One Major Flaw in Capitalist Thinking

[Die Rote Fahne]

Another major flaw that needs to be noted is the idea that people who work in a specialized field do so, not because they want to do what they do, but because they want to make money.

This is a major flaw I've seen spewed from the capitalists I've encountered. However, they don't understand that people work certain jobs for certain reasons: they have to, they want to, they make money, and a mixture of those. It depends on what they are pressured to do, they can afford to do, they want to do, they are able to do etc.

But the majority of those who work in specialized fields: doctor, nuclear engineer, computer programmer, lawyer, teacher, marine biologist etc. do it because it's what they enjoy doing and are interested in that field, not because they want to make a lot of money.

Many people who want to be doctors because they want to help people, can't, because of economic positions. Capitalists cannot comprehend this idea.

What should i expect? A capitalist sees what he wants to see. And he sees society based on greed because he is greedy. He sees people want to be doctors to make money because that's the only reason he would become one.

[Rafiq]

Well said..

[Comrade Anarchist]

I don't see how this is a major flaw of capitalism. What your telling me is that people who want to be doctors b/c they care about people can't always be doctors b/c they can't afford to be. Well they could work hard in high school and then getting in to college will be easy and they can pay for it via scholarships or loans. If someone wants to be something they only need work hard and they will more than likely have the ability to reach their dream. A poor kid can become a doctor all he need do is work hard. And people don't go into a career to get rich, well some do but most don't, money is just an incentive to do better within one's career.

[RGacky3]

What your telling me is that people who want to be doctors b/c they care about people can't always be doctors b/c they can't afford to be.

No thats not what his point was, although that point is true, your not addressing what he was saying, read the post first, understand it, then respond.


And people don't go into a career to get rich, well some do but most don't, money is just an incentive to do better within one's career.

Its not black and white, very few people get into finance who don't want to get rich, many people get into medicine for other reasons. That was his point.

But the capitalist argument is that money is the ONLY motivating factor behind work, (its the old incentive argument).

[Who?]

I don't see how this is a major flaw of capitalism. What your telling me is that people who want to be doctors b/c they care about people can't always be doctors b/c they can't afford to be. Well they could work hard in high school and then getting in to college will be easy and they can pay for it via scholarships or loans.

Bro, when you're born into poverty and attend underfunded schools with crap teachers it's not so easy to work hard and win your fancy scholarships. The poor have far less opportunities than the upper and middle classes and if you think otherwise, you are a fool. Maybe you should think about how difficult it is to compete when the quality of education is so poor.


If someone wants to be something they only need work hard and they will more than likely have the ability to reach their dream. A poor kid can become a doctor all he need do is work hard. And people don't go into a career to get rich, well some do but most don't, money is just an incentive to do better within one's career.

The primary motivation in a capitalist society is money, at least in the field of finance. There are other factors involved with other professions but making money is still usually a huge priority (for the capitalist).

Capitalism in a nutshell:



· The motivation is greed, selfishness, and personal gain.
· The underlying principle is competitive survival of the fittest:
- without care for its adverse affects on others,
- without care for its adverse affects on the society in general.
- without care for its adverse affects on the environment and our planet.
· The economy operates as a wasteful and inefficient “market economy”.
· The system produces
- crime, corruption, and injustice
- along with extensive poverty and suffering.
· The system concentrates wealth in a minute portion of the population.

[Dean]

I don't see how this is a major flaw of capitalism. What your telling me is that people who want to be doctors b/c they care about people can't always be doctors b/c they can't afford to be. Well they could work hard in high school and then getting in to college will be easy and they can pay for it via scholarships or loans. If someone wants to be something they only need work hard and they will more than likely have the ability to reach their dream. A poor kid can become a doctor all he need do is work hard. And people don't go into a career to get rich, well some do but most don't, money is just an incentive to do better within one's career.

No, money is an incentive to serve the interests of those with money, be they more or less productive.

[Thug Lessons]

I don't see how this is a major flaw of capitalism. What your telling me is that people who want to be doctors b/c they care about people can't always be doctors b/c they can't afford to be. Well they could work hard in high school and then getting in to college will be easy and they can pay for it via scholarships or loans. If someone wants to be something they only need work hard and they will more than likely have the ability to reach their dream. A poor kid can become a doctor all he need do is work hard. And people don't go into a career to get rich, well some do but most don't, money is just an incentive to do better within one's career.
The absurd thing about this is that it places the responsibility to achieve financial success on children and teenagers. Maybe we shouldn't determine the course of a person's life by how they acted during a period where society agrees they're too immature, inexperienced and uninformed to make their own decisions. Just a thought.

[#FF0000]

The absurd thing about this is that it places the responsibility to achieve financial success on children and teenagers

It's even more absurd when one considers the fact that children and teenagers are far from rational actors, and people making rational decisions is what all of modern libertarian nonsense deals with. It falls apart, otherwise.

[Thug Lessons]

It's even more absurd when one considers the fact that children and teenagers are far from rational actors, and people making rational decisions is what all of modern libertarian nonsense deals with. It falls apart, otherwise.
Yeah, that's basically where I was going with that. Libertarian ideology makes no logical sense because it relies on nonsense like this, not to mention all the praxeology bullshit the underlies its economic theory. I guess that's why it's been roundly rejected throughout history but everyone but a small group of clueless academics and a few scattered pseudo-intellectuals with fantasies of joining the ruling class.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, that's basically where I was going with that. Libertarian ideology makes no logical sense because it relies on nonsense like this, not to mention all the praxeology bullshit the underlies its economic theory. I guess that's why it's been roundly rejected throughout history but everyone but a small group of clueless academics and a few scattered pseudo-intellectuals with fantasies of joining the ruling class.

I don't even think they've got that much support. The only serious academic or philosopher that promoted Libertarianism that I can think of is Robert Nozick (I think), who has been so discredited that even he doesn't defend his work anymore.

[Thug Lessons]

I don't even think they've got that much support. The only serious academic or philosopher that promoted Libertarianism that I can think of is Robert Nozick (I think), who has been so discredited that even he doesn't defend his work anymore.
Isn't the Cato Institute associated with libertarianism? Not that they're taken that seriously in academic circles, but they are something of a intellectual center for the conservative movement.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't see how this is a major flaw of capitalism. What your telling me is that people who want to be doctors b/c they care about people can't always be doctors b/c they can't afford to be. Well they could work hard in high school and then getting in to college will be easy and they can pay for it via scholarships or loans. If someone wants to be something they only need work hard and they will more than likely have the ability to reach their dream. A poor kid can become a doctor all he need do is work hard. And people don't go into a career to get rich, well some do but most don't, money is just an incentive to do better within one's career.

It's a flawed argument used by capitalists. The idea that money is the incentive/main motivation. It rarely ever is, unless you become a business owner and work your way to the bourgeois class.

Yes, you can work hard and become a doctor. Even those in poor economic status. But that is only a small percentage of the time. I'm sorry friend, the American dream is a god damned fallacy.

[Who?]

It's a flawed argument used by capitalists. The idea that money is the incentive/main motivation. It rarely ever is, unless you become a business owner and work your way to the bourgeois class.

Yes, you can work hard and become a doctor. Even those in poor economic status. But that is only a small percentage of the time. I'm sorry friend, the American dream is a god damned fallacy.

True.

Money is the primary motivation for those on Wall Street and that's about it.

Although being that we live in a capitalist society money is still relevant to just about everyone and is a factor that we currently have to live with. Most doctors, engineers, scientists, artists, etc. may not be motivated by money but when picking where to work it is usually considered. However those people would prosper more so in a socialist society where they can focus on their work instead of their bills and won't have the burdens of exploitation and fatigue.

On a side note I apologize for my incoherent post above, I was being rushed, there was someone at the door.

[Skooma Addict]

Another major flaw that needs to be noted is the idea that people who work in a specialized field do so, not because they want to do what they do, but because they want to make money.The title of this thread is extremely misleading. This is not a major flaw in capitalist thinking. This is a minor flaw committed by some supporters of capitalism. I personally have never met one supporter of capitalism who believed this in my entire life.


This is a major flaw I've seen spewed from the capitalists I've encountered. However, they don't understand that people work certain jobs for certain reasons: they have to, they want to, they make money, and a mixture of those. It depends on what they are pressured to do, they can afford to do, they want to do, they are able to do etc.Pretty much every supporter of capitalism knows this. Regardless, this is not some kind of error which would discredit capitalism or anything. This is just a small minor error.


Many people who want to be doctors because they want to help people, can't, because of economic positions. Capitalists cannot comprehend this idea.Right, and some people can't because they aren't smart enough.


But the capitalist argument is that money is the ONLY motivating factor behind work, (its the old incentive argument). This is not "the capitalist argument."


Libertarian ideology makes no logical sense because it relies on nonsense like this, not to mention all the praxeology bullshit the underlies its economic theory. I guess that's why it's been roundly rejected throughout history but everyone but a small group of clueless academics and a few scattered pseudo-intellectuals with fantasies of joining the ruling class.You are spouting regurgitated nonsense which you heard in the echo chamber. There is no "libertarian economic theory." One can certainly be a libertarian (or an Austrian) while rejecting praxeology.


I don't even think they've got that much support. The only serious academic or philosopher that promoted Libertarianism that I can think of is Robert Nozick (I think), who has been so discredited that even he doesn't defend his work anymore. Well first of all Robert Nozick is dead. Also, the fact that you personally can't think of any other serious academic libertarians is completely meaningless.


Money is the primary motivation for those on Wall Street and that's about it.How do you know this?

[#FF0000]

Well first of all Robert Nozick is dead. Also, the fact that you personally can't think of any other serious academic libertarians is completely meaningless.

Yeah I know.

But if you could name a single person with any sort of weight that actually advocates Austrian economics (or Objectivism while we're at it cause I'm genuinely at a loss) that'd be cool. I'm actually seriously asking.

[Skooma Addict]

Yeah I know.

But if you could name a single person with any sort of weight that actually advocates Austrian economics (or Objectivism while we're at it cause I'm genuinely at a loss) that'd be cool. I'm actually seriously asking.

Well since you mentioned Nozick I assume they don't need to be living. So Hayek, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Boettke, De Soto, Lachmann, and Kirzner to name some.

[#FF0000]

Well since you mentioned Nozick I assume they don't need to be living. So Hayek, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Boettke, De Soto, Lachmann, and Kirzner to name some.

Let's limit it to the last two decades or so since Nozick died in 2002. I'm really more concerned about living ones, though, since I can't think of any that exist.

[Who?]

How do you know this?

I wasn't being entirely literal; Wall Street traders are motivated by money because that's what their existence is based on.

If you look here (http://bigthink.com/ideas/21237) you will see that money isn't the prime motivator behind doctors, socialist Cuba has the lowest patient per doctor ratio in the world. This applies to most professions where you’re working for the benefit of society instead of for the benefit of yourself, the argument that money is the primary motivator for these people is a myth perpetuated by the capitalist media.

[Bud Struggle]

I
If you look here (http://bigthink.com/ideas/21237) you will see that money isn't the prime motivator behind doctors, socialist Cuba has the lowest patient per doctor ratio in the world.


Of course, when Castro needs a doctor:

However, on December 24, 2006, Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya reported that Spanish surgeon José Luis García Sabrido had been flown to Cuba on a plane chartered by the Cuban government. Dr. García Sabrido is an intestinal expert who further specializes in the treatment of cancer....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Speculation_on_illness_1998-2005

[Skooma Addict]

Let's limit it to the last two decades or so since Nozick died in 2002. I'm really more concerned about living ones, though, since I can't think of any that exist.

Alright. Boettke, Kirzner, De Soto

[Who?]

Of course, when Castro needs a doctor:

However, on December 24, 2006, Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya reported that Spanish surgeon José Luis García Sabrido had been flown to Cuba on a plane chartered by the Cuban government. Dr. García Sabrido is an intestinal expert who further specializes in the treatment of cancer....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Speculation_on_illness_1998-2005

Castro called in a doctor from another country, big deal. I remember a while back a Canadian premier went to Amerika for treatment, smaller countries, like Cuba, don't always have first tier specialists in some fields. That one report does not discredit the incredible ratio of doctors to patients.

[Bud Struggle]

That one report does not discredit the incredible ratio of doctors to patients.

You are right, it doesn't.

[IcarusAngel]

There are no famous "Austrian economists" anymore and GMU is a public university whose funding comes from the Koch Foundation, which is a think tank.

Wicksell can be seen as the predecessor to Keynesian economics as he believed equilibrium could hardly ever occur (just as Keynes, who felt markets were inherently unstable). Irving Fisher was one of the founders of monetarism a rather static view of the economy. These two disagreed. So there is one school of thought that comes from the Wicksell toolbox and another that goes from Fisher to Chicago University to hardcore neo-classicals, such as Milton Friedman (whose overrated and only wrote about 3 or 4 books, in contrast to Mydral who wrote dozens).

The Austrian school was basically passé after 1918 and had little influence in Austria after that time. In fact they all left the country in the 1930s and the Austrian government did not adopt their policies:

"I can't resist telling you that when the Vienna Economics Institute celebrated its centennial, many years ago, they invited, as their keynote speaker, my father [John Kenneth Galbraith]. The leading economists of the Austrian school-- including von Hayek and von Haberler -- returned for the occasion. And so my father took a moment to reflect on the economic triumphs of the Austrian Republic since the war, which, he said, "would not have been possible without the contribution of these men." They nodded -- briefly -- until it dawned on them what he meant. They'd all left the country in the 1930s.
James K. Galbraith "

There was two austrians that were sort of influential but they were not what would be called Austrians today: Rudolf Hilferding and Schumpeter. Schumpeter was closer to the historical school and Hilferding wrote the book "The Finance Capital" which was probably the first good look at banks, monopolies etc. and was a social democrat. And then there were a few economists such as Menger who accused Schmoller, who was a conservative, of being a socialist etc. So they were confused economists even then but by Mises time they were cranks and Mises book is nothing more than a series of invectives.

So you can skip over that period of the "Austrian generation" (the mises period) and just focus on the historical Austrians and ignore the rest and be caught up with modern economics. Stiglitz even completely ignores the "contributions" of Mises in his analysis of market socialism.

The "Austrian school" is kept alive by a few people at the Mises institute in the same way that there is still a Flat Earth society or astrology socieites.

And by the way, 3 to 10 people is not that many and they are not groundbreaking researchers. In fact, creationism has more biologists than Austrians have economists - some good ones too such as Michael Behe and some intelligent philosophers/scientists such as Berlinski. Maybe Dembski, and widespread support among retired or arm-chair scientists.

[IcarusAngel]

Also, as for the Ayn Rand cult, their main influence was in the "self-esteem" movement. Any American kid who grew up in the late 80s early 90s was familiar with this. I certainly remember it.

However, modern psychology has conclusively proven that there is no link between self-esteem and education and in fact self-esteem produces no positive effect in education. So they're done as well.

[Skooma Addict]

There are no famous "Austrian economists" anymore and GMU is a public university whose funding comes from the Koch Foundation, which is a think tank.Idk what you consider to be a "famous economist." Nor do I really care to tell you the truth. However, there are Austrian economists who are academically respected and very well known.


Wicksell can be seen as the predecessor to Keynesian economics as he believed equilibrium could hardly ever occur (just as Keynes, who felt markets were inherently unstable). Irving Fisher was one of the founders of monetarism a rather static view of the economy. These two disagreed. So there is one school of thought that comes from the Wicksell toolbox and another that goes from Fisher to Chicago University to hardcore neo-classicals, such as Milton Friedman (whose overrated and only wrote about 3 or 4 books, in contrast to Mydral who wrote dozens).Not sure what the purpose of this pointless rant was. How can you say Friedman is overrated? What have you read by him?


