A 15 year old asked me, "Ok... So why don't you like the Free Market?"

[Unclebananahead]

And I am endeavoring to provide a useful as well as accessible explanation. Here's what I have thus far.


This is a question concerning society's wealth. That is to say, the labor, and resources which go into producing a society's necessities and amenities. Capitalism or the free market system was born from the corpse of feudalism. Within human civilization, we've seen a continual advancement of the material means of production. That is to say that society's ability to produce its necessities and amenities can be shown to be on an upward trajectory. As time goes on, we're able to produce more stuff. The predominant socio-political order (i.e. despotism, monarchy, theocracy, etc.) lags behind and doesn't always correspond to society's level of economic development, so occasionally a rapid upheaval occurs. This process is driven by the antagonism between the socio-economic classes involved. When I write of class, I'm not referring to like your third period math class, but rather "a social stratum sharing basic economic, political, or cultural characteristics, and having the same social position" (dictionary.com). Depending upon the stage of history we're discussing, every economic system has its chief participant classes, and very often, these classes have interests which are antagonistic to one another. This is called the 'class struggle,' and it's the engine driving history.

Under capitalism, the two major socio-economic classes are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is the class which owns the means of production (e.g. "the factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth" -- along with fertile lands and minerals in the ground). The bourgeoisie own society's productive assets, or the stuff used to make more stuff. The proletariat is the class who owns none of society’s productive assets, except their own labor power, which they sell to the bourgeoisie to make a living. These two classes have interests which are antithetical to one another.

Under capitalism, the wealth produced by the proletariat is expropriated by the bourgeoisie -- all of society’s stuff is made by workers, but is owned by the bourgeoisie, which is then sold back to the workers. The profits made by the bourgeoisie, or owning class, is derived from the surplus value produced by the proletariat. The surplus value is “the part of the value of a commodity that exceeds the cost of labor...” An example of surplus value from wikipedia: “Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine using which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 which, after deduction of costs (the leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.) leaves a residual, i.e. surplus value or profit.”

Capitalism had a historical role to play, but that role is now finished. It has no more progress to bring humankind. Only backwardness. Socialism, is what you describe a society in which the proletariat has seized state power, smashed capitalist relations, and placed the means of production under public control.

[Catmatic Leftist]

I wouldn't use complicated leftist jargon with a 15 year old, or with anyone in general that is looking for information about communism for that matter, as that will just make you sound elitist and he/she won't listen to you. Instead, describe the injustices of capitalism and the benefits of socialism in simplest terms.

[Pretty Flaco]

Yeah, don't give the kid some long drawn out explanation.
just say that the majority of the people are being exploited for their work. say that the ones that reap the benefits of their work sit on their ass all day.
I remember once comparing it to biology. I said that the majority of the people in the world are primary producers and that a small minority are consumers, taking advantage of the producers.
I also remember using the example of a horse once:
the people are a horse in a race and the capitalists are a jockey. The jockey receives all the credit and wealth for what the horse does, but all the horse gets is a bunch of fucking carrots!

[Unclebananahead]

Is my explanation really that difficult to comprehend? I tried to make it sort of simple. I even describe certain concepts in what could be considered 'childish terms,' such as referring to the means of production as "stuff used to make more stuff."

[Pretty Flaco]

Is my explanation really that difficult to comprehend? I tried to make it sort of simple. I even describe certain concepts in what could be considered 'childish terms,' such as referring to the means of production as "stuff used to make more stuff."

Don't use the terms proletariat and bourgeoisie. Use a metaphor. extra points if you make it ironic and hipsterish.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I wouldn't use complicated leftist jargon with a 15 year old, or with anyone in general that is looking for information about communism for that matter, as that will just make you sound elitist and he/she won't listen to you. Instead, describe the injustices of capitalism and the benefits of socialism in simplest terms.

I'm a fifteen year old and I found it perfectly understandable. :-P

On another note, I would add in a brief summary at the end.

"I support socialism because of x, y, and z, and because the free market hinders the development of x, y, and z, I oppose the free market."

Best of luck.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Is my explanation really that difficult to comprehend? I tried to make it sort of simple. I even describe certain concepts in what could be considered 'childish terms,' such as referring to the means of production as "stuff used to make more stuff."

It's not that your writing is difficult to understand, but that it could be said in a much more straightforward and concise fashion. I would generally avoid "-isms", "-archys" and terminology only familiar to Marxists such as "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie". Instead use words like "freedom", "equality", "social justice", "working class" "upper/ruling class", as those are pretty much vernacular.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

It's not that your writing is difficult to understand, but that it could be said in a much more straightforward and concise fashion. I would generally avoid "-isms", "-archys" and terminology only familiar to Marxists such as "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie". Instead use words like "freedom", "equality", "social justice", "working class" "upper/ruling class", as those are pretty much vernacular.

