Capitalism is bad

[Deicide]

Here's an interesting graph.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday


We republish here a graph that was originally published in the New York Times, based on figures from “The State of Working America” by the Economic Policy Institute. It covers the period from 1913 to the present, with a focus on the period after 1947. This is significant because 1947 can be considered the starting point of the post-Word War II economic boom, a period during which the capitalists were extracting so much profit from the workers that they were able to throw them a few extra crumbs. The mass workers’ movements in the 1930s and the strengthening of the unions after the war had taught them a few lessons about how to try to maintain relative class peace.

But the “good times” ended with the 1973–75 recession. Capitalism was able to limp along for a time with the help of a massive expansion of credit and the Information Technology and housing booms (and busts). But as the Marxists have always explained, credit is a very precarious foundation on which to build an economy. By 2007 and 2008, it was clear that the fictitious “prosperity” was hanging by a thread.

As this chart clearly shows, starting around 1980, worker productivity skyrocketed. But the share going to those who actually produce the wealth stagnated. Profits went way up, and so did income and wealth inequality. Today, with millions unemployed, fewer workers are creating more wealth than ever—for lower wages, in real terms, than in the 1970s. This is an absurd situation.

This is not socialist “propaganda.” The numbers speak for themselves. More importantly, millions are learning about the reality of life under capitalism, not from numbers, but from bitter experience. No wonder the youth and workers have started to rise up in the U.S. and around the world.

If the capitalist economy were rational, this increased productivity would be translated into more take-home pay, a reduction of the workweek, and an end to unemployment. All the work that society needs doing could be divided up rationally and everyone would be paid a living wage. Some of the surplus wealth could be invested in improving schools, housing, public transportation and infrastructure, to provide universal health care and education, and to research renewable energy and cures for diseases like AIDS and cancer.

But capitalism is based on the anarchy of the market and the blind scramble for profits. The capitalists have been pocketing super-profits for decades now, and are not about to give that up without a fight. This is why the only answer the capitalists and their political parties put forward is that the working class must bear the brunt of this crisis. In their relentless quest for more, they put the futures of literally billions of people at risk. We think there is another, more rational, humane, and democratic way: socialism.

Graphic credits: Bill Marsh/The New York Times. Sources: Robert B. Reich, University of California, Berkeley; “The State of Working America” by the Economic Policy Institute; Thomas Piketty, Paris School of
Economics, and Emmanuel Saez, University of California, Berkeley;
Census Bureau; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Federal Reserve

Original - http://www.marxist.com/usa-crisis-of-capitalism-by-numbers.htm

[Night Ripper]

But capitalism is based on the anarchy of the market and the blind scramble for profits.

In a truly free market, the only way these businesses can make a profit is by offering me higher quality goods and services for lower prices than their competitors. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

[Thirsty Crow]

In a truly free market, the only way these businesses can make a profit is by offering me higher quality goods and services for lower prices than their competitors. That's supposed to be a bad thing?
Maybe becuase lower prices mean lower prices of production meaning lower wages meaning you get to spend less as a worker for those wonderful high quality products.
But of course, I wouldn't expect a rugged individualist to remain a wage slave, at least not for long (he might go homesteading instead).

[Night Ripper]

Maybe becuase lower prices mean lower prices of production meaning lower wages meaning you get to spend less as a worker for those wonderful high quality products.

Computers used to cost $10,000 each but now they are $300 each. I highly doubt the wages at McDonald's dropped 97% in that time. The reality is that a lot of things get cheaper while your real wage at Wendy's doesn't change that much.

If you lose your job to a robot, get a job building/selling/repairing robots.

[Thirsty Crow]

Computers used to cost $10,000 each but now they are $300 each. I highly doubt the wages at McDonald's dropped 97% in that time. The reality is that a lot of things get cheaper while your real wage at Wendy's doesn't change that much.

If you lose your job to a robot, get a job building/selling/repairing robots.
Or hang those who force you out of your work, depriving you of even the smallest of chances for a decent living as a human being :)

Oh yeah, and let me know when computers will be predominantly assembled and produced in, let's say, Great Britain, by unionized workers, I'm very curious to see how would that go.

Until then, have a nice life within the fantasy bubble :)

[#FF0000]

Computers used to cost $10,000 each but now they are $300 each. I highly doubt the wages at McDonald's dropped 97% in that time. The reality is that a lot of things get cheaper while your real wage at Wendy's doesn't change that much.

Computers are a dumb example of this because of how quickly computers improve and also because they aren't really a common, daily expense. The price of food, of gas, of staples like milk, eggs, and vegetables, have all risen. The cost of life has risen, and the minimum wage hasn't kept up.

(p.s. this problem would be worse on the gold standard or on any other fixed exchange rate system. but you wouldn't know this because you don't know dick about economics)

[CommunityBeliever]

If you lose your job to a robot, get a job building/selling/repairing robots.

The vital question in this situation is who owns the robot? Is the robot owned by a small group of capitalists or the other 99% of the world's people? We socialists believe the means of production, including productive machinery such as robots, should be in the hands of the 99%.


Computers used to cost $10,000 each but now they are $300 each. I highly doubt the wages at McDonald's dropped 97% in that time. The reality is that a lot of things get cheaper while your real wage at Wendy's doesn't change that much.

I presume you are referring to Moore's law - the policy of planned obsolescence designed by the computer hardware industry. By making it so that computers become obsolete over a set time period, Intel and the hardware companies it works with can continually profit off of computer sales.

As a computer user you are probably familiar with many other forms of artificial scarcity perpetuated by the capitalists. Consider that copying bits of data is essentially free, yet many digital goods and services are costly. In socialist society we won't have these artificial scarcities because we won't be concerned with profiteering.

Additionally, you may notice that the link provided by the OP describes the great recession which started in the 1980s. Part of this great recession was the late AI winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter). This winter marked the end of intelligent hardware and software in the U.S. Even today our computer programs and the ISA's built to run them are lacking in support for fundamental features such as single address space orthogonal persistence.

[Zostrianos]

Continued from the "Hitler was a socialist thread"...



