Do I understand pro-capitalist politics?

[RedAtheist]

Having examined a thread asking opponents of socialist politics to explain their viewpoints, it looked to me as though they did not understand what we revolutionaries are all about. I won't attack them for their misunderstandings here.

What I will try and do, is show that I am not as ignorant of their politics. What I am about to write in italics, is my best attempt at a neutral explanation of what supporters of capitalism believe. I understand that there are probably disagreeing viewpoints among those on the other side as well, so what I say might not represent all capitalism supporters, but I think at least one of you would recognise what I write as a description of their ideology. If you think my description is inaccurate feel free to correct me, I will not assert that you actually do not believe what you are saying you believe. Okay here goes.

The pro-capitalist ideology: Capitalism (a system in which there are privately owned companies competing to make a profit) is a system which ensures everybody's freedom, as well as ensuring that commodities are produced efficiently.

According to this viewpoint, because exchanges can only happen by consent, they are mutally benefical (or at the very least viewed as mutually beneficial by the people engaging in the exchange) and the more they happen the better. These exchanges occur between two people who are equal under the law (even if their incomes are not equal) and they include exchanges in labour for wages. The exchange of labour for wages is just like any other exchange. The employer and employee are viewed as 'traders' rather than members of two different classes. Since these exchanges are mutally beneficial any restriction on these exchanges is unneccessary (or perhaps causes harm.) If a person agrees to an exchange which does not benefit them, they are responsible for this decision. Thus the government should not deprive people of the liberty to make such exchanges, instead they should admit that they are responsible for whatever happens to them as a result of these exchanges

Even if classes do exist, they are unimportant, due to the fact that there are no strict barriers between the classes and anyone can rise to class position higher than what they started from if they have the right character (which is more a part of their nature, than a product of their surroundings.) Any attempts to create to reduce the gaps between wages will discourage such aspirations leading to a decrease in the number of people aiming for jobs requiring high qualifications. Thus the government should not attempt to redistribute wealth or equalise incomes, only legal equality is guaranteed in a democratic capitalist society.

Restrictions on competition between businesses discourages businesses from aiming to improve their productivity leading to a decrease in the rate at which wealth is produced. Thus a lack of market competition results in poverty. Thus attempt to regulate the way the market naturally operates leads to a decrease in efficiency. This includes government bailouts, since they prevent companies which did not do what it takes to succeed in the free market, from collapsing like they naturally would if the government did not interfere.

In summary strong supporters of capitalism view any type of government action which interferes with the free market as a drain on the economy and as an attempt by those lacking the natural talents to succeed in the capitalist world to bring down those who are more successful. Alternatively it could also be seen as a result of the government wanting more power for itself.

Then they thrown in some comment about Stalin (or someone else from the evil dictator list.)
Needless to say, I don't agree with this ideology, but I like to think that I understand it. I tried to be as fair as possible with my explanation. So what is the verdict?

[Night Ripper]

Very nice. A few corrections though...


Any attempts to create to reduce the gaps between wages will discourage such aspirations leading to a decrease in the number of people aiming for jobs requiring high qualifications. Thus the government should not attempt to redistribute wealth or equalise incomes, only legal equality is guaranteed in a democratic capitalist society.That's not the reason why the government should not attempt to redistribute wealth. The reason why is because it's immoral. It's also why we shouldn't interfere with voluntary exchanges between two parties. A lot of lefties like to say that whatever two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. I simply wish to apply that principle consistently, inside the bedroom and out.

This should be the basis for the adoption of all economic systems. If you want to join a socialist commune, you should be able to without some capitalists rolling over you with tanks. The same goes for capitalism being allowed by socialists. Whatever economic system is adopted should be done so willingly, not forcefully. If that happens, I don't really care what we are, capitalists, communists, syndicalists, etc.

[RGacky3]

It's also why we shouldn't interfere with voluntary exchanges between two parties. A lot of lefties like to say that whatever two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. I simply wish to apply that principle consistently, inside the bedroom and out.


WHat happens in their bedroom does'nt effect anyone else.


This should be the basis for the adoption of all economic systems. If you want to join a socialist commune, you should be able to without some capitalists rolling over you with tanks. The same goes for capitalism being allowed by socialists. Whatever economic system is adopted should be done so willingly, not forcefully. If that happens, I don't really care what we are, capitalists, communists, syndicalists, etc.