Based on the demographics where you live, I would avoid mentioning the technical name of any political tendency until you present all of your ideas. Let him found his opinions based on the ideas themselves. (Based on experience with classmates, etc.)

[Catmatic Leftist]

I'm a fifteen year old and I found it perfectly understandable. :-P

On another note, I would add in a brief summary at the end.

"I support socialism because of x, y, and z, and because the free market hinders the development of x, y, and z, I oppose the free market."

Best of luck.

Not everyone is as bright or intelligent, or interested for that matter, as you :P

At 15, I don't think I gave a damn about anything except sports, video games, and getting laid.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Not everyone is as bright or intelligent, or interested for that matter, as you :P

At 15, I don't think I gave a damn about anything except sports, video games, or getting laid.

*deliberates the most tactful way to respond, and finding no acceptable options degrades himself to: *enter witty response here**

[Catmatic Leftist]

*deliberates the most tactful way to respond, and finding no acceptable options degrades himself to: *enter witty response here**

Welcome to the Internet!

[Pretty Flaco]

Being 16, I know that you've got to be concise. I don't listen to long drawn out shit when I'm not focusing...

[Unclebananahead]

extra points if you make it ironic and hipsterish.
lmao

[NGNM85]

Nothing remotely like a 'free market' exists, this is a false dichotomy.

[Unclebananahead]

Nothing remotely like a 'free market' exists, this is a false dichotomy.

Isn't this roughly what the pro-capitalism, rightist libertarians argue? That because of state intervention, it's not really capitalism, and moreover, 'pure capitalism' would be much more equal and less lopsided and soul crushing? Of course, that's probably not what your remark is implying.

[NGNM85]

Isn't this roughly what the pro-capitalism, rightist libertarians argue? That because of state intervention, it's not really capitalism, and moreover, 'pure capitalism' would be much more equal and less lopsided and soul crushing? Of course, that's probably not what your remark is implying.

All I said is that capitalism would be substantially different, I didn't make any value judgment. Personally, I think it would be substantially worse, however, we can only speculate. The point is, that, by and large, the loudest voices singing the praises of the 'free market', are actually dead-set against it. Most of them are just as deeply opposed to it as anyone on this website.

[Unclebananahead]

His response:


A free market economy is far superior to a command (Socialist/Communist) economy. The free market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters both creativity and innovation. The Free Market CREATES (as opposed to transferring) more wealth for more people than any other economic system. The free market allows free individual to buy as the wish, to sell as they wish and to choose as the wish. The Free Market allows individual to choose for themselves what it is they want (as opposed to have a bureaucrat in a far off capital choose on their behalf) It has made America the most powerful country on the face of the earth. And it is through a free market that allows an economy to expand.

So why don't you like the free market?

Me:


Did you even read my response? You're free to believe what you want about capitalism. You want to think it's the best thing since sliced bread, go right on ahead. Just remember that the capitalist world is much larger than the US, Canada, western Europe, and Japan. It includes places such as India, Thailand, Guatemala, El Salvador, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. All capitalist paradises of course. Are you aware that even in the fabulous USA, that the poorest 80% share a meager 15% of the wealth? More wealth for more people? Only if you can't count. So go ahead and believe what you want. I gave you my response. It's up to you to read and understand it. It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind.

Him:


Lets take your biggest country: India. India was founded as a socialist country. Luckily it is now turing away from its failed socialist polices and is becoming more capitalist. But it is still 124th on the economic freedom list (of 179 countries).

Lets see how your "Capitalist" countries did:
Bangladesh: 130th
Philippines: 115th
Guatemala: 79th
Thailand: 62nd
Indonesia: 116th

Now look at the countries with the freest markets:
1st: Hong Kong
2nd: Singapore
3rd: Australia

Those are the types of countries I'd like to live in!

Me:


These countries all have private ownership of the means of production. I'm not certain whose list you got these figures from, but that doesn't make them socialist nations. Sometimes govt. intervention is on behalf of foreign investors. One must consider the class character of the actors involved.

