Are there any benefits to capitalism?

[ChampionDishWasher]

Obviously, most of us feel that socialism is a better overall system, but, for society as a whole, is there anything that capitalism is more effective at and, if so, is there a way to incorporate these advantages into socialism?
Thought it might be interesting to talk about...

[danyboy27]

in before someone yell creativity.


but seriously creativity is hardly a coponent unique to capitalism.
i have hard times finding any real unique advantage to this system.

waste of ressources, waste of energy, inequal distriution of wealth, and the list goes on for hours.

there might be something good in capitalism, but i havnt found it yet,

[ChampionDishWasher]

in before someone yell creativity.


but seriously creativity is hardly a coponent unique to capitalism.
i have hard times finding any real unique advantage to this system.

waste of ressources, waste of energy, inequal distriution of wealth, and the list goes on for hours.

there might be something good in capitalism, but i havnt found it yet,

That's exactly why I asked.

[Die Rote Fahne]

No.

Simple, and easy answer. No. There is no "maybe" or "in-between".

It is just No.

[#FF0000]

It's better than feudalism.

[Thug Lessons]

It's better than feudalism. Also socialist values probably trace their development directly to liberal values.

[Skooma Addict]

It provides better incentives to work.

[Thug Lessons]

It's better than feudalism.

Yeah, that.


It provides better incentives to work.

Nothing motivates me better than a boss who doesn't know what he's talking about telling me how to do my job wrong while he makes more money than me.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It provides better incentives to work.

No, no it doesn't.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It works.


(sorry i could not resist. no need to preach the whole anti-cap argument to me i got it and agree)

[Thug Lessons]

It works..


No, no it doesn't.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Of course it works. Right now, at least.

The only reason socialism is going to be adopted is because the current mode of production, distribution, comsumption et cetera is going to become unsustainable. All the arguments about the advantages of one system versus the other are really just a load of academic bullshit. Things don't change because it's nice to do so, in fact wide change in often a violent and disturbing thing. Change comes solely because it's necessary.

[bcbm]

capitalism is great i get to live a barely decent existence at the expense of billions who live in utter misery and people who live even better shit on me and tell me i'm lazy!

[castlebravo]

i guess capital markets. exploitation and repugnance aside, securities trading (especially the trading platforms and software) are pretty cool.

[RGacky3]

benefits as opposed to what?

[Viet Minh]

I have a cynical attitude to human nature, I still hold the belief that greed is a great motivator of certain types of people, but equally this has a negative impact on people who are not materialistic. I imagine a Capitalist society overall is more wealthy (if you view material possesions and goods as wealth) than a socialist one, but the socialist society also has great motivators. Never underestimate the power of people who genuinely enjoy their work, and the attraction to fame and respect.
In short the cons greatly outwiegh the pros

[Che a chara]

No need to be blinded and one sided chaps........:)

IMO, the short term wealth increase in society and quicker and probably better building of infrastructure and development of sustainability through more experienced and expensive foreign investment/developers.

the only way i think to incorporate these into socialism is for socialism to progress to an advanced stage and through further revolutions in the world were sources are pooled together for the mutual benefit of every citizen.

[B5C]

Capitalism made these men what they are, but gave the world a benefit.

http://www.hauntedamericatours.com/toptenhaunted/toptenhauntedhouses/images/Thomas_A._Edison.jpghttp://www.nndb.com/people/294/000027213/henry-ford.gif

They only did what they did because of Capitalism. You like your light bulb? You can thank Capitalism. Also the modern car as well.

[RGacky3]

Not really, thanks science for that, and intelligent people, most inventions don't make that much profit for the inventor.

[B5C]

Not really, thanks science for that, and intelligent people, most inventions don't make that much profit for the inventor.

Thomas Edison created most of his inventions JUST for making money. If you create a business that just DOES inventions. You can make money and Edison showed us.

Also look at his war with Tesla during the War of Currents. Tesla is what you amy call the Socialist of inventors because he wanted electricty to be free and everywhere. Edison believe Telsa is a buisness threat and brutally CRUSH Telsa with great marketing.

Move like this show Edison how he was the biggest dicks in the universe. At least he made money from all his patents.
RkBU3aYsf0Q

[Hoplite]

Capitalism made these men what they are, but gave the world a benefit.

http://www.hauntedamericatours.com/toptenhaunted/toptenhauntedhouses/images/Thomas_A._Edison.jpghttp://www.nndb.com/people/294/000027213/henry-ford.gif

They only did what they did because of Capitalism. You like your light bulb? You can thank Capitalism. Also the modern car as well.

That's also making the assumption that those inventions wouldn't have come to pass without Capitalism. Simply because something happened under a Capitalist system doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't have happened under any other system.

As to the OP, what KIND of Capitalism are we talking about?

If we're talking about American Capitalism, I'm afraid I really cant see any noteworthy benefits beyond it willingly producing the means of it's own destruction. American Capitalists print and reprint anti-Capitalist works quite readily in efforts to make money without caring really who reads the books.