If you want a good life, you have to work for it. You may not know this but you are up against stiff competition from the Chinese....
So where is the food going to come from? Someone has to work to produce the food. Capitalism creates abundance not scarcity. Socialism creates scarcity. You have got things upside down.


No. Capitalism encourages the unfettered accumulation of wealth by a few individuals, who at the same time are exempt from paying taxes and thus don't contribute back to society. Eventually that money's gonna run out where it's really needed in society (this is one of the causes of Europe's crisis).
Here's a few questions for ya.

According to capitalist logic, you have to work for everything. What if you're disabled and you can't work?
Why should citizens have to pay for the 'privilege' of healthcare, which is a basic human right?



It is a Marxist fallacy that workers deserve all the profits made. The capitalist has to put in his capital to buy land, pay wages, equipment etc. Even then he cannot be sure he will make money. Things can go wrong and he might go bust. So the reward he gets is to compensate him for the risk he took.

So you're saying the rich capitalist, who has expensive cars, a house on the beach, and enough money to last him for 3 generations should get rewards and privileges (and tax exemptions in the US), but the poor workers who are paid pennies and can barely feed their families don't?
Try telling that to those people in Portugal who are getting their salaries cut, and their healthcare and benefits abolished by a right wing government, because of necessary 'austerity' measures. When a crisis hits, the Right could simply balance things out by taxing the rich more. But no, they go straight for those who need their benefits most. After all, the big rich CEO needs his mansion and his yacht more than poor families need to feed their kids right?

[CommunityBeliever]

This is also continued from the "Hilter was a socialist" thread.


Capitalism creates abundance not scarcity.

The goal of capitalism is profit not abundance. Digital goods are no longer scarce, so they can be distributed for free, but that isn't profitable so the capitalists frequently create artificial scarcity through copyright and other restrictions.

There are many other examples of artificial scarcity in capitalism, such as planned obsolescence. By making something, such as computer hardware, obsolete according to a set schedule you can incur additional profits. Socialism will allow us to focus on creating and maintaining abundance rather then profiteering.


The people with the most scarcity are in Socialist countries like N Korea.North Korea openly follows the Juche ideology rather then Marxism so it is a terrible example of socialism.


I find the news, education, movies to be pretty left wing actually. Seeing as you think Nazi Germany and North Korea are socialist you have no idea what the left wing and you have absolutely no basis to make that judgement.


In fact America tried Communism at its birth. The pilgrims tried it and the meager was harvest. Then Govenor Bradford divided the land amongst each family and let everybody fend for themselves. The result was bountiful harvest. That's the real meaning of Thanksgiving (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/819-the-real-meaning-of-thanksgiving-the-triumph-of-capitalism-over-collectivism)- Capitalism works and Socialism does not. Communism is an advanced stage of human development with post-scarcity resource levels, common ownership of the means of production, and no classes, money, or states. Humanity has yet to reach this stage.


We are interdependent, I agree. The co-operation to build a car is amazing. Thousands of individuals do different tasks as you say to build that car. In the process of constructing a car, there are means of production such as factories and robots that play a considerable role. Why should a small elite control these means of production rather then workers themselves? If capitalism really is "good" then why is it a good thing for a minority to have exclusive the means of production?


This is a marxist myth that there is a capitalist ruling class that call the shots to oppress the workers. However, there is a capitalist ruling class that has exclusive control over the means of production and that exploits surplus value from the working class through wage labor.


So if the rich are as poweful as you think the money would be flowing downwards as in the days of the Ancien Regime where the King and Nobles paid no taxes but got rich from the taxes peasants paid. The capitalists aren't as powerful as the fuedalists were. In this context, Marxists recognise capitalism as a historically progressive force in human development.

[Revolution starts with U]

Just google "Pilgrim communism debunked." You will quickly find out that the governors move was purely a political one, the "famine" was because of a drought, and BIG SURPRISE, right wing nutjobs are lying through their teeth, shamelessly, when they try in any way to make it into a socialism v communism debate.

[RGacky3]

One more thing about that, the Pilgrims were chartered by the London Company, i.e. they were a subsidiary for the london company, a FOR PROFIT CORPORATION. Thats not communism.

[The Teacher]

In a truly free market, the only way these businesses can make a profit is by offering me higher quality goods and services for lower prices than their competitors. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

In a truly free market, it is quite easy to make a huge profit by selling defective crap at cut throat rates. Simply monopolize an industry. If you are the only oil company, you charge what you want for gas and the people will pay it because they have to get to work. You have no competion, so what is stopping you?

[Comrade Auldnik]

In a truly free market, the only way these businesses can make a profit is by offering me higher quality goods and services for lower prices than their competitors. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

And people call communists idealists!

In a truly free market, anyone can revolutionize industry and become a millionaire without fear of being blasted out of the water by larger companies with inferior products but more productive capability. In a truly free market, the only thing that determines your wealth is how hard you work and how innovative you are.

A "truly free market" has shown us that it, if it can exist, it can't exist for long without government intervention to step in and deliver the promises the market made about promoting competition and revolutionizing production.

[Night Ripper]

In a truly free market, anyone can revolutionize industry and become a millionaire without fear of being blasted out of the water by larger companies with inferior products but more productive capability.

Are you saying that consumers are willingly buying cheap crap and it's somehow the producers fault?

[RGacky3]

Are you saying that consumers are willingly buying cheap crap and it's somehow the producers fault?

its not ones fault, its a falwed system.

[manic expression]

Are you saying that consumers are willingly buying cheap crap and it's somehow the producers fault?
Why do you think there's such a consistent motivation to buy cheap crap instead of quality goods? Could it be the effects of general impoverishment brought about by capitalism?

[Strannik]

"In a truly free market, anyone can revolutionize industry and become a millionaire without fear of being blasted out of the water by larger companies with inferior products but more productive capability. In a truly free market, the only thing that determines your wealth is how hard you work and how innovative you are."

If this is true, then socialism as I see it, is the only truly free market system ever proposed.