[Lucretia]

The basic answer is that economic resources underpin political power, so letting people "freely" exchange and use those economic resources in a "democratic" capitalist system allows the wealthiest and the most powerful to coerce and control the vast majority of people, which is undemocratic. There are many issues you can raise with his response: people "freely" choose what they wish to buy under capitalism, but for the vast majority who are scraping to get by, their choices are hardly free. They make their purchasing choices within the limited range of options their income permits them. He also mentions the old canard about how, without capitalism, there would be no advancement of productivity. How, then, did capitalism ever develop? People in a prior mode of production must have been driven to develop the productive forces to the point where capitalism was possible, right? If that's the case, then certainly the drive to develop productive forces does not reside squarely within a particular mode of production, but is something more generalizable to people's desire to make producing their essentials easier so they can have more free time to develop themselves as people. Admitted capitalism provides a logic to production that encourages a more rapid development of productive forces, but do we really need such rapid development at this point? I think we have enough for everybody. It's just that the resources are poorly distributed because they are distributed according to the logic of capital.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

His response:



Me:



Him:



Me:

The only reason why these "capitalist" nations are so successful is because they gain their wealth based on the expropriation of others. In order for the United States to be so wealthy and powerful, it must leech surplus value from hundreds of countries, making them shitholes. Tell him that if he supports the rich keeping their lambos while billions starve to death and die in the cess pit that is the third world, then capitalism is for him. Question his moral integrity.

Talk about wage slavery and it's detrimental affects. Talk about the surplus value bubble (i.e. more product than liquid capital in the consumer pool) and how capitalism is unsustainable. Tell him that, although he thinks everything is planned from far away in communism, it really isn't. Tell him that the workers own their own lives (see what i did there?). Tell him that economic inefficiencies such as overproduction, artificial devaluation of currency, and unemployment are eliminated.

Tell him that capitalism has done great things, but it's only one step. Talk about the inevitable movement towards greater equality, economic and social. Cite internal contradictions that Marx mentioned which will lead to collapse and inefficiency. Talk about the socioeconomic dichotomy and contradictions of well being. This quote should be good:

"With this as its basic constitution, civilization achieved things of which gentile society was not even remotely capable. But it achieved them by setting in motion the lowest instincts and passions in man and developing them at the expense of all his other abilities. From its first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization; wealth and again wealth and once more wealth, wealth, not of society, but of the single scurvy individual–here was its one and final aim. If at the same time the progressive development of science and a repeated flowering of supreme art dropped into its lap, it was only because without them modern wealth could not have completely realized its achievements.


Since civilization is founded on the exploitation of one class by another class, its whole development proceeds in a constant contradiction. Every step forward in production is at the same time a step backwards in the position of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. Whatever benefits some necessarily injures the others; every fresh emancipation of one class is necessarily a new oppression for another class. The most striking proof of this is provided by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are now known to the whole world. And if among the barbarians, as we saw, the distinction between rights and duties could hardly be drawn, civilization makes the difference and antagonism between them clear even to the dullest intelligence by giving one class practically all the rights and the other class practically all the duties.



But that should not be: what is good for the ruling class must also be good for the whole of society, with which the ruling-class identifies itself. Therefore the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to cover the evils it necessarily creates with the cloak of love and charity, to palliate them or to deny them–in short, to introduce a conventional hypocrisy which was unknown to earlier forms of society and even to the first stages of civilization, and which culminates in the pronouncement: the exploitation of the oppressed class is carried on by the exploiting class simply and solely in the interests of the exploited class itself; and if the exploited class cannot see it and even grows rebellious, that is the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters. [5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm#5)

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm#5)
And now, in conclusion, Morgan’s judgment of civilization:
Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its management so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it has become, on the part of the people, an unmanageable power. The human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation. The time will come, nevertheless, when human intelligence will rise to the mastery over property, and define the relations of the state to the property it protects, as well as the obligations and the limits of the rights of its owners. The interests of society are paramount to individual interests, and the two must be brought into just and harmonious relations. A mere property career is not the final destiny of mankind, if progress is to be the law of the future as it has been of the past. The time which has passed away since civilization began is but a fragment of the past duration of man’s existence; and but a fragment of the ages yet to come. The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes."


Engels: Origins of the Family

[PhoenixAsh]

IMO you were a bit to defensive in your response. Your arguments are sound and well...good post...but the method of communicating is probably forcing him more towards entrenching his believes than altering them.

Perhaps you can try the `question´approach and make him think his arguments through....and in the mean time complimenting him on the fact that he has managed to articulate his arguments nicely. THis establishes an open line of communication without him feeling the need to become defensive , you let him make his own conclusions by subtilly guiding him towards answers and you get more results.

Something like....
I like how you have thought about it. How do you think it is that a free market economy creates more than it started out with? Given the fact that we have a huge debate about scarcity of products...Where you think these resources come from?