If we're talking about ideal Capitalism, then I think that's a different story. Ideal Capitalism is actually a fairly sound idea in theory, but it relies on human beings not getting greedy in a system that doesn't really restrain that impulse from being used in negative ways. If you have a Capitalist system that prevents people from getting ahead by cutting, then I think you'd have a much more successful system. I level the same charge at Capitalism that many others do at Socialism; its too idealistic to really work the way it's proponents say it will.

[#FF0000]

Yeah but you're also assuming that someone else wouldn't have invented it if not for Thomas Edison!

[B5C]

No, I am saying that without Capitalism we would have a different society. We would be living in a world of AC instead of DC.

[IcarusAngel]

This guy shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. AC is far superior to DC and that was proven by Tesla, who was a mathematician and a physicist, because it is capable of long range transmission. There was a war between Westinghouse (AC) and Edison (DC). It was a bit of a market failure as it was clear that AC was far superior and patents and things got in the way. Thus, our system is AC, not DC, but certain electronics like computers require DC - that is why power supplies convert from AC to DC. You need to make sure you set the switch to 60 if you live in the US since the current in our power lines switches directions 60 times per second (60 Hz). The PSU converts 110V or 220V AC into DC voltages that a computer needs to operate. These are +12VDC, -12VDC, +5VDC, -5VDC, and +3.3VDC.

I actually here stuff like this all the time from Libertarians. That capitalists invented this or that. Usually, none of it is true. Actually, capitalist stupidity and conspiracy theories about electronics and computers is actually dangerous. It's important to understand electricity so you don't harm yourself. Volts represent potential to do work. Current (i.e. amps) represent the force behind the work used by electricity. This is why you can produce tens of thousands of volts and not electrocute yourself - even though it has _potential_ to do great harm, the amp is too low, but welders can weld things using only 110 volts, because they use 100 to 200 amps. Rule of thumb: it's not the volts that can kill you, it's the amps.

Edison didn't even invent the light bulb either. He was one of the first to get patents on it in the US I think.

Also, final pro-tip sine I'm on it: Never open a power supply. They can retain a charge long after they've been unplugged. Never try and repair them. Just by a new one.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

As Terry Eagleton put it, saying Capitalism has all kinds of advantages is like telling your partner you've only got STD in one ball...:lol:

[Viet Minh]

the only benefit is that CAPITALISM can really emphasise what you're saying :lol:

[Marxista]

Worker movement born in capitalist society. Communism become a real opportunity only in a capitalist state.
But no real benefit.

[PhoenixAsh]

It provides better incentives to work.

I am not realy sure if you can call starvation and social stigma an incentive....

[tbasherizer]

Inventions are the culmination of historical conditions. To fetishize one individual or another for happening to be the one who invents something is nonesense. When the technology of the day comes to a level just below that which is necessitated by contemporaneous conditions, someone who is in the correct situation makes the small leap and advances technology a little bit further. If Thomas Edison, for musing's sake, had been randomly gunned down for no reason before inventing the lightbulb, some other person, perhaps a Prussian aristocrat-hobbyist or a British industrialist would have come up with his ideas.

Capitalism is responsible for the great bulk of technological advancements made from the Industrial Revolution until now. The ruthless competition between elements of the bourgeoisie for the advancement of capital and the resultant exploitation of science and labour for its purposes are what brought us westerners the luxuries we enjoy today. Sure, DARPAnet was a government-owned precursor to the Internet, but the military that created it was only an appendage of American capital. The same can be said of any other government-initiated technological advancement.

This being said, I endorse capitalism as much as a beaten prostitute thanks her pimp for the miserable pickings he leaves her to live off of. The fact that brutal exploitation and subjegation has brought us so far is by no means proof of its mutual benefit to mankind. Humankind can do so much better, as I'm sure we all know on these boards, and we should all strive to revolutionize global society into something more than a caviar factory for international imperialism.

[Viet Minh]

War advances technology and Capitalism advances war, so yeah arguably Capitalism advances technology a bit more quickly than it would naturally. Although the World being largely Capitalist its impossible to say what it would be like otherwise, maybe there's an alternate universe where Socialism has reigned across the World, and instead of having missilies that travel at hundreds of km/h and wiping out entire cities we have developed a cure for cancer, its pure speculation

[T-Paine]

I would say the right to own property, competition, voluntarism, freedom of choice, sense of purpose, and the ability to become better off than your parents are the more satisfactory characteristics of the free enterprise system.

It's definitely unfair to say that we are advanced because of capitalism and that advances wouldn't happen in a socialist world because of decreased incentives. However, I'd say that incentives were definitely a catalyst of sorts to today's progress in some situations. A great deal of scientific progress came out of the space race, and that wasn't profit motivated. Some of the greatest strides in software engineering have come from the F/OSS community, which is mostly comprised of unpaid volunteers with no fiscal incentive to make the great code that they do. That's not to say that we could've done without the corporate side of the industry either.

[Hoplite]

I would say the right to own property, competition, voluntarism, freedom of choice, sense of purpose, and the ability to become better off than your parents are the more satisfactory characteristics of the free enterprise system.
I would argue that those are the potential products of the IDEAL free enterprise system, however I think the reality is not as contributory (It's a word, look it up :P).