In my experience people do not even become wealthy in the current system by being innovative and working hard. If they become rich (as rarely as that happens) it's because they capitalize their labour so others have to work for them. You cannot become rich unless you can command labour of others in your personal interests.

"Rich" happens when you are not living on your work alone - it happens when you possess capital and others start to work for you.

As long as there were "free" resources in the world, one could (theoretically) walk away and capitalize them without exploiting your fellow man. These days, however, everything out there is capital. You can't innovate unless you step on someone's intellectual property rights - usually owned by people who have no understanding of the inventions themselves.

In a socialist society as I see it, labour is power. There can never be a situation in socialism where someone who does not work orders around someone who works. Capitalism ends periodically in such situation. Why? Because capital accumulates. The more I possess the harder it is to take it away. I'm constantly tempted to use my wealth to alter the very laws so I never lose it. Even worse - those who possess capital through violence are as good off as those who possess it through their hard labour. Even better - they had to use less energy to get it.

Labour does not accumulate in this manner and it can't be inherited. In socialism I manage a factory for society only until someone with a better idea walks in. Socialism is constantly redistributing the capital's usage rights to those who work hardest and have the best ideas. Anyone who wants a society where work equals power should fight for worker's society.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Are you saying that consumers are willingly buying cheap crap and it's somehow the producers fault?

Allow me to explain. Big businesses tend to cap production. This means that the forces of production are not being put to use at full capacity. The reason for this is the very fundamental economic law of supply and demand; businesses would be working against the interest of profit if they were to constantly flood the market with product. Businesses demonstrate their full productive capability, however, when a threat to the monopoly arises in the private sector. The business will flood the market with their own product to drive down the price, making their product the more attractive choice. The competitive threat, unable to generate sufficient revenue, folds, and big business returns to capping production in the interest of profit. As for people buying lower quality product when higher quality product is available, the higher quality product isn't always a practical investment for the consumer. Those consumers with limited funds tend to favor inexpensive product, for obvious reasons. If it were a practical investment for everyone always, consumers would choose the higher quality product, that is, the product that most effectively satisfies their needs. As for whose "fault" it is that consumers favor the inexpensive, lower quality product, I'm sure that, if they had the choice, consumers would simply elect to have more money to spend on nicer things. in b4 "they should just choose to be more ambitious"

[MotherCossack]

In a truly free market, the only way these businesses can make a profit is by offering me higher quality goods and services for lower prices than their competitors. That's supposed to be a bad thing?


Computers used to cost $10,000 each but now they are $300 each. I highly doubt the wages at McDonald's dropped 97% in that time. The reality is that a lot of things get cheaper while your real wage at Wendy's doesn't change that much.

If you lose your job to a robot, get a job building/selling/repairing robots.


Are you saying that consumers are willingly buying cheap crap and it's somehow the producers fault?

You lot really do astonish me with your apparent stupidity!
someone makes a main-stream animated movie, to wide acclaim and popular success...
And nobody notices the parallels.
If it was little creepy crawlies getting ripped off ,all their miserable lives... by the big mean bugs....
If the cute little creepy-crawlies numbered many many more, than the big fat bugs, but did not realise that there is strength in numbers, so spent their lives working like slaves, for the profit of ..... Yes, you guessed it... the fatty bugs.
if the fat bugs knew they were in the huge minority... and went out of their way to keep the many, many little creepy crawlies in miserable, Hungary servitude, paying them just enough and taking measures`to ensure that the little workers never became aware of their potential
Strength or power.

If all that was in a kid's movie everyone would go ahhhh! Poor little creepy crawlies.... Mean ,nasty big bugs.... ahh ... thats a good story. Thats a nice film.... Shall we go home ... and forget all about it?
'a bug's life' innit
Just in case.... i am in actual fact cleverly highlighting the apparent capacity for humans to see injustice and wage slavery in the bug world, with
In which they can readily acknowledge inequality and unfairness.
Yet socialism remains a dead dirty word and meanwhile capitalism prevails big time!!!!!!

[Night Ripper]

Why do you think there's such a consistent motivation to buy cheap crap instead of quality goods?

Is there such a motivation? I don't know about you but I shop around and do research before buying stuff. I never buy cheap crap.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I never buy cheap crap.

Congratulations.

[manic expression]

Is there such a motivation? I don't know about you but I shop around and do research before buying stuff. I never buy cheap crap.
In general, I would think there is a motivation for that. If price had nothing to do with it few people would shop at Walmart. Researching buys is good, I do it too, but if you're on a budget you have to get shoddier stuff...it's no use arguing with that arithmetic. And especially as people are making less and less money, they have to scrape closer to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality.

[MotherCossack]

You lot really do astonish me with your apparent stupidity!
someone makes a main-stream animated movie, to wide acclaim and popular success...
And nobody notices the parallels.
If it was little creepy crawlies getting ripped off ,all their miserable lives... by the big mean bugs....
If the cute little creepy-crawlies numbered many many more, than the big fat bugs, but did not realise that there is strength in numbers, so spent their lives working like slaves, for the profit of ..... Yes, you guessed it... the fatty bugs.
if the fat bugs knew they were in the huge minority... and went out of their way to keep the many, many little creepy crawlies in miserable, Hungary servitude, paying them just enough and taking measures`to ensure that the little workers never became aware of their potential
Strength or power.

If all that was in a kid's movie everyone would go ahhhh! Poor little creepy crawlies.... Mean ,nasty big bugs.... ahh ... thats a good story. Thats a nice film.... Shall we go home ... and forget all about it?
'a bug's life' innit
Just in case.... i am in actual fact cleverly highlighting the apparent capacity for humans to see injustice and wage slavery in the bug world, with
In which they can readily acknowledge inequality and unfairness.
Yet socialism remains a dead dirty word and meanwhile capitalism prevails big time!!!!!!

hey mother me that is quite a big post... but very readable... such an obvious point aswell!

anyway...... your comments about :
"NEVER BUYING CRAP" do nothing but betray a comprehensive lack of understanding . and it tells me that you do not know and have never known what it feels like to really have nothing, and live with no prospect of having or getting anything!
well! i suppose i should not blame you for being a short-sighted, unsympathetic, insensitive, blinkered, unimaginative, self-centred, self-satisfied capitalist.... after all you are only following many others, just like you, copying them, same old... same old... it is what it is......and so on...
but i do!

