The Nature of the State and the Economics of Anarchy

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Hello, I am new to RevLeft. I consider myself left-wing, but I am not a socialist, so I am posting in Opposing Ideologies.

I am a market-anarchist and an economics student who considers himself neoclassical. I do not consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, nor an adherent to the Austrian School of economics. I am a little l libertarian who feels that I have more in common with the revolutionary left than I do with the vast majority of who I would consider "right wing" libertarians.

I presume that many of you would take issue with my usage of the term anarchist and left-wing. That is fair enough, but there is no monopoly on the terms, and in the end it is pure semantics anyhow.

My purpose in making this topic is to expose you to my rationale for supporting markets. Libertarians are often heralded as the whores of the ruling elite and the capitalists. I personally would disagree for several reasons I am sure you are all familiar with if you have ever been exposed to the typical libertarian responses.

One point I feel that need be articulated further however is that the market can be viewed as a weapon against the state. Casting aside whatever prejudices you harbor against the market, those of us who do not believe that markets are necessarily exploitative view it as a weapon against state power. A market that is outside of the states control is a heavily decentralized entity that can not be manipulated by our overlords to wage wars against other states or build massive police states. As a student of economics, I can understand the desire to create a welfare state and a state that takes care of its citizens. The well funded welfare state however may just as well be labeled the warfare state.

This is why I support grassroots "privatized" safety nets as a means to support the poor. The state cannot be trusted with the safety net, as this is simply the public till that is pilfered to fuel the war machine. Institutions must be created at the community level to erect the infrastructure necessary to provide for those in need. You as revolutionary leftists presumably have a certain degree of faith in the strength of the community to achieve great things. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that such a community could not exist without socialism?

I know that none of this will convince any of you, and is not intended to. The purpose of this post was merely to shed some light on the anti-state argument for markets. I am not a conspirator in some sort of enslavement of the working class. I do not worship capital or put profits before people. I believe that markets are the only way to protect against the tyranny of the state and its agents.

[l'Enfermé]

Markets are the products of generalized commodity production, i.e capitalism. Your precious capitalist markets, then, can only exist under a capitalist mode of production. You can't have capitalism without a state. You may abolish the state a thousand times, but that won't abolish the social conditions in capitalist society that make the state a necessity, thus the state will arise again.

I.e there's no anti-state argument for markets. The State is a necessity to keep markets free, and markets reinforce the rule of the class whose organ the state is, the capitalist class.

Your views are nothing but a delusion.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Markets are the products of generalized commodity production, i.e capitalism. Your precious capitalist markets, then, can only exist under a capitalist mode of production. You can't have capitalism without a state. You may abolish the state a thousand times, but that won't abolish the social conditions in capitalist society that make the state a necessity, thus the state will arise again.

I.e there's no anti-state argument for markets. The State is a necessity to keep markets free, and markets reinforce the rule of the class whose organ the state is, the capitalist class.

Your views are nothing but a delusion.

Institutions and norms are what ultimately enforce things like property rights. Decentralized institutions and a society with propertarian norms could enforce property rights.

One would think as radical leftists who believe communities can communalize to raise living conditions would have a hard time arguing that the same couldn't be true of institutions in society.

Basically I cannot grasp how people who think that communities can unite behind common goals would think it impossible for the same to occur under an alternative system to socialism.

[l'Enfermé]

The State is not an institution?

By "norms", you mean the ruling ideology, and in capitalist society, that's bourgeois ideology. The supremacy of bourgeois ideology can only be guaranteed if the bourgeoisie class itself monopolizes political power, which implies a state.

Private property is enforced through force and violence and is reinforced through bourgeois ideology.

Your "institutions" could only enforce property rights, meaning, enforce the supremacy of the capitalist class, by monopolizing violence and force in society. Your "institutions" are nothing but states, with a different name. Changing the name however, does not change the substance of the thing. The only difference between you and the usual apologists for the rule of capital is that you want "decentralized institutions". Instead of the 195 or 196 states we have today, you want tens of thousands. This seems, to me, like an opposite of what any reasonable person would call "improvement".

Communities can "communalize" to raise living conditions? Do you think that's our ultimate goal? That? It isn't putting an end to wage-slavery and servitude and exploitation and bringing about a society of associated producers undivorced from the means of production and the fruits of their labour?

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

The State is not an institution?

It is, but I am speaking of alternative institutions to the state.


By "norms", you mean the ruling ideology, and in capitalist society, that's bourgeois ideology. The supremacy of bourgeois ideology can only be guaranteed if the bourgeoisie class itself monopolizes political power, which implies a state.

