity means increasing the amount of commodities produced while wages remain as they were. To put it another way, increased productivity really means increased extraction of surplus value (profit), which is an intensification of exploitation and only benefits the owning and managing classes. The working class gets nothing out of increased productivity except a shorter lifespan (due to on-the-job injuries, longer work hours and shorter rest periods, increased unemployment, poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc.) and degraded conditions of living. Often times these days, increased productivity and wage suppression go hand-in-hand, meaning that workers are producing more and receiving less, which only increases the likelihood of the problems mentioned above.

[Dumb]

Whenever I'm in a conversation with liberals, I always ask them this: "If capitalism really is a workable system, as long as it's regulated and whatnot, then how do you account for the crisis of the 1970s? The Keynesian postwar settlement had been in place for thirty years or more throughout the western world at that point, and yet that couldn't prevent years upon years of suffering, unemployment, and crippling inflation." (Correct me if I have any details wrong, please).

I find that inquiry more effective than pointing out the 1930s or the current crisis, since most American liberals believe (and with considerable evidence to support them) that both crises were a product of the right wing. That excuse doesn't exist, however, in the case of the 1970s. In that case, Keynesians had just about everything they wanted, and yet capitalism still rolled up into a fetal position for damn near a decade.

The best rebuttal I've faced so far has been to point out the natural business cycle within capitalism - but then again, capitalism is the first economic system to create artificial "good times" and "bad times" of its own volition. Before then, it used to be that a good year was when the weather granted you a large harvest, and a bad year was when all your plants froze or a plague came and killed off all your cows.

[ZeroNowhere]

[Edit: Wow, this was a bit late. I think that I may have mistaken this old thread for a newer one which is on more or less the exact same topic. Lyev may well know all of the following anyway by now, and probably does. Still, it may be helpful for other people, so why not.]


Well, as far as I know, this is the fundamental basis underlying the theory of the falling rate of profit. For a minute, pretend I am a capitalist, and that my production is lagging behind all my fellow capitalists in the area, who can produce double the amount of products, with the same amount of labour (variable capital, i.e. workers) as me. To stay in business I need to catch up, so I research new technology, invest in better equipment, tools and machinery (i.e. my constant capital and means of production) and now I can produce double what they can. But, technological advancement won't stay hidden for long, so they get a hold of my new machine that had greatly increased the productivity of labour of my workers, and use it themselves so that now everyone is level-pegging, and producing pretty much the same amount of commodities, for the same amount of profit. But now because we're all making much more commodities than we used to, and there's therefore more of this certain commodity in circulation (be it shoes, tomatoes, chairs, lamps etc.), it's value has gone down. Supply has increased relative to demand*, which has stayed the same.

This is a bit complex, so I apologise, but in the simplest terms possible, competing individuals have driven down the average socially necessary labour-time itself needed to make a certain commodity, therefore driving down the aggregate profit rate. (I paraphrased brendanmcooney from Youtube here a bit, but I find it quite complicated). [/FONT]

This isn't entirely correct. I had made a similar point in response to Broletariat in their read-through of Capital, so we can begin with that:



Marx uses an example in his text to demonstrate something about value, that is production capabilities go up so that it takes half the time to produce a commodity, the commodity becomes worth half as much, this is because less human-labour time is needed. This is also known as the falling rate of profit tendency. As things become more and more automated, less labour is needed and thus value and profit drop.

This is not the tendency of the rate of profit to fall; technically, this tendency is brought up implicitly in the chapters on the progress of accumulation and the formation of the reserve army in the first volume of Capital, but the necessary basis of understanding required to explain it is lacking in the first chapter. The falling rate of profit originates not as a result of increased productivity per se, but rather due to a rising composition of capital, an increase in constant capital relative to variable, categories which are not yet introduced in the first chapter and which only makes sense given the later analysis of capital; it is not something inherent to commodities per se, but rather to capitalist production.

After all, the fact that an individual commodity contains less value due to increased productivity simply expresses the fact that more of these commodities can be produced in the same time period, but so long as the same amount of labour is hired the total value produced will not decrease. There is no reason for profits to decrease simply because of this; if wages do not alter, the same amount of labour can be hired at the same cost, and will produce the same amount of surplus-value, so this in itself can hardly lead to a fall in the rate of profit. In actual fact, due to accumulation the mass of profit tends to increase during periods of prosperity, as capital expands and in fact increases the amount of labour-hours hired, and hence the mass of value and thus surplus-value produced.