[Baseball]

In general, I would think there is a motivation for that. If price had nothing to do with it few people would shop at Walmart. Researching buys is good, I do it too, but if you're on a budget you have to get shoddier stuff...it's no use arguing with that arithmetic. And especially as people are making less and less money, they have to scrape closer to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality.

But what does this have to do with anything? A socialist community also has to have a budget; it has to make choices with what it has. These types critiques of capitalism from socialists remain completely ridiculous.

[Baseball]

There are many other examples of artificial scarcity in capitalism, such as planned obsolescence. By making something, such as computer hardware, obsolete according to a set schedule you can incur additional profits. Socialism will allow us to focus on creating and maintaining abundance rather then profiteering.

OK. So computers are not to be produced until they are able to walk and recite the Declaration of Independence in Swahili.

Progress is cumulative; it builds upon what was created before. It is not substitutional. In that sense, the above critique of capitalism shows the anti-progress nature of socialism.




In the process of constructing a car, there are means of production such as factories and robots that play a considerable role. Why should a small elite control these means of production rather then workers themselves?

Neither should. The consumer, by exercising his or her choice, ought. In a capitalist community this is what happens. But as implied above, in a socialist community, the workers in the car factory and associated factories, make that choice for the consumer. Why should their views control what cars are available to the consumer?

[#FF0000]

Progress is cumulative; it builds upon what was created before. It is not substitutional. In that sense, the above critique of capitalism shows the anti-progress nature of socialism.

what

[Revolution starts with U]

OK. So computers are not to be produced until they are able to walk and recite the Declaration of Independence in Swahili.

Progress is cumulative; it builds upon what was created before. It is not substitutional. In that sense, the above critique of capitalism shows the anti-progress nature of socialism.





Neither should. The consumer, by exercising his or her choice, ought. In a capitalist community this is what happens. But as implied above, in a socialist community, the workers in the car factory and associated factories, make that choice for the consumer. Why should their views control what cars are available to the consumer?

The owners of the company make that choice, then the consumers decide after that. This has been explained to you numerous times... and like those times, you wont listen.

[CommunityBeliever]

Progress is cumulative; it builds upon what was created before. It is not substitutional. In that sense, the above critique of capitalism shows the anti-progress nature of socialism.

What? In what sense?


Neither should. The consumer, by exercising his or her choice, ought. In a capitalist community this is what happens. But as implied above, in a socialist community, the workers in the car factory and associated factories, make that choice for the consumer.

In capitalism, the bourgeoisie controls the means of production and profits enormously as a result. Furthermore, the bourgeoisie determines the behaviour of the means of production; consumers can only make indirect contributions to its behaviour.

[RGacky3]

Neither should. The consumer, by exercising his or her choice, ought. In a capitalist community this is what happens. But as implied above, in a socialist community, the workers in the car factory and associated factories, make that choice for the consumer. Why should their views control what cars are available to the consumer?

Thats a total false dictomy, NO ONE, EVER, NO SYSTEM, EVER, claims that produciton should be made for the producer and not the consumer.

NO ONE EVER claims that.

[Baseball]

The owners of the company make that choice, then the consumers decide after that. This has been explained to you numerous times... and like those times, you wont listen.

No, they don't. They base their decisions upon what they believe people will wish to purchase, and thus direct to them a profit.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=CommunityBeliever;2354621]What? In what sense?

The complaint was that capitalist computer manufactures deliberately slow development so as guarantee a constant stream of profit. The only conclusion to be made is that a socialist community would seek to withhold goods until some optimal and final apogee of a product could be produced.




In capitalism, the bourgeoisie controls the means of production

Its control lasts as long as the consumer wishes its product...
In other words, they do not control it.


and profits enormously as a result.

Or goes bankrupt if misjudgements are made.


Furthermore, the bourgeoisie determines the behaviour of the means of production;

False; consumer demand determines that.


consumers can only make indirect contributions to its behaviour.

They determine whether a start-up becomes profitable and massive, and whether it remains so, and whether a profitable and large corporation remains so. The consumer determines all.

[Baseball]

Thats a total false dictomy, NO ONE, EVER, NO SYSTEM, EVER, claims that produciton should be made for the producer and not the consumer.

NO ONE EVER claims that.

Yes. Until one actual starts discussing how a socialist system might actual function, and then right away the argument becomes how the workers of the various enterprises will decide how production will occur.

[NoMasters]

People we must set apart the capitalism of Adam Smith and that of Keynes or Austrian economics.

This seems to be neoliberal classic economics based on Friedman. Although to be sure, the 80's did nothing to emulate Friedman's capitalism, which is much less tyrannical than the Reaganist economic system derived from the evangelical influence that seemed to completely distort the innate American values like justice, liberty, and freedom.

Those words have evolved to allow the bourgeoisie to almost invisibly steal even more from the workers' class because it has favored the individuals over the peoples. The individual is protected from the workers' to coerce the bourgeoisie to raise wages and give them better working conditions. This tyrannical subordination has influenced our government here to believe that it is the LIBERTY of the bourgeoisie to make as much as they want at the expense of the workers', and if the workers' try to unite for better working conditions and increased wages, they are to be brought to JUSTICE and this is best explained in the 1890's progressive era where workers' went on strike and were met with corporate militias that would kill the workers' union leaders and even the workers' themselves. And during the next 20 years when more and more strikes were taking place like the Haymarket riots in Chicago when the workers' went on strike and the public supported them. The corporations were so innately violent that they had paid "terrorists" to incite violence against the corporate militias so those militias and corporate paid state police could kill the workers' at their expense. And even further, when this was done, the public would hate the workers' unions and strikes more and more. Quite an absurd system, I find it to be almost evil. And their conception of FREEDOM has really become FREEDOOM. They have allowed the idea of individual freedom to be given to all as long as they are in line with the economic system. And this creates more and more groups that want certain rights, that with the mix of a rapidly changing global market, will eventually create a nihilist society without any order, AT ALL.