If by the ruling ideology, you mean the ideology most accepted by all classes in society, then you should probably not call it bourgeois. An ideology is not "bourgeois" if the vast majority of people accept the ideology and promote it. I am not bourgeois, yet I share this ideology.

Marxist class analysis is really mystical. I see people attributing South Park to the rise in libertarianism. I think this shows how out of touch you guys are with contemporary society, which is probably why you guys are struggling for influence.


Private property is enforced through force and violence and is reinforced through bourgeois ideology.

All systems in all societies are enforced through force.

Violence is separable from ideology. Would violence during a leftist revolution be bourgeois?

Again, your guys class analysis clouds your perception.


Your "institutions" could only enforce property rights, meaning, enforce the supremacy of the capitalist class, by monopolizing violence and force in society. Your "institutions" are nothing but states, with a different name. Changing the name however, does not change the substance of the thing. The only difference between you and the usual apologists for the rule of capital is that you want "decentralized institutions". Instead of the 195 or 196 states we have today, you want tens of thousands. This seems, to me, like an opposite of what any reasonable person would call "improvement".

If an institution does not tax its citizens, it is not a state, it is a service provider on the market.


Communities can "communalize" to raise living conditions? Do you think that's our ultimate goal? That? It isn't putting an end to wage-slavery and servitude and exploitation and bringing about a society of associated producers undivorced from the means of production and the fruits of their labour?

The whole exploitation thing is your guys ancient belief in classical economics rearing its ugly head. In modern economic theory there is little place for exploitation. This of course does not mean you guys are wrong, but it means that history is definitely not on your side. Not only did the collapse of the Soviet Union set you back, but so did your loss in the field of economics. Is the reason that you guys have so little impact on society because of bourgeoisie ideology, or is it because you guys lost the debate? I would argue the latter.

[Positivist]

It is, but I am speaking of alternative institutions to the state.
If by the ruling ideology, you mean the ideology most accepted by all classes in society, then you should probably not call it bourgeois. An ideology is not "bourgeois" if the vast majority of people accept the ideology and promote it. I am not bourgeois, yet I share this ideology.
Marxist class analysis is really mystical. I see people attributing South Park to the rise in libertarianism. I think this shows how out of touch you guys are with contemporary society, which is probably why you guys are struggling for influence.
All systems in all societies are enforced through force.
Violence is separable from ideology. Would violence during a leftist revolution be bourgeois?
Again, your guys class analysis clouds your perception.
If an institution does not tax its citizens, it is not a state, it is a service provider on the market. The whole exploitation thing is your guys ancient belief in classical economics rearing its ugly head. In modern economic theory there is little place for exploitation. This of course does not mean you guys are wrong, but it means that history is definitely not on your side. Not only did the collapse of the Soviet Union set you back, but so did your loss in the field of economics. Is the reason that you guys have so little impact on society because of bourgeoisie ideology, or is it because you guys lost the debate? I would argue the latter.

Bourgiose ideology refers to the ideas which refelct the class interests of the bourgiose. It is not necessarily about who holds the beliefs (though nearly all capitalist do hold these beliefs) it is about who's interests the believes serve.

As for your conception of the state as an institution which must necessarily work on taxation to be a state you are just wrong. A state is any institution which enforces a class relation through the employment of violence. Whether it is funded by purchase or taxation is of little relevance, and actually one based on purchase is more monopolized and oppressive than the latter. And yes you are absolutely correct that it would be necessary for a period of time to enforce the class rule of the working class through violence, though unlike all previous social systems, this enforcement will not be constant as socialism is a one class system, leaving no class to be suppressed.

As for the claim that "history" and "neoclassical economics" render exploitation irrelevant I am really curious to hear how this is the case. Exploitation is when a producer is paid less than they are responsible for producing. If anything other than this was the case under capitalism, the employer (the capitalist) would not be able to make any money. A company will only hire someone if hiring them contributes more profit to the company than it detracts. This is only possible through exploitation.

[l'Enfermé]

It is, but I am speaking of alternative institutions to the state.
Alternative institutions with the same purpose and powers of the state? And they're not a state? Perhaps only in name. You're only fooling yourself, friend.



If by the ruling ideology, you mean the ideology most accepted by all classes in society, then you should probably not call it bourgeois. An ideology is not "bourgeois" if the vast majority of people accept the ideology and promote it. I am not bourgeois, yet I share this ideology.
The capitalist class owns all of society's means of productions. By extension, it owns all of society's means of productions of ideas. The predominance of the ruling class's ideology is characteristic of every class-society, be it slave society, feudal society or capitalist society.

It would do you well to read Gramsci's thoughts regarding cultural hegemony.


