How Does One Respond To This Capitalist Argument?

[DuracellBunny97]

Near the end of my last social studies class, our teacher asked some weird question as to weather or not there was a limit on how much information the internet could hold. One student responded saying that as long as there is a market for the internet, people will always find a way to add to it. The teacher then told him that, that was an example of "capitalism at it's best".

In this situation no debate was going on, and no argument was being made, but I have heard capitalists use an argument to this effect. That a socialist society, even if it were able to sustain itself, wouldn't be excessively productive or contributive to the rest of the world. My dad has actually tried to use this argument against socialism, making ridiculous claims that socialists "are the most selfish people in the world" using Quebec as an example calling it the "most socialist province in Canada" and consequently, the most selfish.

How would entrepreneurship work in a socialist society? I've heard various opinions from socialists, some saying it's totally discouraged, and some saying it actually plays a role in communist ethic. How would these things have come about with socialism as opposed to capitalism? And what innovations do we owe to socialists and socialist societies?

[Broletariat]

1. Most innovations in the world were made by workers who saw no profit from their gains.

2. They innovate for paper, we innovate for human lives.

[Apoi_Viitor]

rrkrvAUbU9Y

And what about all the free and open-source software on the Internet? Where's the market/entrepreneurial influence there? Or what about wikipedia?

Besides, the Internet itself was created through massive funding from the public sector...

Noam Chomsky -

A good illustration of how the market system really operates compared to the ideological propaganda is provided by Greenspan, who in 1998 gave a talk to newspaper editors in the US called the "Ascendance of Market Capitalism" where he spoke about the miracles of the free market, the wonders that the consumer choice of markets provide and so on. He in particular namedropped technologies that have created a "revolution" in the last half of the 20th century, namely lasers, satellites, transistors, the internet, computers, and information processing. You don't actually need to point much of this hypocrisy out, most people already know that these came straight from the state sector, not only the funding but the creative R&D. The internet alone spent roughly three decades in the public sector, first in the Pentagon and then later the NSF.

Out of all the examples, the only noteworthy exception is transistors which came from a private laboratory, Bell Telephone Laboratory of AT&T (which also did other significant research). However if you examine it more closely, it tells a different story. AT&T was in effect granted a monopoly by the government (which tells you something about the consumer choice involved), the market had no role in it. If you read economic literature it will correctly tell you that a monopoly is functionally identical to a tax in many ways, so it's publicly subsidized. While they did invent transistors, they did it only by being given a monopoly and not being subject to market forces allowing opportunity for abnormal profits. Furthermore they of course built upon and used wartime technology and after the industry was deregulated Bell Labs was split up and moved on to more short-term applied projects. Indeed just two years ago the remains of Bell Labs owned by Alcatel-Lucent announced that it was "pulling out of basic science, material physics, and semiconductor research" entirely and would instead "focus on more immediately marketable areas".

[Ocean Seal]

Near the end of my last social studies class, our teacher asked some weird question as to weather or not there was a limit on how much information the internet could hold. One student responded saying that as long as there is a market for the internet, people will always find a way to add to it. The teacher then told him that, that was an example of "capitalism at it's best".


Ok, well first off, the internet was developed through government R&D. And second capitalism is the reason that its so poorly organized. The fact that capitalist corporations run the internet is the reason. The servers are owned by private corporation who use them greedily and prevent the most efficient transfers of information. They actually did some experiments, and they tracked an information packet which when from one town in MA to another town in MA, and it had to go through Jerusalem. It was literally a the next town down.

Also most corporations who have servers are deeply funded by the government because the corporations are so inefficient. So take that capitalist argument for efficiency.



In this situation no debate was going on, and no argument was being made, but I have heard capitalists use an argument to this effect. That a socialist society, even if it were able to sustain itself, wouldn't be excessively productive or contributive to the rest of the world. My dad has actually tried to use this argument against socialism, making ridiculous claims that socialists "are the most selfish people in the world" using Quebec as an example calling it the "most socialist country in Canada" and consequently, the most selfish.

Ok, this is just silly. Quebec is not socialist. My mom makes the argument that all socialists are lazy, but that doesn't say anything about socialism as a philosophy. Nor does it discredit it.