Problem is capitalism CANNOT exist without force & a state.

[Strannik]

Once you completely and consistently eliminate the state and violence from human relations, there are surprisingly few conflicts between left-wing and right-wing libertarianism. I choose to live and work in a commune, you choose to live and work alone. No harm done.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...

[RGacky3]

working by yourself and not bothering anyone is acceptabler for everyone, but that by no means is anything near capitalism, nor is it even economic.

Economy by its very nature, is a social phenomenon.

[danyboy27]

pro-capitalist politics kinda remember of the story of dr.jeckyll and mr hyde.

On one side capitalist seek long term stability to increase their profits, and on the other, capitalist seek to make has much money has possible in so little time, regardless of the long term consequences.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Very nice. A few corrections though...

That's not the reason why the government should not attempt to redistribute wealth. The reason why is because it's immoral.

"Because it's immoral" doesn't tell us anything about why it's immoral, though. Quite frankly, this sounds more like a communist argument than a capitalist one, and I mean that because governmental redistribution is indirect; the law protects and serves a capitalist's ability to appropriate the surplus value produced by a worker. This is what I find so interesting about libertarians: everything they claim to hate about what they call "socialism" actually characterizes capitalism. Their idealist worldview blinds them to practically observing the world and noting how private ownership of capital and production behaves.


It's also why we shouldn't interfere with voluntary exchanges between two parties. A lot of lefties like to say that whatever two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. I simply wish to apply that principle consistently, inside the bedroom and out.
I'm sure there are circumstances that you would find extenuating in this case, but I think I might just understand your point. Communists are more interested in the relationship between worker and production; we don't all have the same opinion on, say, mind-altering substances.


This should be the basis for the adoption of all economic systems.He proudly stated among leftists. :rolleyes:


If you want to join a socialist commune, you should be able to without some capitalists rolling over you with tanks.
I wonder why that kind of peace just doesn't happen. I might have an answer...


The same goes for capitalism being allowed by socialists.... and I have my opportunity now. Do you know why socialists can't just allow capitalism to "be," like it's some innocent bystander? Because capitalism is aggressive and destructive. Exploitation is at its heart and it relies on imperialism to keep itself afloat.


Whatever economic system is adopted should be done so willingly, not forcefully.By way of analogy, should slavery have been abandoned "willingly" by the slave-holders? You see where I'm coming from, as a Marxist.


If that happens, I don't really care what we are, capitalists, communists, syndicalists, etc.You're going to be doing an awful lot of complaining then.

[Night Ripper]

By way of analogy, should slavery have been abandoned "willingly" by the slave-holders?

You being a slave and you having to keep your hands off my property are in no way analogous to each other.

[Rafiq]

The revolution has no care for bourgreois morality. Feudal kings probably thought it was immoral they were de throwned.

Same bull shit, different asshole.

[Comrade Auldnik]

You being a slave and you having to keep your hands off my property are in no way analogous to each other.

I'm actually really disappointed I had to read this comment. You knew that I was drawing a parallel between the direct ownership of human labor and the ownership of the means of production. And you had to have known that the slave-holders' argument against abolitionism (the total eradication of slavery as an institution, not the more common view of simply preventing slavery's expansion throughout the country) was that people had no right to use the government to interfere with their property. And if you're familiar at all with Marxism, you know the general idea we have about private property here.

Now that we've established you knew what analogy I was drawing between overt slavery and capitalism, all you're response really amounted to was "no, it's not." Given that I've chosen to engage you as a peer, the least you could do in return is not treat me like I'm stupid.

I'll thank you for a more thoughtful, reasoned response.

[RGacky3]

pro-capitalist politics kinda remember of the story of dr.jeckyll and mr hyde.

On one side capitalist seek long term stability to increase their profits, and on the other, capitalist seek to make has much money has possible in so little time, regardless of the long term consequences.


Listening to neo-classical economists (or austrian) try and explain the incentive structure of a capitalist to 2 different people, one, a buisinessman, and two a socialist, is like watching a dude explain his feelings towards his marriage to both his wife and mistress.

My point is that when defending capitalism they'll always try and include all externalities into cost, they'll always try and make the "owners" (shareholders), as long term interested as possible. But when you actually apply making profit, its totally opposite.



The revolution has no care for bourgreois morality. Feudal kings probably thought it was immoral they were de throwned.

Same bull shit, different asshole.