Marxist class analysis is really mystical. I see people attributing South Park to the rise in libertarianism. I think this shows how out of touch you guys are with contemporary society, which is probably why you guys are struggling for influence.


I didn't see a single Marxist attributing the "rise of libertarianism" to South Park. I saw Anarchists doing that, however, Marxists don't get along very well with those people.

Marxist class analysis is mystical? What a fucking joke! Marxist class analysis, which demystifies class relations and antagonisms, which lays them bare and strips them down to the bone, is mystical? The opposite, maybe.

All systems in all societies are enforced through force.

Violence is separable from ideology. Would violence during a leftist revolution be bourgeois?

Again, your guys class analysis clouds your perception.
My class analysis clouds my perception? How can you say that with a straight face? Through analysis, one uncovers truth, not the opposite.

All "systems" in class-society are enforced through force. Good, you learned something.




If an institution does not tax its citizens, it is not a state, it is a service provider on the market.

The State is an organ of class rule, it's an organ of the ruling class. Taxes have nothing to do with it.



The whole exploitation thing is your guys ancient belief in classical economics rearing its ugly head. In modern economic theory there is little place for exploitation. This of course does not mean you guys are wrong, but it means that history is definitely not on your side. Not only did the collapse of the Soviet Union set you back, but so did your loss in the field of economics. Is the reason that you guys have so little impact on society because of bourgeoisie ideology, or is it because you guys lost the debate? I would argue the latter.
Classical political economy was a term invented by Marx to refer the ideas of Ricardo, James Mill, Smith, Malthus, etc, in contrast to the vulgar political economy of their successors("neoclassical economics"). What does this "exploitation thing" have to do with classical political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo? The two were apologists for capitalism, this mysterious "exploitation thing" is an argument against capitalism.

Do you even understand Marx's theory of exploitation?

What does the Soviet Union have to do with anything? That monstrosity and it's monopoly over the corpse of communist movement(killed by Stalin's Comintern) were the greatest impediment towards the development of a real international worker-class movement. Only a small minority of RevLefters support that historical abortion.

What debate? Fuck are you on? Western academia has been thoroughly bourgeois since the 17/18th century, "we" have never participated in any "debate" with the bourgeoisie's academics, this "debate" of yours has always been between various factions of bourgeois academia.

[l'Enfermé]

Bourgiose ideology refers to the ideas which refelct the class interests of the bourgiose. It is not necessarily about who holds the beliefs (though nearly all capitalist do hold these beliefs) it is about who's interests the believes serve.

As for your conception of the state as an institution which must necessarily work on taxation to be a state you are just wrong. A state is any institution which enforces a class relation through the employment of violence. Whether it is funded by purchase or taxation is of little relevance, and actually one based on purchase is more monopolized and oppressive than the latter. And yes you are absolutely correct that it would be necessary for a period of time to enforce the class rule of the working class through violence, though unlike all previous social systems, this enforcement will not be constant as socialism is a one class system, leaving no class to be suppressed.

As for the claim that "history" and "neoclassical economics" render exploitation irrelevant I am really curious to hear how this is the case. Exploitation is when a producer is paid less than they are responsible for producing. If anything other than this was the case under capitalism, the employer (the capitalist) would not be able to make any money. A company will only hire someone if hiring them contributes more profit to the company than it detracts. This is only possible through exploitation.
One class-system? No-class system, perhaps.

I'm also interested to hear how workers are not exploited by capitalists.

[helot]

Alternative institutions with the same purpose and powers of the state? And they're not a state? Perhaps only in name. You're only fooling yourself, friend.



It may not be a state in a very strict sense, there may in theory be competing forms in a given territorial area for example (although how that'd work i can't say as i don't think it actually would), but as you know state functions would still exist. This is what i don't understand about supposed "private property anarchists", they claim to oppose the state yet they do not oppose the necessary functions of the state. To me it seems little more than playing with words. It may be of use as an intellectual exercise to try to get people to better understand the state but even then it would seem inadequate.



I didn't see a single Marxist attributing the "rise of libertarianism" to South Park. I saw Anarchists doing that, however, Marxists don't get along very well with those people.

I've not seen the thread in which that occured but any anarchists who would think that really need to start analysing properly.



edit:


One class-system? No-class system, perhaps.

I'm also interested to hear how workers are not exploited by capitalists.

Don't you see, it's workers who exploit the capitalists :laugh:

[MustCrushCapitalism]

It is, but I am speaking of alternative institutions to the state.

So an institution that enforces (note the root of this word to be force) private property rights is not a state? Sounds to me like you only want decentralized local states. That would be terribly inefficient if it could even maintain itself.