The Austrian school was basically passé after 1918 and had little influence in Austria after that time. In fact they all left the country in the 1930s and the Austrian government did not adopt their policies:

"I can't resist telling you that when the Vienna Economics Institute celebrated its centennial, many years ago, they invited, as their keynote speaker, my father [John Kenneth Galbraith]. The leading economists of the Austrian school-- including von Hayek and von Haberler -- returned for the occasion. And so my father took a moment to reflect on the economic triumphs of the Austrian Republic since the war, which, he said, "would not have been possible without the contribution of these men." They nodded -- briefly -- until it dawned on them what he meant. They'd all left the country in the 1930s.
James K. Galbraith "Yea, Hayek had no effect on the econ profession. He didn't win a Nobel prize or anything. Also, what policies specifically are you referring to, and explain exactly what problems they caused and why.



There was two austrians that were sort of influential but they were not what would be called Austrians today: Rudolf Hilferding and Schumpeter. Schumpeter was closer to the historical school and Hilferding wrote the book "The Finance Capital" which was probably the first good look at banks, monopolies etc. and was a social democrat. And then there were a few economists such as Menger who accused Schmoller, who was a conservative, of being a socialist etc. So they were confused economists even then but by Mises time they were cranks and Mises book is nothing more than a series of invectives. Hayek and Kirzner were both influential. Are you misinformed or are you purposely lying?

Also, Mises was a distinguished fellow of the AEA.


So you can skip over that period of the "Austrian generation" (the mises period) and just focus on the historical Austrians and ignore the rest and be caught up with modern economics.Many people will, as they enjoy spending their time with you in the echo chamber.


The "Austrian school" is kept alive by a few people at the Mises institute in the same way that there is still a Flat Earth society or astrology socieites.Again, are you just misinformed or are you just purposely lying?

[RGacky3]

Of course, when Castro needs a doctor:

However, on December 24, 2006, Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya reported that Spanish surgeon José Luis García Sabrido had been flown to Cuba on a plane chartered by the Cuban government. Dr. García Sabrido is an intestinal expert who further specializes in the treatment of cancer....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_C...ness_1998-2005 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Speculation_on_illness_1998-2005)
__________________

That does'nt show anything, just because cuba has a great healthcare system, does'nt mean they have the BEST doctors for EVERY type of sickness possible, btw, spain has public healthcare.

[Bud Struggle]

That does'nt show anything, just because cuba has a great healthcare system, does'nt mean they have the BEST doctors for EVERY type of sickness possible, btw, spain has public healthcare. It's just funny. I was just pointing out that maybe the quantity of the doctors don't matter as much as the quality.

[#FF0000]

It's just funny. I was just pointing out that maybe the quantity of the doctors don't matter as much as the quality.

Having a lot of really excellent and resourceful general practice doctors doesn't mean they're good at specialized cancer stuff. It's the specialization really.

[RGacky3]

I was just pointing out that maybe the quantity of the doctors don't matter as much as the quality.

No, but the national health indicators, such as mortality, child mortality and so on do.

[Bud Struggle]

Having a lot of really excellent and resourceful general practice doctors doesn't mean they're good at specialized cancer stuff. It's the specialization really.


No, but the national health indicators, such as mortality, child mortality and so on do.

My comment was just meant as a gentle little poke in some Communist ribs. :cool:

And FWIW I would suspect that the real reason for Castro consulting with a foreign doctor--and I asked an oncologist golfing buddy of mine--is the vast amounts of expensive equipment needed to find and treat cancer. He doubted if Cuba had any of that available.

[anticap]

It's a flawed argument used by capitalists. The idea that money is the incentive/main motivation.

Flawed indeed. Not only that, but the idea that workers are motivated to "work hard" by the promise of realizing a share of the profit is patent nonsense, because that's not how capitalism works.

The capitalist pays the worker the market value of her commodified labor-power, and takes the product of her labor out onto the market to realize his profit. The worker is paid a wage, not a percentage. There is no link between the worker and the profit motive.

[RGacky3]

My comment was just meant as a gentle little poke in some Communist ribs. :cool:

And FWIW I would suspect that the real reason for Castro consulting with a foreign doctor--and I asked an oncologist golfing buddy of mine--is the vast amounts of expensive equipment needed to find and treat cancer. He doubted if Cuba had any of that available.

If you wnat to have a serious discussion make serious points, not little strawmen "jabs".

Also, I think the UN would know better than your buddy.

[Kayser_Soso]

The problem is the title of the thread. There are dozens of major flaws in capitalist thinking. It probably has more contradictions than any other historical mode of production.

[CommunityBeliever]

Money is the primary motivation for those on Wall StreetThis here is one major flaw in capitalism, there is very few people that can even afford a college education, and a large chunk of the ones that do go off to wall street to steal from the proletariat rather then living productive lives.


If someone wants to be something they only need work hard and they will more than likely have the ability to reach their dream.Today there were 4000 children that were too lazy to accomplish their dream of getting clean drinking water.


Well they could work hard in high school and then getting in to college will be easy and they can pay for it via scholarships or loans.

Fuck that elitist free will bullshit. It is a supreme insult to imply that those people are poor just because they are too lazy.

Elite scum use that BS to look down on poor and suffering people and to blame them for their problems.

Fact: Capitalism ≠ HardWorkism and Capitalism ≠ Meritocracy


Spanish surgeon José Luis García Sabrido had been flown to Cuba

Communism isn't racist or nationalist, it is an international movement, it doesn't matter what nation you come from. In fact, in the Soviet Union there were Americans! There were people from all over the world in the SU, they weren't racists.

So it isn't that surprising that the Cuban medical community admires this person, they are international and the fact that he is Spanish doesn't matter.


was just pointing out that maybe the quantity of the doctors don't matter as much as the quality. I assure you that Cuban doctors are very high quality. Cuba has one of the best education systems world-wide, with gratis universities, from which each Cuban doctor receives a quality training.

[Bud Struggle]

Also, I think the UN would know better than your buddy.

Now who's telling jokes? :D



I assure you that Cuban doctors are very high quality. Cuba has one of the best education systems world-wide, with gratis universities, from which each Cuban doctor receives a quality training.

I'm sure they are OK in a pinch.

[RGacky3]

Now who's telling jokes? :D

You still.

[Bud Struggle]

You still.

Well to be honest--I have a tendency to think of life as one big party. :) But I'm sure Castro used a Spanish doctor is because of the equipment available to him that isn't available in Cuba.

[Kiev Communard]

Well to be honest--I have a tendency to think of life as one big party. :) But I'm sure Castro used a Spanish doctor is because of the equipment available to him that isn't available in Cuba.

Well, Ukraine is a capitalist nation but under agreement with the Cubans we were sending cancer-affected children to Cuban hospitals up until 2005. From the state of many Ukrainian medical facilities you would say that they actually became far worse than under the Soviet Union.

[RGacky3]

Well to be honest--I have a tendency to think of life as one big party. :) But I'm sure Castro used a Spanish doctor is because of the equipment available to him that isn't available in Cuba.

I tend to have my parties outside of revleft :P.

But your sure? No your not, it could be that the spanish doctor was just a really good specialist.

[Bud Struggle]

I tend to have my parties outside of revleft :P.

But your sure? No your not, it could be that the spanish doctor was just a really good specialist.

I don't compartmentalize my life.

And, of course I'm sure. The line in bold is the line I left out when I quoted the Wiki article.

However, on December 24, 2006, Spanish newspaper El Periódico de Catalunya reported that Spanish surgeon José Luis García Sabrido had been flown to Cuba on a plane chartered by the Cuban government. Dr. García Sabrido is an intestinal expert who further specializes in the treatment of cancer. The plane that Dr. García Sabrido's traveled in also was reported to be carrying a large quantity of advanced medical equipment.

Leave it to a Capitalist to stack the deck.;) :)

[CommunityBeliever]

I don't compartmentalize my life.This here topic isn't to discuss your life, write a biography in your profile and leave it at that


And, of course I'm sure.Medical equipment is hard to come by in a poor island that is undergoing an embargo, so what?? This crap has nothing to do with the integrity of the Cuban system.

And stop being obsessing with Fidel, there is 11 million other Cubans you should be concerned about.

[Aloysius]

Bro, when you're born into poverty and attend underfunded schools with crap teachers it's not so easy to work hard and win your fancy scholarships. The poor have far less opportunities than the upper and middle classes and if you think otherwise, you are a fool. Maybe you should think about how difficult it is to compete when the quality of education is so poor.

This.
Wait.
What am I doing in OI?

[Revolution starts with U]

Skooma, define austrianism. You seem to say that everyone who says anything about it doesn't really get it here, so... enlighten us.
(My prediction is that this will not be answered, I couldnt even get it answered at Mises.org)

[Dean]

Skooma, define austrianism. You seem to say that everyone who says anything about it doesn't really get it here, so... enlighten us.
(My prediction is that this will not be answered, I couldnt even get it answered at Mises.org)

Utopian childishness which develops economic theories on ahistorical, anti-statistical models which assume particular "rational" human activities to be rules.

[Revolution starts with U]

haha, no, I know what austrianism really is. I just want to see how an austrian (dont try to hide from it skooma) describes it.

[Skooma Addict]

Skooma, define austrianism. You seem to say that everyone who says anything about it doesn't really get it here, so... enlighten us.
(My prediction is that this will not be answered, I couldnt even get it answered at Mises.org)

AE is a subset of neoclassical econ who's founder is Carl Menger (although there are different branches of AE), and which emphasizes Methodological Individualism, Regression theorem of money, Methodological Subjectivism, the passage of time in capital formation, and the ABCT.

That definition was off the top of my head and is probably incomplete, but it is good enough. It is difficult to briefly define an entire school of thought with such vast internal disagreement.

But for the record, I do not say that everyone here who speaks of it doesn't understand it. Now, most people don't seem to understand because they have been lied to by socialist propaganda.

[Skooma Addict]

Utopian childishness which develops economic theories on ahistorical, anti-statistical models which assume particular "rational" human activities to be rules.

What a great definition.

[Anti_Left]

Actually, if there is a flaw with capitalism, it would be that capitalism produces so much wealth (well-being) for ALL the members of its society, that entitlement becomes the mentality of the youth, and by their entitlement mentality (the youth) are easily made discontent and become made ripe for leftist nonsense propaganda & utopian fantasies. That being said, in a way, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction lest the members of capitalist society hold firm to principles, honor, and understanding of natural law and natural order.....:)

[#FF0000]

Actually, if there is a flaw with capitalism, it would be that capitalism produces so much wealth (well-being) for ALL the members of its society, that entitlement becomes the mentality of the youth, and by their entitlement mentality (the youth) are easily made discontent and become made ripe for leftist nonsense propaganda & utopian fantasies. That being said, in a way, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction lest the members of capitalist society hold firm to principles, honor, and understanding of natural law and natural order.....:)

Most of the world is poor, though and socialism was way more widely accepted early on in the Industrial Revolution, where workers everywhere, even in western countries, were dirt poor.

So yeah it looks like your theory is nonsense.

From your rambling about "the youth" i'm also sort of assuming you're a baby boomer going on about entitlement mentalities which is ~hilarious~.

but that's just an assumption.

[Revolution starts with U]

My grandpa and father worked hard as hell, daily. My dad actually worked 6 days/week, 12hrs/day. I know plenty of people who have done the same. But we have gained barely anything in the last 30 or 40 years. Work hard, keep your head down, get fucked. That is the story of Reaganian Corporatism (american fasicism).
Hell ya I feel entitled. But not nearly as much so as the rich pukes who hold everything to themselves.;)

[anticap]

Actually, if there is a flaw with capitalism, it would be that capitalism produces so much wealth (well-being)

Your ontology stinks. Capitalism doesn't exist as an autonomous, volitional being, capable of acting. It therefore doesn't produce anything. Humans are the producers. We were the producers before capitalism was imposed by the few on the many as the predominant mode of production, and we will be the producers after the many have gained enough strength to abolish capitalism and adopt a better mode for ourselves. What you're doing is called "reification" and "personification." Look them up.


for ALL the members of its society

LOL.


natural law

LOL.

Here (http://www.libmansworld.com/pdf/wilson_natural.pdf)'s a debunking that mystical belief by one of your fellow "libertarians."

[Anti_Left]

well you would be wrong, wrong and wrong. I am not a baby boomer nor do people in third-world countries organize en-masse to create socialist paradises. The workers, as you probably know, are nothing more than a tool to be used for transferring power. If a country is dirt poor, as you say, their is really no point to redistributing the (lack of wealth?) to the "workers" is there? What do you believe it is that has benefited the United States above all other nations in terms of the accumulation of wealth (well-being) and widespread internal prosperity? It is a matter of better land? better access to resources? or was it the widespread "exploitation" of other cultures during the 19th century.... Perhaps it was the horrible descent into the use of slavery that produced the innovative and productive powerhouse that was America? Socialism is only "widely accepted" by people that fail to understand its consequences.

[anticap]

Socialism is only "widely accepted" by people that fail to understand its consequences.

Ah yes, the terrible consequences of the producers being in control of production. How could I have forgotten about those?

[#FF0000]

well you would be wrong, wrong and wrong. I am not a baby boomer nor do people in third-world countries organize en-masse to create socialist paradises.

So?


The workers, as you probably know, are nothing more than a tool to be used for transferring power.

I was under the impression that workers are human beings?


If a country is dirt poor, as you say, their is really no point to redistributing the (lack of wealth?) to the "workers" is there?

I didn't say if a country was poor, I said if the workers were poor. And even in a poor country, a socialist system is far better for the workers than being exploited for cheap labor.


What do you believe it is that has benefited the United States above all other nations in terms of the accumulation of wealth (well-being) and widespread internal prosperity? It is a matter of better land? better access to resources? or was it the widespread "exploitation" of other cultures during the 19th century.... Perhaps it was the horrible descent into the use of slavery that produced the innovative and productive powerhouse that was America?

It's a little bit of all of that, yeah. Imperialist ventures from the 20th century on is definitely one of the driving forces.

[Anti_Left]

[QUOTE=anticap;1858036]Your ontology stinks. Capitalism doesn't exist as an autonomous, volitional being, capable of acting. It therefore doesn't produce anything. Humans are the producers. We were the producers before capitalism was imposed by the few on the many as the predominant mode of production, and we will be the producers after the many have gained enough strength to abolish capitalism and adopt a better mode for ourselves. What you're doing is called "reification" and "personification." Look them up.QUOTE]

You are correct to the extent that the people are the producers... Capitalism is merely a contrivance which incentivizes people to produce by allowing them to retain the benefits of their own production... Freedom to produce as much or as little as you choose (choose by will or by ability). While you will no doubt make the argument that the idea of one being permitted and incentized to produce for themselves constitutes greed, it necessarily does not, it constitutes freedom... freedom to direct the benefits of your production as you see fit to improve your own standard of living of the standard of living of those around you. Socialism, like labor unions, encourages "gaming" the system.... not making the other workers look bad by over-producing, doing the minimum to get by. This idea reduces the productive effeciency and lowers the standard of living for everyone.

America is a poor example of capitalism because it is riddled with corporatism..... Corporatism exists in both socialist/communist societies as well as our formerly capitialist society. Corporatism is the true enemy of the worker, the capitalist, and the people.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, this is what Capitalism does right and makes it hard to beat. I makes people believe they are no long part of the Proletariat and are part of something called the Middle Class. It does that with easy credit so (most) people could, without saving all their lives, but a $200,000 house and a $20,000 car. So what in another place and time might be a Proletarian--now becomes a LAND OWNER. He doesn't own the means of production--but he owns something and people defend the things they own--they don't start Revolutions.

Also people with payment plans don't start Revolutions--because with the inexpensive credit they HAVE most of the things they want. The big screen TV, the iPod, the car, etc. When people are focused on consumerism--they have little inclination to revolt.