Although the support for overthrowing them was defended morally and done so extremely meticulously. And one reason Feudal kings stayed in power so long is that they managed to manipulate a moral defense of their power, so just dismissing morality is a huge mistake.

[Night Ripper]

was that people had no right to use the government to interfere with their property

Those slaves weren't the slave masters property. Those slaves were owned by themselves just like I own myself and you own yourself. They didn't transfer their ownership rights in any legitimate way. Therefore, that argument does not apply. There were victims of kidnapping, not property.

Now, if you want to willingly sell yourself into slavery and someone takes you up on your offer, then and only then would you actually be someone's property. Then and only then would it make sense to argue that the government shouldn't interfere with their property.

[Revolution starts with U]

Those slave weren't the slave masters property. Those slaves were owned by themselves just like I own myself and you own yourself. They didn't transfer their ownership rights in any legitimate way. Therefore, that argument does not apply. There were victims of kidnapping, not property.

Now, if you want to willingly sell yourself into slavery and someone takes you up on your offer, then and only then would you actually be someone's property. Then and only then would it make sense to argue that the government shouldn't interfere with their property.

Almost all land in the United States was stolen from its rightful possessors through bloodshed and conquest. Ergo, according to your own sttandards, clown, the US government hasevery right to interfere with property as it sees fit.

Your system is a joke :thumbup1:

[Comrade Auldnik]

Those slaves weren't the slave masters property. Those slaves were owned by themselves just like I own myself and you own yourself. They didn't transfer their ownership rights in any legitimate way. Therefore, that argument does not apply. There were victims of kidnapping, not property.

That counter-argument works where morality exists in a vacuum, but arguing about "legitimacy" doesn't really do much to erase the fact that those slaves were, in fact, treated by their masters and by their masters' state as property. Legitimacy, also, doesn't exist on some other plane in a pure and correct form.


Now, if you want to willingly sell yourself into slavery and someone takes you up on your offer, then and only then would you actually be someone's property. Then and only then would it make sense to argue that the government shouldn't interfere with their property.

You and your weird ideas about what people will do voluntarily. :rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

Although the support for overthrowing them was defended morally and done so extremely meticulously. And one reason Feudal kings stayed in power so long is that they managed to manipulate a moral defense of their power, so just dismissing morality is a huge mistake.

The reasons behind the overthrowing of kings had absolutely nothing to do with morals. It was the newly developed capitalist class (Or, another class, for that matter) expressing and for filling their class interest, under the guise of moralism.

I don't know why you have such an.... Unnecessary fetish for moralism and Idealism. Whether it's unintentional I have yet to discover.

[bugsbunny]

Having examined a thread asking opponents of socialist politics to explain their viewpoints, it looked to me as though they did not understand what we revolutionaries are all about. I won't attack them for their misunderstandings here.

What I will try and do, is show that I am not as ignorant of their politics. What I am about to write in italics, is my best attempt at a neutral explanation of what supporters of capitalism believe. I understand that there are probably disagreeing viewpoints among those on the other side as well, so what I say might not represent all capitalism supporters, but I think at least one of you would recognise what I write as a description of their ideology. If you think my description is inaccurate feel free to correct me, I will not assert that you actually do not believe what you are saying you believe. Okay here goes.

The pro-capitalist ideology: Capitalism (a system in which there are privately owned companies competing to make a profit) is a system which ensures everybody's freedom, as well as ensuring that commodities are produced efficiently.

According to this viewpoint, because exchanges can only happen by consent, they are mutally benefical (or at the very least viewed as mutually beneficial by the people engaging in the exchange) and the more they happen the better. These exchanges occur between two people who are equal under the law (even if their incomes are not equal) and they include exchanges in labour for wages. The exchange of labour for wages is just like any other exchange. The employer and employee are viewed as 'traders' rather than members of two different classes. Since these exchanges are mutally beneficial any restriction on these exchanges is unneccessary (or perhaps causes harm.) If a person agrees to an exchange which does not benefit them, they are responsible for this decision. Thus the government should not deprive people of the liberty to make such exchanges, instead they should admit that they are responsible for whatever happens to them as a result of these exchanges

Even if classes do exist, they are unimportant, due to the fact that there are no strict barriers between the classes and anyone can rise to class position higher than what they started from if they have the right character (which is more a part of their nature, than a product of their surroundings.) Any attempts to create to reduce the gaps between wages will discourage such aspirations leading to a decrease in the number of people aiming for jobs requiring high qualifications. Thus the government should not attempt to redistribute wealth or equalise incomes, only legal equality is guaranteed in a democratic capitalist society.