It is quite clever what Reagan's administration did, and this thread is a excellent find my friend.

Unite in solidarity, or die in division!

[Conscript]

No, they don't. They base their decisions upon what they believe people will wish to purchase, and thus direct to them a profit.

You're deluded if you think consumers have power over what is produced. Companies put out whatever the fuck they want, it's up to the consumer to sort through the crap and pick the relative best, or if they can't, instead take the hit in quality. They are consumers after all, they rely on getting what they need, so there's little choice in the matter. Capitalism is not concerned about using resources to best satisfy that need, only the cheapest way to satisfy the demand. It's a sloppy use of resources because it's unaccountable.

Socialism would end the massive distinctions between producer and consumer so what is produced is what is truly desired, taken straight from the masses' input. They don't have to worry about selling it to someone else and being reimbursed on their expenses, such concerns about rate of profit can only harm the consumer and the quality of the end product. That's why we deal with economic absurdities like planned obsolescence and bad quality products resulting from the race to the very bottom in labor costs.

Not to mention, monetary demand is an awful way to measure need for something.


They determine whether a start-up becomes profitable and massive, and whether it remains so, and whether a profitable and large corporation remains so. The consumer determines all.No, 'they' do not do anything, their money does. To a food company, hunger does not determine anything. For them, a person spending $400 dollars in food is hungrier than a hundred people buying collectively buying $200 in food. Thus why there exists governments paying its farmers not to produce food while poverty-stricken third worlders starve.

[Comrade Auldnik]

We're talking about a country founded by slave-holders like it really was established on the concepts of freedom and equality.

[RGacky3]

Yes. Until one actual starts discussing how a socialist system might actual function, and then right away the argument becomes how the workers of the various enterprises will decide how production will occur.

By listening to the consumers, it could be done many ways, orders, a limited commodities markets, democratically, and so on.

Again, why was this NOT A PROBLEM in anarchist catelonia.

Your one trick pony is undone by empirical evidence, so you can stop with all your logical fallacies.

[Comrade Auldnik]

By listening to the consumers, it could be done many ways, orders, a limited commodities markets, democratically, and so on.

Again, why was this NOT A PROBLEM in anarchist catelonia.

Your one trick pony is undone by empirical evidence, so you can stop with all your logical fallacies.

Empirical evidence, huh? Good, then maybe you can tell me how you know that this was not a problem in anarchist Catalonia.

[Baseball]

You're deluded if you think consumers have power over what is produced. Companies put out whatever the fuck they want, it's up to the consumer to sort through the crap and pick the relative best, or if they can't, instead take the hit in quality.

Yes, consumers choose what they want. If consumers are happy with A rather than B, they will purchase A. A makes a profit and B takes a hit unless it is able to figure out a way to get consumers to purchase B.



They are consumers after all, they rely on getting what they need, so there's little choice in the matter. Capitalism is not concerned about using resources to best satisfy that need, only the cheapest way to satisfy the demand.

Using as few resources as possible in production is often cited as an objective of socialism. Now its being condemned as a flaw of capitalism.


Socialism would end the massive distinctions between producer and consumer so what is produced is what is truly desired, taken straight from the masses' input.

The "masses?"
Anyways, the "imput" would need to be explained and clarified.

[NoMasters]

We're talking about a country founded by slave-holders like it really was established on the concepts of freedom and equality.

Good point, but this country was founded on the ideas of freedom and equality, regardless if they had slaves or not.

Slavery is a historical defamation of man because of greed, not a product of America.

But we shouldn't talk about that. We should stay on topic that pertains to this thread.

[Revolution starts with U]

Baseball... you're just deliberatley full of shit?

You are acting as if consumers walk into board meetings like 'you guys should make 500 widgets this week.' That is not how it works, you know it, and in case you didn't you've been told a thousand times.

The board decides what the company does, consumers merely choose which company they like the best... or in many cases dislike the least.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Good point, but this country was founded on the ideas of freedom and equality, regardless if they had slaves or not.

Are you familiar with the old robot adage DOES NOT COMPUTE?

[Baseball]

Baseball... you're just deliberatley full of shit?

You are acting as if consumers walk into board meetings like 'you guys should make 500 widgets this week.' That is not how it works, you know it, and in case you didn't you've been told a thousand times.

The board decides what the company does, consumers merely choose which company they like the best... or in many cases dislike the least.

Yeah, I know. The board decides how many widgets to make, and how to make it. They base their decisions based upon what will turn the greatest profit.
And in the socialist community... millions of people will... what exactly?
Send an order for 500 widgets directly to the company? What about the steel needed to make the widgets? What about the labor to produce both?
Give me a break.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Yeah, I know. The board decides how many widgets to make, and how to make it. They base their decisions based upon what will turn the greatest profit.
And in the socialist community... millions of people will... what exactly?
Send an order for 500 widgets directly to the company? What about the steel needed to make the widgets? What about the labor to produce both?
Give me a break.

...? Wait, so, production somehow vanishes under socialism? When was this decided?

[Baseball]

...? Wait, so, production somehow vanishes under socialism? When was this decided?

I am wondering how production is decided in a socialist community.
"Democracy" is not an answer.

[Comrade Auldnik]

I am wondering how production is decided in a socialist community.
"Democracy" is not an answer.

If you mean what are the specifics in guiding production, the interests of practicality prevail. Obviously, you can't wait for everyone to vote on or order precisely what they want from production, but democracy does have a part to play. Democratic offices could serve essentially the same productive function as a board of directors. The difference, here, would be that they are delegates of the people, and the productive forces they're managing do not belong to them individually, but are owned socially by the collective. These delegates would get what information they needed from a variety of sources designed to acquire accurate information about the wants and needs of the population.

[NoMasters]

I am wondering how production is decided in a socialist community.
"Democracy" is not an answer.

Is this a serious question?

Production in capitalism is based from democracy. They produce what the people demand, and they supply them. Hence supply & demand.