Now without a doubt consumerism isn't universal but you can see how it has taken hold in the formerly Maoist China--it is invasive and persuasive. That's why so many Communist are so young--once you buy the stuff, once you start making the house payments--you are trapped. It has taken over all of the industrial societies--there's no hope of Revolution there and little by little it will creep all over the rest of the world.

That's why I think the best we will all do is have some sort of Social Democracy. I think Capitalism has already won the Revolution. But best of luck.

[Anti_Left]

Ah yes, the terrible consequences of the producers being in control of production. How could I have forgotten about those?

How do you contend that capitalism prevents producers from being in control of production when that is its very tenant?

[Anti_Left]

It does that with easy credit so (most) people could, without saving all their lives, but a $200,000 house and a $20,000 car.

I would just point out that "easy credit" is a creation of the left, and in fact your 20th century progressive hero Woodrow "gag me with a spoon" Wilson.

[#FF0000]

How do you contend that capitalism prevents producers from being in control of production when that is its very tenant?

Because we see workers as "the producers"

[Anti_Left]

Because we see workers as "the producers"

That really doesn't answer my question. Why can the "worker" in a capitalist society not be the one who controls the means of production? Isn't that esentially what small business is in America? workers who also control what is produced? I appologize but you are going to have to elaborate a little bit for me on your point.....

[#FF0000]

That really doesn't answer my question. Why can the "worker" in a capitalist society not be the one who controls the means of production? Isn't that esentially what small business is in America? workers who also control what is produced? I appologize but you are going to have to elaborate a little bit for me on your point.....

No. In Marxism, whether or not one is a member of the Bourgeoisie or Proletariat is based on whether or not they own property (the means of production. A factory, farm, store...etc)

So, owning a store that provides the vast majority of your income to the point where you don't need a wage job disqualifies one from being a member of the Proletariat.

[Anti_Left]

[QUOTE=The Best Mod In Revleft History;1858085]No. In Marxism, whether or not one is a member of the Bourgeoisie or Proletariat is based on whether or not they own property (the means of production. A factory, farm, store...etc)QUOTE]

I wonder if you consider one's mind as a potential "means of production"? But I Digress... So your argument is that once a "worker" becomes an owner of productive assets that person ceases to be a worker?

So If I fashion a musical instrument from that which I find disgarded, and create music for which I am paid by others who may be inspired by listening to my creation.... I have become the evil Bourgeoisie?

[#FF0000]

I wonder if you consider one's mind as a potential "means of production"? But I Digress...

No. Factories, farms, workshops. Material things you use to make products.


So your argument is that once a "worker" becomes an owner of productive assets that person ceases to be a worker?

That's the class system under capitalism, yes.


So If I fashion a musical instrument from that which I find disgarded, and create music for which I am paid by others who may be inspired by listening to my creation.... I have become the evil Bourgeoisie?

Nope. That guy falls more into the "petit-Bourgeois" category for being a self-employed or freelance guy,

[anticap]

Capitalism is merely a contrivance which incentivizes people to produce by allowing them to retain the benefits of their own production...

Workers under capitalism do not retain the benefits of their own production. They are paid a wage that amounts to less than the value of what they produce (a capitalist wouldn't hire a worker unless he stood to gain in this fashion).

Moreover, workers are not motivated to "work hard" by the promise of realizing a share of the profit. The capitalist pays the worker the market value of her commodified labor-power, and takes the product of her labor out onto the market to realize his profit. The worker is paid a wage, not a percentage. There is no link between the worker and the profit motive. There is no such 'incentivization.'


America is a poor example of capitalism because it is riddled with corporatism.....

Capitalism is a mode of production with three necessary and sufficient components:

1. The majority of the means of production are owned directly by private individuals, or indirectly through privately-owned corporations.

2. The majority of goods are exchanged in a market system where prices are determined by competition driven by the profit motive, rather than being directed by a central planning organization.

3. The majority of people work for the owners of the means of production in exchange for a wage (or salary).

America is a prime example of capitalism.

And just to get this out of the way before it comes up: Capitalism relies on a particular set of property norms, which must be enforced. It makes no difference how those norms are enforced; whether by a state or by "private defense agencies." So I don't want to hear you sputtering about "anarcho"-capitalism later.


How do you contend that capitalism prevents producers from being in control of production when that is its very tenant?

I assume you mean to say that the capitalists are the producers. That is false. Capitalists merely grant permission to use the means of production, which they "own." Granting permission is not a productive act.

[Anti_Left]

With the definitions clarified... what is it you object to about capitalism then that you believe socialism and/or communism resolves.. and how does it do that?

[Anti_Left]

Workers under capitalism do not retain the benefits of their own production. They are paid a wage that amounts to less than the value of what they produce (a capitalist wouldn't hire a worker unless he stood to gain in this fashion).

So your objection to capitalism is that the "labor market" sets the value of an individuals production? Well.... doesn't it stand to reason that the value of any given commodity is set by what someone is willing to give for it?

The idea that the wage amounts to less than the value of what is produced is nonsense. (1) in addition to the "wage" that is paid, the worker accumulates skills which increase the value of his labor. (2) capitalism does not force individuals to particpate in the open market (save the leftists taxes which must be paid in 'legal tender' and therefor force people to exchange something for the money with which to pay taxes). (3) your assuming that the "capitalists accumulation of the tools necessary to produce, the concepts & ideas for production, the organization of labor, and the assumption of risk is of no value. If you assign a value to the capitalists contribution to production you have the "profit".

[anticap]

With the definitions clarified... what is it you object to about capitalism then that you believe socialism and/or communism resolves.. and how does it do that?

I object to the fact that the producers are not in control of production. Socialism resolves this.

I also object to the myriad of hideous consequences stemming from the fact that production under capitalism is driven by the profit motive rather than by the desire to fulfill human needs.

And, I object to the fact that capitalism must grow or die, and is therefore inherently destructive and unsustainable.

I could go on. The question is too broad.

[#FF0000]

With the definitions clarified... what is it you object to about capitalism then that you believe socialism and/or communism resolves.. and how does it do that?

Massive inequality, waste, political corruption, war, all the things that go along with poverty.

The thing in capitalism is that money = power, obviously. Those who control the means of production and command vast amounts of financial capital wield a vast and very hard to check amount of power over people who must work for a wage to get by, and creates an unjust an unnecessary hierarchy.

A socialist society would get rid of this unnecessary class system by taking the means of production and putting them under democratic control of the community, gearing industrial production towards meeting human needs rather than the oftentimes wasteful production for profit.

Socialism isn't an end-all solution though, obviously. We'll still be grappling with many issues that came into being during the industrial revolution (Sexism, racism...etc). However, a socialist society would make it possible to really find solutions for these issues as well.

[anticap]

So your objection to capitalism is that the "labor market" sets the value of an individuals production?[/QUOTE}

I object to there being a market for human beings, certainly. But I don't think I fully understand the question, so I'll move on.

[QUOTE]Well.... doesn't it stand to reason that the value of any given commodity is set by what someone is willing to give for it?

No. Value is set by the labor-time socially necessary to produce a given commodity. Value does not spring magically from our thoughts.


The idea that the wage amounts to less than the value of what is produced is nonsense.

Apply for a job at a widget factory and ask to be paid the full value of the widgets you will produce. You will be shown the door. It is necessary that the capitalist pay you less than the value of the widgets you produce; otherwise he could not profit from your labor.


in addition to the "wage" that is paid, the worker accumulates skills which increase the value of his labor.

I take this as a concession, not a refutation. If the worker is "paid" the full value only because she gains skills on top of her wage, then it is true that her wage did not equal the full value.


capitalism does not force individuals to particpate in the open market

You've fallen back on reification. Stop that.

Individual capitalists do not force anyone to work for them, but because capitalists own the means of production, workers are forced to seek a capitalist to work for.


your assuming that the "capitalists accumulation of the tools necessary to produce, the concepts & ideas for production, the organization of labor, and the assumption of risk is of no value.

The means of production were themselves produced by workers, not by capitalists.

Capitalists are not necessary for there to be ideas.


Which one of us can claim the higher remuneration for his work? ... Is it the inventor of the first steam-engine, or the boy, who, one day getting tired of pulling the rope that formerly opened the valve to let steam enter under the piston, tied the rope to the lever of the machine, without suspecting that he had invented the essential mechanical part of all modern machinery -- the automatic valve.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Petr_Kropotkin__The_Conquest_of_Bread.html

As to risk, see section C.2.9 here (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC2.html#secc29) (anonym.to removes anchors from links; you'll have to scroll down to it).


If you assign a value to the capitalists contribution to production you have the "profit".

I don't.

You've become tiresome. Stop responding to me.

[Dean]

With the definitions clarified... what is it you object to about capitalism
The organization of human needs around the profit motive which disincentivizes the fulfillment of fundamental human needs.


then that you believe socialism and/or communism resolves.. and how does it do that?
By organizing human economic activity around an egalitarian, democratic model which rejects the authoritarian and hierarchical model chiefly used in the capitalist mode of production.

[Anti_Left]

I disagree with you that the producers are not in control of the production (to a point :)). In a capitalist Society, through a litany of different methods, any person who masters a particular skill or conceives a particular useful innovation has the opportunity to produce & retain the benefits of that production. I mean that really is the point of free market capitalism, that if you can do it better the door is wide open for you to do it.

What you need to understand about profit is that it DOES fulfill human needs. If I become more effecient in producing a given "thing", as a result of my own self-interest in seeking "profit", that additional production that I have created works to make my "thing" more widely available and ultimately less expensive.... that a particular "thing" is more widely available and less expense is to the benefit of every individual particpating in that market.

The idea that capitalism must grow or die is nonsense. You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism.

What you will ultimately learn that I think you truly oppose is corporatism ( the combining of business, political, and quasi-social interests). True free market capitalism does not permit the creation of an "elite class". Government intervention (progressivism) has allowed these huge corporations to outlive their useful lives, and to become leeches rather than anything else. In true free market capitalism, companies do not generally survive more than 1 or 2 generations beyond their founders.... Because if a particular business is profitable, every innovator than can will evaluate how to out-perform the existing "power" and eventually they are driven out by individuals without the weight of corporate buracracy and with fresh ideas. Government Intervention preserves the status quo through regulations and while the lame stream media makes you believe regs are for the benefit of people, they are truly to insure that established business interests cannot be challenged by the innovative. This is done through licensing requirements, capitalization requirements, the burdens of regulatory compliance, international & interstate trade policies, and regulatory protections for deceptive marketing...

you align yourself with the people that have perverted the free market and brought about the conditions you claim to find objectionable.....

[anticap]

I've already argued what constitutes capitalism. The arbitrary cleaving of a subspecies of capitalism called "corporatism" is mere ideological nonsense. Corporatism is capitalism.

And, yes, capitalism (in any possible guise) must grow or die.

[#FF0000]

I disagree with you that the producers are not in control of the production (to a point :)). In a capitalist Society, through a litany of different methods, any person who masters a particular skill or conceives a particular useful innovation has the opportunity to produce & retain the benefits of that production. I mean that really is the point of free market capitalism, that if you can do it better the door is wide open for you to do it.

Sure, that's the idea, but lets be honest. Even if every single person had the ability to run a business and produce a great product, there would need to be an underclass of workers. Also, if you're a worker, and especially if you're from the third world, it's very, very hard to do much more than provide a meager living for yourself from a business.

But of course, there's also the exploitation of labor to consider. Just because a slave can one day buy their freedom and own slaves themselves, doesn't make slavery any less an immoral and disgusting system. Just because individuals may break free from their class and exploit labor doesn't make capitalism justifiable either.


What you need to understand about profit is that it DOES fulfill human needs. If I become more effecient in producing a given "thing", as a result of my own self-interest in seeking "profit", that additional production that I have created works to make my "thing" more widely available and ultimately less expensive.... that a particular "thing" is more widely available and less expense is to the benefit of every individual particpating in that market.

We're well aware of this sound bite, but lets be honest, it doesn't happen in the real world. The world is capitalist, and most of it is disgustingly, unjustifiably, poor. People's needs are -not- being met.


The idea that capitalism must grow or die is nonsense. You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism.


Are you telling me that markets won't stagnate without government intervention? Really?


What you will ultimately learn that I think you truly oppose is corporatism ( the combining of business, political, and quasi-social interests). True free market capitalism does not permit the creation of an "elite class". Government intervention (progressivism) has allowed these huge corporations to outlive their useful lives, and to become leeches rather than anything else. In true free market capitalism, companies do not generally survive more than 1 or 2 generations beyond their founders.... Because if a particular business is profitable, every innovator than can will evaluate how to out-perform the existing "power" and eventually they are driven out by individuals without the weight of corporate buracracy and with fresh ideas. Government Intervention preserves the status quo through regulations and while the lame stream media makes you believe regs are for the benefit of people, they are truly to insure that established business interests cannot be challenged by the innovative. This is done through licensing requirements, capitalization requirements, the burdens of regulatory compliance, international & interstate trade policies, and regulatory protections for deceptive marketing...


But can such a thing, and has ever such a thing, existed? If one has a ton of finance capital and owns industry, then they have power and can use it. Of course, government corruption could be avoided if capitalists just didn't push for this kind of power... But that seems ridiculous to hope for when the system is based on the expectation that people will do what they can to further their own self-interests.

[Anti_Left]

Apply for a job at a widget factory and ask to be paid the full value of the widgets you will produce. You will be shown the door. It is necessary that the capitalist pay you less than the value of the widgets you produce; otherwise he could not profit from your labor.

Your realize of course your argument here is nonsense. I mean don't the "workers" who mined the raw materials for your "widget" deserve to be paid once the widget is sold? what about the "workers" who built the factory? don't they need to be paid from the "profits" garnered from selling the "widget"? To argue that the guy working at the widget factory should be paid the "FULL VALUE OF THE WIDGETS PRODUCED" doesn't make any sense.... your assuming that Mr. Example could produce said widget from start to finish by himself.... and of couse if he could, he would probably want to retain the benefits from the effort he expended to do that..... what an evil capitalist.

What amazes me is that you truly seem to believe that if your neighbor goes and creates a garden, cultivates and produces food from the garden that you entitled to share in the benefits from his labors??? why is that? In your arguments you say a capitalist is anyone who owns any means of production, on the other hand you argue all capitalists are inherently unproductive?

[#FF0000]

Your realize of course your argument here is nonsense. I mean don't the "workers" who mined the raw materials for your "widget" deserve to be paid once the widget is sold? what about the "workers" who built the factory? don't they need to be paid from the "profits" garnered from selling the "widget"? To argue that the guy working at the widget factory should be paid the "FULL VALUE OF THE WIDGETS PRODUCED" doesn't make any sense.... your assuming that Mr. Example could produce said widget from start to finish by himself.... and of couse if he could, he would probably want to retain the benefits from the effort he expended to do that..... what an evil capitalist.

You're actually sort of starting to get it. Sort of. The production of a commodity in capitalism is a social thing. Everyone in society contributes to it, which is why it makes no sense for the worker to get paid a fraction of the value of the product, and for the capitalist to take the lion's share and all the power. The only thing that makes sense is for the community to control production and share in the benefits of production.



What amazes me is that you truly seem to believe that if your neighbor goes and creates a garden, cultivates and produces food from the garden that you entitled to share in the benefits from his labors??? why is that?

We don't. If someone's got their own little garden in their front yard, then whatever. Go hogwild with it.


In your arguments you say a capitalist is anyone who owns any means of production, on the other hand you argue all capitalists are inherently unproductive?

They don't produce, though. They own the means to produce, and they own the materials. The workers produce.

[anticap]

Your realize of course your argument here is nonsense. I mean don't the "workers" who mined the raw materials for your "widget" deserve to be paid once the widget is sold? what about the "workers" who built the factory? don't they need to be paid from the "profits" garnered from selling the "widget"?

They deserve to be paid the full value of their labor, yes. Have we already convinced you to become a socialist, then?