Restrictions on competition between businesses discourages businesses from aiming to improve their productivity leading to a decrease in the rate at which wealth is produced. Thus a lack of market competition results in poverty. Thus attempt to regulate the way the market naturally operates leads to a decrease in efficiency. This includes government bailouts, since they prevent companies which did not do what it takes to succeed in the free market, from collapsing like they naturally would if the government did not interfere.

In summary strong supporters of capitalism view any type of government action which interferes with the free market as a drain on the economy and as an attempt by those lacking the natural talents to succeed in the capitalist world to bring down those who are more successful. Alternatively it could also be seen as a result of the government wanting more power for itself.

Then they thrown in some comment about Stalin (or someone else from the evil dictator list.)
Needless to say, I don't agree with this ideology, but I like to think that I understand it. I tried to be as fair as possible with my explanation. So what is the verdict?

That is a very good summary of capitalism.

[bugsbunny]

WHat happens in their bedroom does'nt effect anyone else.



Problem is capitalism CANNOT exist without force & a state.

Capitalism can exist without force because all exchanges are voluntary. But I agree it cannot exist without a state - but then again, neither can Socialism. In fact, Socialism requires state and force even more.

[bugsbunny]

pro-capitalist politics kinda remember of the story of dr.jeckyll and mr hyde.

On one side capitalist seek long term stability to increase their profits, and on the other, capitalist seek to make has much money has possible in so little time, regardless of the long term consequences.

Generally speaking, the long term consequences of capitalism is greater wealth. But there will be more inequality. I think Churchill summed it up very well. He said:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

[bugsbunny]

"... the law protects and serves a capitalist's ability to appropriate the surplus value produced by a worker. .

There is no surplus value. This is a piece of Marxist nonsense that should be thrown into the dust bin. What you call 'surplus value' is the rightful profit of the owner of the business for taking a risk with his capital.

The 'worker' gets a fix wage whether the business makes a profit or not. It can make a loss and the capitalist owner might go broke. He has risked his capital instead of spending it which is his right. If he succeeds, it means that the product or service his company produces is wanted by the People. He also creates jobs. So the bottom line is that he risked his capital and ended up benefitting society. Thus he deserves a reward - his profits.

[RGacky3]

The reasons behind the overthrowing of kings had absolutely nothing to do with morals. It was the newly developed capitalist class (Or, another class, for that matter) expressing and for filling their class interest, under the guise of moralism.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive at all.


Capitalism can exist without force because all exchanges are voluntary. But I agree it cannot exist without a state - but then again, neither can Socialism. In fact, Socialism requires state and force even more.

The exchanges are voluntary, but the property and institutions of capital are not voluntary.

Why does socialism require a state? You need much less force for democracy than you do for autocracy

[Comrade Auldnik]

Capitalism can exist without force because all exchanges are voluntary. But I agree it cannot exist without a state - but then again, neither can Socialism. In fact, Socialism requires state and force even more.

:rolleyes: "Capitalism can exist without force because all exchanges are voluntary."

Voluntary in the way that I voluntary choose to obey someone when they have a gun to my head, sure. I mean, I guess I could always choose death.

[Comrade Auldnik]

There is no surplus value. This is a piece of Marxist nonsense that should be thrown into the dust bin. What you call 'surplus value' is the rightful profit of the owner of the business for taking a risk with his capital.

The 'worker' gets a fix wage whether the business makes a profit or not. It can make a loss and the capitalist owner might go broke. He has risked his capital instead of spending it which is his right. If he succeeds, it means that the product or service his company produces is wanted by the People. He also creates jobs. So the bottom line is that he risked his capital and ended up benefitting society. Thus he deserves a reward - his profits.

Wow. Just wow. :lol:

And they call communists idealists.

[Night Ripper]

Voluntary in the way that I voluntary choose to obey someone when they have a gun to my head, sure.

That's such complete bullshit that somewhere deep in your mind you must know that. Or can you possibly believe that if the outcomes are the same then everything else is irrelvant?

[bugsbunny]

Wow. Just wow. :lol:

And they call communists idealists.