How would entrepreneurship work in a socialist society? I've heard various opinions from socialists, some saying it's totally discouraged, and some saying it actually plays a role in communist ethic. How would these things have come about with socialism as opposed to capitalism? And what innovations do we owe to socialists and socialist societies?
I don't believe in any entrepreneurship unless its something during a transition stage where farm land was socialized and not collectivized or where some small restaurants are still working. I'm actually very interested in this issue, but I don't know all that much about it, to I'm still establishing a position.

[Kotze]

Near the end of my last social studies class, our teacher asked some weird question as to weather or not there was a limit on how much information the internet could hold. One student responded saying that as long as there is a market for the internet, people will always find a way to add to it. The teacher then told him that, that was an example of "capitalism at it's best".It looks like the internet holds the perfect response to such drivel:5hfYJsQAhl0:D

Let's put what the others said about the internet into a good quick response, and memorize it for the next occasion: The internet is a structure that was created by the US GOVERNMENT (more specific: the military). The free market are those people who sent everybody Viagra spam.

Most texts you can read on the internet are written by unpaid enthusiasts who want to help people and share information about their interests — like the already mentioned Wikipedia, this board and many others, blogs — well, and admittedly narcissism also plays a role, but IMHO a more positive than negative one.

Hmm, Viagra. It was originally developed for heart problems, and they just stumbled upon the other effect that it is today more known for. Discoveries have a lot to do with luck.

Another thing is that development happens in teams, new stuff is usually not the work of a lone genius. There is a persistent myth about patents that they go to the individuals who do the mental work. Thomas Edison is today known more as an inventor than a businessman, but the truth is that he employed many people who did research for him. Of course, researchers can also be employed by the public. Which country had the first human in space, again?

[Red Commissar]

TBH if we had market forces dictating the internet we'd see many things we associate good with the internet- information- be phased out in favor of media, and social networking since that's where the big bucks are at.

No, it'd be idiotic to package the success of the internet with the feel good arguments of capitalism- initiative, choice, demand. The internet is more a testament to the pursuit of knowledge and communication advances that much of human history has developed, and is not solely due to capitalism.

[southernmissfan]

Yeah in some ways I think the internet would actually be a negative example for capitalism. The amount of open source software and the massive amount of information that is provided for free shows that "profit motive" isn't always a necessity.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

RESPOND WITH RUPTURE.


No, seriously though, the whole premise of the argument - that "entrepreneurship" and "progress" are what matters vis- questions of social organization - is horrifying. Surely everybody wants something more out of life than THE INTERNET. The demand, like all consumer demand, reflects the context (a desert so desolate that the internet is an oasis).

[ckaihatsu]

Near the end of my last social studies class, our teacher asked some weird question as to weather or not there was a limit on how much information the internet could hold. One student responded saying that as long as there is a market for the internet, people will always find a way to add to it. The teacher then told him that, that was an example of "capitalism at it's best".


Being around primitive (8-bit) computers when I was growing up (in the '80s), I've often entertained the thought that the excruciatingly long wait of several decades to get computer technology to where it is today -- as a networked and capable consumer digital appliance -- could have been meaningfully *accelerated* and brought about much earlier if we hadn't had to go through so many incremental technological and marketing cycles.

A collectivized approach would enable a mass-rational tasking of development to actual, expressed people's needs. Instead of seeing how to get as much money out of the next round of development, a whole-istic method would be to bring all necessary components together to satisfy a mass-survey specification for technological tools, all at once.

Likewise the expansion of capacity for the net could probably be decades *ahead* of where we are today if such development wasn't forced to take such baby steps, in line with mere *market* requirements for tapping incremental cycles of sales revenue.

[gestalt]

First, by pointing out the obvious fallacies.

The predecessor to the internet (ARPANET) was developed entirely by government agencies and with public funds. These same departments and universities used the technology exclusively for decades before it was made available to the public through commercial avenues.

Similarly, they have to counter the existence of open source and community-based technology, as previously mentioned, whether in operating systems (Linux variants), browsers (Firefox), applications (OpenOffice, GNU Project), data and knowledge repositories (websites, wikis, forums, blogs), etc. Operated sans profit motive and contributed to by the community at large. Even for-profits like Valve Corporation depend on user contributions, mostly uncompensated, to stay relevant.

Innovation has been an aspect of all human modes of production (from the most primitive to the present), it is asinine to assume this is only attributable to the capitalist ethos and that it will mystically evade us under socialism/communism.