To argue that the guy working at the widget factory should be paid the "FULL VALUE OF THE WIDGETS PRODUCED" doesn't make any sense.... your assuming that Mr. Example could produce said widget from start to finish by himself.... and of couse if he could, he would probably want to retain the benefits from the effort he expended to do that..... what an evil capitalist.

That's wasn't the point of the abstract example. You know this, because your side uses the same sort of device to make your own points.


What amazes me is that you truly seem to believe that if your neighbor goes and creates a garden, cultivates and produces food from the garden that you entitled to share in the benefits from his labors???

What amazes me is that you somehow gleaned anything so absurd from anything I've written.


In your arguments you say a capitalist is anyone who owns any means of production

No. Go back and read my (necessarily truncated) definition of capitalism. Therein you will find the definition of a capitalist. It entails more than merely owning (to use your example) a garden. A self-sufficient farmer or artisan is not a capitalist.

Now, stop responding to me unless you intend to grant me the same courtesy I grant you, and read what I write first.

[Anti_Left]

Sure, that's the idea, but lets be honest. Even if every single person had the ability to run a business and produce a great product, there would need to be an underclass of workers. Also, if you're a worker, and especially if you're from the third world, it's very, very hard to do much more than provide a meager living for yourself from a business.

But of course, there's also the exploitation of labor to consider. Just because a slave can one day buy their freedom and own slaves themselves, doesn't make slavery any less an immoral and disgusting system. Just because individuals may break free from their class and exploit labor doesn't make capitalism justifiable either.

.

We're well aware of this sound bite, but lets be honest, it doesn't happen in the real world. The world is capitalist, and most of it is disgustingly, unjustifiably, poor. People's needs are -not- being met.



Are you telling me that markets won't stagnate without government intervention? Really?



But can such a thing, and has ever such a thing, existed? If one has a ton of finance capital and owns industry, then they have power and can use it. Of course, government corruption could be avoided if capitalists just didn't push for this kind of power... But that seems ridiculous to hope for when the system is based on the expectation that people will do what they can to further their own self-interests.

First, I sincerely appreciate your honest and intellectual discussion. I have joined this site (though it is obviously the exact opposite of my beliefs for precisely this reason) I want to understand what drives your ideaology, and hopefully give some insights into mine. I have a theory that at the end of the day (while I admittedly find the things you stand for repugnant, and you no doubt feel about mine) that we have more in common than we have in opposition...

First... the underclass of workers.... While it may seem unfair, that is the youth. Capitalism is actually a contract between generations. The old control the means of production while the youth do most of the producing, and as the youth become skilled, innovative, and wise they become the owners of the means of production while the next generation takes their place as the producers. By this manner, as a producer in your youth you are in a way making advance payments into the market which are consumed by the generation before you, as you capacity to produce diminishes with age, the next generation becomes productive and as the owner of the means of production you are "repaid" in the same way as the generation before you..... Clearly, not everyone becomes an "owner of the means of production" and these people are thereby denied a "return on investment" for their youthful contributions to the market.. well, yes & no.. even if you do not engage in business yourself, provided you live responsibly within your earnings limits you are still able to avail yourself of production and enter retirement by what you have saved.

Do you think that government control over economics will prevent the exploitation of labor? Only an educated labor base that refuses to be exploited is ever going to resolve this particular issue under capitalism, socialism, or anything else.

Actually, the world is not predominately capitalists, and many of the countries you might consider as capitalists are in fact managed economies.

Government Intervention in capitalism is ALWAYS bad, no matter their intentions. that is why the U.S. Founders sought to specifically minimize the government's intervention through our Constitution.

[Anti_Left]

They deserve to be paid the full value of their labor, yes. Have we already convinced you to become a socialist, then?



That's wasn't the point of the abstract example. You know this, because your side uses the same sort of device to make your own points.



What amazes me is that you somehow gleaned anything so absurd from anything I've written.



No. Go back and read my (necessarily truncated) definition of capitalism. Therein you will find the definition of a capitalist. It entails more than merely owning (to use your example) a garden. A self-sufficient farmer or artisan is not a capitalist.

Now, stop responding to me unless you intend to grant me the same courtesy I grant you, and read what I write first.

AntiCap... I assure you I am reading your points. First, my side is me, I'm a dirty self-centered capitalist remember, I've made no such abstract argument, and as a capitalist I refuse to carry the torch for another just because they may in some respects be like-minded. So to respond directly no.... my side hasn't used that argument.

Based upon your 'definition of a capitalist' as soon as our self-sufficient farmer enters into an agreement with a "worker" to cultivate the garden in exchange for a pre-agreed "wage" or portion of the production or other payment... does he not now meet your definition of a capitalist? I am trying to understand how this relationship is inherently unfair and not mutually beneficial. I'm trying to understand how the basic tenants of Socialism stand up in the face of the lowest common denominator.. I'm trying to understand the manifest injustice that is created by the freedom to contract and engage in relationships with others as those people choose.

I'm trying to understand (from your perspective) why capitalism must be destroyed and cannot co-exist with Socialism.

[anticap]

I'm a dirty self-centered capitalist

Are you? or are you merely pro-capitalist? Supporting capitalism does not make one a capitalist. Just FYI.


no.... my side hasn't used that argument.

Not the specific argument -- the device. FFS let's not get sidetracked on this. I was using an abstract example as a simplified device to make a point. And yes, your side does it all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's a useful device. So let's drop this.


Based upon your 'definition of a capitalist' as soon as our self-sufficient farmer enters into an agreement with a "worker" to cultivate the garden in exchange for a pre-agreed "wage" or portion of the production or other payment... does he not now meet your definition of a capitalist?

You've assured me that you've been reading (and, I assume, comprehending) what I've written. So, you tell me.


I am trying to understand how this relationship is inherently unfair and not mutually beneficial.

The former-farmer turned capitalist now lives off the labor of others rather than his own.


I'm trying to understand how the basic tenants of Socialism stand up in the face of the lowest common denominator..

I don't understand this sentence.


I'm trying to understand the manifest injustice that is created by the freedom to contract and engage in relationships with others as those people choose.

Contract consecration doesn't make everything all peaches and cream. If you can't conceive of an unjust contract, then you're living in la-la-land.


I'm trying to understand (from your perspective) why capitalism must be destroyed and cannot co-exist with Socialism.

The two can't coexist because capitalism must grow or die. This means that the socialist society is compelled to divert resources to military defense (the capitalists will eventually come gunning for resources once they've turned their own society into a burnt-out husk). But this means that the socialists are playing by the capitalists' fundamental rule: competition. The socialists are compelled to compete, militarily, which means that they can never complete the transformation to socialism, which is fundamentally based on cooperation, not competition.

[#FF0000]

Do you think that government control over economics will prevent the exploitation of labor? Only an educated labor base that refuses to be exploited is ever going to resolve this particular issue under capitalism, socialism, or anything else.


Don't get confused and think we just want the government to run things. The government in capitalism serves the capitalists, from our view. What we want is a new, radically democratic worker's state that serves workers interests, in which workers can all take part.



Actually, the world is not predominately capitalists, and many of the countries you might consider as capitalists are in fact managed economies.

I don't think having the ideal "free market" is necessary for capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which private property exists and is controlled by a specific group of people. Not to mention many of these countries have their economic policies as a direct result of foreign interests operating in their country? The book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" talks about this, a bit. The author used to work for a company that gave third world countries estimates on how expensive a new phone system or something would cost their government, and how much it would yield. They numbers were exaggerated, and the country ended up in tons of debt, and thus, sort of stuck doing what the U.S. wanted them to do.


Government Intervention in capitalism is ALWAYS bad, no matter their intentions. that is why the U.S. Founders sought to specifically minimize the government's intervention through our Constitution.

It's capitalism either way. The more rotten it is, the better it works.

Anyway, if you want a good primer into what we believe, I suggest looking up the videos of Brendan M. Cooney or David Harvey on Youtube. They both make videos dealing with a principal Marxist text, "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx.

[Anti_Left]

Are you? or are you merely pro-capitalist? Supporting capitalism does not make one a capitalist. Just FYI.



Not the specific argument -- the device. FFS let's not get sidetracked on this. I was using an abstract example as a simplified device to make a point. And yes, your side does it all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's a useful device. So let's drop this.



You've assured me that you've been reading (and, I assume, comprehending) what I've written. So, you tell me.



The former-farmer turned capitalist now lives off the labor of others rather than his own.



I don't understand this sentence.



Contract consecration doesn't make everything all peaches and cream. If you can't conceive of an unjust contract, then you're living in la-la-land.



The two can't coexist because capitalism must grow or die. This means that the socialist society is compelled to divert resources to military defense (the capitalists will eventually come gunning for resources once they've turned their own society into a burnt-out husk). But this means that the socialists are playing by the capitalists' fundamental rule: competition. The socialists are compelled to compete, militarily, which means that they can never complete the transformation to socialism, which is fundamentally based on cooperation, not competition.

P.S. I don't think you're trying to understand anything. I think you're a troll, and a sockpuppet. I predict that you'll be banned soon. My advice is to abandon this account and quietly revert to your primary alias, after a few days' break.

Ok..Anticap, #1 (and you'll probably hate this but I like your disposition and appreciate your ability to articulate your positions) # 2, I'm not a troll or a socket puppet and I hope your prediction doesn't come true because that would suck. # 3 WITHOUT DOUBT you are absolutely correct on the (dare I say widespread) existence of inequitable and unfair contracts.... the real question here is more a question of responsibility and freedom.. in other words does an individual have the right to enter into an inequitable contract and if they do who is responsible? Furthermore, who gets to decide what is or is not equitable??

I have argued that True Capitalism does not need to "grow or die", our difference here is that I do not accept your basic premises (without more)

P.S. I've gotta get some sleep tonight so I can go do some capitalistic stuff tommorrow, since this is not alias, nor am I a troll, I sincerely hope we can pick up the exchange, perhaps in better detail, another time..... thanks for the chat!

[anticap]

if you want a good primer into what we believe, I suggest looking up the videos of Brendan M. Cooney

This. Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney).

Better yet, here (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/) (the same videos, but with transcripts and a better comment system).

Once you've absorbed Cooney's vids, then, if you truly want to understand, go here (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/), here (http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/), and here (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/guide/index.htm), and brace yourself for a long haul.


Ok..Anticap, #1 (and you'll probably hate this but I like your disposition and appreciate your ability to articulate your positions)

No, I don't hate compliments.


# 2, I'm not a troll or a socket puppet and I hope your prediction doesn't come true because that would suck.

Well, I deleted that before you responded to it, because there's no point in me speculating. If my hunch is correct, then my prediction will probably come true. I need not have voiced it.


# 3 WITHOUT DOUBT you are absolutely correct on the (dare I say widespread) existence of inequitable and unfair contracts.... the real question here is more a question of responsibility and freedom.. in other words does an individual have the right to enter into an inequitable contract and if they do who is responsible? Furthermore, who gets to decide what is or is not equitable??

The question of whether one has a "right" to do this or that would lead us down another rabbit hole. Suffice it to say that I don't believe in mystical, inherent "rights," so I can't answer the question.


I have argued that True Capitalism does not need to "grow or die",

You've asserted it, but I've seen no argument to support your assertion.

And I've got to tell you, your anachronistic, 'Founding Fathers'-like capitalization of "True Capitalism" is setting off my Kook-O-Meter.

If we were to continue this discussion, this notion of a "True" vs a 'False' capitalism would prove a major and probably unresolvable sticking point. I define capitalism by certain objective criteria, which don't allow for any such subjective distinctions.


our difference here is that I do not accept your basic premises (without more)

And I don't accept yours, so there's really little point to this discussion. Neither of us is going to convert the other; this is simply a matter of getting to know the enemy. But you can do that by using the search function. The only reason I'm responding to you is to dispel the nonsense you're spouting, in case there are lurkers about.


P.S. I've gotta get some sleep tonight so I can go do some capitalistic stuff tommorrow, since this is not alias, nor am I a troll, I sincerely hope we can pick up the exchange, perhaps in better detail, another time..... thanks for the chat!

Don't come back tomorrow expecting me to pick up this "exchange" where you spout the same tired old capitalist maxims and apologetics, as though I haven't heard them all before. If you're honestly not here just to hear yourself talk, so-to-speak, then use the search function and dig up the innumerable past threads where all your questions have been answered, ad nauseum.

[#FF0000]

tbh he's way, way better than most of the people we get on this forum to ask questions.

[Dean]

What you need to understand about profit is that it DOES fulfill human needs. If I become more effecient in producing a given "thing", as a result of my own self-interest in seeking "profit", that additional production that I have created works to make my "thing" more widely available and ultimately less expensive.... that a particular "thing" is more widely available and less expense is to the benefit of every individual particpating in that market.

The idea that capitalism must grow or die is nonsense. You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism.
This is precisely the problem. There is a point at which expansion of human sustaining industries does not provide for increased profits, like with anything else. Since capitalism doesn't need to "expand or fail" it will fail to meet human needs, as it has for its entire existence.


What you will ultimately learn that I think you truly oppose is corporatism ( the combining of business, political, and quasi-social interests). True free market capitalism does not permit the creation of an "elite class". Government intervention (progressivism) has allowed these huge corporations to outlive their useful lives, and to become leeches rather than anything else. In true free market capitalism, companies do not generally survive more than 1 or 2 generations beyond their founders.... Because if a particular business is profitable, every innovator than can will evaluate how to out-perform the existing "power" and eventually they are driven out by individuals without the weight of corporate buracracy and with fresh ideas. Government Intervention preserves the status quo through regulations and while the lame stream media makes you believe regs are for the benefit of people, they are truly to insure that established business interests cannot be challenged by the innovative. This is done through licensing requirements, capitalization requirements, the burdens of regulatory compliance, international & interstate trade policies, and regulatory protections for deceptive marketing...

you align yourself with the people that have perverted the free market and brought about the conditions you claim to find objectionable.....
Nope. The governmental institutions and individuals which seek to profit or provide for rivate interests through regulations are no less "capitalist" than your precious private industry.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do you really believe any capitalist system could function without imperialism? You can argue about true capitalism till your blue in the face, the fact is , it has never, nor can never exist.
1. Stop assuming rich = worked hard. The vast majority of capitalist recieved their wealth through inheritance. The idea of self-made men has been shown to be >.05% of the wealthy population.
2. Stop assuming american capital was not expanded through imperialism at the barrel of a gun, and continues to be.
Business owners used to state long before leftists to; break strikes of american workers violently, enforce slavery and return run-away slaves, commit genocide against native populations to expand access to productive land, overthrew (through assassination, propaganda, and shady world bank deals) self-determining democratic governments in s. america, mid-east, and asia to instill right-wing dictatators that would sell their country's resources on the cheap to euro-american capitalists.
The more capital your mythical John Galt obtains, the more power over society he has. The more power he has, the more power he will weild. If you think he won't use this power to prop up his own, or destroy competitor's businesses, you live in a fantasy land.
3. You seem to like to use the founders to prove your positions, so does Chomsky. Perhaps these industrial primitive slave-owners, though enlightened for their time, are not the end-all when it comes to surmising on the nature of freedom and prosperity.

[Bud Struggle]

Do you really believe any capitalist system could function without imperialism? You can argue about true capitalism till your blue in the face, the fact is , it has never, nor can never exist.

Capitalism could exist without Imperialism--Corporatism can't.

And true Capitalism can't exist about as much as true Communism can't exist. It's a valid point about both systems.

[#FF0000]

Capitalism could exist without Imperialism--Corporatism can't.

Who says? Can you back this up? What would you say the difference between corporatism and capitalism is, beyond "one I like and one I don't"?

[Skooma Addict]

Why can't capitalism exist without imperialism?

[#FF0000]

Because of overproduction and exhaustion of local natural resources?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why can't capitalism exist without imperialism?