[T-Paine]

I would argue that those are the potential products of the IDEAL free enterprise system, however I think the reality is not as contributory (It's a word, look it up :P).

I definitely agree that it's never as good as the idealism, but for me that's the reality of human society. Expecting a perfect institution from humans (imperfect beings) is, in my opinion, naive. My socialist friends are definitely not content with any attempted implementation of socialism, just as there has never been a free enterprise society I didn't have disagreements about. It's really a matter of opinion and perspective.

[Obs]

Thomas Edison created most of his inventions JUST for making money. If you create a business that just DOES inventions. You can make money and Edison showed us.

Also look at his war with Tesla during the War of Currents. Tesla is what you amy call the Socialist of inventors because he wanted electricty to be free and everywhere. Edison believe Telsa is a buisness threat and brutally CRUSH Telsa with great marketing. [/YOUTUBE]
Marketing of inventions (including AC - the video of Tesla killing an elephant using AC was an attempt to discredit it because it was Tesla's invention) that he largely stole from Tesla. But of course you have to leave that out if you have to turn Thomas Edison into some kind of barely coherent, dishonest capitalist success story like you seem to be absolutely desperate to do.

[Thirsty Crow]

I definitely agree that it's never as good as the idealism...Expecting a perfect institution from humans (imperfect beings) is, in my opinion, naive.
In my opinion, it is naive to reflect on human history and human societies in terms of the binary pair "perfection-imperfection" since this betrays a kind of a metaphysical foundation for assessing concrete history.
The problem is not that the current stage of world history does not know an ideal capitalism - the problem is that ideal capitalism is still capitalism.

[Catmatic Leftist]

It's better at giving people headaches.

[Hoplite]

I definitely agree that it's never as good as the idealism, but for me that's the reality of human society. Expecting a perfect institution from humans (imperfect beings) is, in my opinion, naive.
Perhaps, but maybe striving to achieve such things ensures that, even though we may never succeed, we build something great in the process.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Perhaps we should consult Lord Keynes:

"For my part I think that capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient for attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight, but that in itself it is in many ways extremely objectionable."

"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods. In short we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed."

-It should be noted that one of Keynes' main proposals for dealing with the inequities of the global system was an International Clearing Union with mechanisms for balancing world trade, limiting over-production, preventing vicious debt cycles, etc. It has largely been forgotten and I think we would do well to remember it.

"When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight."

[Rafiq]

Thomas Edison created most of his inventions JUST for making money. If you create a business that just DOES inventions. You can make money and Edison showed us.

Also look at his war with Tesla during the War of Currents. Tesla is what you amy call the Socialist of inventors because he wanted electricty to be free and everywhere. Edison believe Telsa is a buisness threat and brutally CRUSH Telsa with great marketing.

Move like this show Edison how he was the biggest dicks in the universe. At least he made money from all his patents.
RkBU3aYsf0Q


Well, we don't need capitalism for stuff like that. If edison wouldn't have invented it in capitalism, someone would have invented it in Socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_inventions_and_technology_reco rds#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

[Rafiq]

It's better at killing more of the world's giant population, and resolves the population crisis very, very well(Sarcasm).

No, not much is good about living in capitalism. Actually nothing is good. Socialism is better than capitalism in every aspect possible.

[ar734]

Obviously, most of us feel that socialism is a better overall system, but, for society as a whole, is there anything that capitalism is more effective at and, if so, is there a way to incorporate these advantages into socialism?
Thought it might be interesting to talk about...

Marx said this (among things) about capital:

"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?" Communist Manifesto

However, the internal relations (laws of property, ownership, etc.) of capitalism can no longer keep up with the pace of this gigantic production. Therefore, socialism, based on social labor.

[Dr Mindbender]

Thomas Edison created most of his inventions JUST for making money.

People do not want money, they want the things that they can get with money, which would be freely available under a distributed abundancy society anyway ''BUT WHERE IS THE MOTIVE I HEAR YOU CRY?'' not for money, that much is sure... ...more the pursuit of better living standards for the sake of better living standards. Speaking as someone trying to break into the hi tech industries for a living, i can tell you that being curtailed into irrelevant work in the manufacturing or customer service sectors thanks to scarcity planning and missappropriation of training and jobs, this does no favours to the technically and creatively savvy from adverse social backgrounds when 40 hours of their week is wasted on nonsense. As for going into business/self employment, try getting a bank loan when you have a shady credit portfolio.

If anything, our techological advancements have been acquired IN SPITE of capitalism.

[Viet Minh]

Its unfair to judge socialism based on the few short term instances any 'state' has actually been allegedly socialist. What is fairly obvious is the way capitalist culture, and every other sort of hierarchical society for that matter, wastes talent. For instance even in 'liberal modern western society' if you are born in the wrong circumstances, it is incredibly difficult to have certain careers. How many mozarts dropped out of school, got a low paid job, started a family and never touched a musical instrument? Well of course we'll never know but you can't deny the simple fact that Captialist society is unfair. And I'm not saying leftists have it absolutely right either so far, in China or Cuba who you know is probably mroe improtant still than what you know.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Maybe.... economic efficiency and better-made commodities...?

