Capitalism is great

[durhamleft]

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/18/worldgdp1600_2003a.gif

[durhamleft]

agreed?

[Kamos]

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/18/worldgdp1600_2003a.gif

So?

[durhamleft]

http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/diagrams/measur5.gif

[a rebel]

2 graphs that show inflation?

[durhamleft]

Every year capitalism brings higher and higher standards of living. Sure there are booms and busts, but in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system, is morally correct and provides freedom which your politics doesn't.

[durhamleft]

take it you dont do economics..

[a rebel]

Every year capitalism brings higher and higher standards of living. Sure there are booms and busts, but in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system, is morally correct and provides freedom which your politics doesn't.

I'm not even gonna argue, instead I will stand back and shout at the top of my lungs TROLL!!!!

[durhamleft]

I'm not trolling- I believe everything I just said.

[Kamos]

Every year capitalism brings higher and higher standards of living. Sure there are booms and busts, but in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system

No, it doesn't. In the long run, it will collapse as eternal growth cannot be sustained. Even the same wealth cannot be sustained for long.


is morally correct

Worst argument ever. Piss off.


and provides freedom which your politics doesn't.

What is this "freedom" you talk about? The freedom to starve?

[Nox]

More money in the hands of the rich ;)

[R_P_A_S]

all this based on GDP?

[JFB.anon]

This is a very typical fallacy among conservatives. They say "capitalism is the system that brought us this joy, socialists are whining about nothing". When they say this, they're showing their ignorance.

Progressive economics and labor unions bring us happiness, nothing more, nothing less. Wages (http://blacksnob.com/snob_blog/2011/9/7/nyt-graphic-depressingly-displays-how-we-work-harder-for-les.html) have been stagnant in America since the 80s in the U.S - I'm sure you can blame Reagan and his neoliberal legacy for that.

Only spending leads to economic growth, the only people who can spend are capitalists; they don't want to because they get hard off of accumulating money to put in offshore accounts.

Wealth inequality leads to more desperate people who'll accept even lower wages. Guess what creates wealth inequality? Neoliberal capitalism.
And, nowadays, you can't join a union as there's someone who'll accept less.

Capitalists are amoral pseudo-humans who's only point in living is cutting expenses (that's labor), competition, and the environment. Letting them loose will only lead to the above - something that Clinton already did gleefully. It is cartoon morality to assume that letting them loose to create duopolies will somehow lead to prosperity.

The only people who can spend their money in this neoliberal paradise are capitalists who have the money to; hence, "jobless recovery".
:rolleyes:

[durhamleft]

"eternal growth cannot be sustained" - Yes, of course it can, though clearly it depends on the type of growth you are talking about. However the vast majority of growth that countries are currently entertaining is productivity led growth- ie increasing quality of factors of production- not quantity- thus is sustainable. Eg. Did you know that the UK economy for example is only as half as reliant on oil as it was in 1970? Eg. Our economy is twice as big yet uses the same amount of oil - what is better than productivity growth like that? Even most intellectual Marxists agree for the need for growth.

moral? Read the Wilt Chamberlin example. If I bake 100 cakes, and people choose to buy them, and i agree to sell them, then surely that is moral? I agree with redistributive taxation, but capitalism isn't 'evil', it's just the trading of goods.

Freedom includes the freedom to fail, yes, however every Marxist country has led to more starvation etc than it ever would have under capitalism. I agree with a welfare state to limit the excesses of capitalism at both ends of the spectrum, however everyone has the right make something of themselves and the right to fail.

[durhamleft]

> regarding wage growth stagnation in the US.

It is partially due to lower tax rates etc but mainly because of the rise of the East.

[Hivemind]

GDP per capita is a misleading way to judge standard of living. Averages in general are easily skewed this way.

Say you have 10 people. 9 of them make 10 dollars a day, 1 person makes 500 dollars a day. 590 bucks in total are made a day. The average money made a day is 59 bucks per person. At least use median instead of average, because average skews the everlasting shit out of statistics like GDP per capita to give the false sense of growth in the standard of living for people.

[durhamleft]

Funny that..

I look back to 1970 in the UK and the average working class person had much worse technology, spent a much higher proportion of income on food, had on average a smaller house, couldnt afford holidays etc. Compare that to now. Capitalism benefits all of society- though I agree the rich disproportionately more

[durhamleft]

Yeah, I know re. averages being skewed. But in the UK, Standards of Living have been improving across the board for all classes from A- DE

[danyboy27]

Funny that..

I look back to 1970 in the UK and the average working class person had much worse technology, spent a much higher proportion of income on food, had on average a smaller house, couldnt afford holidays etc. Compare that to now. Capitalism benefits all of society- though I agree the rich disproportionately more

the rise of credit + technology+outsourcing of job to get cheaper good explain all that verry well.

[JFB.anon]

> regarding wage growth stagnation in the US.

It is partially due to lower tax rates etc but mainly because of the rise of the East.

China? The Asian Tigers? Really? That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard, how does the rapid economic growth of a nation that's 5 million miles away from us have to do with wages? There's a blatantly obvious reason, you don't want to admit as your libertarian theology bans all reason.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Yeah and turtles are red.

[danyboy27]

> regarding wage growth stagnation in the US.

It is partially due to lower tax rates etc but mainly because of the rise of the East.

the ''rise of the east'' didnt happen magically, capitalist made it happen by outsourcing job over there.

[danyboy27]

Yeah and turtles are red.

dont hold your breath

http://www.gracechosygallery.com/pictures/Gahr/Gahr_RedTurtle_web.jpg

[Tim Cornelis]

Funny that..

I look back to 1970 in the UK and the average working class person had much worse technology, spent a much higher proportion of income on food, had on average a smaller house, couldnt afford holidays etc. Compare that to now. Capitalism benefits all of society- though I agree the rich disproportionately more

And slaves in 1700 had much more comfortable chains than slaves from 1500. The fact is real income has been stagnating since the 1960s, except for the rich of course. The fact is "medieval Britons were twice as rich as the poor in the Third World today".

[Catmatic Leftist]

He got restricted for advocating racism by employers, and now he's angry and coming back to troll RevLeft. :laugh:

[durhamleft]

>JFB

The reason for it is this.

In 1950 as productivity increased, workers could demand wages that went up in line with them. In 2010, if workers demand wages that go up in line with productivity, then they are likely to be priced out the market by goods and services produced in the East. It's one of the few flaws in globalisation and until Eastern economies get in line with Western it'll be a bit of a ***** for us, as we'll be priced out by them due to much lowe unit lbr costs

[Rafiq]

Funny that..

I look back to 1970 in the UK and the average working class person had much worse technology, spent a much higher proportion of income on food, had on average a smaller house, couldnt afford holidays etc. Compare that to now. Capitalism benefits all of society- though I agree the rich disproportionately more

Life was better for people in the UK back then... Neo Liberalism has destroyed living standards for most people on Planet Earth, you know.

[durhamleft]

He got restricted for advocating racism by employers, and now he's angry and coming back to troll RevLeft. :laugh:

I did not 'advocate racism' and it's a ridiculous claim.

I said people should be allowed to be racist and to discriminate.

I think people should be allowed to take heroin and visit prostitutes however I would not 'advocate' either and would say they're both morally reprehensible.

[Rafiq]

Workers have better technology now, and more food, because of the rise of credit. Workers are in debt now. Back then, wages were cut so low they couldn't afford anything. The banks threw credit cards at them and it created debt. If anything you are arguing for the other side.

[durhamleft]

Really? I don't think so man. Things seem better to me now. With the average salary in 1970 you could get less than half what you could with average salary in 2010. Inflations less, unemployments less, even domestic pollutions less

[Rafiq]

Plus, a dollar back then was worth a lot more than a dollar now. Are you sure those graphs addressed that problem? I guess not.

[durhamleft]

It isn't just the rise of credit though is it- though i agree that credit caused a bubble in the noughties

[Grenzer]

Capitalism sucks.

It's internal contradictions make it unsustainable, and it's declining, not improving, the standards of living. In the developed world, the so called "middle class" is eroding, the poor are getting poorer; and in the developing nations, almost all of the wealth created by the tremendous growth is going to an emerging bourgeoisie, not the people as a whole.

Capitalism is an unsustainable system whose foundations rest on greed and short sightedness. There are no redeeming qualities about it, period; unless of course you are talking about advancing from a feudal society to a capitalist one. However, we are far beyond that. We can advance forward to socialism, or descend into barbarism. Capitalism is unsustainable and these are the choices available.

[durhamleft]

Plus, a dollar back then was worth a lot more than a dollar now. Are you sure those graphs addressed that problem? I guess not.

Yeah, that's what it means when it says (1990 dollar) and the other one isn't inflation adjusted, however an inflation adjusted one shows a rise in REAL GDP, just less than with inflation factored in.

[Rafiq]

Really? I don't think so man. Things seem better to me now. With the average salary in 1970 you could get less than half what you could with average salary in 2010. Inflations less, unemployments less, even domestic pollutions less

Because now things are cheaper than they were before, you know, due to all those wonderful sweatshops in Asia we have now.

If anything you just moved the poverty and misery somewhere else. Capitalism doesn't fix problems, it moves them geographically.

[JFB.anon]

>JFB

The reason for it is this.

In 1950 as productivity increased, workers could demand wages that went up in line with them. In 2010, if workers demand wages that go up in line with productivity, then they are likely to be priced out the market by goods and services produced in the East. It's one of the few flaws in globalisation and until Eastern economies get in line with Western it'll be a bit of a ***** for us, as we'll be priced out by them due to much lowe unit lbr costs
Really?
Well, then, I guess you advocate protectionist economies, right?