The issue rather comes with the limit to the amount of labour which may be hired, which is represented on the one hand by the quantity of money capital on hand to invest, and on the other hand the amount of expenditure necessary to purchase the means of production (raw materials and machines) required for this labour to function. All that increasing productivity does in the form in which you examine it here is decrease the value represented by a single commodity-unit, but only because more such units can be produced in the same time.

Now, increased productivity generally entails an increase in raw material relative to workers, as the workers are able to process more raw material in a given amount of time (for example, to create twice as many cars one needs more raw materials, but not necessarily more workers if productivity increases). An increase in the amount of machinery relative to workers is also likely. The general consequence of this is an increase of constant capital relative to variable capital. As Marx says:


"Let us assume, that some invention enables the spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he was able to spin before in 36 hours. His labour is now six times as effective as it was, for the purposes of useful production. The product of 6 hours’ work has increased six-fold, from 6 lbs. to 36 lbs. But now the 36 lbs. of cotton absorb only the same amount of labour as formerly did the 6 lbs. One-sixth as much new labour is absorbed by each pound of cotton, and consequently, the value added by the labour to each pound is only one-sixth of what it formerly was. On the other hand, in the product, in the 36 lbs. of yarn, the value transferred from the cotton is six times as great as before. By the 6 hours’ spinning, the value of the raw material preserved and transferred to the product is six times as great as before, although the new value added by the labour of the spinner to each pound of the very same raw material is one-sixth what it was formerly. This shows that the two properties of labour, by virtue of which it is enabled in one case to preserve value, and in the other to create value, are essentially different. On the one hand, the longer the time necessary to spin a given weight of cotton into yarn, the greater is the new value added to the material; on the other hand, the greater the weight of the cotton spun in a given time, the greater is the value preserved, by being transferred from it to the product."(quote discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/having-trouble-paragraph-t156578/index.html?t=156578))

Now, the capitalist has a certain amount of capital which he, she or it may invest. Let's assume that this is made up of $100, and at first divided equally so that $50 is spent on workers, hence being variable capital, and $50 on means of production, or constant capital. The ratio of constant capital to variable capital here is $1:$1. We can say that the wages for 1 worker are $1. However, let's say that this ratio were to increase to $3:$1 while wages remain the same; in other words, for each worker ($1) hired, $3 must be spent on constant capital. In that case, what would happen if the amount of capital remains constant, on $100, is that this $100 must now be divided into $75 constant capital and $25 variable capital. In other words, only 25 workers may now be hired by the same capital. As such, 25 would be repelled. We may call this the 'repulsive' force of accumulation, whereby the amount of labourers decreases relatively, and hence capital repels the labourers. The result of this is also that the amount of labour-time hired decreases. (This would apply even if we are to disregard wages and pretend that all of the capital is constant capital; if, say, $50 were to be expended on constant capital, it could now hire less labourers than previously).

Against this force we have an attractive force, namely the use of profits for accumulation. If $300 more were to be invested in the above example, the total capital would be $400, divided between $300 constant capital and $100 variable capital. In other words, the number of labourers hired would double, rather than halving, and hence labourers would be attracted, despite the repulsive force (which still exists, but is not manifested in an absolute repulsion of labour). However, this attractive force does not live in harmony with the repulsive one, precisely because ultimately the profits which can be accumulated are dependent upon the amount of surplus-labour performed, which is dependent upon the amount of labourers hired.

Let us say that the rate of surplus-value remains constant; that is, both daily wages and the length of the working day remain equal. As such, for 1 worker the same amount of surplus-value is produced in a day, let's say $1 (giving a rate of surplus-value of 100%). In that case, in the first case, with a capital of $100 divided equally between constant and variable capital, we have 50 workers and hence $50 in surplus-value; this may not all be realized by the capitalist who hires the worker, due to the distribution of surplus-value as a result of the tendency towards prices of production, but nonetheless it will exist as profit for the total social capital. This means that we have a capital of $100 and a profit of $50, hence a rate of profit of 50% (ie. profits = 50% of capital). However, let's take the case with the $400 capital. Here, we hire 100 labourers, hence deriving a surplus-value of $100 on the social level. However, this means that we here have a capital of $400 and a surplus-value of $100, giving a rate of profit of 25%. The falling rate of profit expresses a relative decline in living labour-time hired relative to the labour-time represented by the constant capital, in other words the repulsive force.

Of course, this falling rate of profit alone need not lead to a decline in the mass of profit immediately, insofar as more capital may be invested. However, the mass of profit may only be increased given a sufficient rate of accumulation. In the above example, we have already seen that with $100 in capital the amount of labourers hired must decrease to $25's worth, ie. 25 labourers. In order to retain the same amount of labourers, 50, the total capital must be increased to $200 (giving a ratio $150:$50), and hence $100 must be accumulated. This gives us a rate of accumulation of 100% ($100 must be accumulated off a capital of $100). If the amount of labour hired is to increase, then the rate of accumulation must be greater than 100%. However, the rate of accumulation is ultimately dependent upon the rate of profit. Therein lies the general issue.