On the other hand, the argument that capitalism promotes "creativity" and "ingenuity" is absolutely ridiculous.


Almost every aspect of what's called the "New Economy" is developed and designed at public cost and public risk: computers, electronics generally, telecommunications, the internet, lasers, whatever...

Take radio. Radio was designed by the US Navy. Mass production, modern mass production was developed in armories. If you go back to a century ago, the major problems of electrical and mechanical engineering had to do with how to place a huge gun on a moving platform, namely a ship, designing it to be able to hit a moving object, another ship, so naval gunnery. That was the most advanced problem in metallurgy, electrical and mechanical engineering, and so on. England and Germany put huge efforts into it, the United States less so. Out of associated innovations comes the automotive industry, and so on and so forth. In fact, it's very hard to find anything in the economy that doesn't rely critically on the state sector.

After the Second World War this took a qualitative leap upward, particularly in the United States, and while Alan Greenspan and others make speeches about "entrepreneurial initiative" and "consumer choice," and things you learn about in graduate school, and so on, this has almost no resemblance to the actual working economy. In fact a striking example of all this which we see very clearly at MIT, a main technological scientific university, is a recent shift in funding. When I got to MIT 50 years ago, it was Pentagon funded, almost one hundred percent. That stayed true until about 1970. Since then, however, Pentagon funding has been declining and funding from the National Institute of Health and the other so called health-related national institutes has gone up.

The reason is obvious to everybody except maybe some highly theoretical economists. The reason is that the cutting edge of the economy in the fifties and the sixties was electronics-based, so therefore it made sense for the public to pay for it under the pretext of defense. By now the cutting edge of the economy is becoming biology-based. Biotechnology, genetic engineering and so on, and pharmaceuticals, so it makes sense for the public to pay for that and to take the risks for it under the pretext of, you know, finding a cure for cancer or something. Actually what's happening is just developing the infrastructure and insights for the biological-based private industries of the future. They are happy to let the public pay the costs and take the risks, and then transfer the results to private corporations to make the profits.

Also, there's a great video of Dan Pink speaking on Ted Talks where he shows that financial motives actually harm rather than promote ingenuity.

[Agnapostate]

It provides better incentives to work.

Since the nature of capitalism necessitates the impossibility of full employment, that is untrue. Shapiro and Stiglitz's Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1804018) is essentially orthodox economists' affirmation of what Marx described more than a century prior in his commentary on the function of the reserve army of labor in the capitalist economy. Since the existence of unemployment and job search frictions in the labor market is a necessary mechanism for deterring shirking within firms, external inefficiency is essentially the necessary condition of internal efficiency (or some measure thereof) in the capitalist economy.


Maybe.... economic efficiency and better-made commodities...?

There is a substantial empirical record of greater efficiency and productivity within labor-managed firms in the context of the capitalist economy itself, so there can be inferences made about the superior efficiency of the socialist economy, which is based on the paradigm of collective-workers' democratic management of firms and resources. Since the existence of capitalism impedes the establishment of socialism, capitalism is not merely less efficient, but inefficient, since the opportunity cost of its continued existence is the greater efficiency/productivity that socialism produces.

Did you refer to commodities in the generic or in the Marxian sense?

[AthenaAwakened]

Today's music in general has very little spirit of the traditional. Sadder still it has very little spirit of the innovative either. Case in point. The other day I was listening to TLC in my car. Half way through Waterfalls I thought, this song came out in 1994 but its sound is the same as stuff still coming out today. SIXTEEN YEARS and r&b has not changed in structure. Take popular songs from 1944 and compare them to songs in the same genre in 1960. THERE'S A CHANGE. 1960 to 1976, a change. 1976 to 1992, a change. And then somewhere in the 1990s, change stopped. Something happened to turn the music we hear on the radio into cookie cutter, pigeon holed, two steps above musak, music.
FEBRUARY 8, 1996
President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. WHOOMP dare it is. DEREGULATION! Let the Market Prevail!

After that, mass consolidation of media ownership ensued.

Big business in its pursuit of profits is always looking for ways to cut costs. One way to cut costs, keep selling the same old bullshit.



New stuff is iffy and advertisers may not want to go out on a limb.
If you stick to a formula that everybody knows, especially a simple, easily taught one, you remove the need for expertise and workers become more easily replaced.
The longer your audience hears one sound, the more they are trained to expect and except that one sound as THE sound.


I think this is what the motivational speakers call a “win-win” :rolleyes:

[ChampionDishWasher]

Since the nature of capitalism necessitates the impossibility of full employment, that is untrue. Shapiro and Stiglitz's is essentially orthodox economists' affirmation of what Marx described more than a century prior in his commentary on the function of the reserve army of labor in the capitalist economy. Since the existence of unemployment and job search frictions in the labor market is a necessary mechanism for deterring shirking within firms, external inefficiency is essentially the necessary condition of internal efficiency (or some measure thereof) in the capitalist economy.



There is a substantial empirical record of greater efficiency and productivity within labor-managed firms in the context of the capitalist economy itself, so there can be inferences made about the superior efficiency of the socialist economy, which is based on the paradigm of collective-workers' democratic management of firms and resources. Since the existence of capitalism impedes the establishment of socialism, capitalism is not merely less efficient, but inefficient, since the opportunity cost of its continued existence is the greater efficiency/productivity that socialism produces.