Socialism doesn't allow for that production to benefit only one class, the upper class, it wants each person to benefit equally.

However to be sure, there are several different forms of socialism. I am referring to a more realistic model of socialism that could be implemented in capitalist countries currently.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Comrade Auldnik;2354922]If you mean what are the specifics
in guiding production, the interests of practicality prevail.

"Practicality" defined how? Is what is practical in a capitalist system the same as a socialist one?


Obviously, you can't wait for everyone to vote on or order precisely what they want from production, but democracy does have a part to play. Democratic offices could serve essentially the same productive function as a board of directors. The difference, here, would be that they are delegates of the people, and the productive forces they're managing do not belong to them individually, but are owned socially by the collective. These delegates would get what information they needed from a variety of sources designed to acquire accurate information about the wants and needs of the population.

No doubt. But what is that information? Supply and demand? price fluctuations? The impact of the stock market in Asia?

[Comrade Auldnik]

Production in capitalism is based from democracy. They produce what the people demand, and they supply them. Hence supply & demand.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Conscript]

Yes, consumers choose what they want.

Or rather, choose what they get from what's available on the market. There is a huge difference, you're implying consumers are involved in the productive process.



Using as few resources as possible in production is often cited as an objective of socialism. Now its being condemned as a flaw of capitalism.

Efficiency has a different meaning in capitalism. Socialism focuses on streamlining the labor process and using various methods to make it produce more per unit of time. Capitalism is better off exploiting unorganized labor and preying on the never-ending job competition to lower prices in a race to the bottom. It suffers from its own need for scarcity.

For a capitalist, resources are being used more efficiently if he gnaws away at wages, benefits, etc. In fact, according to this system, it's more resource efficient to lower wages than to institute new technology. Better profits can be reached paying workers less without passing the subsistence point, while on the other hand the rate of profit advantage new technology brings is nullified by its widespread adoption. This is why you'll see companies spending more time seeking employees in regions of unorganized, poverty-stricken laborers to improve profits rather than spending money to improve the efficiency of the labor they already have. It's a race to the bottom.

For a socialist, resources are being used more efficiently when advances in production yield labor producing more with the same amount of resources, enabling people to either work less or consume more, or a mix of both. See the difference?


The "masses?"
Anyways, the "imput" would need to be explained and clarified.Since the consumers are no longer divorced from the producers in socialism, there is no need to guess and speculate about consumer buying tendencies and such. Thus the people, as managers of their own society, can set their own living standards, production quotas, and otherwise exercise total social control over the resources within their grasp.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah, I know. The board decides how many widgets to make, and how to make it. They base their decisions based upon what will turn the greatest profit.
And in the socialist community... millions of people will... what exactly?
Send an order for 500 widgets directly to the company? What about the steel needed to make the widgets? What about the labor to produce both?
Give me a break.

Individual productive efforts will decide what to do, regulated by political oversight. If a 'company's ( for lack of a better term) isfou.d to be insufficient it will lose its funding and licensing. Or since people have an interest in keeping their jobs, they will vote in new coordinators.

Really the only differences are in worker self management, workplace democracy, and way way less of market competition.

[#FF0000]

And in the socialist community... millions of people will... what exactly?

Figure out what they need or want and figure out in their worker's councils how best to make it.

[NoMasters]

It is based on democratic demand. It isn't democracy, since democracy is a type of society. But it is based 100% on what the people want lol

[CommunityBeliever]

The board decides how many widgets to make, and how to make it. They base their decisions based upon what will turn the greatest profit.Indeed. The direction the board of directors take is determined by the system of production of profit, which results in a variety of inefficient behaviours such as artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, and wasteful overlap. However, the underlying process behind the production is a personal decision of those directors, and these directors receive much of the profits from production.

In socialism, the workers themselves will control the means of production and receive the benefits of it, rather then a small elite. Furthermore, production will be determined by production for use rather then production for profit, which will eliminate the problems we have mentioned.


I am wondering how production is decided in a socialist community.Socialism is determined by production for use rather then production for profit.


The only conclusion to be made is that a socialist community would seek to withhold goods until some optimal and final apogee of a product could be produced.Indeed, the socialist economy will probably work to create an apogee of a product, and then distribute that product accordingly. Since the product is essentially optimal, it be functional for a longer time period, which will eliminate the inefficiencies of planned obsolescence. Furthermore, another logical conclusion is that the socialist economy would not slow the production which would be inefficient.


False; consumer demand determines that.Not really, the bourgeoisie elite produces products and then consumers merely make an indirect contribution to this process. The consumers are often a victim of the capitalist mode of production. For example an inelastic service such as health care may have its price inflated to unfair levels because people will go long ways to ensure that they have it. This will increase the profits of the elite well also creating a great deal of suffering in the world population.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Conscript;2354966]Or rather, choose what they get from what's available on the market. There is a huge difference, you're implying consumers are involved in the productive process.

No, I am not implying it at all. I am saying it. A capitalist enterprise can only turn a profit if consumers that which they produce.
There is really no way around this basic, undeniable fact.





Efficiency has a different meaning in capitalism.

Yep.


Socialism focuses on streamlining the labor process and using various methods to make it produce more per unit of time.

So what are those various methods? What is the advantage of "streamlining the labor force (define "streamlining")?


Capitalism is better off exploiting unorganized labor and preying on the never-ending job competition to lower prices in a race to the bottom. It suffers from its own need for scarcity.

So why is socialism against lowering prices?
Scarcity does not exist? Labor is inexhaustable? iron ore the same?


For a capitalist, resources are being used more efficiently if he gnaws away at wages, benefits, etc.

Producing as much as possible while keeping costs as low as possible is indeed an objective of capitalism.
Why isn't that an objective of socialism? How is this not "efficient" from a socialist viewpoint?


In fact, according to this system, it's more resource efficient to lower wages than to institute new technology.

It could be. But then again, Smith-Corona (one time manufacturers of fine typewriters) went bankrupt.