Well, what is wrong with what I said?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Almost all land in the United States was stolen from its rightful possessors through bloodshed and conquest. Ergo, according to your own sttandards, clown, the US government hasevery right to interfere with property as it sees fit.

Your system is a joke :thumbup1:

Follow the money. Where did the wealth of US capitalism (and capitalism in general, but the US example is a nice abridged version) come from? Stolen land, stolen labor developed cash crops of sugar and later cotton, this wealth increased trade and manufacturing and GB and the US developed textile industries which fed the industrial revolution.

How did the US industrialists maintain their wealth after developing industry? By creating a Navy that opened up closed ports and protect existing ones and then later by developing a modern military to take over the former Spanish colonies as that empire declined.

All regimes and systems ruled by a minority class operate under "might make right" this goes for their treatment of non-dominant classes within that system or region as well as with competing ruling groups in other regions. They polish their bloody conquest with ideology and all sorts of justifications from popular "common sense" arguments (unfortunately not the Paine pamphlet :lol:) to elaborate academic explanations but in the end, it's force of arms that props up the system even if under relativly calm periods they use use cultural hegemony to convince us that their rule is "natural".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, what is wrong with what I said?It's an idealistic understanding of how the economy works and it also doesn't happen to match reality - particularly in an age of no-liberalism and now austerity.

Productivity has increased but wages have declined over the last generation; the people who run major businesses don't end up on the street if their company goes under while their workers might; the banks made bad investments but some of them prospered from it by default because they were able to gobble up the weaker banks; profitability is being partially restored in US manufacturing but only BECAUSE they have lowered wages and thereby increased their profits, not because of "smart investing".

[RGacky3]

Well, what is wrong with what I said?

Whats wrong with what you said is that it is totally devoid of any economic understanding or even any econmic analysis.

All you did was try and justify it, and then say since its justified its not surplus value.

That is NOT an economic argument, surplus value is an economic concept.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Well, what is wrong with what I said?

See above comments. They put it pretty succinctly.

[Bostana]

Here is all you need to know about Capitalist Politics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Anti-capitalism_color.jpg

[RedAtheist]

Here is all you need to know about Capitalist Politics.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Anti-capitalism_color.jpg

How true. However the supporters of capitalism do not view the system this way, so it is probably more useful to correct their understanding of capitalism, than it is simply attack them for supporting exploitation.

[bugsbunny]

It is your view that is wrong.

[bugsbunny]

It's an idealistic understanding of how the economy works and it also doesn't happen to match reality - particularly in an age of no-liberalism and now austerity.

Productivity has increased but wages have declined over the last generation; the people who run major businesses don't end up on the street if their company goes under while their workers might; the banks made bad investments but some of them prospered from it by default because they were able to gobble up the weaker banks; profitability is being partially restored in US manufacturing but only BECAUSE they have lowered wages and thereby increased their profits, not because of "smart investing".

But it does match reality. Does the capitalist not risk his own money? His employees do not. They get a fixed pay whether their boss makes money or not. Does he not create jobs? Yes, again.

So why should his profits not belong to him? If you say (according to Marx's Labor theory of Value) that the profits rightfully belong to his "workers" then the losses should also belong to them if the company loses money.

Finally the capitalist boss is also a worker. In fact, he works very hard because his money is on the line.

What doesn't match reality is Marx's nonsense about the Labor theory of value which does not take into account the risk of doing business. What happens if the firm loses money? Do the workers share in the losses as well?

As for the rising productivity not matched with rising wages, there is a reason for that. This is because of two things:

1)technological change
2)globalization

Thanks to these two factors, jobs are being outsourced to cheaper countries like China and India. Factories have relocated to China and call centres to India. Low skilled jobs are being lost in America and given to chinese and indians.

But since you are Marxists who believe in unity of global labor, you should be very pleased. That's because wages of Indians and Chinese have gone up tremendously. They are very happy.

Your wages are going down but their wages are going up. So everybody is becoming more equal. That's one of the goals of Socialism - equality of wealth and income.

Of course, the capitalists are even happier. Now they can manufacture using cheap workers in China and sell to rich consumers in America. This increases their profit margins and therefore they get richer.

But this is just a temporary phenomena. As China gets richer, they will start buying stuff from America and Europe or visit as tourists. This will boost wages in the US and Europe too.

You have to improve your skills and work harder because the competition just got keener. The only way to increase your wages is to work and compete.