[Rafiq]

Plus, I think this is obvious. The Rich have gotten richer, thus, the GDP per capita has risen. This doesn't mean anything. Living standards may have risen, only due to inevitable advances in technology. Living standards today would have been better without the Neo-Liberalism.

A high GDP doesn't equal good living standards.

And, plus, labor was disciplined in the 80's. Workers lost their power. Not any more, no.

[durhamleft]

>JFB.

No. I think protectionism hurts the poor. I think that what we need is a major rebalancing of the world economy. We need the Chinese to start spending and consuming more and the US to start saving more. However, as China get richer (and stop artificially devaluing their currency) we'll see wages in West increase. Though we should also give trade unions more power and increase high level tax as it's important for reducing inequality which is getting too much.

[durhamleft]

But Rafiq- Im saying even when you look at the lowest quartile in Britain, their average income has risen in real terms. It isn't just the bougeoise / capital-owning class. And re. technology advances being inevitable- I'd argue many of them have come about via capitalism.

[La Comédie Noire]

Capitalism has been really good at making low cost consumer goods, but that isn't the only thing in life. People need good homes, quality education, cheap energy, and good infrastructure, investments none but a few capitalists are willing to risk.

I mean I can dress in nice Adidas shoes and play the latest xbox360 game, but my health care and more recently food security is wanting.

[JFB.anon]

No. I think protectionism hurts the poor
Why would that happen; getting people to spend money on American products only? The labour market would be revitalized and unions would have some sort of power again.

China's only power is in throwing cheaply made goods at us; wouldn't cutting them out and allowing wages to increase again on our front lead to a manufacture and consumption economy again?

And, don't forget, American corporations are still holding all of our wealth hostage; neoliberal capitalism can still be blamed for that.

[durhamleft]

But even then- health care (which I think should be in public sector incidentally) is getting much better, as is education, and infrastructure). Again with food. It makes up much less of the average income now than it used to. Eg, My mam used to be barely afford meat once a week. Now the average working class person can afford meat every night etc.

[Sputnik_1]

moral? Read the Wilt Chamberlin example. If I bake 100 cakes, and people choose to buy them, and i agree to sell them, then surely that is moral? I agree with redistributive taxation, but capitalism isn't 'evil', it's just the trading of goods.

Too bad you need money to get ingredients for the cake and even worse that people have to buy cakes with the money they got from someone who paid them less than their labor is worth for making those cakes (paying for their work just like it was one of the ingredients) so they don't starve to death.

Oh, and... freedom to fail? too bad that I've failed since i was born, just like the whole working class.

[durhamleft]

Because if we introduced taxes on imports then Chinese workers etc would not be able to sell their goods to us as much so they'd get less and working class people in the uk etc wuldnt get their goods so cheap so would have less spending power. protectionism helps noone

[Rafiq]

But Rafiq- Im saying even when you look at the lowest quartile in Britain, their average income has risen in real terms. It isn't just the bougeoise / capital-owning class. And re. technology advances being inevitable- I'd argue many of them have come about via capitalism.

No one is saying capitalism doesn't raise living standards. Capitalism is a great system, on a historical scale.

However we are arguing that it contains the seeds of it's own destruction, and is bound to collapse eventually. Capitalism isn't the best system we'll ever organize ourselves into. We have been around for a million years.

But Neo Liberalism is like Fascism (Of course they are in theory completely different) in that both Fascism and Neo Liberalism are direct responses to the growing rise of class struggle. But like Fascism, we will crush Neo-Liberalism, until there is no force great enough to stand in the way of the awesome power of the proletariat.

[La Comédie Noire]

But even then- health care (which I think should be in public sector incidentally) is getting much better, as is education, and infrastructure). Again with food. It makes up much less of the average income now than it used to. Eg, My mam used to be barely afford meat once a week. Now the average working class person can afford meat every night etc.


Yes, but for how much longer especially now with capital flowing out of the first world nations and into the emerging markets? Capitalists don't take care of us because they like us, they have to in order to ensure steady and reliable returns on their investments. Things like Health care and Education are becoming class privileges again as public schools and benefits shrink due to want of revenue. This will continue to happen even if we make ourselves more competitive (IE. work more for less) It's called disciplining labor.

[Rafiq]

But even then- health care (which I think should be in public sector incidentally) is getting much better, as is education, and infrastructure). Again with food. It makes up much less of the average income now than it used to. Eg, My mam used to be barely afford meat once a week. Now the average working class person can afford meat every night etc.

But at what expense?

[durhamleft]

I agree about capitalism not being the be all and end all. One day a system will be devised better than capitalism or socialism, then one better than that etc.

However currently, I think a capitalist system based on Keynesian, not neoliberal, economics provides the best standards of living for the most people.

[JFB.anon]

Because if we introduced taxes on imports then Chinese workers etc would not be able to sell their goods to us as much so they'd get less and working class people in the uk etc wuldnt get their goods so cheap so would have less spending power. protectionism helps noone
Why wouldn't the Chinese try to grow their economy the same way every other nation has? There's already a massive wealth inequality that nation, why wouldn't they get people to join unions over there and start spending?

[durhamleft]

Yes, but for how much longer especially now with capital flowing out of the first world nations and into the emerging markets? Capitalists don't take care of us because they like us, they have to in order to ensure steady and reliable returns on their investments. Things like Health care and Education are becoming class privileges again as public schools and benefits shrink due to want of revenue. This will continue to happen even if we make ourselves more competitive (IE. work more for less) It's called disciplining labor.

Do you really think we're on our way back to Victorian society?

Capital is flowing to emerging economies- but thats a good thing- unless you want to live on the back of shitty conditions of Chinese workers etc. It's only fair that they bring standards of living up.

re. health and education. dunno bowt where you live, but in the UK neither are class privileges as things stand, and I'd be amazed to see either be entirely privitised.

[durhamleft]

Because the communist party are scared shitless of any organisation of labour etc that may topple them. It's political rather than economic why China are pursuing the devaluation of the Yuan.

[Rooster]

I agree about capitalism not being the be all and end all. One day a system will be devised better than capitalism or socialism, then one better than that etc.

So you don't agree with the class theory of society?

[Kornilios Sunshine]

dont hold your breath

http://www.gracechosygallery.com/pictures/Gahr/Gahr_RedTurtle_web.jpg
No Shit!

[durhamleft]

As in bougeoise/ proletariat ala Marx? No.

But I do agree that there are clear differences in wages/ wealth that can be broken down into different socio-economic grouping?

Like, I think its patently clear some people earn more than others etc, but I don't think there's one class who exploit another, as perhaps was the case in feudal or the early 1800s. I think theres a much greater burred area now.

[La Comédie Noire]

Do you really think we're on our way back to Victorian society?

Capital is flowing to emerging economies- but thats a good thing- unless you want to live on the back of shitty conditions of Chinese workers etc. It's only fair that they bring standards of living up.

re. health and education. dunno bowt where you live, but in the UK neither are class privileges as things stand, and I'd be amazed to see either be entirely privitised.

I support both the American and Chinese working classes fight for better conditions and more favorable wages. That's why I'm an internationalist. We should actively resist the call to make us more "competitive" as a class.

[ColonelCossack]

All they show is inflation.

[durhamleft]

All they show is inflation.

Are you stupid? (1990 dollar) = inflation adjusted

[GatesofLenin]

Troll from the UK, love your 17% unemployment rate there, mate! Oh yeah, capitalism is working all right. Hope you can afford the heating bill this winter.

[durhamleft]

I support both the American and Chinese working classes fight for better conditions and more favorable wages. That's why I'm an internationalist. We should actively resist the call to make us more "competitive" as a class.

Erm no. Everyone should try and make themselves more competitive. My uncle worked as a secretary for 20 years. Every year for every % he increased his productivity (eg competitiveness) he was given an extra % to his pay on top of inflation.

Competitiveness means that we're doing more. Competition breeds excellence and drives up living standards.

[durhamleft]

Troll from the UK, love your 17% unemployment rate there, mate! Oh yeah, capitalism is working all right. Hope you can afford the heating bill this winter.

Unemployment in the UK is 8.1%. . .

[Rafiq]

I agree about capitalism not being the be all and end all. One day a system will be devised better than capitalism or socialism, then one better than that etc.

However currently, I think a capitalist system based on Keynesian, not neoliberal, economics provides the best standards of living for the most people.

But it was the same Keynesian economics that failed us in the 70's.

Capitalism carries unavoidable contradictions. Regulating it will make the process slower.

We have had enough of it, and we cannot take it. We need something new.

[Rafiq]

As in bougeoise/ proletariat ala Marx? No.

But I do agree that there are clear differences in wages/ wealth that can be broken down into different socio-economic grouping?

Like, I think its patently clear some people earn more than others etc, but I don't think there's one class who exploit another, as perhaps was the case in feudal or the early 1800s. I think theres a much greater burred area now.

The Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat do exist. Even mainstream economists secretly know this.

[durhamleft]

But it was the same Keynesian economics that failed us in the 70's.

Capitalism carries unavoidable contradictions. Regulating it will make the process slower.

We have had enough of it, and we cannot take it. We need something new.

What failed us in the 1970's wasn't keynesianism, it was over zealous government intervention.

[Belleraphone]

The GDP means nothing. The Soviet Union experienced a huge economic boom, but it was concentrated in the hands of the rich oligarchical elite.

