An Alternate Form of Capitalism

[jmpeer]

If income inequality was minimized, producer responsibility was extended to disposal of their products, and technology was actively employed to eliminate and facilitate work and working conditions, what would be your objections to capitalism? There doesn't need to be an elite, there doesn't need to be excessive waste, cheap products, and as many harmful materials (or at least the improper handling of them), and there doesn't need to be shit jobs that a monkey could be trained to do.

[Victus Mortuum]

Despotic control of the workplace and state. Fundamentally, the conditions in a workplace and in the public sphere alienate and dominate people. I support freedom first, and equality second. The economy and governing structure must be free (voluntary and non-hierarchical). Besides, if capitalism remains, your reforms will eventually be repealed or worked around. The only way to maintain such conditions is a radically democratic revolution.

[Thirsty Crow]

If income inequality was minimized,How would this happen?
The only way I can see is a strong state influence, on a global scale, which is practically impossible to coordinate. Moreover, I cannot see how this kind of measures would produced much needed stability in order that this kind of regime of accumulation does not fall apart.

It seems to me that this hypothetical situation presupposes a global, strong reformist movement which would be actually powerful enough to capture state power, again, globally. And what are the chances of this happening?

[jmpeer]

Victus Mortuum -- How did you associate what I said with oppression? Are you assuming reducing income inequality meant everyone should get paid the same? How would someone be able to reintroduce a hierarchy in a relatively non hierarchal structure? I would attribute the ability to do that to a lack of regulation and a completely unconscious democracy.

[jmpeer]

Menocchio -- Unions, taxes, business incentives, penalizations, and tariffs. How do you think we've done it in the past? Businesses just decided to get nice? It doesn't need to be global. But regardless, this isn't a discussion about whether it's possible to reduce income inequality.

[Thirsty Crow]

Menocchio -- Unions, taxes, business incentives, penalizations, and tariffs. How do you think we've done it in the past? Businesses just decided to get nice?
But you disregard the fact that there were (and are!) other, much less fortunate national working classes (e.g. the underdeveloped countries) which haven't seen anything like the fruits of the welfare state in the US, UK and other western European countries. And even then elites did exist, there's no doubt about it.

How about going back and focusing on some concrete points in my post (the need for a global reformist organizing, capturing state power, due to enhanced capital flows resulting in a real danger of capital flight)?

[jinx92]

The problem of what you are suggesting is in the title of what you're suggesting: capitalism. Lets just take America for instance. America was pretty much laissez faire in the early stages of the industrial revoltution, and look what that did to people. Compared to that time, American capitalism is higly regulated, but look at our country now, the problem is still huge, capitalism is destroying our economy. You will have the same problems in what you are proposing because it is still capitalist.

[ZeroNowhere]

The crisis which would come in a couple of months or so, probably less, from the fall in the rate of profit. Of course, if this state of affairs is a product of working class political struggle, then that's perfectly alright and a crisis simply indicates that this must progress onto more explicitly revolutionary terrain to survive. The purpose of the working class movement is not, ultimately, to amend capital, but to overthrow it, and therefore economic instability is no problem. However, when it comes to the matter of leftists going on about how one form of capitalism is better, asking questions from the position of somebody just sitting around and abstractly choosing between different models of capitalism, I think that it's ultimately somewhat silly. What's important is not the configuration of capital, but the strength and organization of the working class.

In any case, the collapse of Keynesianism brought the 'Reagan Revolution', and electoral victory for the Democrats has had an uncanny knack of strengthening the Republicans, and vice versa (really, the last few decades in the US government have been more or less a continual see-saw, so that perhaps the only reason why Democrat-sympathising leftists don't vote Republican is short-sightedness). Indeed, inasmuch as this would retard the development of capitalism, it would be reactionary as an arbitrary imposition independent of working class struggle, as it would serve to delay capitalism's downward progress (its setting of the basis for crashes on a higher level), and keep us trapped within its clutches for longer. So it's probably more objectionable than capitalism at present.


All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.

Herr Heinzen however wants all these measures as permanent, final measures. They are not to be a preparation for anything, they are to be definitive. They are for him not a means but an end. They are not designed for a revolutionary but for a peaceful, bourgeois condition. But this makes them impossible and at the same time reactionary. The economists of the bourgeoisie are quite right in respect of Herr Heinzen when they present these measures as reactionary compared with free competition. Free competition is the ultimate, highest and most developed form of existence of private property. All measures, therefore, which start from the basis of private property and which are nevertheless directed against free competition, are reactionary and tend to restore more primitive stages in the development of property, and for that reason they must finally be defeated once more by competition and result in the restoration of the present situation. These objections the bourgeoisie raises, which lose all their force as soon as one regards the above social reforms as pure mesures de salut public, as revolutionary and transitory measures, these objections are devastating as far as Herr Heinzen’s peasant-socialist black, red and gold republic is concerned.
- 'The Communists and Karl Heinzen'.