[DinodudeEpic]

Capitalism rests entirely on the notion that the free market automatically means that we should have our businesses and economy be ran by corporate CEOs in an undemocratic fashion.

[eric922]

I've never understood the moral defense of capitalism. What makes the morals of the capitalist any better than the morals of a socialist? Or of the nobles, the capitalists once overthrew? Morals are feel too much of a subjective thing to to build an economic system around.

[RGacky3]

But it does match reality. Does the capitalist not risk his own money? His employees do not. They get a fixed pay whether their boss makes money or not. Does he not create jobs? Yes, again.


Thats because his employees don't have money to risk.

Its like saying the King risks his kingdom when he sends peasants to war, so thats why he deserves all the plunder.

No they don't get a fixed pay, if their boss does'nt make money they get fired, if he DOES make money, they get nothing more, but he gets a big bonus.

No he does'nt create jobs, consumers create jobs.


So why should his profits not belong to him? If you say (according to Marx's Labor theory of Value) that the profits rightfully belong to his "workers" then the losses should also belong to them if the company loses money.


Marx's (and smith and ricardos) LTOV does'nt say who should get anything, it says how value is created.

The losses do belong to them, they get fired.


Finally the capitalist boss is also a worker. In fact, he works very hard because his money is on the line.


Not in his role as a capitalist, sure sometimes the individual also works in management or something, but in his role as a capitalist he's not getting paid for that.

I have nothing wrong with individuals being managers and getting paid for their manegement.


What doesn't match reality is Marx's nonsense about the Labor theory of value which does not take into account the risk of doing business. What happens if the firm loses money? Do the workers share in the losses as well?


Do you know what the LTOV is?

Read this

http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-marxian-labor-t164551/index.html

(I don't make these things for nothing).


As for the rising productivity not matched with rising wages, there is a reason for that. This is because of two things:

1)technological change
2)globalization


1) That IS rising productivity
2) That is part of it
3) your missing a bunch of other stuff, such as unemployment, unequal opportunity cost, for profit nature of firms and so on.


Thanks to these two factors, jobs are being outsourced to cheaper countries like China and India. Factories have relocated to China and call centres to India. Low skilled jobs are being lost in America and given to chinese and indians.


BTW China right now is starting to suffer from the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, (extremely quickly).


But since you are Marxists who believe in unity of global labor, you should be very pleased. That's because wages of Indians and Chinese have gone up tremendously. They are very happy.


I'm sure the workers at Foxcon are terribly happy.


But this is just a temporary phenomena. As China gets richer, they will start buying stuff from America and Europe or visit as tourists. This will boost wages in the US and Europe too.


Not unless the American worker goes into deeper desperation than the Chinese worker.


You have to improve your skills and work harder because the competition just got keener. The only way to increase your wages is to work and compete.

Actually, empirically, unions keep wages up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But it does match reality. Does the capitalist not risk his own money? His employees do not. They get a fixed pay whether their boss makes money or not. Does he not create jobs? Yes, again.Slave-owners create jobs, slave-owners take a risk in cultivating a plot of land and turning it into a productive cash crop operation. If the slave-owner looses his money what happens, his land and slaves are sold to someone else. The plight of the slave is the same but the slave-owner has lost it all.

Aristocrats take the risk in going to war - they could loose their territories and their title and even their life if they loose: why shouldn't they then have total control of the tenants who work the land that they conquered?

You arguments are just apologies for an unequal and undemocratic society and could be applied to any group of rulers.

And on the jobs issue, capitalists make money from labor they can also make money by reducing labor costs, so to argue "they create jobs" is meaningless because they also "destroy job" and in fact want to ensure that there is continued joblessness and a surplus labor force for when they need it also to make people compete for scarce jobs, driving down wages. Declining populations or full employment are problems for the capitalist system's ability to grow.


So why should his profits not belong to him? If you say (according to Marx's Labor theory of Value) that the profits rightfully belong to his "workers" then the losses should also belong to them if the company loses money. Why should the cotton produced by slaves not belong to the slave owner, he bought the workers according to all the rules and customs of that society, he bought the land, made the connections to merchants and distributors.

Again, looking at the individual plight of this or that capitalist doesn't help us understand the system.


Finally the capitalist boss is also a worker. In fact, he works very hard because his money is on the line. Students work hard on papers, does that mean that writing a college thesis makes you a worker? bank robbers work hard on their craft, are they workers? Seeing the term in this way strips it of all meaning. We're talking about what someone's role in the present organization of society is: their classification in that system, or class.