Is your second graph a graph of the average income of the average citizen in the UK or the total income of everyone divided by the number of people? Very big difference.


I look back to 1970 in the UK and the average working class person had much worse technology, spent a much higher proportion of income on food, had on average a smaller house, couldnt afford holidays etc. Compare that to now. Capitalism benefits all of society- though I agree the rich disproportionately more
Think about what you're saying. Have you ever heard of technology? Even we would admit that a utopian communist society in the year 200 would have a lower living standard than a capitalist society in the year 2000 simply because of how much technology has improved our lives.

Also, take a look at economic trends in Europe from the 1970's onward. It's gradually added more social programs for the poor and middle class. Obviously Cameron and (I think? Did Blair cut social spending?) Blair are reversing these policies. This isn't capitalism, it's economic progressivism. Obviously this isn't true across the board with things like sweat shops and globalization, but the rise in living standards can be attributed to government programs.

[JFB.anon]

Because the communist party are scared shitless of any organisation of labour etc that may topple them. It's political rather than economic why China are pursuing the devaluation of the Yuan.
But wouldn't that lead to economic destruction? If China doesn't like labour unions, it definitely won't like mininum wage; as their political process has been significantly beaten up by crony capitalism.

The Chinese people have absolutely no spending power, if there Gini coefficient is to be believed, and I think most of their economic growth comes from American investment in their property bubbles.

Wouldn't economic destruction lead to an absolute loss of hegemony and mark the end of China itself?

[durhamleft]

The Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat do exist. Even mainstream economists secretly know this.

I honestly don't think they do.

It's so problematic.

Richard Branson? Someone who wins £100m? My dad who runs a small business? My aunt who works in the civil service but gets paid more than my dad but doesn't employ anyone?

I mean under marxist analysis, surely dad would be petite bougeoise, he owns a shop and employs a few workers? but aunt earns more than him as a lowish level government employee?

See what I mean- much less black/ white than when marx was writing.

[La Comédie Noire]

Erm no. Everyone should try and make themselves more competitive. My uncle worked as a secretary for 20 years. Every year for every % he increased his productivity (eg competitiveness) he was given an extra % to his pay on top of inflation.

Competitiveness means that we're doing more. Competition breeds excellence and drives up living standards.

The way I see it they make you both work harder for lesser pay, but give one of you a reward . Why not combine and hold out till you both get a 10 percent raise?

[durhamleft]

But wouldn't that lead to economic destruction? If China doesn't like labour unions, it definitely won't like mininum wage; as their political process has been significantly beaten up by crony capitalism.

The Chinese people have absolutely no spending power, if there Gini coefficient is to be believed, and I think most of their economic growth comes from American investment in their property bubbles.

Wouldn't economic destruction lead to an absolute loss of hegemony and mark the end of China itself?

1) Minimum wages mean absolutely nothing.
2) Chinese will have a higher spending power than the USA by 2050 or so.
3) Main Chinese growth come from increased productivity and investment- end of.
4) China will not end or anything extreme- they are arguably best placed economy in the world at the moment.

[Maslo]

http://bubblemeter.blogspot.com/2008/10/two-centuries-of-american-per-capita.html

per-capita GDP adjusted for inflation also shows consistent increase, which also seems to not be affected much by recessions.

[durhamleft]

The way I see it they make you both work harder for lesser pay, but give one of you a reward . Why not combine and hold out till you both get a 10 percent raise?

Because you can't be expected to be given more than your employer can afford?

As an employee I expect to be paid more if I produce 10% more, however if I don't produce more then I wouldn't expect the pay increase.

[durhamleft]

http://bubblemeter.blogspot.com/2008/10/two-centuries-of-american-per-capita.html

per-capita GDP adjusted for inflation also shows consistent increase, which also seems to not be affected much by recessions.

Exactly. Capitalism has booms and busts, but overall the results are an average increase that is wonderful.

[durhamleft]

The GDP means nothing. The Soviet Union experienced a huge economic boom, but it was concentrated in the hands of the rich oligarchical elite.

Is your second graph a graph of the average income of the average citizen in the UK or the total income of everyone divided by the number of people? Very big difference.


Think about what you're saying. Have you ever heard of technology? Even we would admit that a utopian communist society in the year 200 would have a lower living standard than a capitalist society in the year 2000 simply because of how much technology has improved our lives.

Also, take a look at economic trends in Europe from the 1970's onward. It's gradually added more social programs for the poor and middle class. Obviously Cameron and (I think? Did Blair cut social spending?) Blair are reversing these policies. This isn't capitalism, it's economic progressivism. Obviously this isn't true across the board with things like sweat shops and globalization, but the rise in living standards can be attributed to government programs.

It depends how you devise average- but it is mean. However even median income (which ignores extreme results and thus tells more of the 'average joe' has increased).

And no, I'm arguing that the technology has developed as result of capitalism. Id argue that having millions of firms battling it out to produce goods and services cheaply and in innovative ways will always bring more technological advancement than governments who 1) won't be so innovative and 2) wont be anyway near as efficient and as effective.

Here's what I mean. My dad (who is a marxist) went to the USSR in 1980. He went to a shop in the middle of the countryside- it had minimal food and drinks in stock, yet had 20 leather suitcases as that was that they were allocated by the state so took them, yet weren't allocated enough food/ drink. You simply don;t get that inefficiency under capitalism.

and finally what u say re govt. spending is flawed as the main reason why govt spending has increased over the past 30 years in real terms is because of private sector growth which has led to more government funding. No economists (not even marxist economists) would argue that the economic growth we've had in recent years has come about as a result of the government, apart from in very short term times (eg. after great depression etc) but 90% of the times growth is private sector led.

[La Comédie Noire]

Because you can't be expected to be given more than your employer can afford?

As an employee I expect to be paid more if I produce 10% more, however if I don't produce more then I wouldn't expect the pay increase.

Well he doesn't want to give you more than what would be a comfortable profit margin for him. Thus he can either cut costs or reduce his profit margins and he will almost always choose to cut costs, especially in labor because it's so elastic. He can do this in one of two ways, absolutely, by lengthening the working day, or relatively, by making each worker increase their productivity. So instead of you getting paid 8 dollars to do 16 dollars worth of work, you are now getting paid 8 dollars to do 32 dollars of work. The ladder is the preferable method now a days because we are culturally accustomed to the 40 hour work week. Though it's not uncommon to hear of a person working 2 or three jobs at 80 hours a week because capitalist are too cheap to put out for over time.

And for all that, 32 dollars worth of work for 8 dollars an hour, he might give you a 2 dollar raise for being so "productive".

[JFB.anon]

1) Minimum wages mean absolutely nothing.
2) Chinese will have a higher spending power than the USA by 2050 or so.
3) Main Chinese growth come from increased productivity and investment- end of.
4) China will not end or anything extreme- they are arguably best placed economy in the world at the moment.

All these variables are true,; provided we're still propping them up. If we stopped doing all that right now what would China do? if we went protectionist, they'd have to to. The Asian nations (I don't think anyone actually does) don't like China at all, and they don't want to trade with them; the only reason we are is because it benefits corporations with cheap labor. 2050 is a long time from now. If we stopped all that right now, don't you think China would have to pass progressive economic legislation for survival?

[molotovcocktail]

Funny how he cuts the graph in 2003...
It would not have been so convincing if he had shown the period 2008-2011.

[durhamleft]

Well he doesn't want to give you more than what would be a comfortable profit margin for him. Thus he can either cut costs or reduce his profit margins and he will almost always choose to cut costs, especially in labor because it's so elastic. He can do this in one of two ways, absolutely, by lengthening the working day, or relatively, by making each worker increase their productivity. So instead of you getting paid 8 dollars to do 16 dollars worth of work, you are now getting paid 8 dollars to do 32 dollars of work. The ladder is the preferable method now a days because we are culturally accustomed to the 40 hour work week. Though it's not uncommon to hear of a person working 2 or three jobs at 80 hours a week because capitalist are too cheap to put out for over time.

And for all that, 32 dollars worth of work for 8 dollars an hour, he might give you a 2 dollar raise for being so "productive".

But I chose to work for him.

I intended to go out into society and try and make money. I always knew I could end up anywhere from earning a million pounds a year to earning five thousand pounds.

If people chose to buy my products, then I think I deserve to get more money.

If they don't, then hey, I tried.

I don't think we should have a complete winners/ losers society. Eg. If you fail I think you should still get healthcare, council housing etc. However I think we need to have some winners and losers.

It benefits the poorest in society to have winners and losers.

You talk about people having to work an 80 hour week? At least they chose to do that.

In a socialist society you wouldn't even get that choice.

You're better off under capitalism earning 50% of your 'profits' and $10,000 a year than 100% of your profits under socialism and $3,000 a year.

And that is the difference man. Socialism is so inefficent in the Cuban, Russian etc sense. Look at Cuba- giving out free cigarettes...!

[durhamleft]

All these variables are true,; provided we're still propping them up. If we stopped doing all that right now what would China do? if we went protectionist, they'd have to to. The Asian nations (I don't think anyone actually does) don't like China at all, and they don't want to trade with them; the only reason we are is because it benefits corporations with cheap labor. 2050 is a long time from now. If we stopped all that right now, don't you think China would have to pass progressive economic legislation for survival?

lol but I presume your American? Your country would be in depression right now and would literally melt to the core if it wasn't for the Chinese buying your treasury bonds. I mean literally, they own ALL your debt basically. If they stop buying it then your government won't be able to pay police, fireman etc

[durhamleft]

Funny how he cuts the graph in 2003...
It would not have been so convincing if he had shown the period 2008-2011.