Despotic control of the workplace and state.Workplace hierarchy and 'despotism' is not inherent to capital. Socialism isn't mere radical democracy.

[jmpeer]

Menocchio -- I'm referring to develop countries, not the entire world. Thus, I dismissed the rest of your statements because they're all built on the same idea.

jinx92 -- The label has nothing to do with its form, your argument is a little too vague, and I don't think the US is nearly regulated enough.

ZeroNowhere -- What crisis is coming? What falling rate of profit? Global competition and productivity keep increasing, but they only lead to recession and then a consolidation in the market. The crisis we just had was because of fucking retards charging an arm and a leg for housing, hiding credit ratings, and making bets they're not good for.

Honestly, I would love for another crisis, and the end of capitalism. I can't wait for people to wake up and realize their politicians aren't doing anything worthwhile to fix the situation. But, there is stability in monopolization, and that seems to be where the global economy is moving to compensate for, again, the increased competition and productivity. I can see our system lingering around for years to come, even though there might be a shift in global power.

[Thirsty Crow]

Menocchio -- I'm referring to develop countries, not the entire world. Thus, I dismissed the rest of your statements because they're all built on the same idea.

And why the hell should revolutionaries worry to produce ideas and practices which would lead to a "better" management of capitalism which is clearly and inherently based upon imperialism?
Why should we care about reformism which hinges on a more or less open imperialist attitude?

But even if we were to consider your own version, my basic argument still stands. Can you address the historical possibility for a mass reformist movement which could result in a seizure of state power (electoral seizure, to be sure) with respect to the necessity of international coordination?

[#FF0000]

The problem with putting a "nice face" on capitalism is that no matter what, someone is suffering from it. The nice, friendly social democracies of Europe and America's candy store of consumer products is made possible only by hyper-exploitation of people in other places. Capitalism doesn't solve it's own problems. It just moves them around.

EDIT: And then I saw this


I'm referring to develop countries, not the entire world.

There is the problem right there. Why on earth would we want to leave anyone behind just because they weren't born in the developed world? That sounds like an awful thing to say to be honest.

[jmpeer]

Menocchio -- Capitalism is neither inherently imperialistic nor exploitative, that's what I'm trying to point out. If you were to be rid of the oppressions of capitalism in some countries, It wouldn't inspire the world to become more oppressive, rather, quite the opposite. This would require less of a mass movement than your ideas, surely, so I would address your other question by saying it's more likely possible. But if you think you have a plan to revolutionize the world in one fell swoop, then by all means, go ahead.

The Artist Formerly Known As Best Mod -- That's not necessarily true. Working conditions can be made very tolerable in any industry, just as they would be made in socialism or communism. Your second question - the same as in my response to the other guy.

Look, I support communism, but I don't oppose capitalism for what it's not. Don't be like those people who say communism, as opposed to capitalism, is inherently oppressive and shit, when it's not.

[Amphictyonis]

No.

[Victus Mortuum]

Victus Mortuum -- How did you associate what I said with oppression? Are you assuming reducing income inequality meant everyone should get paid the same? How would someone be able to reintroduce a hierarchy in a relatively non hierarchal structure? I would attribute the ability to do that to a lack of regulation and a completely unconscious democracy.

A boss and profit extraction. Remove those two and you remove the property relationship that defines capital. Keep those and you're just putting a band-aid on a bleeding heart. If you fail to do away with those, then you really haven't accomplished much at all.


Workplace hierarchy and 'despotism' is not inherent to capital. Socialism isn't mere radical democracy.

Sure it is. And yes it is. As I've (and as far as I can tell any leftist other than in the context of Leninist 'phases') always used the term, socialism is fundamentally a mode of production based on democratic rather than despotic control of the productive processes.

[jmpeer]

Victus Mortuum -- A reduction in income inequality would probably involve encouraging cooperative business models, without hierarchy. But if income inequality was effectively reduced, I see nothing wrong with central leadership, just so as long as they're not walking away with multi million dollar bonuses for doing diddly squat.

You guys only seem to talk about capitalism being oppressive, which I was trying to rule out with the income inequality, waste, and working condition examples. The closest response to what I was looking for was from the one guy who mentioned crises and the falling rate of profit, even though I believe that's compensated for global market consolidations aka monopolization and eventual artificial manipulation of prices from these monopolies.