[DuracellBunny97]

I'm actually expecting the merits of capitalism to be shoved down my throat quite thoroughly this semester by my teacher, he's has already said that that free market capitalism is the driving force behind globalization, and I'll probably be rolling my eyes every time he mentions it.

[gestalt]

As a public educator in the field of social studies, I wish I could say your experience is the exception and not the rule.

[Amphictyonis]

Tesla was trying to provide free energy for the world but was stopped by JP Morgan before he could fail or succeed. He invented for the love of creation and to help mankind. How selfish of him!

[scarletghoul]

if theres one thing the internet proves its that the market dont mean shit. just check file sharing, open source software. etc/.... the way the internet works is largely communist, with capitalism clinging on by vandalising public cyberspace with adverts.. honeslty 99% of things people put online are for the collective good anbd not for profit.

[ckaihatsu]

if theres one thing the internet proves its that the market dont mean shit. just check file sharing, open source software. etc/.... the way the internet works is largely communist, with capitalism clinging on by vandalising public cyberspace with adverts.. honeslty 99% of things people put online are for the collective good anbd not for profit.


Without meaning to gloat, I'll add that the net is a communist's wet dream, extant here in actual reality -- who *wouldn't* have said "hell yeah" several decades ago to the idea of goods and services that never degrade, that don't require labor for servicing, that remain perfectly intact over any period of time, that reproduce perfectly, and that are infinitely replicable, at no additional cost, no matter how many copies are made -- ? -- !

*And* -- anything that *contradicts* any part of what I've said is *bullshit* and must therefore either be misguided or else is straight-out propaganda.

The digital domain is an excellent example of the 'increasing returns' dynamic, where a critical mass of beneficial environmental conditions, once established, yields (infinitely) useful returns, *without* requiring additional, linear inputs.

Finally, any attempts to *proprietize* portions of what's already *out there* is like trying to carve out slices of an ocean -- it's an exercise in futility that merely exposes the effort as an action of pure marketing with no *actual* good or service provided that couldn't simply be gotten by oneself for free (or at cost), on the net.

So the quasi-communism nature of the net is a "living, breathing" example of what happens to social dynamics given such a mode of fluid social relations -- people like ourselves can easily participate in open discussions on discussion boards, etc. It's an ideal specialized space -- the thing is to make it like this for the *rest* of the (physical) world...!

[DuracellBunny97]

one more argument that capitalists pose that I hate to admit actually takes me back a bit,

from an argument I had over facebook

"If I take the initiative to work hard and gather the resources to start my own business, why shouldn't I receive credit for it? if socialists had their way, I would go through all that work, and in the end become just another worker, rather than a leader. Face it, not everyone deserves a say, we don't allow children to vote, why allow inexperienced workers have a say in their workplace when they have no idea what their doing. Certainly some people slip through the cracks in capitalism, but thats no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water."

oy, I feel like a moron asking all the questions, but seriously I didn't know how to respond, I disagree obviously, but I couldn't think of a way to communicate that disagreement without making it sound as though I'm against people working hard. Any thoughts?

[blake 3:17]

They actually did some experiments, and they tracked an information packet which when from one town in MA to another town in MA, and it had to go through Jerusalem. That's actually the point of Internet.



if theres one thing the internet proves its that the market dont mean shit. just check file sharing, open source software. etc/.... the way the internet works is largely communist, with capitalism clinging on by vandalising public cyberspace with adverts.. honeslty 99% of things people put online are for the collective good anbd not for profit.
Seems like wishful thinking...

[ckaihatsu]

"If I take the initiative to work hard and gather the resources to start my own business, why shouldn't I receive credit for it? if socialists had their way, I would go through all that work, and in the end become just another worker, rather than a leader. Face it, not everyone deserves a say, we don't allow children to vote, why allow inexperienced workers have a say in their workplace when they have no idea what their doing. Certainly some people slip through the cracks in capitalism, but thats no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water."


Offhand I'd say that work roles would be in the context of a more-*politicized* social environment, after capitalism, so work itself would probably resemble inter-networked executive-type positions more than a single-proprietor type of situation.

And, since the basics of life and living could / would be easily provided for without everyone *needing* to work full-time for the collectivized society, that means that work itself would *necessarily* have to be based on wholehearted individual initiative and self-determined motivation -- there would be no working out of necessity or for base ulterior motives since work would, by definition, *not* be for subsistence in any sense of the term, for oneself or for those around oneself.