Cut in 2003 as thats the one i found on google images in 2 minutes haha.

If you factored in the recessions we're in at the moment its only a blip on the way up.

[JFB.anon]

lol but I presume your American? Your country would be in depression right now and would literally melt to the core if it wasn't for the Chinese buying your treasury bonds. I mean literally, they own ALL your debt basically. If they stop buying it then your government won't be able to pay police, fireman etc
Maybe if we taxed the rich we wouldn't have to borrow money from the second evil empire.

[durhamleft]

Maybe if we taxed the rich we wouldn't have to borrow money from the second evil empire.

Well I agree entirely the USA should tax the rich much more. Top rate of income tax, 40, 50%? Wealth tax on properties over $1m? Cut your ridiculous military? Stop pointless foreign aid? Stop the war on drugs? Tighten up on corporate tax etc?

I agree entirely, though with China having trillions of your countries debt which is how they manipulate their currency it's hardly the Chinese's fault. If you govt. don't went them to devalue their currency don't sell them bloody TB which devalues the Yuan...!!

[Per Levy]

Exactly. Capitalism has booms and busts, but overall the results are an average increase that is wonderful.

indeed it is, its wonderfull to see all the homeless, its wonderful to see all the ill people who cant afford medecine, its wonderful to see all the starving humans, its wonderful to see entire generations of the working class lost to unemployment, its wonderful to see that the rich get even richer. a wonderful system indeed...

[Per Levy]

lol but I presume your American? Your country would be in depression right now and would literally melt to the core if it wasn't for the Chinese buying your treasury bonds. I mean literally, they own ALL your debt basically. If they stop buying it then your government won't be able to pay police, fireman etc

you do realize that china does that because it fears that the usa would go down, and if that would happen china would be hit very very hard as well. china and the usa as almost the entire world are linked and if a major player like the usa goes na depression it has the potential to take a lot of the world with it. thats why china does what it does.

[Per Levy]

If you factored in the recessions we're in at the moment its only a blip on the way up.

oh is it now? i heard the same bs in 2009 and 2010 and now we're even deeper in this shit then before.

[durhamleft]

you do realize that china does that because it fears that the usa would go down, and if that would happen china would be hit very very hard as well. china and the usa as almost the entire world are linked and if a major player like the usa goes na depression it has the potential to take a lot of the world with it. thats why china does what it does.

China buys US TB because by buying TB it invlves selling Yuan which lowers the price of Yuan which makes their exports more competitive.

USA sells TB because they need money to pay for deficit.

China don't buy for the reason you said.

[Belleraphone]

It depends how you devise average- but it is mean. However even median income (which ignores extreme results and thus tells more of the 'average joe' has increased)
Wrong, wages in the West (or at least America) have stagnated or declined since the 70's.


And no, I'm arguing that the technology has developed as result of capitalism. Id argue that having millions of firms battling it out to produce goods and services cheaply and in innovative ways will always bring more technological advancement than governments who 1) won't be so innovative and 2) wont be anyway near as efficient and as effective. Capitalism is only good for producing new technology on products that already exist and where it is profitable to continue doing so. The internet was made by the military and handed over to corporations. The same is true with medical advances, most of these have been done by states.


Here's what I mean. My dad (who is a marxist) went to the USSR in 1980. He went to a shop in the middle of the countryside- it had minimal food and drinks in stock, yet had 20 leather suitcases as that was that they were allocated by the state so took them, yet weren't allocated enough food/ drink. You simply don;t get that inefficiency under capitalism.

USSR has not been Marxist since Lenin took power.



and finally what u say re govt. spending is flawed as the main reason why govt spending has increased over the past 30 years in real terms is because of private sector growth which has led to more government funding. No economists (not even marxist economists) would argue that the economic growth we've had in recent years has come about as a result of the government, apart from in very short term times (eg. after great depression etc) but 90% of the times growth is private sector led.
[/QUOTE]
What did I say about government spending? I'm talking about social programs.

[xub3rn00dlex]

But I chose to work for him.

Or you would end up on your ass homeless and starving. Choice? Sure...


I intended to go out into society and try and make money. I always knew I could end up anywhere from earning a million pounds a year to earning five thousand pounds.

And? You still don't own the MoP.



If people chose to buy my products, then I think I deserve to get more money.

No. The workers who produce your products deserve more money.


If they don't, then hey, I tried.

This is important because this is what has been happening to the petite-bourgeioisie. They have been becoming proletarianized by corporations running them into the ground. But hey, they tried.


I don't think we should have a complete winners/ losers society. Eg. If you fail I think you should still get healthcare, council housing etc. However I think we need to have some winners and losers.
This isn't a fucking relay race.

It benefits the poorest in society to have winners and losers.
The elite always win. The poor always lose. Austerity measures and social cuts don't 'hurt' the fucking well off, they demolish the poor.


You talk about people having to work an 80 hour week? At least they chose to do that.

In a socialist society you wouldn't even get that choice.

Oh I'm sure they did. Having bills to pay, and jobs which don't pay enough to afford those bills clearly has nothing to do with it. This is a fucking joke. In a socialist society you could work all week if you chose to. At least you would choose to do so because you enjoyed it, not to make fucking ends meet.


You're better off under capitalism earning 50% of your 'profits' and $10,000 a year than 100% of your profits under socialism and $3,000 a year.

And that is the difference man. Socialism is so inefficent in the Cuban, Russian etc sense. Look at Cuba- giving out free cigarettes...!

Lolwut?

And Cuba isn't socialist, neither was russia...

[durhamleft]

oh is it now? i heard the same bs in 2009 and 2010 and now we're even deeper in this shit then before.

Average income in the UK looks set to drop to levels of 2003 or so as a result of the crisis. Hardly the abject failure of capiatlism.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallery=2064

[durhamleft]

Will be back on tomorrow off to bed

[fra00074]

Capitalism has been really good at making low cost consumer goods, but that isn't the only thing in life. People need good homes, quality education, cheap energy, and good infrastructure, investments none but a few capitalists are willing to risk.

I mean I can dress in nice Adidas shoes and play the latest xbox360 game, but my health care and more recently food security is wanting.


The things you mentioned, IE education, roads, infrastructure are all public/socialize. So its not really the capitalist fault that all or most of those things are a failure.

If a capitalist made a private school for kids it be very hard to complete with the public schools because parents would not only have to pay the fee for letting their kids attend that private school but also have to pay the fee (IE taxes) to have other kids attend the public school.

Get rid of all trade and economical regulation and everything will be a lot cheaper including food, homes and healthcare.

Your Health and you food needs are your own responsibility and not society's.

[Judicator]

And Cuba isn't socialist, neither was russia...

It has it in the name:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Just like...
Democratic Republic of the Congo

[The Man]

Every year capitalism brings higher and higher standards of living. Sure there are booms and busts, but in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system, is morally correct and provides freedom which your politics doesn't.

So?

In the 18th century, slave societies had a huge increase in standard of living. As well under Fascism in Germany. But does this justify the systems?

[fra00074]

Or you would end up on your ass homeless and starving. Choice? Sure...
..

I agree that in a capitalist world you have the choice if either working or starving to death or die out in the cold because I can't pay rent or whatever.

OK I completely agree with you on that.

There is one thing I'd like to understand though.

By you inferring that does that mean that in your communist society you can choose not to work but you'll still end up receiving your needs? IE free food, free healthcare, free housing, free water and all other needs?

[xub3rn00dlex]

It has it in the name:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Just like...
Democratic Republic of the Congo

And? What does the name matter? You can take a piece of shit, decorate it and call it a truffle, but it won't change the fact that it's still a piece of shit.

Btw, there's a difference between a democracy and a democratic republic

Fra00074: i think there are much more intelligent board members here than me that will give you a thorough response since i am still learning. I don't believe we can really know what will happen in a communist society since the very notion of what we think of today as work will be radically different. Today most people work jobs that are shit because they really have no choice, and their reservation wage on unemployment may actually be higher than anything available. I don't believe in leaving the non-working out to die, IMO they will still have enough for a life. They would never have IMO as much as someone who does work. But again, you give these people the possibilities of communism, give them a chance to work at whatever brings them joy for more possibilites than today's labor, and they just might act different than today. This is my opinion.

[Judicator]

And? What does the name matter? You can take a piece of shit, decorate it and call it a truffle, but it won't change the fact that it's still a piece of shit.

Btw, there's a difference between a democracy and a democratic republic

If they say they are socialists, who are you to tell them they aren't?

[durhamleft]

If they say they are socialists, who are you to tell them they aren't?

Lulz. Russia, Cuba, China etc etc 'weren't socialist' yet 'socialism can be achieved'.


If it's failed that many people and caused as much oppression as it has, you'd think these people would get the hint?

[fra00074]

No. The workers who produce your products deserve more money.

You're leaving out the initial investment and the risk the capitalist took when investing in that capital. The workers didn't do these things and the product wasn't even their Idea. They simply showed up and got paid to work.

So if a man makes a machine that produces a car at the touch of a button and he hires me to press that button does that mean he's required to give me half of all his profits for simply pushing a button?

You believe that the profits of a product should be evenly distributed to all the workers. What if the product made was a complete failure and it didnt sell? SHould the Loses be evenly taken out of everyone's pockets?



This is important because this is what has been happening to the petite-bourgeioisie. They have been becoming proletarianized by corporations running them into the ground. But hey, they tried.