In a nutshell, capital is exported in order to maximize profits, which is the whole point of capitalism. Profits cannot be realized when the workers' labor power costs too much; and the cost of labor power rises when workers engage in struggle (form unions to "collectively bargain" for higher wages, fight for reformist measures like higher minimum wage, workers compensation, 8-hour work day, etc). These benefits that workers have fought and died for in the imperialist countries don't really sit well in the plans of capitalists or capital shufflers, because its a real damper on their profits.

Therefore capitalism would cease to be "productive" if capitalists and other investors did not export capital to parts of the world where labor is cheaper, labor laws protecting workers are lax if existent at all, natural resources are up for grabs, and national governments are easily bought and payed for. Colonizing maldeveloped parts of the world also provides a sure market for finished goods as well as potential for future development in those areas.

[Revolution starts with U]

Adam Smith addresses this problem when he explains the need for colonization. It's the same competition factor that drives natural selection.
For us to overcome this resource problem we would need a far greater amount of entrepreneurs to stimulate new productive opportunities. This would require a much more expanded educational system, and far more capital on R&D.
There hasn't been shown to be a profitable way to provide universal education, and even most research now is eitehr done by govt institutions, or subsidized.
Oh, also... these resarchers are probably going to get hurt, and this could very well harm the research, so... we are going to need universal healthcare.
Here's something you might like, we are going to have to expand globalization (small g, the break down of borders, not neo-imperialism), maybe even as far as a one world government; multinationalism.
Wow, seems like capitalism needs socialism to survive. Hopefully one day we can detach ourselves from petty materialism and move past capitalism; when the new man creates his new techno-tribal/communist society. I think I remember someone writinng about this concept too... somehwere...;)

[Bud Struggle]

Who says? Can you back this up? What would you say the difference between corporatism and capitalism is, beyond "one I like and one I don't"?

There is a fine line to be sure. But small or mid sized business doesn't need any sort of Imperialism to exist. They can buy and trade within their markets well and fairly--it's only when huge internation companies look to dominate markets--they need and use the exploitational edge of inequalities in world markets to gain advantage.

Little by little the foreign markets will even out (China's markets are getting more expensive by the day) and large global companies will find it harder and harder to stay in business. Not it may take some time, but I see that as the liik of the future.


Wow, seems like capitalism needs socialism to survive. I've always maintained that Socialism is a movement WITHIN Capitalsim, not outside it. It is one of the driving forces that is molding raw Capitalism into its ultimate state of Social Democracy.

[RGacky3]

There is a fine line to be sure. But small or mid sized business doesn't need any sort of Imperialism to exist. They can buy and trade within their markets well and fairly--it's only when huge internation companies look to dominate markets--they need and use the exploitational edge of inequalities in world markets to gain advantage.


They are all tied together, small or mid sized buisinesses are part of the bigger picture, many of them also benefit from imperialism, and they sometimes hurt from imperialism. Many of them rely on low prices that come from imperialism, many of them profit from the driving down of wages due to imperialism, its not so black and white Bud.


Little by little the foreign markets will even out (China's markets are getting more expensive by the day) and large global companies will find it harder and harder to stay in business. Not it may take some time, but I see that as the liik of the future.

You believe this based on what evidence?

There is no evidence, infact the trend we see is the opposite, centralization of market power, and its continuing, the markets don't even out at all, if it gets expensive to produce in China corporations will find a way around that.


I've always maintained that Socialism is a movement WITHIN Capitalsim, not outside it. It is one of the driving forces that is molding raw Capitalism into its ultimate state of Social Democracy.

No its not, Socialisms goal is to get rid of Capitalism, social-democracy works, but over time its unsustainable, why? Because ultimately the laws of Capitalism still apply, socialism is the solution to capitalism, not a tool within it.

But you don't even support social democracy, so I don't know what your talking about.

[Bud Struggle]

They are all tied together, small or mid sized buisinesses are part of the bigger picture, many of them also benefit from imperialism, and they sometimes hurt from imperialism. Many of them rely on low prices that come from imperialism, many of them profit from the driving down of wages due to imperialism, its not so black and white Bud. I know it's not black and white--but I think small businesses will survive when there is no advantage from Imperialism for large corporations. People will still need to buy things.


You believe this based on what evidence?

There is no evidence, infact the trend we see is the opposite, centralization of market power, and its continuing, the markets don't even out at all, if it gets expensive to produce in China corporations will find a way around that. There's plenty of evidence. The fact that large US companies had to go outside the US for products when the AMerican playing field became even. Now just imagine what will happen when the whole world become a flat playing field.


No its not, Socialisms goal is to get rid of Capitalism, social-democracy works, but over time its unsustainable, why? Because ultimately the laws of Capitalism still apply, socialism is the solution to capitalism, not a tool within it. I disagree there. Social Democracy works in some of the best places to live in the entire world Norway, Sweden, etc. Strictly Capitalist places can be hell holes, same with all those attemped Communist countries.


But you don't even support social democracy, so I don't know what your talking about. I support Social Democracy. Not here in the US though. It's now what we signed up for. I don't mind keeping America just as it is--but for people around the world, it may be a good choice.

[#FF0000]

I disagree there. Social Democracy works in some of the best places to live in the entire world Norway, Sweden, etc. Strictly Capitalist places can be hell holes, same with all those attemped Communist countries.


The standard of living there is impossible without hyperexploited third world labor.

Also, the existence of corporations doesn't = corporatism.

[Bud Struggle]

The standard of living there is impossible without hyperexploited third world labor.

Also, the existence of corporations doesn't = corporatism.

I agree about the standard of living. I think eventually there will be a gradual leveling out of the standard of living but unlike with Communism it never will be perfectly flat.

[anticap]

... unlike with Communism it never will be perfectly flat.

"... to each according to need."

:confused:


I support Social Democracy. Not here in the US though. It's now what we signed up for.

Who's "we"?

Please, since you revere the founding documents, and presumably their authors, and believe that both still have a legitimate hold on us, read this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_September_6,_1789).

tl;dr:


I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;" that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

But really, you should read the whole letter. The author of the Declaration of Independence lays out an ironclad argument against perpetual (non-expiring) constitutions to the "Father of the Constitution" himself. (Naturally, Madison essentially ignored him.)

And while I'm quoting your idols, I can't resist dropping this (http://books.google.com/books?id=P9QpAAAAYAAJ) one on you:


The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. … different classes actuated by different sentiments and views.

Sound familiar?

Of course, he drew the exact opposite conclusions to Marx, declaring (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp) that a proper government ought to include a body representing the interests of the propertied class, and that this body "ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

I of course side with Tom on that matter.

[Bud Struggle]

"... to each according to need."

:confused: Who the heck knows what that reall means. "Hey comrade--after the revolution, I'll still need my Bentley!"


Who's "we"? I'd say us guys here in America--nobody is much interested in this becomming a Communist country.


Please, since you revere the founding documents, and presumably their authors, and believe that both still have a legitimate hold on us, read this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_September_6,_1789).

tl;dr:



But really, you should read the whole letter. The author of the Declaration of Independence lays out an ironclad argument against perpetual (non-expiring) constitutions to the "Father of the Constitution" himself. (Naturally, Madison essentially ignored him.)

And while I'm quoting your idols, I can't resist dropping this (http://books.google.com/books?id=P9QpAAAAYAAJ) one on you:



Sound familiar?

Of course, he drew the exact opposite conclusions to Marx, declaring (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp) that a proper government ought to include a body representing the interests of the propertied class, and that this body "ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

I of course side with Tom on that matter.

Nice they have all these radical notions--I just kind of rather go by what they DID. And America works all right in a lot of ways for a lot pf people--just the way it is working now. The democracy isn't always great--but it sure is better than it was in the USSR or other Communist countries, the economy isn't always great, but it works, there is freedon of speech and all of that. It's a great place to live for a vast majority of people that loive here--or else they would be changing it.

It is certainly not perfect but it is pertty good.

I suggest Communist try another Soviet Union or Communist China somewhere else--MAKE IT WORK THIS TIME. And then we could discuss the matter again. My mind is open.

[RGacky3]

Who the heck knows what that reall means. "Hey comrade--after the revolution, I'll still need my Bentley!"

Bounds of reason :), democracy.


I'd say us guys here in America--nobody is much interested in this becomming a Communist country.

Not according to policy public servays, most Americans are progressive, and that is with NO American left in the mainstream media, imagen if there was one.


And America works all right in a lot of ways for a lot pf people--just the way it is working now. The democracy isn't always great--but it sure is better than it was in the USSR or other Communist countries, the economy isn't always great, but it works, there is freedon of speech and all of that. It's a great place to live for a vast majority of people that loive here--or else they would be changing it.


Democracy is'nt always great, but its sure as hell better then Capitalism, we should try it in the US :).


I suggest Communist try another Soviet Union or Communist China somewhere else--MAKE IT WORK THIS TIME. And then we could discuss the matter again. My mind is open.

Again with the same strawman repeated day in and day out.

[Bud Struggle]

Bounds of reason :), democracy. But I LIKE my Bentley. It really is pretty cool.




Not according to policy public servays, most Americans are progressive, and that is with NO American left in the mainstream media, imagen if there was one. Watch and learn at the next election--Republicans will win big.


Democracy is'nt always great, but its sure as hell better then Capitalism, we should try it in the US :). Capitalism is SO LOVELY when it works.


Again with the same strawman repeated day in and day out. Hey, I'm a pragmatist--I am a Capitalist because I made it work for me. Show me how Communism works.

And I admit--it is too good for me now. I have to give up a bit and so we'll have SD. :)

[RGacky3]

But I LIKE my Bentley. It really is pretty cool.


Honestly, I doubt public control of your Bently would be a priority.


Watch and learn at the next election--Republicans will win big.

Yeah, because the Democrats let down progressives, not because Republicans are more popular, infact they are LESS popular, except their base is rallied up, while the democrats let down the progressive majority.


Capitalism is SO LOVELY when it works.

Except for the vast majority it never does and never will.

[Bud Struggle]

Honestly, I doubt public control of your Bently would be a priority. Cormrade, as I mentioned before: there are hawks and lambs. That is just how the world works.


Yeah, because the Democrats let down progressives, not because Republicans are more popular, infact they are LESS popular, except their base is rallied up, while the democrats let down the progressive majority. That is just total crap. Americans are more conservative (to be honest--to their own determent) because of their religion and their nationalism then you think.


Except for the vast majority it never does and never will. People for the most part live good in America. Better than in any Communist country--yea, I know, there are a lot of excuses. But that's just how people see things.

[RGacky3]

Cormrade, as I mentioned before: there are hawks and lambs. That is just how the world works.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Stay on topic.


That is just total crap. Americans are more conservative (to be honest--to their own determent) because of their religion and their nationalism then you think.

religion and nationalism has nothing to do with economic policy, and on that, most americans are statistically more to the left.

Your like George Bush, you give up logic for your gut, and your gut is dumb.


People for the most part live good in America. Better than in any Communist country--yea, I know, there are a lot of excuses. But that's just how people see things.

But worse than most social-democrat countries and worse than most other first world countries.

But enough with the communist countries, its a strawman.

[Bud Struggle]

But enough with the communist countries, its a strawman.

As they will alway be.

[Revolution starts with U]

There has been/ can be a communist nation? I think that Stalinist concept is quite contradictory.
United Soviet Socialist Republic... nope, that is a socialist republic
People's Democratic Republic of China... nope, democratic republic

[Bud Struggle]

There has been/ can be a communist nation? I think that Stalinist concept is quite contradictory.
United Soviet Socialist Republic... nope, that is a socialist republic
People's Democratic Republic of China... nope, democratic republic

One of the major challenges that Communists face is getting a unified ideal of not only the far future of Communism into perspective, but also what would happen the day after the Revolution. The day after the Proletarian people win it all--they don't have a unified clue what it would look like.

"It will be better." "It won't be like the Soviet Union." It will be like the Soviet Union." "There will be permanent Revolution." There will be World Peace." "There will be a Vanguard." "There will be Anarchy." "There will be Soviets." "There will be..." What?

[RGacky3]

"It will be better." "It won't be like the Soviet Union." It will be like the Soviet Union." "There will be permanent Revolution." There will be World Peace." "There will be a Vanguard." "There will be Anarchy." "There will be Soviets." "There will be..." What?

In the real world, the message is doing ok, the internet is'nt the best gague on the socialist movement.


One of the major challenges that Communists face is getting a unified ideal of not only the far future of Communism into perspective, but also what would happen the day after the Revolution. The day after the Proletarian people win it all--they don't have a unified clue what it would look like.

Well, overall, democracy is the general consensus.

[Bud Struggle]

In the real world, the message is doing ok, the internet is'nt the best gague on the socialist movement. Ok! If you believe that. :D




Well, overall, democracy is the general consensus. Asnyone can promise that.

[RGacky3]

Asnyone can promise that.

Sure, except they don't.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure, except they don't.

No they all promise--just some don't deliver.

[Revolution starts with U]

It will be not be in one individual country
It will re-establish the distribution of property to what it should be without 6000+ years of economic coercion, murder, and displacement
It will not allow large concentrations of power into few hands
It will provide all who want it with stable housing, education, healthcare, and incentive to pursue their desires
It will not reward those who engage in barbaric practices of seperation and hatred
It will promote the free expression of the individual and group

Just my opinion

[RGacky3]

No they all promise--just some don't deliver.

Like Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Like Capitalism.

Like Communism.

[RGacky3]

Everytime Socialism has been tried genuinely (i.e. democratically), its delivered what it promised, for the most part.

Capitalism, failed in almost everything it promised.

[Bud Struggle]

Everytime Socialism has been tried genuinely (i.e. democratically), its delivered what it promised, for the most part.

Capitalism, failed in almost everything it promised.

Pshaw! Every time Capitalism has tried "genuinely" it has done pretty good, too.

It's just evert time Capitalism get more than 50 or so followers it falls apart. :D

(And life is a game.)

[RGacky3]

Pshaw! Every time Capitalism has tried "genuinely" it has done pretty good, too.

It's just evert time Capitalism get more than 50 or so followers it falls apart. :D

(And life is a game.)

Life is a game, whatever, you should write a book with the guy that wrote the book the secret.

Capitalism, has done pretty good for about 10% of the population, other than that capitalism supporters like you explain the rest of the failure by saying the 90% of everyone else are just character flawed, or they are lambs, or not winners, or just born to be slaves, which is a cop out, Capitalism failed. Capitalism done genuinely (as genuinely as possible) looks like iceland. Capitalism = Free markets and private property, thats the common definition, and iceland has really done that well, as did argentina, and look how that went :). Socialism = public control of the economy, Norway has done that for a good part of the economy (Compare them to Europe .. including Iceland), Anarchist spain did that even moreso (compare them to the rest of spain at the time), the Zapatistas have done that (compare them to central America), Venezuela has tried that for a good part of the economy (compare them to Colombia and Argentina).

Heres the thread, all of them have actual public control (to varying degrees). When Capitalism is tried more genuinely, you get a disaster.

As for the second part, I don't know what your trying to say.

[Bud Struggle]

Life is a game, whatever, you should write a book with the guy that wrote the book the secret.

Capitalism, has done pretty good for about 10% of the population, other than that capitalism supporters like you explain the rest of the failure by saying the 90% of everyone else are just character flawed, or they are lambs, or not winners, or just born to be slaves, which is a cop out, Capitalism failed. Capitalism done genuinely (as genuinely as possible) looks like iceland. Capitalism = Free markets and private property, thats the common definition, and iceland has really done that well, as did argentina, and look how that went :). Socialism = public control of the economy, Norway has done that for a good part of the economy (Compare them to Europe .. including Iceland), Anarchist spain did that even moreso (compare them to the rest of spain at the time), the Zapatistas have done that (compare them to central America), Venezuela has tried that for a good part of the economy (compare them to Colombia and Argentina).

Heres the thread, all of them have actual public control (to varying degrees). When Capitalism is tried more genuinely, you get a disaster.