And, speaking of / in the spirit of "hard work", I'll note that I decided to go a little further than this basic explanation above and I created a model that addresses some *particulars* that could apply to a post-capitalist political economy. Excerpts are below....

(I *could* be accused of embodying a contradiction, being a 'self-promoting collectivist' here.... All I can say to that, is, hey, at least I'm #1 in modesty...! (grin)








Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived





Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality





Infrastructure / overhead

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Necessity, not profit, is the mother of invention.

[gestalt]

Always question the opponent's assumptions, they are more receptive and likely to learn, and possibly even change their views, in this way.


"If I take the initiative to work hard and gather the resources to start my own business, why shouldn't I receive credit for it?

How did this person come about these resources? Do they mean the fruits of their own labor or venture capital? Do they realize that capital is simply uncompensated labor? Is capital (whether intellectual, financial or physical) enough to create a functional business and wealth or does it require an input of labor? Who inputs this labor?


if socialists had their way, I would go through all that work, and in the end become just another worker, rather than a leader.

Why the need for hierarchy? What psychological or personality flaws do they possess which necessitates becoming a "leader" (capitalist)? Is there something inherently wrong with being "just another worker?" Why?


Face it, not everyone deserves a say, we don't allow children to vote, why allow inexperienced workers have a say in their workplace when they have no idea what their doing.

Why the paternalistic attitude towards workers? What about capitalism makes the worker "have no idea what they are doing?" What about it means that the capitalist knows what is best for the employees? Do their tasks become increasingly specialized and menial contributing to their alienation from work? When it comes to the production of the good or service, would the capitalist actually know how to perform the task of the workers whose surplus value they live off of? What makes capitalists and managers automatically "experienced" in successfully operating a business?


Certainly some people slip through the cracks in capitalism, but thats no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water."

More accurately, do a select few manage to exist from the labor of others without contributing their own? Is not the overwhelming majority of the world's population exploited for the benefit of the economic elite whether or not they "slip through the cracks?" Would the same person seek to discredit "communism" by citing the U.S.S.R., the PRC, Cuba, etc.? Would that not be "throwing the baby out with the bath water?"

[el_chavista]

... One student responded saying that as long as there is a market for the internet, people will always find a way to add to it. The teacher then told him that, that was an example of "capitalism at it's best"...

This is a distorted vision of concrete reality. Just take a look at this statement:
Free Software & Internet Show Communism is Possible (http://www.dailykosbeta.com/story/2011/01/03/887130/-Free-SoftwareInternet-Show-Communism-is-Possible)


There you can read "The historical materialism of Marx & Lenin long ago showed how advances in technology drive economic development and how, in turn, economic developments drive everything else."

This quotation from Bill Gates is pathetic:


There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of [the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises]. They don’t think that those incentives should exist.By [the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises] Bill Gates means the intellectual private property.

[zimmerwald1915]

By [the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises] Bill Gates means the intellectual private property.
A bit off-topic, but AFTRA's with Bill Gates on this one.

[KC]

Even better response: change the topic and stop talking about politics with this person.

[ckaihatsu]

This quotation from Bill Gates is pathetic:




There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of [the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises]. They don’t think that those incentives should exist.

By [the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises] Bill Gates means the intellectual private property.


He's using musicians and moviemakers and software makers as political human shields...(!)

[ckaihatsu]

the quasi-communism nature of the net


Thought I'd expand a little on this point and also elaborate on the open-source thing that others have mentioned -- in glowing about this 'virtual communism' I was remiss by not pointing out that the *production* process (for digital-based goods and services) is now commonly available to anyone with a new or used computer from the past ten years ($0-$200+).

Imagine an entire factory production plant that you simply *pick out* and *duplicate* from the comfort of your home, with all implements already set up in an assembly-line configuration. Better yet you also get the already-made *products* and *designs* for those products, for free, with full permission to tinker with them so as to make any improvements you'd like.

This description applies to the realm of free and open-source software, of course, meaning programming, but also holds true for other fields, including what I currently do with my backgrounds in education and graphics. Unlike physical, tangible goods, those cultural products that can be digitized then derive all the benefits of that mode of (massively miniaturized) existence, being passed around, added to, and co-administered by anyone and everyone at their whim.