Thats because we have a corporatism. The corporations paid the government to make barriers to entry in the form of permits, licensing red tape, zoning laws, certifications, degrees, bureaucracy, regulations and many other laws. This hurts the petite bourgeoisie.

All these is anti free trade anti capitalism.




This isn't a fucking relay race.
The elite always win. The poor always lose. Austerity measures and social cuts don't 'hurt' the fucking well off, they demolish the poor.

I don't believe its a race but when people do things results will vary. Some people will do better than others. This is simply a fact of life.

If the poor receive less free handouts by the government and their conditions worsen its not the rich's or government's fault.



Oh I'm sure they did. Having bills to pay, and jobs which don't pay enough to afford those bills clearly has nothing to do with it. This is a fucking joke. In a socialist society you could work all week if you chose to. At least you would choose to do so because you enjoyed it, not to make fucking ends meet.

What if I choose to stay home and do nothing in your communist society? This is the one question I would like you to answer.



And Cuba isn't socialist, neither was russia...

There is no such thing as Socialist or Not Socialist. Thats simplistic thinking. There are degrees or shades of gray.... Cuba to some degree is socialist. Just like the US. The US isn't purely capitalist.

But Iam sure we won't see a true socialist country untill we see one that succeeds right?

[Agent Equality]

Lulz. Russia, Cuba, China etc etc 'weren't socialist' yet 'socialism can be achieved'.


If it's failed that many people and caused as much oppression as it has, you'd think these people would get the hint?


If they say they are socialists, who are you to tell them they aren't?


It has it in the name:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Just like...
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Using these arguments will only get you laughed at due to the absolute ridiculousness of them. North Korea is officially known as a Democratic People’s Republic and yet do you think that is what it is? If someone calls a pile of shit a rose, would you actually think its a rose?

this quote in particular
If it's failed that many people and caused as much oppression as it has, you'd think these people would get the hint? Replace poorly placed reference to "socialism" with expertly placed reference to "captalism". This quote alone provides 1000x more effective of an argument against capitalism than it does against socialism. I'd think that out of the billions of people capitalism has failed and the billions it has oppressed, people would get the hint yeah? See what i did thar?

Seeing as how you mistakenly use it in reference to socialism, I can see that you have much to learn. We will be able to fix that with time however, fret not. :D The road to enlightenment is not an easy one to travel but is still a necessary one.

[fra00074]

Lulz. Russia, Cuba, China etc etc 'weren't socialist' yet 'socialism can be achieved'.

If it's failed that many people and caused as much oppression as it has, you'd think these people would get the hint?

I am surprise that commie is a Che or Castro lover. They usually all are.

Another thing that gets me is that many of them say that Communism and Socialism will not work unless its done on a Global Scale.

[Agent Equality]

Another thing that gets me is that many of them say that Communism and Socialism will not work unless its done on a Global Scale.

Well pretty much yeah. Its about changing society not just a country. Society means pretty much everything about the way the world is today. Social relations, social institutions, motives, modes of production, political behavior, economics. Its kind of pointless to try and make a socialist state out of one country for two reasons.

1.) socialism and communism are by their very nature, against the state.
and
2.) Trying to make one socialist state in a world full of capitalist ones (and in a capitalist society) will pretty much suck all of the resources out of that country and eventually turn it back into a capitalist state.

[fra00074]

Well pretty much yeah. Its about changing society not just a country. Society means pretty much everything about the way the world is today. Social relations, social institutions, motives, modes of production, political behavior, economics. Its kind of pointless to try and make a socialist state out of one country for two reasons.

1.) socialism and communism are by their very nature, against the state.
and
2.) Trying to make one socialist state in a world full of capitalist ones (and in a capitalist society) will pretty much suck all of the resources out of that country and eventually turn it back into a capitalist state.

Well ofcourse I am going to disagree with you completely. I do have a question.

How will trade be regulated on a communist country? Say can I trade some pieces of round coins with pictures on them with my neighbor for some of the cloths he doesn't use?


1) So socialism and communism are against the state. WHat about a government? I mean how are resources going to get regulated so that everyone gets their fair share on a world wide scale? Who or what will do this?

2) I don't believe that. That socialist country has the choice of blocking all trade with capitalist countries. Or they can exchange resources with other socialist countries like Cuba did with Russia. Can't the socialist country stand on their own 2 feet without getting outside recourse from a capitalist country? And whats stopping a socialist country from making its own product and selling it to the capitalist for a gain?

[Revolution starts with U]

Would you have to work to recieve basic human neccessities in a socialist society?

A valid question, that one. Nothing says it is imperative to worker control the MoP (oh, and s/he handles that mop very well... you'd sell nothing w/o those shiny floors :lol:). Its not unreasonable to assume some communities would require it.

But people generally engage in a lot of posturing socially. They don't want to be seen as callous or uncaring, generally (some do, most don't). And since they, the workers, have a much closer relationship to the community than some distant capitalist (generally), it is likely that will not require it.

Answer: nothing says you must feed the lazy. But evidence suggests they will anyway.



Can socialism work on a national level?

The short answer is no. Socialism is the development of revolutionary class consciousness in order to retake the MoP back from (the concept of) ownership. The working class is by definition global.
The long answer is sort-of. Socialists experiments can and have "worked" depending on what you call socialism, and how you define success. The USSR, socialism for the Beuracrats (capitalism for everyone else), successfully industrialized an agrarian nation very rapidly, and put the first man on the moon. Cuba, the USSR model attempting to be more socialist, I believe seeds more doctors to the world than any other country. Social Democracy, capitalism with socialistic reforms, is widely regarded to be doing quite well right now. Worker co-ops, socialistic enterprise in a capitalist economy, continue to grow and thrive.

Oh wait... I mean....

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/im_just_saying_look_at_it_socialism_trollcat.jpg

[Void]

1) So socialism and communism are against the state. WHat about a government? I mean how are resources going to get regulated so that everyone gets their fair share on a world wide scale? Who or what will do this?

Computers have enough capability to arrange regulations today (resources, shares)... We have more tech and it will be used for regulation of resources also... Computers will be maintained by technician sector. No government is needed at all actually. Only mentality of humans need to change in order to be able to govern themselves.

[Bud Struggle]

Computers have enough capability to arrange regulations today (resources, shares)... We have more tech and it will be used for regulation of resources also... Computers will be maintained by technician sector. No government is needed at all actually. Only mentality of humans need to change in order to be able to govern themselves.


http://www.fareastgizmos.com/entry_images/0608/27/Billgates_A-thumb-450x315.jpg

Welcome to the furture, Comrade! :D

[xub3rn00dlex]

If they say they are socialists, who are you to tell them they aren't?

Umm... perhaps somebody who understands that the very basic REQUIREMENT of socialism is worker control of the means of production? Yup, neither had/have them. Yup, not socialist.

BTW, if tomorrow Obama decided to rename the US the Communist States of America, you'd be flipping the fuck out just as much as us commies would be. But if he says it's communist, who the fuck are you to tell him it isn't?


Lulz. Russia, Cuba, China etc etc 'weren't socialist' yet 'socialism can be achieved'.


If it's failed that many people and caused as much oppression as it has, you'd think these people would get the hint?

Failed? You have to first exist in order to fail technically.


You're leaving out the initial investment and the risk the capitalist took when investing in that capital. The workers didn't do these things and the product wasn't even their Idea. They simply showed up and got paid to work.

And where would this idea go if NO ONE would work for the capitalist? No where. You don't need capital to create, workers will do so on their own if you give them the power.



So if a man makes a machine that produces a car at the touch of a button and he hires me to press that button does that mean he's required to give me half of all his profits for simply pushing a button?

Yes.



You believe that the profits of a product should be evenly distributed to all the workers. What if the product made was a complete failure and it didnt sell? SHould the Loses be evenly taken out of everyone's pockets?

Yes, that is kind of how communes work, even in todays economic system.



Thats because we have a corporatism. The corporations paid the government to make barriers to entry in the form of permits, licensing red tape, zoning laws, certifications, degrees, bureaucracy, regulations and many other laws. This hurts the petite bourgeoisie.

All these is anti free trade anti capitalism.

Bullshit. This is capitalism, not "anti-capitalism." Free trade is not an economic system, it is a tool OF the economic system, which is capitalism. Corporations are a direct result of capitalist evolution. Certain businesses acquired the means to undercut it's opposition, which is what capitalism is all about, ESPECIALLY laissez faire.




I don't believe its a race but when people do things results will vary. Some people will do better than others. This is simply a fact of life.

Some people will excel in certain areas more than others, this is simply a fact of life. So why the fuck don't we let them excel in those areas?



If the poor receive less free handouts by the government and their conditions worsen its not the rich's or government's fault.

Fuck you. I forget, the poor are a bunch of lazy scumbags leeching out of your pockets. Apologies oh great one.



What if I choose to stay home and do nothing in your communist society? This is the one question I would like you to answer.

I have answered this in my previous post.



There is no such thing as Socialist or Not Socialist. Thats simplistic thinking. There are degrees or shades of gray.... Cuba to some degree is socialist. Just like the US. The US isn't purely capitalist.

There has never been a purely capitalist economy. But yeah, there are degrees I agree. However, Cuba would be considered Social Capitalistic, since the very basic necessity of an economy to be considered socialistic is the proletariat ownership of the MoP. This is not the situation in Cuba, therefor it is not socialistic.



But Iam sure we won't see a true socialist country untill we see one that succeeds right?

Socialism isn't the final process, communism is. Socialism is the transitional stage in between.


Well ofcourse I am going to disagree with you completely. I do have a question.