As for the second part, I don't know what your trying to say.

Hey I LIKE Norway. I like the way that Social Democracy works. It's more fair than Capitalism, yet it keeps a bit of class distinction for those who favor such things. As far as that goes it is the best of both worlds. The final synthesis between the thesis of Capitalism and the antithesis of Communism.

I need to start a thread about Spain.

[RGacky3]

Hey I LIKE Norway. I like the way that Social Democracy works.

You don't know what social democracy is, nor do you support anything of the sort.


It's more fair than Capitalism, yet it keeps a bit of class distinction for those who favor such things. As far as that goes it is the best of both worlds. The final synthesis between the thesis of Capitalism and the antithesis of Communism.


Not really, what made Norway work was public ownership of the major industries and democratic controls on buisiness along with extremely strong unions, all things that you hate (because its other people telling you what to do :(, and YOUR used to being the boss).

If you support the Social-Democrat system, why don't you support single payer, why don't you support socializing the banking system, why don't you support socializing the energy industry, why don't you support unions (supporting them only when you think it makes sense is'nt supporting them, thats like saying I support democracy only when they vote my way). The reason why, is that you, like most capitalists, have an ultra-elitist attitude, and are hostile to democracy.

But again, over and over again, market economies fail, and socialization works.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't know what social democracy is, nor do you support anything of the sort. I like what I like and I am not a captive of "nameism."


Not really, what made Norway work was public ownership of the major industries and democratic controls on buisiness along with extremely strong unions, all things that you hate (because its other people telling you what to do :(, and YOUR used to being the boss). I'm a bit a hawk here, but I have no poblem with stong unions--if they earn their keep.


If you support the Social-Democrat system, why don't you support single payer, why don't you support socializing the banking system, why don't you support socializing the energy industry, why don't you support unions (supporting them only when you think it makes sense is'nt supporting them, thats like saying I support democracy only when they vote my way). The reason why, is that you, like most capitalists, have an ultra-elitist attitude, and are hostile to democracy. I like single payer, I'm wary about socializing the banking system, I'll have to think about socializing the energy system. Supporting unions when they don't make any sense isn't something I'd support.


But again, over and over again, market economies fail, and socialization works. But that's anti-Darwinian because while Socialism may win in theory--it is what happens in the REAL WORLD that matters--and that's where Capitalism takes the lead.

Hey, I'm all for scientific dialectic materialism...I'm waiting, let's see it work.

[Baseball]

I object to the fact that the producers are not in control of production. Socialism resolves this.

I also object to the myriad of hideous consequences stemming from the fact that production under capitalism is driven by the profit motive rather than by the desire to fulfill human needs.

And, I object to the fact that capitalism must grow or die, and is therefore inherently destructive and unsustainable.

I could go on. The question is too broad.

1. Why should producers control anything? Who really cares how much of a good somebody is willing to produce? should not goods be produced in accordance to what consumers demand, not what producers are willing to produce?

2. How is profit accrued without fulfilling human needs?

3. "adjust and adapt" is more accurate than "grow or die" why would socialism be any different?

[Baseball]

In a nutshell, capital is exported in order to maximize profits, which is the whole point of capitalism. Profits cannot be realized when the workers' labor power costs too much; and the cost of labor power rises when workers engage in struggle (form unions to "collectively bargain" for higher wages, fight for reformist measures like higher minimum wage, workers compensation, 8-hour work day, etc). These benefits that workers have fought and died for in the imperialist countries don't really sit well in the plans of capitalists or capital shufflers, because its a real damper on their profits.

Therefore capitalism would cease to be "productive" if capitalists and other investors did not export capital to parts of the world where labor is cheaper, labor laws protecting workers are lax if existent at all, natural resources are up for grabs, and national governments are easily bought and payed for. Colonizing maldeveloped parts of the world also provides a sure market for finished goods as well as potential for future development in thoseareas.

All you have done is explain that capitalism seeks to produce goods and services by using the least amount of cost as possible. You need to explain why a socialist community would seek to produce goods and services by not using the least cost as possible, and why that is an advantage to the community.

[RGacky3]

1. Why should producers control anything? Who really cares how much of a good somebody is willing to produce? should not goods be produced in accordance to what consumers demand, not what producers are willing to produce?

Why should capitalists and investors control anything?


2. How is profit accrued without fulfilling human needs?

its accrued by fulfilling some human needs, and ignoring others.


3. "adjust and adapt" is more accurate than "grow or die" why would socialism be any different?

No, its not adjust and adapt, Capitalism needs growth otherwise it falls apart.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I like what I like and I am not a captive of "nameism."

I'm a bit a hawk here, but I have no poblem with stong unions--if they earn their keep.

Social Democracy is still capitalism. It has been referred to as "capitalism with a human face". But the fact remains, capitalism is capitalism.

What do you mean by a union "earning their keep"?


I like single payer, I'm wary about socializing the banking system, I'll have to think about socializing the energy system. Supporting unions when they don't make any sense isn't something I'd support.

"Socializing". Replace that with "Nationalizing". Socializing gives the false assumption that what is occurring is socialist. The government running the banks would make sure that things don't get out of hand. Banks, and their nationalization, are not socialist practice, as banks would become obsolete.

What do you mean by unions "not making any sense"?


But that's anti-Darwinian because while Socialism may win in theory--it is what happens in the REAL WORLD that matters--and that's where Capitalism takes the lead.

Hey, I'm all for scientific dialectic materialism...I'm waiting, let's see it work.

How does capitalism take the lead? I would love to know that. Does it take the lead in concentrating 90% of the worlds wealth into the hands of 10% of it's population? Does it take the lead in producing it's mass side effects: poverty, homelessness, pollution, unemployment, imperialism, war, genocide, slavery, crime, etc. Or Does it take the lead because it allows for a minority to steal what the majority creates?

Do you even know what socialism is, how it would work?

[RGacky3]

I'm a bit a hawk here, but I have no poblem with stong unions--if they earn their keep.


If they earn their keep? Do you hold the same standard to manegement?

Unless they are getting more than 100% of the company value they are earning their keep.


I like single payer, I'm wary about socializing the banking system, I'll have to think about socializing the energy system. Supporting unions when they don't make any sense isn't something I'd support.

When do they not make sense? WHen does democracy not make sense?


But that's anti-Darwinian because while Socialism may win in theory--it is what happens in the REAL WORLD that matters--and that's where Capitalism takes the lead.


Capitalism in theory, is supposed to work, but it does'nt, Socialism works in practice.


Socializing gives the false assumption that what is occurring is socialist. The government running the banks would make sure that things don't get out of hand. Banks, and their nationalization, are not socialist practice, as banks would become obsolete.


Thats communism, and by communism your pure communism. Socialism is a broad broad term, and nationalization, if its done in a democratic way, is a type of socializing, because its put in public control.

When you take something and put it in public control your socializing it. Nationalization could socializing or not, depending if its democratic in nature or not.

[Bud Struggle]

If they earn their keep? Do you hold the same standard to manegement?

Unless they are getting more than 100% of the company value they are earning their keep.

When do they not make sense? WHen does democracy not make sense?

Unions work best when they keep an even playing field not only for the employees of a company--but for the nation as well. It would be very good if WalMart was unonized. It would increase the wages of the average employee, it would give the employee better healthcare and not be a burden in the American taxpayer and it would increase the cost of WalMart goods that would make small businesses more competitive with Walmart.

A win-win all the way around.

Small and mid sized businesses are more hands on and don't need that sort of buffer between management and workers to a good extent--but I'll grant there are execptions.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Thats communism, and by communism your pure communism. Socialism is a broad broad term, and nationalization, if its done in a democratic way, is a type of socializing, because its put in public control.

When you take something and put it in public control your socializing it. Nationalization could socializing or not, depending if its democratic in nature or not.

Socialism to me is not a broad term. It is the democratic workers control over the means of production and political power. Be that anarchist or Marxist, the definition is the same.

On the point of the use of "socialization" I'm merely debating semantics:

In the United States, the term "socialization" has been mistakenly used to refer to any state or government-owned industry or service, and has also been applied to any tax-funded programs, whether privately-run or government-run. It is important to note that in classical socialist terminology, publicly-funded or even state-run, universal healthcare services would not constitute a "socialist" industry because the employees and workers do not own their means of production and manage the enterprise in a cooperative fashion. Furthermore, a majority of universal healthcare programs are simply publicly-subsidized, privately-owned capitalist health and pharmaceutical firms; private ownership of the means of production and private profit-generating firms being the antithesis of socialism.

Nationalization is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state. - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So, socialization =/= nationalization.

Socialization =/= public ownership/funding of a corporation, business, park, healthcare, etc.

[anticap]

It's also vitally important that the producers control the surplus. (Any viable society will produce a surplus.) That's where certain attempts at socialism went wrong. If the producers control the means of production, but bureaucrats come and take away the surplus to divvy up according to their plan, then I wouldn't recognize that as socialism. The producing masses of society have to be in control of everything.

[Baseball]

Why should capitalists and investors control anything?



its accrued by fulfilling some human needs, and ignoring others.



No, its not adjust and adapt, Capitalism needs growth otherwise it falls apart.

1. They don't. That is a major flaw in socialist thinking about capitalism.

2. no. capitalists can't turn a profit without satisfying human need.

3. All communities and economies need to grow. Even socialialism.

[RGacky3]

1. They don't. That is a major flaw in socialist thinking about capitalism.

Yes they do, its called money.


2. no. capitalists can't turn a profit without satisfying human need.


As I said, SOME HUMAN NEEDS, and ignoring others, only fulfilling profitable human wants/needs.

Hell slavery satisfies human nees too, the question is whos.


3. All communities and economies need to grow. Even socialialism.

No, they don't.


Socialism to me is not a broad term. It is the democratic workers control over the means of production and political power. Be that anarchist or Marxist, the definition is the same.


Well, if you have democratic workers control over most of the political power and some of the means of production, then you have some socialism. Its not all or nothing.


In the United States, the term "socialization" has been mistakenly used to refer to any state or government-owned industry or service, and has also been applied to any tax-funded programs, whether privately-run or government-run. It is important to note that in classical socialist terminology, publicly-funded or even state-run, universal healthcare services would not constitute a "socialist" industry because the employees and workers do not own their means of production and manage the enterprise in a cooperative fashion. Furthermore, a majority of universal healthcare programs are simply publicly-subsidized, privately-owned capitalist health and pharmaceutical firms; private ownership of the means of production and private profit-generating firms being the antithesis of socialism.


Obviously the dynamics depend, for example subsidized private industry of coarse is not socialization, because there is no public control, however, its generally accepted that democratic control of an industry, even if the workers are wage workers, is socialism.

When you get rid of the wage system then you've got communism.


So, socialization =/= nationalization.

Socialization =/= public ownership/funding of a corporation, business, park, healthcare, etc.

Not all the time your right, nationalization, without public control is nothing. Public ownership that IS socialization, because its put under social control, public funding is not, unless it comes with public control.

Your confusing the terms socialism and communism. Also when you narrow these definitions to the point to where many people consider the word communism to be something holy only for a utopia you kind of kill the meaning. Socialism is a broad term for most people.

[RGacky3]

Unions work best when they keep an even playing field not only for the employees of a company--but for the nation as well. It would be very good if WalMart was unonized. It would increase the wages of the average employee, it would give the employee better healthcare and not be a burden in the American taxpayer and it would increase the cost of WalMart goods that would make small businesses more competitive with Walmart.


Wait, so unions should keep an even playing field? But companies should not?

The fact is the only reasons unions end up as something negative for the nation is'nt that they are unionized, its that other workers are not, and they get punished, under that theory, colonized people should'nt fight back because then the colonizers might oppress someone else worse.

In my opinion its a fair playing field when there are no more capitalists.

[mykittyhasaboner]

All you have done is explain that capitalism seeks to produce goods and services by using the least amount of cost as possible.

No, this is a vauge simplification. Capitalism seeks to maximize the rate of exploitation. Capitalists want to spend the least money they can, and get the most they can possibly get. Imperialism provides cheaper economic spheres so that capitalists in the developed parts of the world make more money.



You need to explain why a socialist community would seek to produce goods and services by not using the least cost as possible, and why that is an advantage to the community.

No I don't. That doesn't even make sense.

[Baseball]

No, this is a vauge simplification. Capitalism seeks to maximize the rate of exploitation. Capitalists want to spend the least money they can, and get the most they can possibly get. Imperialism provides cheaper economic spheres so that capitalists in the developed parts of the world make more money.




No I don't. That doesn't even make sense.

It is true that capitalists seek to gain the most while using the least cost.

But why would a socialist community seek to gain the most, while using the greatest cost possible?

[Revolution starts with U]

They would'nt. They just woul'dnt put low cost over people's lives.

[Bud Struggle]

They would'nt. They just woul'dnt put low cost over people's lives.

But that would be for the overall general population--but there is nothing that guarantees anything for the individual comrade.

[RGacky3]

But that would be for the overall general population--but there is nothing that guarantees anything for the individual comrade.

The general population is made up of people that care about individual rights.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well, if you have democratic workers control over most of the political power and some of the means of production, then you have some socialism. Its not all or nothing.

It is all or nothing. When it comes to political power the bourgeoisie has it in capitalist society. No exceptions. When it comes to control over the means of production, nowhere is there "some" control over the means of production by the working class, only the bourgeois.




Obviously the dynamics depend, for example subsidized private industry of coarse is not socialization, because there is no public control, however, its generally accepted that democratic control of an industry, even if the workers are wage workers, is socialism.

When you get rid of the wage system then you've got communism.

Generally accepted? I'm talking what's accepted by Marxists. It's generally accepted in US academia that Cuba, China and Russia were/are socialist states. Doesn't make it true.


Not all the time your right, nationalization, without public control is nothing. Public ownership that IS socialization, because its put under social control, public funding is not, unless it comes with public control.

Your confusing the terms socialism and communism. Also when you narrow these definitions to the point to where many people consider the word communism to be something holy only for a utopia you kind of kill the meaning. Socialism is a broad term for most people.

Nationalization without public control? Care to give an example?

Once again, you confuse the terms. Semantics are important when it comes to this, I will gladly email Mr. Chomsky about this issue. I'm sure he'd get back to me.

There's no confusion. I do occasionally refer to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as the socialist stage before communism. However, like Marx, I use the terms interchangeably.

The only reason socialism is a broad term to people is gross misunderstanding of what it is.

I fail to see how I've narrowed the definition of socialism to "holy utopia". It's not my fault that people can't comprehend the idea of working class control over the means of production. THAT IS the basic definition of socialism. What's missing in my defintion is the way to achieve it. Be it evolutionary (democratic socialists and social democrats) or revolutionary (marxists and anarchists). However, if i give the definition of a car, I need not explain how to build it.

[RGacky3]

It is all or nothing. When it comes to political power the bourgeoisie has it in capitalist society. No exceptions. When it comes to control over the means of production, nowhere is there "some" control over the means of production by the working class, only the bourgeois.


Thats not the case, there are levels of bourgeoisie, you take the major industries into public hands there still will be bourgeoisie, but they won't have the type of control that the big bourgeoisie have.

Your wrong, there are tons of examples where there are a lot of public control, genuine public control, but there is still Capitalism, venezuela an Bolivia have socialised a lot of industries and resources, but I'm pretty sure there are still bakers. :), its not all or nothing. The more power Capitalists have the more they'll want, sure, but thats the point.


Generally accepted? I'm talking what's accepted by Marxists. It's generally accepted in US academia that Cuba, China and Russia were/are socialist states. Doesn't make it true.

Its not generally accepted but the definition of socialism that is generally accepted, also what is generally accepted by Marxists, is not EVERYTHING in public or workers control.


Nationalization without public control? Care to give an example?

The USSR, US government chartered corporations, North Korea, the Military, governments that are not democratic in nature, and so on and so forth.