Did you refer to commodities in the generic or in the Marxian sense?

Do you have any sources for this? I'm not doubting you, I just like to read about this kind of stuff.

[jinx92]

You like your light bulb? You can thank Capitalism. Also the modern car as well.

Do you like war? Do you like oppression? Do you like poverty? Do you like economic instability? Do you like unemployment? Well you can thank capitalism!

[Skooma Addict]

Since the nature of capitalism necessitates the impossibility of full employment, that is untrue. Shapiro and Stiglitz's Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1804018) is essentially orthodox economists' affirmation of what Marx described more than a century prior in his commentary on the function of the reserve army of labor in the capitalist economy. Since the existence of unemployment and job search frictions in the labor market is a necessary mechanism for deterring shirking within firms, external inefficiency is essentially the necessary condition of internal efficiency (or some measure thereof) in the capitalist economy.

When I say "incentive to work" I mean an incentive to work hard/increase ones productivity. Because "work or be shot" provides a great incentive to work, but such a rule does not appear to be an advantage in my opinion (not saying socialism does this. Just providing an example).

I cannot read your link, but I don't see full employment as an impossibility at all. I think it is highly unlikely that literally everyone who wanted to work could find work, but it is not impossible.

I don't know what Marx said about the reserve army of labor. I am assuming it does not rely on "capitalists" all sharing an interest in maintaining unemployment among the working classes (which they don't), as if all the capitalists of the world are secretly working together in some big plot.


There is a substantial empirical record of greater efficiency and productivity within labor-managed firms in the context of the capitalist economy itself, so there can be inferences made about the superior efficiency of the socialist economy, which is based on the paradigm of collective-workers' democratic management of firms and resources.

If this were true, then why aren't they more common? I am not saying that they are a bad model, just that if they were always more efficient, then one would expect them to be more common. Most likely the are more practical in certain circumstances and less so in others.

[Agnapostate]

Do you have any sources for this? I'm not doubting you, I just like to read about this kind of stuff.

Here are several that I refer to fairly often, the first because it is a meta-analysis, the second because it was my introduction to the literature, and the third because it focuses on an unconventional aspect of efficiency/productivity measurement:

1. Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524912): "Using meta-analytic techniques, the author synthesizes the results of 43 published studies to investigate the effects on productivity of various forms of worker participation: worker participation in decision making; mandated codetermination; profit sharing; worker ownership (employee stock ownership or individual worker ownership of the firm's assets); and collective ownership of assets (workers' collective ownership of reserves over which they have no individual claim). He finds that codetermination laws are negatively associated with productivity, but profit sharing, worker ownership, and worker participation in decision making are all positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles)."

2. Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://eid.sagepub.com/content/27/4/686.short): "A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital."

3. Financial Participation and Productivity: Insights from Stochastic Frontier Estimation (http://eid.sagepub.com/content/27/4/609.abstract): "This article revisits the relationship between employees’ financial participation in the firm and productive efficiency. The most recent empirical work highlights a growing number of influences on the success (or otherwise) of financial participation - organizational and labor force characteristics as well as the operation of ‘bundles’ of participatory arrangements. Yet, to date the empirical literature has relied totally on the conventional production function specification to investigate these issues. This article is an attempt to move beyond this approach and consider the merits of an alternative specification of the production technology, the stochastic production frontier. For this study’s data at least, the findings confirm this potential, revealing an alternative interpretation of the effectiveness of financial participation and additional insights into their ability to improve the level and variability of technical inefficiency within firms."


When I say "incentive to work" I mean an incentive to work hard/increase ones productivity.

As was I.


I cannot read your link, but I don't see full employment as an impossibility at all. I think it is highly unlikely that literally everyone who wanted to work could find work, but it is not impossible.

That is not what full employment is; full employment refers to the absence of cyclical unemployment. If you dispute the findings of the study, please cite one of superior quality that contradicts its results, or cite some methodological deficiency that renders its findings unsound.


I don't know what Marx said about the reserve army of labor. I am assuming it does not rely on "capitalists" all sharing an interest in maintaining unemployment among the working classes (which they don't), as if all the capitalists of the world are secretly working together in some big plot.

I'm glad you made an accurate assumption, in that case. Collusion isn't quite that widespread.


If this were true, then why aren't they more common? I am not saying that they are a bad model, just that if they were always more efficient, then one would expect them to be more common. Most likely the are more practical in certain circumstances and less so in others.

Skooma, many people can attest to the fact, which you probably know at heart, that I (and many others!) say things, and that you ignore what is said and bring up the original statements over and over again. The most concise explanation that I've found is in this description of Governing the Firm: Workers' Control in Theory and Practice (http://%5BURL%5Dhttp://www.amazon.com/Governing-Firm-Workers-Control-Practice/dp/0521522218%5B/URL%5D)

"Most large firms are controlled by shareholders, who choose the board of directors and can replace the firms management. In rare instances, however, control over the firm rests with the workforce. Many explanations for the rarity of workers' control have been offered, but there have been few attempts to assess these hypotheses in a systematic way. This book draws upon economic theory, statistical evidence, and case studies to frame an explanation. The fundamental idea is that labor is inalienable, while capital can be freely transferred from one person to another. This implies that worker controlled firms typically face financing problems, encounter collective choice dilemmas, and have difficulty creating markets for control positions within the firm. Together these factors can account for much of what is known about the incidence, behavior, and design of worker- controlled firms."