[Luís Henrique]

I think the best method is always to induce him, through questions, to reach his own conclusions (just don't drink the hemlock, though).

If I was going to do this, I would start by asking him what is a free market. This should allow him to recognise that a "free" market is in fact not "free" at all, but relies upon a whole bunch of prohibitions and interdictions that cannot be provided by the market itself. If he is sane, which I hope, this would allow him to reject "libertarian" lunacy for what it is. It would also make an important point: that, no matter how much you idealise markets, there are always some necessary social activities that cannot be provided by them. So it should also do away with quasi-religious worship for markets.

Second, having reduced markets to a human, rational, perspective, it would be necessary to lead him to understand markets' anarchy. This is much trickier, but it would be interesting, before dealing with surplus value and the inevitability of commercial crisis, to point to economic activities that free markets have problems regulating; natural monopolies, where competition is impossible, come to mind.

Third, it would be interesting - it always is - to invite your friend to think inside a capitalist corporations, which is a place where no market relations exist.

And finally it would be necessary to deal with the labour market, and how workers are effectively deprived from the products of their work: necessary work, unpaid work, surplus value, etc., and how this - besides the obvious unjustice - causes a structural imbalance between capitalist production and social consumption.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Their isn't anything 'free' about the 'free market'.

Tell him that we have the technology to cure Diabetes, and we right now can make Purely electric cars, but the Oil companies, and some Insurance companies will lose profit, therefore will not release it into the public.

[mikelepore]

The term "free market" is a trick. An environment can be called "free" to the extent that everyone is allowed to participate without being turned away. People can participate in the competitive marketplace to the extent that they own capital. If I own a million times as much capital as you, then I can participate a million times as much as you can. It's legal for you to sell me your gold and hotels and jet planes, if you had any, but you don't have any. It's legal for you to make this trade with me, I'll give you two of my diamond mines if you'll give me three of your oil wells, if you had any, but you don't have any. Therefore participation in the marketplace is highly restrictive. To insert the word "free" in front of the name can only be a gimmick intended to create an illusion.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Third, it would be interesting - it always is - to invite your friend to think inside a capitalist corporations, which is a place where no market relations exist.

I think that's a fantastic thought... perhaps pointing out organizations like multinational conglomerates (some of which produce up to 1/15 or 1/10 of the worlds goods) show that it is realistic to plan an economy. The only difference is that in a planned economy, product must be distributed.

[L.A.P.]

I'm a fifteen year old and I found it perfectly understandable. :-P
.

I'm 16 and I understood it perfectly too, not to toot my own horn, but I don't think the average teenager would understand half of that essay.

[Rafiq]

Mikelpore is right.

For example, Reagan used to call mass murderers 'freedom fighters' and we are thrown in the face with 'land of the free.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I'm 16 and I understood it perfectly too, not to toot my own horn, but I don't think the average teenager would understand half of that essay.

That's why I only talk to specific people who are worth the time. Also, anyone posting on an online forum about the free market is likely to be above average... hmm

[ComradeAV]

well, 15 was about the time when I became interested in marxism. I became interested in it by exploring it for myself. I heard about the communist manifesto in my world history class and I curious to know what it was about. I also remember my family, being conservative, calling obama socialist and communist. So I was curious to know what it was. I read the manifesto and i found communism of be the exact opposite of what i was taught. When I told my friends and family, they said it was good in theory and bad in practice, typical response. So I gave up on it for a while. Then I watched Capitalism: A love Story and it made me curious again. I began to look at websites of communist parties. Then I came back in contact with an old friend of mine on FB, who aided me in further understanding marxist theory. I started to read works of marx-engels- lenin. So long story short, I came into marxism by exploring for myself. So I suggest, that you advise them to read the manifesto and then explain to them anything they don't understand and work with them from there.

[L.A.P.]

Capitalism: A love Story

I had a similar story, I finally read about communism and socialism and was surprised by what it was actually about but I remained being either a misanthropic ultra-induvidualist Liberal or some Anarchist Keynesian. I watched Capitalism: A Love Story and that put the nail in the coffin.

[Kotze]

The conversation was doomed from the start, the writing style is absolutely tl;dr, you should always start with the info that people have different definitions of capitalism and socialism and that the definitions you use distinguish between these based on who owns and controls the means of production, and always refer back to that when it is apparant the other side deviates from these definitions.
If I own a million times as much capital as you, then I can participate a million times as much as you can.Shouldn't anybody who ever got a volume discount disagree with that statement? A million people who pool their money together to work on a common goal have coordination costs a person who commands the same amount doesn't have. So I'd wager the market-power difference is even more extreme.