There's no confusion. I do occasionally refer to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as the socialist stage before communism. However, like Marx, I use the terms interchangeably.

We'll then I guess I'll have to come up with another word that means what everyone calls socialism, just to appease your intelectual jackoffery, OR, you can just understand what is meant when a word is used and have an actual discussion.


I fail to see how I've narrowed the definition of socialism to "holy utopia". It's not my fault that people can't comprehend the idea of working class control over the means of production. THAT IS the basic definition of socialism. What's missing in my defintion is the way to achieve it. Be it evolutionary (democratic socialists and social democrats) or revolutionary (marxists and anarchists). However, if i give the definition of a car, I need not explain how to build it.

Yeah, working class control over the means of production, that can take many forms, its a broad term, when you socialize something, and a democratic government, which is directly accountable to the public through elections nationalizes an industry, its then in public control is'nt it. Thus its not longer a for profit industry, but rather for societal welfare!!!

Now whatever you call that I don't care, but I use the word socialization, because thats the word for it and people know what I mean, and its part of the overall definition socialism as it always has been defined by most people in pretty much the history of the word.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Thats not the case, there are levels of bourgeoisie, you take the major industries into public hands there still will be bourgeoisie, but they won't have the type of control that the big bourgeoisie have.

Your wrong, there are tons of examples where there are a lot of public control, genuine public control, but there is still Capitalism, venezuela an Bolivia have socialised a lot of industries and resources, but I'm pretty sure there are still bakers. :), its not all or nothing. The more power Capitalists have the more they'll want, sure, but thats the point.

State Capitalism (and even social democracy) =/= socialism.

Mass nationalization, in Venezuala or Cuba, doesn't mean it is socialist. It just means that the government, not the bourgeoisie, is running the show in a capitalist way.


Its not generally accepted but the definition of socialism that is generally accepted, also what is generally accepted by Marxists, is not EVERYTHING in public or workers control.

Socialism: . A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole - Oxford English Dictionary

What must be noted is that in socialism, the government (prior to it's withering) is NOT separate from the working class.

In capitalist society it is. This is clear in the USSR, Cuba, China, etc. all of which professed to be socialist whilst having governments separate from the working class creating State Capitalist societies.

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism


The USSR, US government chartered corporations, North Korea, the Military, governments that are not democratic in nature, and so on and so forth.

Once again, we confuse socialism with state capitalism.

The STATE owning the means of production =/= working class owning the means of production.


We'll then I guess I'll have to come up with another word that means what everyone calls socialism, just to appease your intelectual jackoffery, OR, you can just understand what is meant when a word is used and have an actual discussion.

What "everyone" calls socialism. Clearly, EVERYONE refers to socialism in your definition. :rolleyes:

The word you're looking for is State Capitalism, or Social Democracy. Both of which are, you guessed it, still capitalism.


Yeah, working class control over the means of production, that can take many forms, its a broad term, when you socialize something, and a democratic government, which is directly accountable to the public through elections nationalizes an industry, its then in public control is'nt it. Thus its not longer a for profit industry, but rather for societal welfare!!!

Do I HAVE to quote James Connolly here? Really? Alright:

"Yes, friends, governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class." - James Connolly

Do I need to explain that quote to you? In the US, both parties claim to represent the people at large. Both parties actually represent the interests of the bourgeois class.

It's the same everywhere. Some places you'll have actually communist parties, but they know that getting elected isn't going to change things, because it is impossible for them to get elected.


Now whatever you call that I don't care, but I use the word socialization, because thats the word for it and people know what I mean, and its part of the overall definition socialism as it always has been defined by most people in pretty much the history of the word.

The word for it is nationalization. We've been through this.

In economic discourse, socialization refers to the process of transforming an activity into a social relationship.

I call an apple an apple, you call it a banana, clearly they are the same fruit. :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

State Capitalism (and even social democracy) =/= socialism.

Mass nationalization, in Venezuala or Cuba, doesn't mean it is socialist. It just means that the government, not the bourgeoisie, is running the show in a capitalist way.

Ok so socialism = COmmunism = Anarchism .... Great, we gotta invent new words now.

Its not Capitalist because its not based on the profit motive, and its publically controlled.


What "everyone" calls socialism. Clearly, EVERYONE refers to socialism in your definition. :rolleyes:

The word you're looking for is State Capitalism, or Social Democracy. Both of which are, you guessed it, still capitalism.


Words arn't holy, they are ment to be understood.

State Capitalism is a word that describes corporatism, OR undemocratic nationalizations, (i.e. where the state become a capitalist, because it owns the means of production and is not controlled by the workers).


"Yes, friends, governments in capitalist society are but committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class." - James Connolly

Do I need to explain that quote to you? In the US, both parties claim to represent the people at large. Both parties actually represent the interests of the bourgeois class.

It's the same everywhere. Some places you'll have actually communist parties, but they know that getting elected isn't going to change things, because it is impossible for them to get elected.


Look, governments respond to pressure, they arn't INTRINSINGLY pro-capitalist, if you have a society with a weak capitalist class and a strong public sector that pressure is destroyed.

In the US, the Private sector controls the means of production and resources and thus has HUGE power over the state, in a countyr like norway, the Capitalist class does not have that power, whereas the state does, that sort of state would respond more to public pressure, simply because the public has more direct power.



In economic discourse, socialization refers to the process of transforming an activity into a social relationship.

I call an apple an apple, you call it a banana, clearly they are the same fruit. :thumbup1:


Except you don't understan economic politics, so you really have no buisiness classifying social systems, fruit maybe.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ok so socialism = COmmunism = Anarchism .... Great, we gotta invent new words now.

Here's where you're going wrong. Anarchists and Marxists. Both believe in achieving socialism. Both believe in achieving it in different ways. Most notably is the Marxist idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Socialism and communism are interchangeable within Marxism, though modern day usage has socialism meaning the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Socialism, means the same to both Anarchy and Marxism: THE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY THE WORKING CLASS. Once this occurs, class warfare begins to end and the bourgeoisie fades out of existence. In Anarchism, they believe it happens immediately with the elimination of government. Marxists believe in having a state to prevent bourgeois counter-revolution and uprising. The state then withers away when an abundance of goods is produced and the working class and society is organized.


Its not Capitalist because its not based on the profit motive, and its publically controlled.It IS still capitalist. Capitalism is the private control of the means of production. The means of production is not a bunch of different things. The workers either own it, or they don't. In China and the USSR "the party" became the new ruling class.

Once again, "publicly controlled" is a fallacy. It is government controlled. And the government is only controlled by the working class within socialist society.


Words arn't holy, they are ment to be understood.Never said words were holy. Said that the definition isn't "holy utopia".


State Capitalism is a word that describes corporatism, OR undemocratic nationalizations, (i.e. where the state become a capitalist, because it owns the means of production and is not controlled by the workers).Correct, for the most part. In fact, most nationalizations are "undemocratic" as in Cuba, Venezuala, etc. They aren't voted upon. They just take place.

Corporatism differs from state capitalism in that the government doesn't operate like a corporation (state capitalism). But the corporations run the government.


Look, governments respond to pressure, they arn't INTRINSINGLY pro-capitalist, if you have a society with a weak capitalist class and a strong public sector that pressure is destroyed.What's more pressure? A few hundred thousand protesters, or billions of dollars?

Yes, they are. Can you name one "anti-capitalist" government. I mean one that is trying to abolish capitalism. Not one that professes to be anti-capitalist.

What society has a weak capitalist class? The capitalist class, whether weak or not, still holds the power.

I'll give you this. The people, through their vote can have sway. This is notable in Social Democratic nations. However, capitalism CANNOT and WILL NOT be overturned through a vote.

Clearly, you have not heard of the run up to the Iraq war.


In the US, the Private sector controls the means of production and resources and thus has HUGE power over the state, in a countyr like norway, the Capitalist class does not have that power, whereas the state does, that sort of state would respond more to public pressure, simply because the public has more direct power.

Social Democracy is still capitalism.

The underlying issue is stopping the exploitation of the working class. Not to just improve their standards of living.


Except you don't understan economic politics, so you really have no buisiness classifying social systems, fruit maybe.What don't I understand? Clearly I've shown that I fully understand. I've also shown that you do not understand waht capitalism and socialism actually are.

You have a typical liberal view. "Socialism means we help the needy and have labour rights" and "capitalism is bad, but it's wayyy better than communism. So we should work on making it better and more human :)".

[RGacky3]

Socialism, means the same to both Anarchy and Marxism: THE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY THE WORKING CLASS.

So its only socialism if ALL the means of production is in the working class? Also is it only through workers councils? What about a democratically accountable state, whwat about if most of hte means of production are owned by the working class, what if they are owned by unions?

YOu see why that definition is broad?


The means of production is not a bunch of different things. The workers either own it, or they don't. In China and the USSR "the party" became the new ruling class.

Once again, "publicly controlled"


No, because there are many means of production.

China is'nt publicaly owned because the state is'nt directly democratcially accountable.


In fact, most nationalizations are "undemocratic" as in Cuba, Venezuala, etc. They aren't voted upon. They just take place.


When an industry is nationalized in a democratic country, its controlled by teh state, a state that is voted in or out by the people, who take into account the running of that nationalized industry, thus its democratic, you get how that works? This is politics 101 man.


Corporatism differs from state capitalism in that the government doesn't become a corporation (state capitalism). But the corporations run the government.

What really matters is who controls what right? So the nature of the state, i.e. who controls it ultimately, makes the difference, thats tied in with who controls the eocnomy as well. SO its not as easy as saying "If the state takes it over its state capitalist" Because guess what is the state is democratically accountable then its not becoming a corporation.


What's more pressure? A few hundred thousand protesters, or billions of dollars?

Clearly, you have not heard of the run up to the Iraq war.


Billions and billions of dollars, you don't get it, do you, of coarse in the US where private industry is rediculously powerful the government will respond to private industry pressure,

If most of the national industries are socialist that pressure goes away, then the only pressure left over is the democratic one.


Social Democracy is still capitalism. As Michael Moore describes it "capitalism with a human face".

Again, its not black and white. There are many different factors.


You have a typical liberal view. "Socialism means we help the needy and have labour rights" and "capitalism is bad, but it's wayyy better than communism. So we should work on making it better and more human :)".

Thats not my view at all, my view is we have to make things better and get rid of capitalist power.

What you don't understand is that the world is'nt black and white and there are many factors and variables.

[Die Rote Fahne]

So its only socialism if ALL the means of production is in the working class? Also is it only through workers councils? What about a democratically accountable state, whwat about if most of hte means of production are owned by the working class, what if they are owned by unions?

The unions are the working class. If the unions owned the means of production the workers would own them by default.


YOu see why that definition is broad?No, cause it isn't.


No, because there are many means of production.Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production -- the factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth.


China is'nt publicaly owned because the state is'nt directly democratcially accountable.Ergo state capitalism as opposed to Social Democracy.

Both of which are still capitalism. China is an example of the former Norway is an example of the latter.


When an industry is nationalized in a democratic country, its controlled by teh state, a state that is voted in or out by the people, who take into account the running of that nationalized industry, thus its democratic, you get how that works? This is politics 101 man.Yes, I get how it works. I'm merely stating to you that it IS NOT SOCIALISM.

That's whawt I've been saying to begin with.


What really matters is who controls what right? So the nature of the state, i.e. who controls it ultimately, makes the difference, thats tied in with who controls the eocnomy as well. SO its not as easy as saying "If the state takes it over its state capitalist" Because guess what is the state is democratically accountable then its not becoming a corporation.Once again we arrive at the difference between state capitalism and social democracy. Yet we must remember the biggest similarity. Both are capitalism.


Billions and billions of dollars, you don't get it, do you, of coarse in the US where private industry is rediculously powerful the government will respond to private industry pressure,

If most of the national industries are socialist that pressure goes away, then the only pressure left over is the democratic one.Yes. I understand that.

There's no such thing as having some socialism. The working class is a single class. Not many separate entities. If only some of the working class owns their factories and tools, that is not socialism. Those factories would not be able to function in wider capitalist society.

Labour is a social function. You can't have one group within the working class own the means of production and another have theirs controlled privately. Why? because those that own their means of production will not be able to interact and get what they need from the privately owned factories, etc.

I'll make a thread so everyone can come and tell you the same thing if that's what it takes.


Again, its not black and white. There are many different factors.Social Democracy is capitalism. There's no grey area here.

Feel free to list those factors, however.


Thats not my view at all, my view is we have to make things better and get rid of capitalist power.How do you propose that happen? And by capitalist power, do you mean capitalism as a system, or merely the power that the capitalist class has?


What you don't understand is that the world is'nt black and white and there are many factors and variables.I understand the world isn't black and white. But I'm talking about socialism, not the world.

In this case, it is black and white. On one hand we have socialism -- Marxism, Anarchism, and their variants (Luxemburgism, Maoism, Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism, etc).

And the other hand we have capitalism -- free market, fascist, controlled/regulated market, and their variants (Libertarian Capitalism, state capitalism, social democracy, national socialism, corporatism, etc).

[RGacky3]

The unions are the working class. If the unions owned the means of production the workers would own them by default.

There were a lot more questions and issues there, you can't just cherry pick the easy one.


Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production -- the factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth.

I undersdand that, but there are many factories, there are many physical non-human inputs used in production, many different ones for different industries. Does it have to be ALL of them? Or Most of them? Or the most important ones? Otherwise its not socialism.

If the workers own most of the means of production but theres a guy that makes ice
cream is it no longer socialis?


Once again we arrive at the difference between state capitalism and social democracy. Yet we must remember the biggest similarity. Both are capitalism.

Whatever you want to call it, but one is of an extremely different nature than the other, and the relationship to the means of production is also different.


There's no such thing as having some socialism. The working class is a single class. Not many separate entities. If only some of the working class owns their factories and tools, that is not socialism. Those factories would not be able to function in wider capitalist society.


It depends, if they are owned by the working class through coops then maybe, although empirical evidence shows that worker controlled companies can compete, because it can afford much less overhead.

IF its a nationalized company it does'nt have to compete, and the industry is uner democratic control, so in that sense it does'nt act like a capitalist corporation at all, because its not for profit and its democratically controlled (by a nation made up of the working class).

So call that whatever you want, but its MUCH different in nature than a capitalist buisiness.


Social Democracy is capitalism. There's no grey area here.

Feel free to list those factors, however.

There is a gray area, just because you say there is'nt does'nt mean there is'nt. Thats like saying ether its PURE DIRECT DEMOCRACY, or is a dictatorship, no gray area.

Factors are who controls what, and that can vary a lot.


How do you propose that happen? And by capitalist power, do you mean capitalism as a system, or merely the power that the capitalist class has?

The two are intertwined, the Capitalist system is one based on Capitalist power, the capitalist power is derived from the capitalist system, really they are one in the same.

I personally believe the best way is through syndicalism, union organizing, community organizing, and overtime shifting the power to a point to where you can change the system.

But that being said, I don't believe that that is the ONLY way.


In this case, it is black and white. On one hand we have socialism -- Marxism, Anarchism, and their variants (Luxemburgism, Maoism, Council Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism, etc).

And the other hand we have capitalism -- free market, fascist, controlled/regulated market, and their variants (Libertarian Capitalism, state capitalism, social democracy, national socialism, corporatism, etc).

These are all words that have described different systems, or ideas. Marxism is'nt an economic system nither is anarchism, neither is fascism. Marxism is a way of analysing society, anarchism is a philosophy of authority.

When analysing an economy, you have Capitalism which is overall defined as private property and free markets and the profit motive, and socialism which is overall defined as public or worker control of the economy designed around the common good.

Whithin an actual economy, most are mainly capitalist, but then you have some which have a good amount of socialization of the economy.

But let me ask you, an economy is Capitalists UNTIL its 100% socialized right? IS a socialist economy capitalist again if someone opens a ice cream shop?