It is also worth noting that, as capital progresses, the ratio of means of production to labourers increases in a secular rather than cyclical manner, although it is manifested in cyclical crises (one could say that, in a sense, crises spiral rather than being simply cyclical, although of course this is also affected by external causes and only applies as a general tendency which may be affected in its functioning by wars, the expansion of foreign trade and so on). Of course, things can be extended artificially by credit relations and such, but ultimately this is only effective insofar as it represents real value produced and the social capital, and otherwise creates a superstructure prone to collapse in a way that makes everyone look silly.

The issue is covered very well by Grossman in 'The Law of Accumulation...', if any of you can read Spanish or German (I don't know how many other languages it's translated into fully, but it was written in German and I read it in Spanish, so at least those two should be fairly certain.) He also goes into quite some detail on the relationship between credit, speculation and such and the crisis tendency, as well as foreign relations, imperialism and so on.

[piet11111]

in such arguments its better to keep your answers short.

Just talk how iceland bailing out its banks bankrupted the country and that now the people have to pay the bill.

Capitalism is ruining greece as we speak and under capitalism there is no way out clearly socialism is the only way out without destroying the working class living standards.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Tell them America is the biggest superpower in the world, the most democratic and free country. When they nod and agree enthusiastically, ask the following:

How many people in the US have no healthcare coverage?
What percentage of children are born into relative poverty?
How's New Orleans looking these days? And Flint, Michigan? And many other forgotten towns.

How is it that Cuba, a poor, fairly backwards, third world country, has comparable non-material living standards to the supposedly most powerful, democratic and free nation in the world? Is it because of better organisation of scarce resources, capital, labour and land?

If they aren't at least a bit receptive by then, then they'll never be. Bourgeois *****. :rolleyes:

[piet11111]

Tell them America is the biggest superpower in the world, the most democratic and free country. When they nod and agree enthusiastically, ask the following:

How many people in the US have no healthcare coverage?
What percentage of children are born into relative poverty?
How's New Orleans looking these days? And Flint, Michigan? And many other forgotten towns.

How is it that Cuba, a poor, fairly backwards, third world country, has comparable non-material living standards to the supposedly most powerful, democratic and free nation in the world? Is it because of better organisation of scarce resources, capital, labour and land?

If they aren't at least a bit receptive by then, then they'll never be. Bourgeois *****. :rolleyes:

Highest % of population in prison ,highest crime rate ,highest carbon emissions ,world leader in divorce rates and teen birth rates.

[dude6935]

Increasing productivity means increasing the amount of commodities produced while wages remain as they were. To put it another way, increased productivity really means increased extraction of surplus value (profit), which is an intensification of exploitation and only benefits the owning and managing classes. The working class gets nothing out of increased productivity except a shorter lifespan (due to on-the-job injuries, longer work hours and shorter rest periods, increased unemployment, poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc.) and degraded conditions of living. Often times these days, increased productivity and wage suppression go hand-in-hand, meaning that workers are producing more and receiving less, which only increases the likelihood of the problems mentioned above.

So then we should strive to lower productivity as much as possible. Fewer goods mean higher wages and a better standard of living. If the sum of all human labor only produces one loaf of bread, think how high wages would be and how expensive the bread would be.

Productivity is not the problem. Productivity can increase while wages increase. That is what unions are for, to demand a greater share of their members' productivity. The higher a person's productivity is, the greater potential he has for paid wages. That is why people want to work for productive companies. So they can employ the company's vast capital in order to make their own labor more productive. That productivity enables works to demand a high wage.

Even in a communist system, greater productivity is the goal. Higher productivity means more food, more leisure time, and more luxury items.

[Yazman]

Thanks comrades

While I understand the good-natured context of this post, you're not allowed to make posts like this one-liners, "thanks posts", etc). Simply use the "thanks" button if you wish to thank a user in future. Because you're relatively new I'll let you off without a warning, but try not to do it again please.

[Q]

While I understand the good-natured context of this post, you're not allowed to make posts like this one-liners, "thanks posts", etc). Simply use the "thanks" button if you wish to thank a user in future. Because you're relatively new I'll let you off without a warning, but try not to do it again please.