What doesn't match reality is Marx's nonsense about the Labor theory of value which does not take into account the risk of doing business. What happens if the firm loses money? Do the workers share in the losses as well?Workers can suffer in a business goes under, or they can suffer if it doesn't. This is why working class people and capitalists do not have the same interests.


But since you are Marxists who believe in unity of global labor, you should be very pleased. That's because wages of Indians and Chinese have gone up tremendously. They are very happy. Read a newspaper - even a capitalist one. There's been a strike-wave in China and India is rife with conflicts involved with the rapid economic changes.


Your wages are going down but their wages are going up. So everybody is becoming more equal. That's one of the goals of Socialism - equality of wealth and income. No, the goal of socialism is worker's power and the democratic reorganization of society - out of which more equality naturally flows. And wealth has gone up in India and China but moreso inequality has gone up - and China's higher wages don't come directly from increased industry and trade, it comes from the government wanting to grant reforms to ensure social peace while they are rapidly expanding the economy. If that slows - and it did a little during the recession, but not as much as in EU or US - then those more generous policies will likely be revoked. Europe and the US also had similar reforms and labor-capital cooperation while the US economy was rapidly expanding after WWII. But again, this is subjective, not objectivly the result of capitalism since after the 1970s the US and Europe to a lesser degree changed their social peace model for neoliberalism and attempts to take away higher wages, union protections, and economic reforms and the welfare state.


Of course, the capitalists are even happier. Now they can manufacture using cheap workers in China and sell to rich consumers in America. This increases their profit margins and therefore they get richer.

But this is just a temporary phenomena. As China gets richer, they will start buying stuff from America and Europe or visit as tourists. This will boost wages in the US and Europe too.

You have to improve your skills and work harder because the competition just got keener. The only way to increase your wages is to work and compete.The only way to ensure a good life for yourself is to work hard and not talk-back or complain because over time you might be given work inside the master's house and quarters in the mansion instead of in the slave quarters with the field slaves. This is not a solution you offer, this is merely arguing for workers to develop a kind of Stockholm syndrome towards the system.

[bugsbunny]

Capitalism rests entirely on the notion that the free market automatically means that we should have our businesses and economy be ran by corporate CEOs in an undemocratic fashion.

To me the corporate CEO's are simply employees of the company, albeit highly paid ones. They are workers too. The capitalists are the owners of the company. Nowadays, there is an overlap. If an assembly line worker owns stock in the company, then he too is an owner and thus a capitalist.

Free markets simply means that each individual has the right to the fruits of his own labor. Whatever money he earns is based on exchanges of a voluntary nature. He is free to sell his service or product to the highest bidder without interference.

He can work for others or for himself. If his efforts lead him to become wealthy than good for him. Some will grow rich while others do not. No one owes you a living. Socialism means equality and it is immoral to take the fruits of one's labor to give to another in the name of equality. We have equal rights but not equal outcome.

[RGacky3]

The "owners" are not the capitalists, the capitalists are hte board of directors, i.e. the ones that control what happens with the revenue, compensation, capital and profits.


Free markets simply means that each individual has the right to the fruits of his own labor.

Funny, thats exactly what socialism is about.

[Bostana]

Capitalist Politicians (who are usually Rich) view Capitalism as a dog eat dog world. The believe they got to the top "fair" and that any one can make it to the top if he/she works hard enough. Which is Bullshit, they've been telling us that lie since the 80's. However they think when they lay off a thousand people, forced the rest to do 3x work to make productivity increase and make a profit.

[bugsbunny]

The "owners" are not the capitalists, the capitalists are hte board of directors, i.e. the ones that control what happens with the revenue, compensation, capital and profits.



According to merriam webster dictionary, one of the definations of capitalist is:



a person who has capital especially invested in business.


That's the defination I am using. So a member the board of directors may or may not be a capitalist. It depends on whether he owns stocks in a company. He is someone who represents the owners to oversee the management (who are also employees.) So a capitalist simply means owner.

A capitalist can also mean a rich person or someone who supports capitalism.

[bugsbunny]

Capitalist Politicians (who are usually Rich) view Capitalism as a dog eat dog world. The believe they got to the top "fair" and that any one can make it to the top if he/she works hard enough. Which is Bullshit, they've been telling us that lie since the 80's. However they think when they lay off a thousand people, forced the rest to do 3x work to make productivity increase and make a profit.