[Die Rote Fahne]

There were a lot more questions and issues there, you can't just cherry pick the easy one.

Pose the questions and issues. I'll answer them. Even the hard ones.


I undersdand that, but there are many factories, there are many physical non-human inputs used in production, many different ones for different industries. Does it have to be ALL of them? Or Most of them? Or the most important ones? Otherwise its not socialism.

Socialism is ALL of the means of production owned by the workers. Not 10%, not 50%, not 65% not 99%.

What you're looking for is not socialism, but mutualism.


If the workers own most of the means of production but theres a guy that makes ice
cream is it no longer socialis?

The guy is using his own tools and he himself is making the ice cream. He is not exploiting another's labour.

If it's only "most" it isn't socialism to begin with.


Whatever you want to call it, but one is of an extremely different nature than the other, and the relationship to the means of production is also different.

Yes. But both are capitalism nonetheless. The means of production in state capitalism are not owned buy the workers. The means of production in social democracy are not owned by the workers.

Both are not socialism. Both are capitalism. No argument here.


It depends, if they are owned by the working class through coops then maybe, although empirical evidence shows that worker controlled companies can compete, because it can afford much less overhead.

Once again, mutualism =/= socialism.

I'm not arguing against mutualism here, but against what your posing as being socialism.


IF its a nationalized company it does'nt have to compete, and the industry is uner democratic control, so in that sense it does'nt act like a capitalist corporation at all, because its not for profit and its democratically controlled (by a nation made up of the working class).

Nationalized companies still compete.

For example, Petrol-Canada, a crown-corporation of Canada, competes with privately owned Irving, Esso and Ultramar gas stations.

Democratic control = socialism.

Not for profit is fine and dandy, but they cannot compete with capitalist entities who use their profits.


There is a gray area, just because you say there is'nt does'nt mean there is'nt. Thats like saying ether its PURE DIRECT DEMOCRACY, or is a dictatorship, no gray area.

Just because you say there is, doesn't make it so. But I've made my case about no grey area, you just keep stating that there is a grey area.

That analogy doesn't fit what we are debating here. But i'll do my best to make it so. We have democracy on one hand (direct, representative) or we have totalitarian rule. One can argue that a hierarchal structure (where an elected official is given power) is not democracy at all, because they only have to answer to the people at certain intervals or if they break a law.

Democracy exists, in my opinion, only in socialist society. To quote Che Guevara:

"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians".

Come up with a fitting analogy.


Factors are who controls what, and that can vary a lot.

Either the capitalist class controls it, or the working class does. In state capitalism, the capitalist class also consists of the government.


The two are intertwined, the Capitalist system is one based on Capitalist power, the capitalist power is derived from the capitalist system, really they are one in the same.

The capitalist system isn't based on capitalist power. It is based on exploiting workers. Which in turn produces "capitalist power".

But yes, they are essentially one in the same, as you said.


I personally believe the best way is through syndicalism, union organizing, community organizing, and overtime shifting the power to a point to where you can change the system.

But that being said, I don't believe that that is the ONLY way.

I'm not entirely familiar with syndicalism. Only that it's a part of organized labour and intends to have the unions as the figureheads instead of governments, with a sort of "union democracy".

As well, I understand that it is not anti-property and a non-Marxist current.


These are all words that have described different systems, or ideas. Marxism is'nt an economic system nither is anarchism, neither is fascism. Marxism is a way of analysing society, anarchism is a philosophy of authority.

I never said Marxism was an economic system. But Marxism does have it's own economics (Marxian Economics). Marx developed sociological and socio-economic theories. Both related to one another.

Anarchism a political theory, although not an economic system, for the most part promotes socialism.. (Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy). Why does it only promote socialism? Because anarchy is anti-authority. Socialism eliminates hierarchal class structure and is the only anti-authority economic system.

Fascism, once again, promotes an economic system. It promotes capitalism. It's capitalism however, does not include the free market, more a controlled corporate capitalism.


When analyzing an economy, you have Capitalism which is overall defined as private property and free markets and the profit motive, and socialism which is overall defined as public or worker control of the economy designed around the common good.

Whithin an actual economy, most are mainly capitalist, but then you have some which have a good amount of socialization of the economy.

But let me ask you, an economy is Capitalists UNTIL its 100% socialized right? IS a socialist economy capitalist again if someone opens a ice cream shop?


Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is defined as common (or worker) ownership of the means of production.

All economies today are capitalist. That includes self-proclaimed socialist nations.

Socialization is still capitalist. The "socialized" industries are still run for profit and still exploit the labour of the proletariat. "Socialized medicine" still exploits the labour of it's workers. Doctors are paid substantially more than a secretary. That isn't socialist.

In a socialist society, nobody can exploit the labour of another. So, if a person were to open an ice-cream "shop", they would not sell ice cream. They merely make it because they want to. Even if that "shop" had 10 people working in it. The person who decided to begin making ice cream may now manage how the ice cream is made, what types are made, etc. but they do not earn profit nor do they "employ".

That shop would not be that person's shop, but everyone's shop. The shop would belong to the originator the same as it would someone who works cleaning it or making the strawberry ice cream.

There are no commodities in socialism. So opening an ice cream shop to accumulate commodities (money -- or capital) is simply impossible.

[anticap]

there are many factories ... many different ones for different industries. Does it have to be ALL of them? Or Most of them? Or the most important ones?

Ultimately, socialism is where the whole of society is run democratically by the whole of the people. It is essentially synonymous with democracy (properly understood).

If the means of production are democratically controlled by the producers, and nobody (except for children, the retired, and the infirm/disabled) is allowed to take from the produce without contributing to it -- i.e., if everybody is a contributor (the non-contributing classes having been abolished) -- then "worker control" means "control by all."

Once production is run this way, the rest follows, since everything else rests on, flows from, and gets its character from the mode of production; and so we have a fully-participatory, fully-democratic society.

We define socialism as worker control of the means of production because that's where we must begin; but that's not where socialism ends. We certainly won't declare socialism after the workers in just one or even several industries take control. We'll declare it when the whole working class takes control of the whole of production, abolishes the non-working classes, and then takes control of the whole of society and runs it democratically for the benefit of all.

[Skooma Addict]

Ultimately, socialism is where the whole of society is run democratically by the whole of the people. It is essentially synonymous with democracy (properly understood).


What if the democracy votes against socialism?

[Conquer or Die]

What if the democracy votes against socialism?

Don't listen to these people. Democracy is a political system.

[Dean]

What if the democracy votes against socialism?
What if the capitalist decides to liquidate and redistribute his assets?

What if the people don't want to have control over their economic lives?

:rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

Socialism does not equal democracy. People can just vote against socialism. Maybe they just don't think it would end well.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'd vote to have my right to vote taken away.

:laugh:

[Skooma Addict]

I'd vote to have my right to vote taken away.

:laugh:

That isn't the equivalent to voting against socialism. I would vote to take away my and others right to vote on certain issues (slavery for example).

[Dean]

Socialism does not equal democracy.
No, but it is an application of the democratic model to economic power structures.


People can just vote against socialism. Maybe they just don't think it would end well.
If economic power is dispersed among the population, and they vote against such a model, it would be disappointing. But there is no real way to stop people from doing so unless the model is not democratic or decentralized.

I don't see how it would be desirous or popular to vote against one's own interests, though. Much like voting to enslave oneself, which is what the centralization of economic power really is.

[Skooma Addict]

No, but it is an application of the democratic model to economic power structures.

What are some historical examples of this?

[Revolution starts with U]

Norway, and most of Europe. From what I understand (and I am no expert here) the USSR too, compared to the Tsars. Anarchist Spain. Early-mid 20th ce. America.

[synthesis]

I don't see how it would be desirous or popular to vote against one's own interests, though.

What? Really? People do that all the time.

[Left-Reasoning]

What? Really? People do that all the time.

Caplan has a book about it. It's called The Myth of the Rational Voter. It's much better than his Museum of Communism or his "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain: An Historical, Economic, and Philosophical Analysis".

[Dean]

What are some historical examples of this?
Labor unions and some collectivist firms which exist all over the world.


What? Really? People do that all the time.
Right, but in this example its egregious and contrary to the apparent interests of the voter. If we have established a socialist model of organization, suggesting that we go back to hierarchical models is like asking for a king again.

You're right that it will happen (that some will ask for a hierarchy again), but the history of progressive revolutions indicate that such enterprises ultimately fail, even if at first they seem to be victorious.

In fact, the great Mises makes a point about this in Theory and History. Since he views socialist models as conservative in their political models, he likens them to reactionary challenges to progress throughout history. He's right about the failure of reaction, but he has placed the hierarchical model of economic activity "on its head" in this case, regarding socialist models which have never existed in recent human history (probably ever) as state models as "reactionary."

He points out that ever-evolving societies are dynamic and culturally expansive, and those that seek to stop progress or attained "lost states of paradise" consistently fail.

But it is, in fact, the hierarchical, profit-oriented, class antagonistic model of social and economic organization which is both culminating in disastrous conflicts and ceasing to productively enhance human society. This is why, as I have remarked elsewhere, production for critical human needs has retracted and is continuing to retract.

It is the means of socially-valued production which ultimately dictate the power structures of the world. The capitalist regimes are foolish to withdraw from these models, which do not provide enough expansion of capital to justify re-appropriation of funds from derivatives and other options.

[Skooma Addict]

Labor unions and some collectivist firms which exist all over the world.

I meant nations.

[anticap]

What if the democracy votes against socialism?

(FYI: I didn't see this before because you didn't include my username when you quoted me.)

If working-class consciousness isn't sufficient to maintain socialism, then it isn't sufficient to bring it about in the first place. So, we never get to your question.

Maintenance of class-consciousness is a vital component of socialism. Abolishing classes doesn't mean that you can forget that they ever existed.

[Dean]

I meant nations.
I'm not aware of any.

[Revolution starts with U]

All the nations I listed. They were not full democritizations of capital, but they were steps in that direction.

[fredflintstone]

Your title told me you were going to talk about capitalism, not some greedy person you know who you have identified as a capitalist.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Your title told me you were going to talk about capitalism, not some greedy person you know who you have identified as a capitalist.

What would you like me to talk about? The idea within capitalist thinking that money is the main motivation for career choice, as can be proven by the "why should someone who went to school for 10 years be paid the same as a janitor?" question, which suggests that the person did all that hard work and took all those years to do something they were not interested in?

Wait...i already did.

Maybe I should go deeper into explanation as to how this ties in with Labour theory of value, or how a socialist society compensates workers?

My point was simple. Capitalists, whether they realize it or not, all have this flawed idea. That money is the biggest, or a major, motivator in a person's choice of career. Sometimes it is, but most times a person will choose something that interests them and will therefor enjoy.

[Lt. Ferret]

capitalism isnt based on money as THE motivating factor, its based on voluntary free exchange. my wife is a photographer and a computer programmer. one may make more money than the other but she follows her pursuits based on how she feels and what she wants to do at the time, not the money factor. doctors should WANT to be doctors, thats generally why they go to medical school. the money is just a definite bonus, and it does compensate them for all the work they do.

[Dean]

capitalism isnt based on money as THE motivating factor, its based on voluntary free exchange. my wife is a photographer and a computer programmer. one may make more money than the other but she follows her pursuits based on how she feels and what she wants to do at the time, not the money factor. doctors should WANT to be doctors, thats generally why they go to medical school. the money is just a definite bonus, and it does compensate them for all the work they do.

Some people want to be kings and knights. Feudalism is the voluntary free exchange of land based on military competition. Serfs should want to be serfs.

[Lt. Ferret]

fine then hate your job what do i give a shit. nice medieval analogy.


let me guess, enemies of the people who are incarcerated and tortured and worked to death by stalinist and maoist regimes should want it, right? its based on voluntary exchange of bread for political suppression and no promise of justice.

[RGacky3]

fine then hate your job what do i give a shit.

You should'nt, but you should realize your former post is retarded.


let me guess, enemies of the people who are incarcerated and tortured and worked to death by stalinist and maoist regimes should want it, right? its based on voluntary exchange of bread for political suppression and no promise of justice.

What are you talking about? Who here is talking about Stalinist and maoist regiems? Other than you?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Some people want to be kings and knights. Feudalism is the voluntary free exchange of land based on military competition. Serfs should want to be serfs.

Correct. Which is why I assert that there are some things that people want to do soley for financial benefit. However, we could also say these positions interest them because of those benefits. Very few people become doctors because or the money. I would argue that those who work on wall street are interested in what they do, be it making shit tonnes of money dping nothing or whatever.

Does that make sense? Long day I have had.

[Lt. Ferret]

some people might be happiest as a fry cook, that job has its benefits. my most fun job was as a barback at a sports bar. i didnt make shit for pay but it was great. i sold fireworks and that was a great time as well, didnt make much money considering i worked 16 hour days for 14 days straight. my job now is pretty fun but the military is the closest thing iv done just for money, and ill be out in about 2 years. firing automatic weapons and riding in humvees and wearing night vision is an added benefit though.

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE=Lt. Ferret;1879611]capitalism isnt based on money as THE motivating factor, its based on voluntary free exchange

/yawn. I'm so tired of capitalists equating market economics with capitalism. Capitalism isn't about the money, specifically, it is about capital ownership. Market economics, voluntary exchange, existed long before capitalism.

[RGacky3]

some people might be happiest as a fry cook, that job has its benefits. my most fun job was as a barback at a sports bar. i didnt make shit for pay but it was great. i sold fireworks and that was a great time as well, didnt make much money considering i worked 16 hour days for 14 days straight.

Whats your point?

[Lt. Ferret]

Whats your point?


that money isnt the main motiivating factor in capitalism. try to keep up, dear.

[#FF0000]

some people finding an iota of happiness in their work means we should keep the vast majority of people poor and powerless that makes sense guy

[RGacky3]

that money isnt the main motiivating factor in capitalism. try to keep up, dear.

Proof that some people enjoy their jobs (whether or not its what they would CHOOSE to do) is'nt proof that money is'nt the main motivating factor, not at all, money being the main motivating factor is the WHOLE basis of capitalism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Pay attention Lt. It seems that you have no idea what the differnence between capitalism and markets are.
Capitalism is about captial ownership and using it to make you money without having to work. Markets are about voluntary exchange. Markets != capitalism... or was ancient Sumer capitalist?

[Dean]

that money isnt the main motiivating factor in capitalism. try to keep up, dear.
You're right. Its the acquisition of surplus-value via the use of capital, land and improvements that drives capitalism.

If you want to whine about people "enjoying their work" that discussion has no place in capitalism. It's just as valid - or invalid - in any other economic model unless you start to apply qualifiers as to what exactly "being happy with your job" means.

But the point, of course, is that the motivating factor is directly addressed in the definition of capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. It is a system based on the production of goods and services for exchange rather than use. Private ownership and free enterprise supposedly leads to more efficiency, lower prices, better products. Adam Smith popularized this theory in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations.
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html (http://www2.truman.edu/%7Emarc/resources/terms.html)

[Lt. Ferret]

even if i concede that point i do not see the problem or issue here. people work to get more stuff. why would you work for no reason? quite the opposite of a problem in capitalism. i go to work becuase i make money. i also get joy out of my work, and a sense of fulfilment, and many other things.

[Dean]

even if i concede that point i do not see the problem or issue here. people work to get more stuff. why would you work for no reason? quite the opposite of a problem in capitalism. i go to work becuase i make money. i also get joy out of my work, and a sense of fulfilment, and many other things.
I don't think anyone is criticizing people for going to work because they enjoy their jobs, or that they accrue exchange- (and hence use-) value by going to work and earning wages.

[RGacky3]

even if i concede that point i do not see the problem or issue here. people work to get more stuff. why would you work for no reason? quite the opposite of a problem in capitalism. i go to work becuase i make money. i also get joy out of my work, and a sense of fulfilment, and many other things.

THe problem is power systems.