I do note that this particular post was made almost a year ago and the user in question hasn't been active since last December.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Everything, does that count? ;)

[Martin Blank]

So then we should strive to lower productivity as much as possible. Fewer goods mean higher wages and a better standard of living. If the sum of all human labor only produces one loaf of bread, think how high wages would be and how expensive the bread would be.

Productivity is not the problem. Productivity can increase while wages increase. That is what unions are for, to demand a greater share of their members' productivity. The higher a person's productivity is, the greater potential he has for paid wages. That is why people want to work for productive companies. So they can employ the company's vast capital in order to make their own labor more productive. That productivity enables works to demand a high wage.

Even in a communist system, greater productivity is the goal. Higher productivity means more food, more leisure time, and more luxury items.

Productivity is not based on the entire able workforce, but on those who are working. That's why, even though the American economy is still on the skids, productivity is rising: the smaller employed workforce is producing the same amount of finished commodities (or more) than before the mass layoffs. On top of this, many commodities being made today are being overproduced (or, more to the point, underconsumed), which leads to more layoffs and an intensification of productivity, since there is usually no reduction in production levels until it's too late.

A communist society seeks to put everyone back to work, while at the same time planning out production to meet the needs of all of society. This will naturally mean a fall in productivity, since you will have more people working to create either the same amount or less of the commodities everyone needs. Because planning will be implemented in production, it will be possible to determine, using a little bit of math and accounting, exactly how long someone will have to work in order to pay for their upkeep over a lifetime. The determination of this socially-necessary labor-time will make it possible for someone to receive all of the commodities they need to live a decent life (I might go farther and say an "affluent-equivalent" life), without the clumsy and useless intermediary of money. With everyone able to work according to a plan that meets the needs of everyone, work hours can be shortened (another factor that cuts productivity) and the amount of time someone has to work over their lifespan can also be shorter.

The point here is that it's not a goal of a communist society to raise productivity, but to determine a level that meets the needs of society. Looking at the economy today, I would say that this communist productivity level would naturally be lower than capitalist levels, even though it would be production for a society of abundance, since it would involve all those who can work (including the dispossessed bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie) and not be subject to overproduction.

[Yazman]

I do note that this particular post was made almost a year ago and the user in question hasn't been active since last December.

:ohmy:Holy fucking shitballs!:ohmy: I just noticed there's some serious thread necromancy at play here. Thank you very much for posting this Q, I didn't bother to look at the dates so I just assumed it was current.

Disregard my last post entirely then. lol

[dude6935]

Productivity is not based on the entire able workforce, but on those who are working. That's why, even though the American economy is still on the skids, productivity is rising: the smaller employed workforce is producing the same amount of finished commodities (or more) than before the mass layoffs. On top of this, many commodities being made today are being overproduced (or, more to the point, underconsumed), which leads to more layoffs and an intensification of productivity, since there is usually no reduction in production levels until it's too late.

A communist society seeks to put everyone back to work, while at the same time planning out production to meet the needs of all of society. This will naturally mean a fall in productivity, since you will have more people working to create either the same amount or less of the commodities everyone needs. Because planning will be implemented in production, it will be possible to determine, using a little bit of math and accounting, exactly how long someone will have to work in order to pay for their upkeep over a lifetime. The determination of this socially-necessary labor-time will make it possible for someone to receive all of the commodities they need to live a decent life (I might go farther and say an "affluent-equivalent" life), without the clumsy and useless intermediary of money. With everyone able to work according to a plan that meets the needs of everyone, work hours can be shortened (another factor that cuts productivity) and the amount of time someone has to work over their lifespan can also be shorter.

The point here is that it's not a goal of a communist society to raise productivity, but to determine a level that meets the needs of society. Looking at the economy today, I would say that this communist productivity level would naturally be lower than capitalist levels, even though it would be production for a society of abundance, since it would involve all those who can work (including the dispossessed bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie) and not be subject to overproduction.

But what are the needs of society? People can't live "affuent-equivalent" lives if only their needs are met. People have wants too. You can't have it both ways. What defines the desired level of production?

Adding workers increases productivity unless new workers have negative productivity. High unemployment means lower productivity and a lower average standard of living. If there were only one person in the world working,
productivity would be incredibly low unless he had superhuman productivity.

Capitalism tends to employ all able workers. Minimum wage laws, immigration restrictions, and unemployment insurance create unemployment. If you must work to live, you will work.

Will workers receive a lower standard of living if world GDP per capita is less than their current wage? According to Google, that is less than 9,000 dollars US. So virtually all Americans and Europeans will suffer economically from communism, regardless of class. Productivity would have to increase or living conditions in the most productive areas of the world will have to deteriorate significantly to equate with living conditions in Africa, for example.