If by the ruling ideology, you mean the ideology most accepted by all classes in society, then you should probably not call it bourgeois. An ideology is not "bourgeois" if the vast majority of people accept the ideology and promote it. I am not bourgeois, yet I share this ideology.

And so this ideology against the class interests of the vast minority is just somehow natural? No. The ideology promoted by the bourgeoisie is capitalism - the system which originates from bourgeois rule. To promote this ideology is inherently supportive of the status quo - that being bourgeois ownership of the means of production. Look at ideologies from the materialist perspective and it's simple to see their underlying class affiliation.


Marxist class analysis is really mystical. I see people attributing South Park to the rise in libertarianism. I think this shows how out of touch you guys are with contemporary society, which is probably why you guys are struggling for influence.

How is Marxist class analysis mystical? It's based in material analysis of class under capitalism. The employee's class interests are opposed to the employer because it's in the interests of the latter to work the former for the greater period of time and the least pay for the sake of profit. This is incredibly basic.


All systems in all societies are enforced through force. Violence is separable from ideology. Would violence during a leftist revolution be bourgeois?

That's clearly not an anarchistic statement, but, no, violence during a socialist revolution would be... proletarian, on the basis of the fact that that class identification is not arbitrary.

Force, as in during a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat that follows, would be for the sake of expropriating bourgeois property. This is in the direct material interests of the proletariat.


Again, your guys class analysis clouds your perception.

No, your idealism clouds yours.


If an institution does not tax its citizens, it is not a state, it is a service provider on the market.

Strange definition of a state you have there.


The whole exploitation thing is your guys ancient belief in classical economics rearing its ugly head. In modern economic theory there is little place for exploitation. This of course does not mean you guys are wrong, but it means that history is definitely not on your side. Not only did the collapse of the Soviet Union set you back, but so did your loss in the field of economics. Is the reason that you guys have so little impact on society because of bourgeoisie ideology, or is it because you guys lost the debate? I would argue the latter.

This entire paragraph is basically meaningless. Economic exploitation exists. Surplus value is extracted from the profit created by workers. You didn't provide any actual reason why "in modern economic theory there is little place for exploitation". Why, tell me, should modern economic theory ignore a clearly existence element of economics?

And the Soviet Union was never socialist. I can definitely say for most of its history it was an example of state capitalism. Some here might disagree. Arguably it was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the beginning.

[rti]

It is, but I am speaking of alternative institutions to the state.

So alternative institution to the state with the same exact functions as the state ... Isn't that just a state ???

[/QUOTE]

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Alternative institutions with the same purpose and powers of the state? And they're not a state? Perhaps only in name.

Our definitions for the state are quite different, which is probably why the left doesn't believe market anarchists to be true anarchists.


The capitalist class owns all of society's means of productions. By extension, it owns all of society's means of productions of ideas. The predominance of the ruling class's ideology is characteristic of every class-society, be it slave society, feudal society or capitalist society.

I disagree with your first sentence, but the point is subtle compared to the second sentence, which I think is a pretty bold leap. Physical capital and knowledge are quite different. Even if you do truly believe that point A logically leads to the extension of point B, could you explain it better? One reason why Marxist class analysis confuses me is because you guys draw conclusions from premises and often do not explain how you got from A to B. Premise A always seems to be bourgeois societal domination, and then the conclusion you often draw seems almost totally unrelated.


It would do you well to read Gramsci's thoughts regarding cultural hegemony.

I am a full time student, so I don't get much time for leisure reading. If you feel that it is something that is absolutely vital to understanding your view, then I will put it on my reading list.


I didn't see a single Marxist attributing the "rise of libertarianism" to South Park. I saw Anarchists doing that, however, Marxists don't get along very well with those people.

Noted


Marxist class analysis is mystical? What a fucking joke! Marxist class analysis, which demystifies class relations and antagonisms, which lays them bare and strips them down to the bone, is mystical? The opposite, maybe.

Libertarians have a class analysis also, the state versus the people. I too believe this analysis to be necessary in understanding relations and antagonisms in society, yet even I admit that it is individuals that make up both of these institutions, not faceless homogenous entities.


My class analysis clouds my perception? How can you say that with a straight face? Through analysis, one uncovers truth, not the opposite.
Like I explained earlier, the views of the Marxists tend to rely on the initial premises laid down by classical economics and class theory. The extensions of these two tend to be confusing to me.


All "systems" in class-society are enforced through force. Good, you learned something.

Classes are an artificial construct. I personally do not believe that eliminating the construct of multiple classes to end conflict in the world, or the need for legitimate violence.