Better profits can be reached paying workers less

It could, until of course labor refuses to work for that pay.


without passing the subsistence point, while on the other hand the rate of profit advantage new technology brings is nullified by its widespread adoption. This is why you'll see companies spending more time seeking employees in regions of unorganized, poverty-stricken laborers to improve profits rather than spending money to improve the efficiency of the labor they already have. It's a race to the bottom.

Yes. The value of the labor is less than what labor in certain areas of the country are willing to labor for. A decision is made that the costs involved in improving the labor would not change the situation.


For a socialist, resources are being used more efficiently when advances in production yield labor producing more with the same amount of resources, enabling people to either work less or consume more, or a mix of both. See the difference?

Yes. You can give an example of how capitalism might function.
You can't, or won't, when it comes to socialism.

In other words, basically, you have said efficiency in a socialist community occurs when a worker can produce 10 units of a good in an hour, using 6 component parts to do so when he used to be able to produce 8 units using those same 6 component parts.

But the capitalist understands that that this is a very barebone measure of efficiency. So for example, being able to produce 2 more units per hour may not at all be more efficient, if there is no reason to produce those 2 extra units. Those extra component parts are being wasted. Or perhaps, production changes could be made which result 10 units being produced, which require only 4 component parts
Simply producing more, even while using the same amount of resources, is not the only sign of efficiency, or even a slamdunk sign, of efficiency in production.


Since the consumers are no longer divorced from the producers in socialism, there is no need to guess and speculate about consumer buying tendencies and such.

Yep, the old static explanation of things- the what is true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow theory.


Thus the people, as managers of their own society, can set their own living standards, production quotas, and otherwise exercise total social control over the resources within their grasp.

And what about resources not within their grasp?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=CommunityBeliever;2355002]Indeed. The direction the board of directors take is determined by the system of production of profit, which results in a variety of inefficient behaviours such as artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, and wasteful overlap. However, the underlying process behind the production is a personal decision of those directors, and these directors receive much of the profits from production.

Yes. Profits can only accrue when the items produced are purchased, are wanted. Production for profit is indeed production for use.




Indeed, the socialist economy will probably work to create an apogee of a product, and then distribute that product accordingly.

Nice. No internet or computers in the socialist community since such products have a long time to go to reach its peak.
Seems sort of ridiculous, does it not?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2354971]Individual productive efforts will decide what to do, regulated by political oversight.

OK. Now we are creating regulatory agencies.
I thought the decentralized socialism you are all for is against the establishment of such bureacracies?


If a 'company's ( for lack of a better term) isfou.d to be insufficient it will lose its funding and licensing. Or since people have an interest in keeping their jobs, they will vote in new coordinators.

Or in new regulators... Or would the people who have the authority to shut down a "company" NOT be democratically accountable?

[Revolution starts with U]

[QUOTE]

OK. Now we are creating regulatory agencies.
I thought the decentralized socialism you are all for is against the establishment of such bureacracies?



Or in new regulators... Or would the people who have the authority to shut down a "company" NOT be democratically accountable?

Hopefully everybody will be held democratically accountable. That's kind of the point. And regulatory agencies need not be statist. They could be the worker's councils themselves, or consumer interest groups, or both.

[RGacky3]

Empirical evidence, huh? Good, then maybe you can tell me how you know that this was not a problem in anarchist Catalonia.


.... How it was'nt? It just was'nt.

Thats like me saying "my car does'nt have a problem with the AC" and you asking "How?"

You can do research on this.

[CommunityBeliever]

Production for profit is indeed production for use.What do financial services have to do with production for use? Nothing. Capitalism includes financial services because it is based upon production for profit rather then use.


No internet or computers in the socialist community Socialism will satisfy everyones food, water, shelter, health care, energy, and communications needs. There will be a global communications network (the internet) which delivers all the information people require and a global energy network (the enernet) which meets everyones energy needs.


products have a long time to go to reach its peakIt is efficient to ensure that certain physical products are at peak condition so that they don't have to be replaced soon thereafter. On the other hand, the policies of planned obsolescence found throughout capitalism are destructive and inefficient.

[RGacky3]

What do financial services have to do with production for use? Nothing. Capitalism includes financial services because it is based upon production for profit rather then use.


Infact Financial services have now eclipsed production many many times over (as a Marxist would predict).

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=CommunityBeliever;2355481]What do financial services have to do with production for use? Nothing. Capitalism includes financial services because it is based upon production for profit rather then use.

A source of revenue and funding.


Socialism will satisfy everyones food, water, shelter, health care, energy, and communications needs. There will be a global communications network (the internet) which delivers all the information people require and a global energy network (the enernet) which meets everyones energy needs.

Blah! Blah! Blah! As usual, such claims need to be proven, not merely asserted.


It is efficient to ensure that certain physical products are at peak condition so that they don't have to be replaced soon thereafter. On the other hand, the policies of planned obsolescence found throughout capitalism are destructive and inefficient.

Sorry. I was referring to particular technology as opposed to individual units of that technology.
But yes, the socialist community can assure that all cars are built like tanks-- and request that the community foot the costs for such vehicles.
Or it could simply refuse the production of cars until it reaches its apogee. No airbags in that Model T? Nope sorry no production.

[RGacky3]

But yes, the socialist community can assure that all cars are built like tanks-- and request that the community foot the costs for such vehicles.
Or it could simply refuse the production of cars until it reaches its apogee. No airbags in that Model T? Nope sorry no production.

Why did that not happen in historical examples of socialism?

[Baseball]

Why did that not happen in historical examples of socialism?


Beats me. Perhaps they did not understand socialism as CommunityBeliever understands it.

[RGacky3]

Beats me. Perhaps they did not understand socialism as CommunityBeliever understands it.

They did'nt understand socialism ????? .....

:laugh::laugh::laugh:.

Ok, then I support WHAT THEY did, if you wanna call that something else, go ahead, I call it socialism, now get a new pony, and teach it some new tricks.

[Decommissioner]

OK. So computers are not to be produced until they are able to walk and recite the Declaration of Independence in Swahili.

Progress is cumulative; it builds upon what was created before. It is not substitutional. In that sense, the above critique of capitalism shows the anti-progress nature of socialism.