[Ocean Seal]

Obviously, most of us feel that socialism is a better overall system, but, for society as a whole, is there anything that capitalism is more effective at and, if so, is there a way to incorporate these advantages into socialism?
Thought it might be interesting to talk about...
The one thing that I could possibly think of is what is postulated by the Mises/Hayek economic calculation problem. Although, its not even close to being the death knell of socialism it makes the point that under socialism there are too many variables to calculate for a central planner and instead under capitalism the ruling class will make decisions in their economic interest and thus use resources most efficiently.

I haven't been able to refute this point (and it would be nice if I could get a refute here), but I merely ignore this problem. Because capitalism is miles more inefficient, and this only makes socialism marginally more inefficient as we don't need to be using all the resources to bring about an egalitarian society with more than plenty for everyone.

[Skooma Addict]

That is not what full employment is; full employment refers to the absence of cyclical unemployment. If you dispute the findings of the study, please cite one of superior quality that contradicts its results, or cite some methodological deficiency that renders its findings unsound. I cannot read the study. Just explain the arguments yourself.


Skooma, many people can attest to the fact, which you probably know at heart, that I (and many others!) say things, and that you ignore what is said and bring up the original statements over and over again. The most concise explanation that I've found is in this description of Governing the Firm: Workers' Control in Theory and Practice (http://%5burl%5dhttp//www.amazon.com/Governing-Firm-Workers-Control-Practice/dp/0521522218%5B/URL%5D)

"Most large firms are controlled by shareholders, who choose the board of directors and can replace the firms management. In rare instances, however, control over the firm rests with the workforce. Many explanations for the rarity of workers' control have been offered, but there have been few attempts to assess these hypotheses in a systematic way. This book draws upon economic theory, statistical evidence, and case studies to frame an explanation. The fundamental idea is that labor is inalienable, while capital can be freely transferred from one person to another. This implies that worker controlled firms typically face financing problems, encounter collective choice dilemmas, and have difficulty creating markets for control positions within the firm. Together these factors can account for much of what is known about the incidence, behavior, and design of worker- controlled firms."You are already attacking me personally? I am sure not what exactly you found so wrong with my initial reply to you. You claimed worker managed firms were more efficient, and then I asked why then they weren't more common. I didn't bring up any original statements.

Your link is not working for me, although I see it is amazon. Do you want me to order a book now?

Just explain yourself why worker run firms are not more common if they are more efficient. If they were more efficient, then one would assume financing wouldn't be much of a problem, as they would presumably receive funds from outside investors.

[StockholmSyndrome]

However, the internal relations (laws of property, ownership, etc.) of capitalism can no longer keep up with the pace of this gigantic production. Therefore, socialism, based on social labor.

Do you actually think that, or are you just regurgitating it because Marx said so? Do any of you truly believe that capitalism cannot adapt to the ever-changing productive forces it creates? Or are you just repeating what somebody said 150 years ago?

Edit: And if so, when is the tipping point? And why is it that every new generation of Marxists and communists thinks that their time is it?

[Revolution starts with U]

Hey, think Gutenburg. If you like the printed word.. thank feudalism. If you like concrete, thank Roman imperialism :lol:

[RGacky3]

Just explain yourself why worker run firms are not more common if they are more efficient. If they were more efficient, then one would assume financing wouldn't be much of a problem, as they would presumably receive funds from outside investors.

THey are efficient BECAUSE they don't have to worry about profit for outside investors.

[#FF0000]

Do you actually think that, or are you just regurgitating it because Marx said so? Do any of you truly believe that capitalism cannot adapt to the ever-changing productive forces it creates? Or are you just repeating what somebody said 150 years ago?

Well, I mean, it can change insofar as it can keep itself going. People are still impoverished beyond reason and workers are still subject to everything that's bad about capitalism.

As for the topic at hand:

I thank Capitalism for Pokemon.

[RGacky3]

Its better at making people work for less, and better at having a gaint economy that benefits very very few people.

[#FF0000]

Yeah it's remarkably stable as far as pyramid schemes go.

[Obs]

Hey, think Gutenburg. If you like the printed word.. thank feudalism. If you like concrete, thank Roman imperialism :lol:
You like cities? Thank slavery!

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Capitalism works great! For the Capitalists. It does exactly what it's supposed to! Exactly what the ruling class wants it to do. There is literally nothing wrong with Capitalism. It does what it was intended to do. No more. No less.

[Impulse97]

Anybody else notice that being a CEO is a lot like being a Pokemon Master?

The never ending quest to obtain more money/Pokemon?

Trapping helpless creatures and forcing them to live in cramped living quarters v. trapping people in debt and them being forced to live in cramped living conditions.