[#FF0000]

You guys only seem to talk about capitalism being oppressive, which I was trying to rule out with the income inequality, waste, and working condition examples. The closest response to what I was looking for was from the one guy who mentioned crises and the falling rate of profit, even though I believe that's compensated for global market consolidations aka monopolization and eventual artificial manipulation of prices from these monopolies.

Ohhh, so you're looking for criticisms other than the poverty, war...etc, then?

[jmpeer]

The Artist Formerly Known As Best Mod -- Precisely. Not only does such pointless emotional rhetoric serve as the primary basis for most people's opinions, but it's often exaggerated, misrepresented, and of course biased.

I was hoping you would talk more along the lines of the economic efficiency, security, and stability that can be offered from a planned economy, how without the necessity of a wage, as work is continually mechanized and automated and jobs are shifted to general labor, people will have more time to enjoy social activities, and stuff like that.

Anyways, I'm done with this question, I see it's going no where.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Despotic control of the workplace and state. Fundamentally, the conditions in a workplace and in the public sphere alienate and dominate people. I support freedom first, and equality second. The economy and governing structure must be free (voluntary and non-hierarchical). Besides, if capitalism remains, your reforms will eventually be repealed or worked around. The only way to maintain such conditions is a radically democratic revolution.

You chose the wrong word, comrade. I support emancipation first and freedom a distant second.

[gorillafuck]

Sure it is. And yes it is. As I've (and as far as I can tell any leftist other than in the context of Leninist 'phases') always used the term, socialism is fundamentally a mode of production based on democratic rather than despotic control of the productive processes.
So co-ops don't exist in capitalism?

[Victus Mortuum]

Victus Mortuum -- A reduction in income inequality would probably involve encouraging cooperative business models, without hierarchy. But if income inequality was effectively reduced, I see nothing wrong with central leadership, just so as long as they're not walking away with multi million dollar bonuses for doing diddly squat.

So it's okay if the bourgeois is exploiting and alienating workers, as long as they don't do it too much?


You chose the wrong word, comrade. I support emancipation first and freedom a distant second.

What exactly would the difference be? Emancipation is the process, the change that brings about freedom. Isn't this just a semantic distinction to make?


So co-ops don't exist in capitalism?

Sure they do, but they represent a fundamental break from the capitalist framework. Capitalist firms existed in feudalism long before most of production was run according to the capitalist dynamic. Similarly, "coops" (though I hate to call them that because co-ops can either be collective or still retain dominantly capitalistic authoritarian characteristics) can exist within the broader social dynamic of capitalism while representing a break from the understood system.

Workers councils ("soviets", "worker self-management", participatory workplace democracy) are the fundamental underpinning of socialism. The workers democratically control production locally and then more broadly through federations and such. Any leftist who hasn't bought into the right's rhetoric about capitalism being a mode of distribution (the "market") rather than a mode of production recognizes this.

The question is, and remains to be, how does the working class bring such a radically different mode of production about and how can we accelerate that process and ensure most effectively that our class keeps its "eye on the prize" so to speak. Parties, syndicalist unions, community movements, some combination of those, or none of the above.

[Blackscare]

If income inequality was minimized, producer responsibility was extended to disposal of their products, and technology was actively employed to eliminate and facilitate work and working conditions, what would be your objections to capitalism? There doesn't need to be an elite, there doesn't need to be excessive waste, cheap products, and as many harmful materials (or at least the improper handling of them), and there doesn't need to be shit jobs that a monkey could be trained to do.

Then it wouldn't be capitalism, in fact you just described socialism in a round-about fashion.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Then it wouldn't be capitalism, in fact you just described socialism in a round-about fashion.
I disagree. Isn't the whole point of socialism to make the break from capitalism, not give it a new coat of paint and a friendly face? What he's getting at sounds like an extreme welfare state, not the socialism we strive for.

EDIT: The biggest argument comes of course from income inequalities being "minimised." Is that what we want? Capitalism, oppression, poverty to be "minimised?"

[jmpeer]

Victus Mortuum -- With relative income equality, there's no exploitation or alienation. Regarding your third comment, nothing about capitalism contradicts a democratic business model. It's still privately owned by a group of people who happen to be the co-workers. You make capitalism as uneccesarily negative.

Blackscare -- If you generally define socialism a state of social conditions, then yes, both communism and capitalism can qualify as socialism in this sense.

Thinker -- You're correct in that I wasn't referring to socialism, but I wasn't necessarily referring to a welfare state either. I'm referring to tackling the "freedoms" that allow people to bring about these oppressions, to improve their welfare by their own means. But I'm not opposed to a welfare state either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What exactly would the difference be? Emancipation is the process, the change that brings about freedom. Isn't this just a semantic distinction to make?

Freedom is the word paraded around by bourgeois liberals, as opposed to emancipation.