How will trade be regulated on a communist country? Say can I trade some pieces of round coins with pictures on them with my neighbor for some of the cloths he doesn't use?

If you guys agree to it why the hell not?



1) So socialism and communism are against the state. WHat about a government? I mean how are resources going to get regulated so that everyone gets their fair share on a world wide scale? Who or what will do this?

This depends, you have authoritarian commies and libertarian commies. And how are resources regulated now? Economists.



2) I don't believe that. That socialist country has the choice of blocking all trade with capitalist countries. Or they can exchange resources with other socialist countries like Cuba did with Russia. Can't the socialist country stand on their own 2 feet without getting outside recourse from a capitalist country? And whats stopping a socialist country from making its own product and selling it to the capitalist for a gain?

Cuba was illegally blockaded by the US. The problem with socialism spreading is that it will be bombarded relentlessly by the capitalist empires. Think of it this way, how are you supposed to get across a river with hungry crocs if there is no one there to assist you? I believe there is also the issue of comparative advantages and resource allocation that hinders socialism in one nation. It will be global, not initially, but ultimately.

[DinodudeEpic]

Capitalism is great....Heck no! Is the Free Market great? HECK YA!

Also before welfare, living standards actually stank. And the growth your talking about is mostly just for the rich, the poor are actually stagnating, especially African American communities. (Due to deindustrialization, another problem with commercialization.)

Also, the poor are getting poorer, and it happens at the same time as when welfare gets cut....hmmm

I do hate government regulation of business, but I want a market economy with worker cooperatives, not corporations.

Also, governments actually work hand in hand with corporations. Subsidies, and such. They aren't opponents, they are parts of the same oppressive order.

[Rafiq]

I honestly don't think they do.

It's so problematic.

Richard Branson? Someone who wins £100m? My dad who runs a small business? My aunt who works in the civil service but gets paid more than my dad but doesn't employ anyone?

I mean under marxist analysis, surely dad would be petite bougeoise, he owns a shop and employs a few workers? but aunt earns more than him as a lowish level government employee?

See what I mean- much less black/ white than when marx was writing.

The Marxist definition of class has nothing to do with income.

Marx knew that some proletarians made more money than Bourgeois/petite bourgeois people. Just as some Slaves lived more luxurious lives than a Free man.

Marx's analysis of class is absolute and cannot be dis-proven.

[Rafiq]

So?

In the 18th century, slave societies had a huge increase in standard of living. As well under Fascism in Germany. But does this justify the systems?

Again this is a moralistic argument.

It is better to argue that although Capitalism is a good system, it cannot last long. It carries inherit tendancies of destruction.

[Rafiq]

Capitalism is great....Heck no! Is the Free Market great? HECK YA!

Also before welfare, living standards actually stank. And the growth your talking about is mostly just for the rich, the poor are actually stagnating, especially African American communities. (Due to deindustrialization, another problem with commercialization.)

Also, the poor are getting poorer, and it happens at the same time as when welfare gets cut....hmmm

I do hate government regulation of business, but I want a market economy with worker cooperatives, not corporations.

Also, governments actually work hand in hand with corporations. Subsidies, and such. They aren't opponents, they are parts of the same oppressive order.

It's official. I hate you more than any other user. You are a bigger enemy of the working class than this Durhamleft guy

[Rafiq]

Capitalism is great....Heck no! Is the Free Market great? HECK YA!

Also before welfare, living standards actually stank. And the growth your talking about is mostly just for the rich, the poor are actually stagnating, especially African American communities. (Due to deindustrialization, another problem with commercialization.)

Also, the poor are getting poorer, and it happens at the same time as when welfare gets cut....hmmm

I do hate government regulation of business, but I want a market economy with worker cooperatives, not corporations.

Also, governments actually work hand in hand with corporations. Subsidies, and such. They aren't opponents, they are parts of the same oppressive order.

I mean, even in your little disgusting fantasy land, you still have the Inherit contradictions with in the capitalist system.

Capitalism does not equal workers owning the MOP.


Your society is doomed to failure and destruction. I mean what a shit solution you come up with. Look, you even admit to being a Liberal. Why are you here? I am sorry, other users, if I come off as too much of a dick. But look at this guy!

[Klaatu]

It isn't really capitalism, per se, that is responsible for improved living standards, it is worker output that is responsible. New methods and machines are responsible, not tax cuts or capitalism. That's because it is the worker that creates the wealth, not the rich, tennis-playing, country-club-going, opera-attending, lay-around-the-mansion-all-day capitalist (he just "collects" the workers' excess wealth)

Also bear in mind that the greatest technological improvements come from (A) a well-educated populace (B) national efforts such as the space program, fighting the cold war, etc. (these are Social efforts, intended to benefit all)

Socialism is thus fully capable of improving a country's wealth and strength at least as much as capitalism is. For example, the Soviet Union was keeping up with the US in their military strength (only a strong worker-output made this possible, and they did not even have a free-market) They were doing OK until their leaders pussyed out. :D

[tradeunionsupporter]

Capitalism is not great.

[La Comédie Noire]

The things you mentioned, IE education, roads, infrastructure are all public/socialize. So its not really the capitalist fault that all or most of those things are a failure.

They weren't a failure at first, but as tax revenue decreases and is spent on things like the military they will be eaten up and replaced with inferior private sector counter parts, if they will be replaced at all.



If a capitalist made a private school for kids it be very hard to complete with the public schools because parents would not only have to pay the fee for letting their kids attend that private school but also have to pay the fee (IE taxes) to have other kids attend the public school.


Public schools are being shut down and replaced by charter schools which compete for funding from the government. They do this by weeding out the needier students in order to make their test scores look better. Charter schools also discipline the labor of teachers by making them more "competitive" Ie. making them work more for less. We see this phenomena everywhere as municipal and state governments sell contracts to the private sector to take over certain functions.



Get rid of all trade and economical regulation and everything will be a lot cheaper including food, homes and healthcare.

No, we will get inferior and cheaper products, like crappy shacks with carcinogenic insulation. Capitalism has trouble with the big stuff because it cannot treat workers as fully human if a profit is to be made. Thus as you get into the lower tiers of the job market you find shittier benefits, because why would I pay for your health insurance when I can just find someone else equally as able? Think of labor power like you would any other commodity, if the price of fixing it costs more than simply replacing it, why bother?




Your Health and you food needs are your own responsibility and not society's.

This sentence doesn't make sense. You are part of society and your choices have an affect on society because it is perforce social. Unless you wish to live on an island like Robinson Crusoe there's no getting around that. Even a market economy socializes people and assimilates them into a dominant culture . Capitalist production is carried out on a social basis, but the accumulation of the reward is private. Thus it gives the illusion of independence, when in reality you are part of a network of people all relying on each other and taking home different parts of the social product.

If you've ever noticed there is always much ado about what's considered a social problem that requires society wide action and how successful you are depends on how much political sway you have. Thus health care, education, and food are considered the individual's problem, while things like war, bailouts, and trade agreements are considered "vital to the nation!"

[Agent Equality]

It's official. I hate you more than any other user. You are a bigger enemy of the working class than this Durhamleft guy

while you do anger too quickly, this actually made me lol. :laugh:

[DinodudeEpic]

I mean, even in your little disgusting fantasy land, you still have the Inherit contradictions with in the capitalist system.

Capitalism does not equal workers owning the MOP.


Your society is doomed to failure and destruction. I mean what a shit solution you come up with. Look, you even admit to being a Liberal. Why are you here? I am sorry, other users, if I come off as too much of a dick. But look at this guy!

Actually, I said the opposite, Capitalism does not equal worker's control. Notice how I said 'heck no!' to whether capitalism is great or not.

My system is not capitalist as the workers own the means of production. Free market does not equal capitalism. So, where are the contradictions between worker's democratic control over their economic lives and allowing the workers to make cooperatives compete in the free market? What is the real contradiction is a system where the state owns the means of production in a planned economy and claims to bring democracy to it's workers. The same counts for a system where corporations control the means of production in an oligarchic style, yet claim to be 'free'.

I use the word liberal to reference to my support for free markets, political/civil/economic liberties, and political democracy. The socialist part refers to economic democracy, my support for democratically controlled labor unions, and also helps emphasize my support for democratically administrated welfare.

You also forgot to explain HOW the society would fall into disarray and y failure. Concentration of wealth and power? Anti-monopoly regulations and democratic labor unions. Economic inefficiency? How? Just explain why you have such a huge beef with such a system, enlighten us with your apparently more wise ideas.

And, you also hate me more then the capitalist that spit on the poor. That just shows your true colors. Honestly, you made me lol and smile at my status as Rafiq's #1 threat to the working class. Yet I'm the person who wanted workers to force all the capitalists out of their factories.

[Judicator]

This sentence doesn't make sense. You are part of society and your choices have an affect on society because it is perforce social. Unless you wish to live on an island like Robinson Crusoe there's no getting around that. Even a market economy socializes people and assimilates them into a dominant culture . Capitalist production is carried out on a social basis, but the accumulation of the reward is private. Thus it gives the illusion of independence, when in reality you are part of a network of people all relying on each other and taking home different parts of the social product.

You are part of society, therefore you should pay for everyone's mistakes :laugh:.

Capitalist production is a bunch of contracts between individuals. Society doesn't manage my factory, I do.