Earning badges for all the other Pokemon catchers who where better than you that you defeated v. earning more money and prestige for buying out your competition.:laugh:

[Dr Mindbender]

Hey, think Gutenburg. If you like the printed word.. thank feudalism. If you like concrete, thank Roman imperialism :lol:

If you like ballistic missiles, assault rifles and sex dolls thank national socialism

(these are all nazi inventions).

[Viet Minh]

Anybody else notice that being a CEO is a lot like being a Pokemon Master?

The never ending quest to obtain more money/Pokemon?

Trapping helpless creatures and forcing them to live in cramped living quarters v. trapping people in debt and them being forced to live in cramped living conditions.

Earning badges for all the other Pokemon catchers who where better than you that you defeated v. earning more money and prestige for buying out your competition.:laugh:

I reckon dog fighting is regaining popularity because of pokemon :mad:


If you like ballistic missiles, assault rifles and sex dolls thank national socialism

(these are all nazi inventions).

And ecstasy I think

[Impulse97]

I reckon dog fighting is regaining popularity because of pokemon :mad:

Right. Pokemon's to blame, not the people themselves who chose to commit the act.

[Viet Minh]

Right. Pokemon's to blame, not the people themselves who chose to commit the act.

Exactly! :thumbup: Actually it wasn't a very serious point, but there is some truth to it. Media like computer games and films etc have been proven to have links to violence, particularly with more impressionable individuals (to put it diplomatically).

[RGacky3]

Anybody else notice that being a CEO is a lot like being a Pokemon Master?


No ... Stop.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Of course there are benefits to Capitalism. Otherwise people wouldn't use it as an economic system. As others have said, it is better than Feudalism. Problem is, there are huge contradictions within Capitalism which, according to Marx, will cause it to cease working at some point in time (like 2008 or 1928)

[Che a chara]

Of course there are benefits to Capitalism. Otherwise people wouldn't use it as an economic system. As others have said, it is better than Feudalism. Problem is, there are huge contradictions within Capitalism which, according to Marx, will cause it to cease working at some point in time (like 2008 or 1928)

The faults of capitalism are more hidden to the worker than feudalism. Though Marx did interpret that capitalism was necessary for the development of industry and factory production and also speculated on the ability of it's accumulation of wealth to invest. Though these are more or less short term, they do benefit society in some way.

[Revolution starts with U]

Exactly! :thumbup: Actually it wasn't a very serious point, but there is some truth to it. Media like computer games and films etc have been proven to have links to violence, particularly with more impressionable individuals (to put it diplomatically).

Have they? Because I thought all the evidence pointed to the contrary.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Benefits of capitalism? Duh! #WINNING

[Dr Mindbender]

Benefits of capitalism? Duh! #WINNING

Most of the southern hemisphere sure isn't 'winning'.

[Bud Struggle]

Benefits of capitalism? Duh! #WINNING It is fun to win. Actually I would guess it's that fun they keeps people wanting more than they really need.

Maybe 100 million dollars is more than anyone could actually spend--so why go to a billion dollars? It's the fun of it.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Most of the southern hemisphere sure isn't 'winning'.

Thanks, Dr. Downer. I was just making an ironical Sheenism.

[Dr Mindbender]

It is fun to win. Actually I would guess it's that fun they keeps people wanting more than they really need.

Maybe 100 million dollars is more than anyone could actually spend--so why go to a billion dollars? It's the fun of it.

Its psychology and the cultural conditioning that they've grown up in and become accustomed to. They feel the size of their mansions and by extension, the breadth of their wallets is somehow proportional to the length of their cocks.

Replacing the desire for money with the desire for knowledge is key. The majority of successful people in the world didn't work particularly hard at any specific discipline to get where they are other than the art of self gain. Bill Gates who spent the first 25 years of his life wanking off among discarded pizza boxes dropped out of harvard before he got his degree. Richard Branson started Virgin records thanks to a subsidy from his already well to do parents. I have a good CV, I work my arse off for £6 an hour and im barely making ends meet. The blatant fallacy that hard work pays is the thing about capitalism that fills me most with anger.

[RGacky3]

It is fun to win. Actually I would guess it's that fun they keeps people wanting more than they really need.

Maybe 100 million dollars is more than anyone could actually spend--so why go to a billion dollars? It's the fun of it.

Absolutely, thats the problem, because from 100 million to a billion, is great fun, but you know what happens? People loose their jobs, countries go into poverty, resources get depleted. So sure its fun, but is that the model we want? BTW, its also fun to be a king and conquer new lands, but people die.

[Distruzio]

Do you like war? Do you like oppression? Do you like poverty? Do you like economic instability? Do you like unemployment? Well you can thank capitalism!

Pretty sure all of that existed before capitalism existed.

[Distruzio]

Anybody else notice that being a CEO is a lot like being a Pokemon Master?

The never ending quest to obtain more money/Pokemon?

Trapping helpless creatures and forcing them to live in cramped living quarters v. trapping people in debt and them being forced to live in cramped living conditions.

Earning badges for all the other Pokemon catchers who where better than you that you defeated v. earning more money and prestige for buying out your competition.:laugh:


I have no idea what this is... and I'm suspicious of possible Google results. I don't want porn so.... being a CEO is a lot like [n;fiua;nfrieugha;gknsdva]? What?

