Hegemonicretribution
23rd August 2003, 15:00
I had begun to get bored with ack of debate about anything serious on this forum, so thought hell why not start a few threads where I state my problems with the actuall flaws (imo) with the capitalist ideology. There may well be points where I am wrong, and I hope there are so I can correct myself. I feel that this is far more productive than being flamed for mere disagreement. So with this in mind I thought I would start from the beginning as a trial.
The free market is quite different than that envissaged by the more left wing economists amongst us. I have a few qualms with each, and have my own personal oppinions about what is best, but don't we all. There is however a number of partsof capitalist ideology I am not comfortable with. The first being the concept of the division of labour. (I will not patronise the right wingers, as I assume that to be able to stand up on a leftist board you must be quite familiar with you better known works.)
As far as I can see in a competeing free market, there is always a possibility, that for whatever reason, and industry could fall under. There are many examples, but hell isn't that why some countries employ those evil protectionist methods? (U.S. U.K too many to list) Anyway, where industries are hit there is a major chance of unemployment. However to fill in the gap surely another industry will emerge. Or an less profitable industry saccrificed from the wherever took the industry you just lost?
I do not see how this can be the case, as not everyone is employed in capitalism, which according to Smith causes no problem, the new industry could be absorbed by those unemployed, depending on it's nature. That aside chances are that because of the lack of surplus in many of the countries now absoring new industries because of competitive labour, there is plenty of room for that industry and many others without sacrifice of an existing one.
So a gap in the economy of the place that lost an industry will occur. It is difficult, because of the more effective division of labour, for those out of work to find new work as they are so specialised in their training.
The specialisation means a large increase in production, however by the nature of capitalism, people will constantly loose jobs and be left of little use to the economy they worked for. This is a major problem, and one that I see no real sollutions for, except more general skills, meaning less production, or a more controlled economy.
If production is to be maintained then a more controlled economy seems the logical answer. There are problems in the initiation of such change, and the redistrubution of labour, but that is something to be discussed seperately.
In summary:
Division of labour is an important part of production, however it seems to go hand in hand far more with a controlled economy such as communism, than it does the free economy of capitalism.
Please I am willing o learn the superior ways of your ideology, if you are right, or to teach the superior ways of others if I am right. It doesn't have to be a flame war, gloves off, no insults please correct me.
The free market is quite different than that envissaged by the more left wing economists amongst us. I have a few qualms with each, and have my own personal oppinions about what is best, but don't we all. There is however a number of partsof capitalist ideology I am not comfortable with. The first being the concept of the division of labour. (I will not patronise the right wingers, as I assume that to be able to stand up on a leftist board you must be quite familiar with you better known works.)
As far as I can see in a competeing free market, there is always a possibility, that for whatever reason, and industry could fall under. There are many examples, but hell isn't that why some countries employ those evil protectionist methods? (U.S. U.K too many to list) Anyway, where industries are hit there is a major chance of unemployment. However to fill in the gap surely another industry will emerge. Or an less profitable industry saccrificed from the wherever took the industry you just lost?
I do not see how this can be the case, as not everyone is employed in capitalism, which according to Smith causes no problem, the new industry could be absorbed by those unemployed, depending on it's nature. That aside chances are that because of the lack of surplus in many of the countries now absoring new industries because of competitive labour, there is plenty of room for that industry and many others without sacrifice of an existing one.
So a gap in the economy of the place that lost an industry will occur. It is difficult, because of the more effective division of labour, for those out of work to find new work as they are so specialised in their training.
The specialisation means a large increase in production, however by the nature of capitalism, people will constantly loose jobs and be left of little use to the economy they worked for. This is a major problem, and one that I see no real sollutions for, except more general skills, meaning less production, or a more controlled economy.
If production is to be maintained then a more controlled economy seems the logical answer. There are problems in the initiation of such change, and the redistrubution of labour, but that is something to be discussed seperately.
In summary:
Division of labour is an important part of production, however it seems to go hand in hand far more with a controlled economy such as communism, than it does the free economy of capitalism.
Please I am willing o learn the superior ways of your ideology, if you are right, or to teach the superior ways of others if I am right. It doesn't have to be a flame war, gloves off, no insults please correct me.