We do live in a dog eat dog world. its part of nature. Big fish eats small fish. A cat eats a mouse. A dog eats a cat. A wolf eats a dog. A lion eats a wolf.

Capitalism is part of nature. That is why it will always be around. Socialists are struggling against nature. That's why it fails.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalism is part of nature. That is why it will always be around. Socialists are struggling against nature. That's why it fails. This is the weakest argument in favor of capitalism. There are plenty of things that are natural that we humans have surpassed, such as our restriction to our natural environment in tropical Africa.

[RGacky3]

We do live in a dog eat dog world. its part of nature. Big fish eats small fish. A cat eats a mouse. A dog eats a cat. A wolf eats a dog. A lion eats a wolf.

Capitalism is part of nature. That is why it will always be around. Socialists are struggling against nature. That's why it fails.

All of those things are intra species, and none of those things are capitalism, none of those are "voluntary market transactions," none o those things involve property laws, none of those things are capital/labor relations.

if you were arguing for canibalism, perhaps.

[Black_Rose]

We do live in a dog eat dog world. its part of nature. Big fish eats small fish. A cat eats a mouse. A dog eats a cat. A wolf eats a dog. A lion eats a wolf.

Capitalism is part of nature. That is why it will always be around. Socialists are struggling against nature. That's why it fails.

And you celebrate the competitive and social darwinistic nature of capitalism? You are indeed a reactionary since you reject the inherent value of social and material progress, while extolling the brutal "virtues" of the barbaric, perpetual* struggle itself without providing any putative beneficial consequences from the struggle.

* In contrast, revolutionary socialists indeed accept a struggle against the capitalism, since we realize that they are not going to capitulate their power out of benevolence. But the period of revolutionary catharsis is a intended to be a transitory period intended to liquidate elements of society that would obstruct socialist order, educate the populace by inculcating them with socialist consciousness and values, and reaffirm the values of the revolution which would require the vigilance of the vanguard to prevent corrupting revisionism. Ultimately, the benevolent and benign nature of the socialist state with its inherent propensity to promote social harmony (through an egalitarian social and economic order) and material prosperity (by orienting the economy to maximize the "use value" of produced goods and to satisfy material needs of its citizens as a top priority) would obviate the need for direct oppression against the citizenry since they would perceive the regime as legitimate and would not have any real grievances against the state.


If he succeeds, it means that the product or service his company produces is wanted by the People.

You should know that the market does not respond to the needs or wants to the "People" (more precisely "consumers" in the capitalist lexicon), just like electorate democracy does not respond to the will of the people. Instead both the electoral process and the market manipulate the wants of the people through the obfuscatory use of propaganda and marketing to create artificial desires for superfluous goods, brand loyalty, and addiction. For instance, processed food has been engineered, for instance using liberal quantities or artificial flavor, sugar, and salt, to enhance its palatable and convenience to ensure brand loyalty and repeat purchase, often at the expense of the health of the consumer. Moreover, the deleterious consequences of processed food consumption is an externality not borne by the food companies, instead, the public sector and the individual are then encumbered with financial costs of increased physical morbidity.

If anyone thinks that capitalism through the marketplace provides for people's needs, then ask yourself why people lack access to medical care and shelter in a capitalist economy in a developed country.

[Bostana]

We do live in a dog eat dog world. its part of nature. Big fish eats small fish. A cat eats a mouse. A dog eats a cat. A wolf eats a dog. A lion eats a wolf.

Capitalism is part of nature. That is why it will always be around. Socialists are struggling against nature. That's why it fails.

And that's the thing about Communism. Marx teaches us that Communism is built upon a compassionate human being.
And that's why some people fear Communism because you have to be compassionate and contribute to the Community.

[RGacky3]

No Marx does'nt teach that, Marx does'nt TEACH anything, he analyses capitalism.

[RedAtheist]

Marx teaches us that Communism is built upon a compassionate human being.

Uh no, communism is built upon proletarians struggling for their rights. If they were too compassionate (and lacking in self-interest) they would allow themselves to be abused.

Marx was not some generic idealist. Please find me a quote where he preaches 'niceness' at people. Niceness isn't enough. You need to stand up to oppression (especially your own.)

[RGacky3]

Since when does compassion mean allowing abuse???