[28350]

It's great at maintaining an equilibrium of prices through the market. If we didn't have these market-defined prices, what would we do with all our moneys?


I have no idea what this is... and I'm suspicious of possible Google results. I don't want porn so.... being a CEO is a lot like [n;fiua;nfrieugha;gknsdva]? What?

Pokémon (ポケモン, Pokemon? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_sets), English pronunciation: /ˈpoʊkeɪmɒn/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) poh-kay-mon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-ssbbrawl-0)) is a media franchise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_franchise) published and owned by the video game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game) company Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo) and created by Satoshi Tajiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Tajiri) in 1996. Originally released as a pair of interlinkable Game Boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Boy_line) role-playing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_role-playing_game) video games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game) developed by Game Freak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Freak), Pokémon has since become the second most successful and lucrative video game-based media franchise in the world, behind only Nintendo's own Mario series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_%28series%29).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-UK_paper_names_top_game_franchises-1) Pokémon properties have since been merchandised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchandising) into anime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime), manga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga), trading cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectible_card_game), toys, books, and other media. The franchise celebrated its tenth anniversary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon:_Tenth_Anniversary) in 2006,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-2) and as of 28 May 2010 (2010 -05-28)[update] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon&action=edit), cumulative sales of the video games (including home console versions, such as the "Pikachu" Nintendo 64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64)) have reached more than 200 million copies.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-pokemon-3)
The name Pokémon is the romanized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese) contraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_%28grammar%29) of the Japanese brand Pocket Monsters (ポケットモンスター, Poketto Monsutā? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_sets)),[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-The_Pokemon_Series_Pokedex_.40_Gaming_Target-4) as such contractions are quite common in Japan. The term "Pokémon", in addition to referring to the Pokémon franchise itself, also collectively refers to the 649 fictional species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon) that have made appearances in Pokémon media as of the release of the Pokémon role-playing game (RPG) for the Nintendo DS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS), Pokémon Black and White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Black_and_White). Like the words deer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer) and sheep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_sheep), the word "Pokémon" is identical in both the singular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_number) and plural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural), as is each individual species name; in short, it is grammatically correct to say both "one Pokémon" and "many Pokémon" as well as "one Pikachu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu)" and "many Pikachu". In November 2005, 4Kids Entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Kids_Entertainment), which had managed the non-game related licensing of Pokémon, announced that it had agreed not to renew the Pokémon representation agreement. Pokémon USA Inc. (now The Pokémon Company International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pok%C3%A9mon_Company)), a subsidiary of Japan's Pokémon Co., now oversees all Pokémon licensing outside of Asia.[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-5"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon#cite_note-5)

perhaps you could return the favor and tell me what "anarcho-monarchism" is.

[Distruzio]

perhaps you could return the favor and tell me what "anarcho-monarchism" is.

Anarcho-Capitalism without the implied democracy and an emphasis on dandyism as a social rejection of egalitarianism.

[RGacky3]

Anarcho-Capitalism without the implied democracy and an emphasis on dandyism as a social rejection of egalitarianism.

There is no implied democracy in anarcho-capitalism, the only thing is implied is that said person knows nothing about Capitalism or anarchism.

[sattvika]

I have no idea what this is... and I'm suspicious of possible Google results. I don't want porn so.... being a CEO is a lot like [n;fiua;nfrieugha;gknsdva]? What?

Fine piece of trollery there

I know kids in motherfucking Uganda who know what pokemon is

[Blake's Baby]

The faults of capitalism are more hidden to the worker than feudalism. Though Marx did interpret that capitalism was necessary for the development of industry and factory production and also speculated on the ability of it's accumulation of wealth to invest. Though these are more or less short term, they do benefit society in some way.

Not sure if the faults of capitalism are more hidden than those of feudalism. Both systems have a massive ideological apparatus to keep the status quo. In capitalism, it's been the mass media for the last century or so, as well as the education system.

Under feudalism it was the Church (which generally controlled the education system anyway) that preached that everyone had their place in the Divine Order.

In both cases, 'the ruling ideas' were 'the ideas of the ruling class' and social order was maintained by re-inforcing them. The feudal social order was swpt away, eventually, unlike the capitalist order. Sadly, that seems (even through its crises) to be able to hoodwink large numbers of people into believing it's still viable. I wonder if there were 'anarcho-feudalists' in 1400 going 'no, you don't understand, freedom means everyone can be a Duke...'

[ColonelCossack]

there is nothing "good" about capitalism apart from the fact that it is a bit more efficient at producing than feudalism... but even so, it is still vastly wasteful and inefficient and the only reason for the previously mentioned benefit is that the birth of capitalism coincided with the industrial revolution, which is no coincidence because capitalism requires labour to be alienated by the workers working in a factory instead of in their own home. But that's irrelevant.
Anyway, under communism or anarchism (with the exception of anarcho-privitism which isn't even leftist anyway) you would have the industry from capitalism, as well as the fairness and efficiency of communism/anarchism. whatever. :drool:

[ComradeMan]

Capitalism is a wonderful system...


....for capitalists.