Socialism is thus fully capable of improving a country's wealth and strength at least as much as capitalism is. For example, the Soviet Union was keeping up with the US in their military strength (only a strong worker-output made this possible, and they did not even have a free-market) They were doing OK until their leaders pussyed out. :D

The Soviet Union had little if any consumer goods, and still managed to spend 25% of GDP on the military towards the end of the Cold War...just to keep up with the US, while the US was spending 7%.

[RichardAWilson]

Do you really think we're on our way back to Victorian society?

I damn sure do.

The Tories are privatizing the National Health Service.

Tuition fees have soared in the United Kingdom.

Tax-cutting has been trickle-down.

Britain's manufacturing base has collapsed and the national economy has become centered around London's high-finance.

In 2010, an estimated 22% of Britons were living in poverty when housing expenses were included in the calculation.


Percentage of people living below 60% median income (ascending order):
Sweden 12.3%
Germany 13.1%
France 14.1%
United Kingdom 21.8%
United States 23.8%

Meanwhile, 1% of the British population owns 21% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 50% owns a meager 7% of the nation's wealth.

Furthermore, official jobless statistics are manipulated lies offered to dumb down the population.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-475517/Unemployment-rate-times-higher-official-figures.html

An estimated 10 million British men and women could be classified as jobless. - This news was dated in 2007!

Imagine the real unemployment rate after the job losses from 2008, 2009 and 2010.


But in the small print, the Office of National Statistics reveals that the real total is 9.6 million, because 7.95 million people in Britain are classed as 'economically inactive'.


Meanwhile, the entire "New Labor: New Britain" Economic Miracle continues to implode from within.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51360000/gif/_51360445_uk_ave_house_price464.gif

Does your mum own a charge-card?

I know things were tougher during the Post-War Period than here in America and in Mainland Europe.

However, the consumption boom you're citing has been paid for with borrowed money from London.

I could afford steak Monday through Friday and lobster Saturday and Sunday with a Visa Card and a Home Equity Line.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2792372/British-household-debt-is-highest-in-history.html


British households are now more indebted than those of any other major country in recorded history.

Families in the UK now owe a record 173% of their incomes in debts, official figures have shown. The ratio of debt to income is higher than any other country in the Group of Seven leading industrialised economies

Meanwhile, British households aren't saving. After all, how can you save when it takes everything you have to live?


Economists warned that the combination of data, which also included news of the saving ratio dropping to the lowest level since 1959

[CAleftist]

You are part of society, therefore you should pay for everyone's mistakes :laugh:.

Capitalist production is a bunch of contracts between individuals. Society doesn't manage my factory, I do.



Ok.

Capitalist: "I own capital:labor-power and the means of production. The State does my bidding, because people like me created the State to protect our class."

Worker: "I own my own labor, and I am "free"-free to sell it to one of a number of people with the same class interest. But I can't work for myself, or I will starve. "

Yeah, I'd say that's a fair contract.

[Decommissioner]

I honestly don't think they do.

It's so problematic.

Richard Branson? Someone who wins £100m? My dad who runs a small business? My aunt who works in the civil service but gets paid more than my dad but doesn't employ anyone?

I mean under marxist analysis, surely dad would be petite bougeoise, he owns a shop and employs a few workers? but aunt earns more than him as a lowish level government employee?

See what I mean- much less black/ white than when marx was writing.

You don't believe in the bourgeoisie and proleteriat because you do not understand what either of them mean.

Bourgeois: Someone who owns MoP and profits off the surplus value created by workers that work with their MoP
Proletarian: Someone who makes a wage by selling their labor power to the bourgeoisie.

These definitions have nothing to do with how much money someone makes, and everything to do with their relation to the means of production. There are highly skilled proletarians that make more than struggling shop keepers, this doesn't change the fact that the highly skilled proletarian still produces surplus value thus profit for the borgeoisie who employs them, or the fact that the struggling shop keeper makes their money off the labor of their workers. This is why income does not determine ones class.

It is like saying a peasant that is highly favored by a king, thus showered with gifts and luxuries, is no longer a peasant (assuming they are still owned by the land/their lord) when compared to a lord who presides over unproductive peasants and so on the surface appers less wealthy.

The proletarian/bourgeoisie classes are the only classes under capitalism, and what determines the definitions of these classes are grounded in objective facts..there is no dispute that some individuals make money through the labor of others while owning means of production and there is no dispute that some people can only make money through means of accepting whatever money is given to them in exchange for their labor.

This opposed with determining social class by income (ie upper, middle, lower), a notion that is rooted in subjective reasoning. These classes do not exist, it is indefinite and subjective where one could determine where "upper" class ends and where "middle" class begins. This notion of class by income also doesn't take into account how these classes attain their wealth (or lackthereof). A crab fisherman that risks their life to fish crab, yet makes a lot of money doing so is not in the same class as a business man whose income comes from the profit produced from others. The former is selling their labor (which happens to be very valuable) and the other is extracting value from the labor of others.

[La Comédie Noire]

You are part of society, therefore you should pay for everyone's mistakesIt wasn't a normative statement, societies are inherently social. You can't get away from that, even with a market economy. Everything you do has social ramifications even if your actions are too small to measure.


Capitalist production is a bunch of contracts between individuals. In the realm of exchange it is a contract between two freely consenting parties, but in the production process there is an unequal relationship between those who own the means of production and those who must work in order to live.


Society doesn't manage my factory, I do.

Well yes and no. You have the freedom of choice to dispose of your private property as you see fit, but if you do so in a way that is unprofitable you will eventually lose that property. It's even something you guys think of as a benefit of capitalism.

[#FF0000]

generally people who do nothing but post two tiny baby graphs but don't actually you know post content otherwise are dummies who should just be ignored.

y'all gave him too much attention he didn't deserve.

[RGacky3]

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/18/worldgdp1600_2003a.gif
Read Karl Marx, he would have told you all this, infact he did.

[#FF0000]

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/18/worldgdp1600_2003a.gif
Read Karl Marx, he would have told you all this, infact he did.

also lol implying you can't just day-trade with credit and make tons of money and add to the gdp without actually using anything.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalism is great

What does that even mean? Capitalism is great relative to feudalism, but aren't we already capable of something much better?

Capitalism creates artificial scarcities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity) just look at "appstores" like the Android Market and the App Store (iOS) which are based upon selling applications even though they are totally free to produce, and besides this fact, AI operating systems don't even have a concept of "applications." This problem also applies to any proprietary software or intellectual property. In capitalism people are being denied things that they could literally have for free.

On the other hand, my vision (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6439) is of a post scarcity civilisation where anyone can access all digital information for free because they won't be constrained by artificial scarcities, where everyone will have access to food / water because it isn't made artificially scarce by biofuels and other forms of waste, where everyone can acquire free energy from a global energy smart grid, etc.

If we transition to socialism, we can recover from capitalism's technological stagnation and its artificial scarcities, in order to realise such a society which no longer requires money due to advanced technologies.


Sure there are booms and busts, but in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system, is morally correct and provides freedom which your politics doesn't.

Speaking of "booms and busts", maybe I could tolerate working with the system if it put adequate funding into AI research without creating AI winters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter) like the Lighthill AI winter of 1974 and the truly tragic AI winter of the late eighties, which included the collapse of AI hardware (the Lisp machines), which we still have largely failed to recover from today as we still use VNA processors that suffer from the Von Neumann bottleneck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture#Von_Neumann_bottleneck) and which have excessive threading which has resulted in the parallel programming crisis (http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-solve-parallel-programming.html).


And re. technology advances being inevitable- I'd argue many of them have come about via capitalism.

What do you mean by "technological advances being inevitable"? Have you not heard of the feudal dark ages?

I have actually compared our current era to those dark ages, but then again I have been know to exaggerate a little. ;)


Every year capitalism brings higher and higher standards of living.

This is not really the case, capitalism frequently creates austerity, where it lowers social spending, and then the only thing that raises the standard of living again is the relative intensity of worker's movements. Just look at the world today, there are millions of people protesting against austerity because their standard of living depends upon it.


Freedom includes the freedom to fail, yes, however every Marxist country has led to more starvation etc than it ever would have under capitalism.

Today we have more then enough food to feed everyone, so the only reason there is nearly a billion people starving is because of our artificial scarcities, which arise from example biofuels, food processing, and other forms of waste. Marxist countries do away with this. Compare Cuba, which has a universal health care system, to Haiti where people are literally reduced to eating dirt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wHiYkcm-Ro).


Lulz. Russia, Cuba, China etc etc 'weren't socialist' yet 'socialism can be achieved'.

They were once socialist. Actually, the USSR, the PRC, and the DPRK were all socialist around ~1950 during the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War) were they successfully resisted the forces of Western imperialism, but that basically ended with the counter-revolutions of Deng Xiaoping and Nikolai Khrushchev and the onset of the "Juche" ideology. However, they were never pure communist because that is a state that comes after socialism is secure and thereby allows us to develop our technological productive forces.

As for Cuba, the extent that it has been able to build socialism is greatly constrained by its isolation, since it is hard to build socialism in one island, but its system is certainly superior to Western capitalism.


However currently, I think a capitalist system based on Keynesian, not neoliberal, economics provides the best standards of living for the most people.

Well at least you don't accept neoliberal economics. But before you pass judgement on socialism, I recommend you study the revolutionary accomplishments of the Paris Commune, the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Cuba, etc from sources besides capitalist propaganda.

[GatesofLenin]

Unemployment in the UK is 8.1%. . .

21.3% for 16-24 age group, time to get the true number out.