Neither should. The consumer, by exercising his or her choice, ought. In a capitalist community this is what happens. But as implied above, in a socialist community, the workers in the car factory and associated factories, make that choice for the consumer. Why should their views control what cars are available to the consumer?

There is no disconnect between consumer and worker. Most consumers are workers themselves. If there is demand for, say, a certain type of car, "consumers" (ie workers) would be free to manufacture the car as they see fit, and produce according to demand. We don't have the kind of freedom under capitalism, consumers have choice, but they don't have the power to produce the commodities they want, merely to choose what is provided to them.

[CommunityBeliever]

Blah! Blah! Blah! As usual, such claims need to be proven, not merely asserted.Actually, that quote was part of the definition of socialism, therefore it doesn't need to proven. For example, by this definition China isn't socialist because it doesn't have socialised medicine anymore.


Sorry. I was referring to particular technology as opposed to individual units of that technology.What are you typing with? Are you using a QWERTY keyboard? The QWERTY keyboard was not scientifically designed to improve typing efficiency, yet most people continue to use it because they are used to it. Hopefully now you can see the importance of scientifically engineering an efficient design before releasing it.

Socialist society will carefully apply scientific techniques to create apogees of products before releasing them. This will be an improvement over capitalist societies which release substandard crap in order to incur profits.

[DinodudeEpic]

OK. So computers are not to be produced until they are able to walk and recite the Declaration of Independence in Swahili.

Progress is cumulative; it builds upon what was created before. It is not substitutional. In that sense, the above critique of capitalism shows the anti-progress nature of socialism.





Neither should. The consumer, by exercising his or her choice, ought. In a capitalist community this is what happens. But as implied above, in a socialist community, the workers in the car factory and associated factories, make that choice for the consumer. Why should their views control what cars are available to the consumer?

See, consumers don't decide things in capitalism, CORPORATIONS do. Hell, consumers would decide things in free market socialist economy just as much. And, you know who most consumers are? They are workers! Maybe workers of a different cooperative/corporation, but they are workers none the less.

Basically, the free market gives the consumer a voice already. The problem is that I don't want corporate or state control over the economy.

[NoMasters]

See, consumers don't decide things in capitalism, CORPORATIONS do. Hell, consumers would decide things in free market socialist economy just as much. And, you know who most consumers are? They are workers! Maybe workers of a different cooperative/corporation, but they are workers none the less.

Basically, the free market gives the consumer a voice already. The problem is that I don't want corporate or state control over the economy.

Consumers definitely decide things in capitalism, and that is the problem. It should be the workers over the consumers that decide things. Which in fact is impossible considering our economic systems today.

Almost all consumers are NOT workers. The ones who consume the most in terms of amount are the bourgeoisie. Thus consumers are the capitalists, and we are lead to believe that we are the consumers. Well "we" as in the workers class, which I am excluded from unfortunately.

This is the blurring of lines that has made neoliberalism so powerful and dominant unfortunately.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Why did that not happen in historical examples of socialism?

It did. It's just that some people calling themselves historians have interests besides accuracy at heart.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Thats like me saying "my car does'nt have a problem with the AC" and you asking "How?"

Here is evidence that my AC is functioning properly. [turns on the AC]

That analogy doesn't really work. You're going to have to find another excuse not to do your homework.


You can do research on this.

I wonder why I'm even wasting my time. This is just becoming childish. You made the claims about Catalonia, and now you've got to support them. If you refuse to do that, then there's no more reason for this farce of a dialogue to continue.

[RGacky3]

It did. It's just that some people calling themselves historians have interests besides accuracy at heart.

Really? So historians are secretly anarcho-syndicalists???

Are you insane???


Here is evidence that my AC is functioning properly. [turns on the AC]

That analogy doesn't really work. You're going to have to find another excuse not to do your homework.

EXACTLY, and the evidence that liberatrian socialist principles work is the history of it.


I wonder why I'm even wasting my time. This is just becoming childish. You made the claims about Catalonia, and now you've got to support them. If you refuse to do that, then there's no more reason for this farce of a dialogue to continue.

Historical claims, the society never degenerated internally, they had a funtioning economy, infact it had higher output than the rest of spain, the society worked well.

What do you want, you want me to link to to historical studies???

[Comrade Auldnik]

Really? So historians are secretly anarcho-syndicalists???

Are you insane???

Something about this makes me think there was a lack of communication somewhere.




EXACTLY, and the evidence that liberatrian socialist principles work is the history of it.

Golly gee, now if you could just cite any of this history, we'd have an actual dialog. Instead, you google "libertarian socialist good" and come up with Catalonia and think name-dropping it and the titles of a few books are enough to substantiate your claims.




Historical claims, the society never degenerated internally, they had a funtioning economy, infact it had higher output than the rest of spain, the society worked well.

What do you want, you want me to link to to historical studies???

I know, right?! How absurd is it to expect you to actually be able to cite your sources?!

[RGacky3]

I know, right?! How absurd is it to expect you to actually be able to cite your sources?!

My sources are years of reading about the subject from many different sources, i.e. books.

[Comrade Auldnik]

My sources are years of reading about the subject from many different sources, i.e. books.

...

Okay, when I bruise myself from a facepalm, that's the cue that this conversation has gone from idiotic to catastrophically stupid.

[DinodudeEpic]

Consumers definitely decide things in capitalism, and that is the problem. It should be the workers over the consumers that decide things. Which in fact is impossible considering our economic systems today.

Almost all consumers are NOT workers. The ones who consume the most in terms of amount are the bourgeoisie. Thus consumers are the capitalists, and we are lead to believe that we are the consumers. Well "we" as in the workers class, which I am excluded from unfortunately.

This is the blurring of lines that has made neoliberalism so powerful and dominant unfortunately.

There would be no capitalists in socialism. And, while capitalists can buy the most, they are a minority.

Plus, the working class will become the consumers in socialism, because if you have the control of a business in YOUR hands, you probably would become wealthy. Once you're wealthy, what would you do? Live in mediocre conditions or improve your conditions. You probably would go with the latter.