[Void]

Capitalism is great for capitalists in their own individual little hedonist, greedy thoughts and small worlds... And not good for others who live for satisfying hedonism of capitalists and just suffer and die although they might be much more talented and creative than capitalist deceivers. So it is natural if a capitalist comes and says capitalism is great, great for you yes, but we have also pity for such who just drowns in his little hedonist world which is as much as enjoyable according to his amount of money. You can buy anything with money but no talents, you can just consume and be happy but never be deep, you may go and eat in luxurious restaurants but you may never enjoy real friendship and being with comrades in struggle.

[JFB.anon]

Have you noticed that arguing with a libertarian is like an exercise in how willing you are to deal with 'The Amazingly Evaporating Argument'? By time it's done, you're talking about how scientifically feasible that dinosaurs cloned by scientists will be big-dicked Nazis or not.

[CAleftist]

Libertarianism=Capitalism as Religion.

[durhamleft]

Libertarianism=Capitalism as Religion.

wtf?

[RGacky3]

Basically it is.

Libertarians insist on the 100% infallability of Markets, private property, the profit motive and the Capitalist mode of production, the insist that these things always are just, efficiant, and benefit everyone the most, even though all economic evidence and all economic logic points to tons and tons of inconsistancies, inefficiencies, injustices, and internal contradictions in all these things, and ultimately point to the fact that these things don't work.

So libertarians just ingore all these things, then when confronted with empirical evidence, they just blame it on something outside the system. So there is a shortage of demand leading to unemployment and thus more demand, well it must be because of the government, ohh there are motgage security bubbles forming that are so huge it could crash the economy? It must be because the Fed eixsts, ANY problem that comes is from some outside source interfering with Capitalism.

Its the same as fundementalist christians saying that Satan put Dinosour fossils in the ground to test us.

[W1N5T0N]

I did not 'advocate racism' and it's a ridiculous claim.

I said people should be allowed to be racist and to discriminate.

I think people should be allowed to take heroin and visit prostitutes however I would not 'advocate' either and would say they're both morally reprehensible.

well, in that case i take the freedom to say

fuck you, durhamleft. This is really the only time when I WILL call somebody a fucking reactionary.

[danyboy27]

One of the biggest mistakes capitalist make these day is to assume that capitalism can be around forever.

one can look at history and see what happen when peoples build an economical/political system with the expectation that it will last forever.

The romans elites, the mongol elites, the greek elites, the nazi germany elites, the USSR elites, they all made the same fatal mistake.

What happened? well that simple, when you hold great power in a system that you expect to last forever, there is no incentives at all to be reasonable with all this control , the elites go nuts and eventually come to compromise the verry safety measures they put themselves in place to keep the system up and running.

The rich in the 1800s where much more realistic about the limit of capitalism than the millionaires today. those folks where living in a world they know could be smashed in little pieces at any moment. Hell they even built their mansions in america close to military bases beccause they where fully aware that an uprising was a verry real possibility.

[FatsoFreako]

Yes, Capitalism creates a high standard of living.. for the rich.
As for the rest of us, we just keep going downhill.

[danyboy27]

Yes, Capitalism creates a high standard of living.. for the rich.
As for the rest of us, we just keep going downhill.

The problem is bigger than just the living standard of peoples, the constant instability capitalism put on governements and society has a whole threaten not only the working class, but civilisation itself and everything good that we have been able to achieve so far has a species.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Cool, the standard of living rose under Hitler and Stalin too, doesn't vindicate Leninism of National Socialism.

[Lanky Wanker]

Cool, the standard of living rose under Hitler and Stalin too, doesn't vindicate Leninism of National Socialism.

Like when Hitler "solved" unemployment by handing people guns - just like what's happening now, but on a smaller scale.

[Misanthrope]

Every year capitalism brings higher and higher standards of living.

So has slavery. Doesn't justify the economic exploitation and moral decadence of capitalism.



Sure there are booms and busts,

*Recessions, depressions, starvation, imperialist wars... need I go on?



but in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system,

Infinity is a limit therefore it cannot be reached. L2Maths.

A better standard of living for whom? The capitalist? "The Middle Class"? Again a "high" standard of living in first world countries does not justify the countless atrocities at the hands of "free" market states.


is morally correct and provides freedom which your politics doesn't.

Wage slavery and taxation (among other things) does not equate to freedom.

[Klaatu]

In your charts, don't forget that government mandates started around the last half of the 19th century... railroads, health and worker safety regulations (hence fewer sickness and death of workers) In the 20th century, we had government play a part too: massive road-building/paving, dam-building (TVA, Hoover Dam, etc), the space program, the Cold War technologies, (all war-tech, in fact).. shall I go on?

Worker Productivity is the key to increased living standards, not necessarily capitalistic methods, per se (the Russians were pretty capable) So I can make the opposing argument, that Wall-Street gambling ponzi-schemes and vastly-overpaid corporate CEOs have HURT economic growth (who'da thunk that possible)

[Decommissioner]

moral? Read the Wilt Chamberlin example. If I bake 100 cakes, and people choose to buy them, and i agree to sell them, then surely that is moral? I agree with redistributive taxation, but capitalism isn't 'evil', it's just the trading of goods.

Your example is misleading. A better example would be if one man hired 10 to make 10,000 cakes, and those ten men only recieve a fraction the total profit. That is theft. The one man did not produce those cakes, then men he hired did, so he should have no claim to any of the profits from cakes sold. But capitalism, in all its backwardness, dictates he should get all the profit. That sounds pretty immoral to me.

[Marcist]

GDP means shit. The majority of the world has not benefited.

[Nucking_Futz51]

Nationally, America's whole middle class is being desiccated. I don't know how you can say "in the long-run it provides an infinitely better standard of living than any other economic system." That is an extremely blunt statement with no real insight on the flaws of capitalism. What exactly do you mean by "booms and busts" ?

[Ocean Seal]

I wonder why troll posts get more responses than actual posts. Anyway first point capitalism does raise standards of living... from feudalism. All Marxists acknowledge this. But if we're going to have a living standards dick waving contest, I'm pretty sure that Maoist China wins, right? As I recall they had the fastest increase in standards of living in human history. So there, I suppose that based on your arguments you are a Maoist now. Go buy a copy of the little red book :tt2:.

[Durutii Column]

The Roman Empire brought a massive increase in standard of living. Is that a defense of Rome murdering people. I am sure you do not like Stalin but he turned a peasant society into a world power in one generation. Do you believe that is a defense of Stalin. I could come up with a million of these. All societies bring about an increase in technology so this is a bad argument because it is a defense of what ever exists.

[Klaatu]

I wonder why troll posts get more responses than actual posts. Anyway first point capitalism does raise standards of living... from feudalism. All Marxists acknowledge this. But if we're going to have a living standards dick waving contest, I'm pretty sure that Maoist China wins, right? As I recall they had the fastest increase in standards of living in human history. So there, I suppose that based on your arguments you are a Maoist now. Go buy a copy of the little red book :tt2:.

The capitalists like to champion their system as having 'raised living standards.' But in reality it was (A) strong unions and (B) high taxes, that built the nation of America. And in the 19th century pre-union/high tax years, living standards under capitalism rose all right, but only for the upper class. The other 99.9% barely survived. Sans unions and taxes, the U.S. is headed toward third-world economic status.

The average conservative ignores this fact. But look around you; the evidence is there in plain sight. Capitalism will once again put us in chains.

[Thug Lessons]

Actually, capitalism freakin' blows mate.

[Charlie Watt]

I couldn't be arsed reading all the way through the thread, but I'm gathering that the jist of the OP's utterly ludicrous claim is that "Things were shit in the 70's, but I have an iPhone now. Living beyond your means is fab!" with some skewed figures thrown in for good measure. Utter, shallow pish.

[Ele'ill]

Meanwhile, in reality...

[freethinker]

Meanwhile, in reality...
Most of the world's people are in poverty due to Western Imperialism and heartless greed :(

YEAH CAPITALISM IS GREAT

ITS GREAT TO LEAVE MILLIONS TO DIE
ITS GREAT TO GIVE ALL OF THE RESOURCES TO A FEW
ITS GREAT TO ATTACK PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LOOK DIFFERENT ARE FOR SOME SO CALLED NON EXISTENT GOD

Yeah if you are a cruel, sluggard, racist, jive, lazy and parasitical scumbag then capitalism is GREAT........

[kerryhall]

Funny that..

I look back to 1970 in the UK and the average working class person had much worse technology, spent a much higher proportion of income on food, had on average a smaller house, couldnt afford holidays etc. Compare that to now. Capitalism benefits all of society- though I agree the rich disproportionately more

And who are the ones who did all the work for those advances, eh? WORKERS! And who got rich off it all? CAPITALISTS!

In fact, capitalism is holding back the progress of technology by building crippled products for a tiered pricing system despite no difference in mfg costs, patents are holding back the progress of humanity, planned obsolence creating inferior products and waste, capitalism has whole sectors of the economy designed to get people to consume more, wasting resources and destroying the environment. In a communist society we could have useless jobs like marketing and all that rot spend their time on something more productive, like scientific research or sustainable energy!

Now what happens in a capitalist society when we (workers!!) keep building machines to automate labor? Capitalism cannot, and never can account for unemployment. In a capitalist society, the unemployed are fucked. In a communist society, if we can automate labor, then all of humanity benefits because that is simply less work for us to do but for the same standard of living!

[kerryhall]

I'm pretty sure that Maoist China wins, right? As I recall they had the fastest increase in standards of living in human history.


Do you have a citation for that? I understand your argument of course, but just wanted a source on that. That is a hilarious argument and I can't wait to throw that back at a capitalist.