If I were to take the proletariat and further break it into sub-classes, could one not argue that conflict would still exist? Perhaps between high and low skilled workers? What if we break this down into even smaller classes? Eventually we would reduce down to individuals.

I believe Marx actually separated high and low skill workers if memory serves.


The State is an organ of class rule, it's an organ of the ruling class. Taxes have nothing to do with it.

Our definitions of state are different.


Classical political economy was a term invented by Marx to refer the ideas of Ricardo, James Mill, Smith, Malthus, etc, in contrast to the vulgar political economy of their successors("neoclassical economics"). What does this "exploitation thing" have to do with classical political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo? The two were apologists for capitalism, this mysterious "exploitation thing" is an argument against capitalism.

Marx was actually quite similar to Smith. I haven't read any Ricardo so I can't comment specifically on Ricardos influence. Marx basically just radicalized Smiths beliefs, and expanded on them. Smith would likely have been a social democrat were he alive today, contrary to the publics perception of him being some kind of uber-liberal.


Do you even understand Marx's theory of exploitation?

Humans are used essentially as capital by capitalists, exploiting their "labor". This results in surplus-value, which is what the excess labor beyond individual subsistence is, and is the "exploited" labor.

If I am not mistaken, Marx believed that the only capital in existence that can create surplus-value was labor, which itself has use-value, which is how Marx was able to lump people in with capital.

Alright...

Labor however does not have any objective value from which can be exploited. You cannot measure labor, and the disutility of labor is completely subjective. Not only is labor a rather arbitrary unit of measure, but it also is completely impossible to calculate. Without the capital of the capitalist, the laborer may not have been able to produce the amount he did. The capitalist pays the laborer more than he otherwise would have gotten had the laborer worked alone, otherwise the laborer would have simply worked alone to begin with.

But what if the laborer has no way to opt out and produce on his own? Is this wage slavery?

There are circumstances where wage slavery may exist. In economies with lots of barriers to entry, it is possible that wage slavery is very real. However, barriers to entry must be recognized as a consequence of policy positions by the state. If the state is fascist or crony-capitalist, it is possible that wage slavery exists because of the nature of the egregious rent-seeking that would be built into the state and the economy. However, in a laissez-faire society without state barriers to entry, one could certainly opt out of working for a capitalist.

I am sure you disagree that in an unregulated economy barriers to entry would disappear, but this comes down to a matter of taste when it comes to economic theory. Personally, I don't believe the market has any natural barriers to entry beside state intervention.


What does the Soviet Union have to do with anything? That monstrosity and it's monopoly over the corpse of communist movement(killed by Stalin's Comintern) were the greatest impediment towards the development of a real international worker-class movement. Only a small minority of RevLefters support that historical abortion.

I know that only a minority of the left supports the glorification of the Soviet Union, but I wasn't talking about the truth, just the general perception. The general perception is that socialism failed in the Soviet Union. Whether or not you think that the Soviet Union was true socialism, the criticism is generally that true socialism is impossible to reach. Thus the Soviet example is used to show that it is impossible to reach.


What debate? Fuck are you on? Western academia has been thoroughly bourgeois since the 17/18th century, "we" have never participated in any "debate" with the bourgeoisie's academics, this "debate" of yours has always been between various factions of bourgeois academia.
There was a time in the world when Socialism was fashionable in academia.

[helot]

Our definitions for the state are quite different, which is probably why the left doesn't believe market anarchists to be true anarchists.


Nah it's more to do with the fact anarchism is opposed to the capitalist mode of production.

[Kotze]

It would do you well to read Gramsci's thoughts regarding cultural hegemony.

I am a full time student, so I don't get much time for leisure reading.You don't have much time to check out anything besides the main path laid out for you if you want to get good grades which are important for your career is what you mean?
:mellow:

[Positivist]

Class an artificial construct? Now that is just absurd. Class is the objective relation to the production and distribution of resources accompanied by a definite set of interests. While you are correct that class can be boiled down to a collection of individuals, these individuals have long-term collective interests. Members of the owning capitalist class will certainly have different interests than eachothers within the confines of the capitalist system, but it is in the interest of all capitalists to sustain this system. The same goes for the proletariat except sustaining capitalism is antagonistic to its interests.

As for your claim that entry into individual production is an option for just about anyone in a market economy, your lack of life experience bleeds through. The expenses of starting and maintaining a business is far beyond what any working person can afford on their working salary alone. That kind of wealth is not earned in a lifetime with the exception of few professions, professions mostly entered into based on talent (entertainment, financial management.) That kind of wealth is almost exclusively inherited, and is exclusively inherited in the case of any large businesses.

Now I'm sure you are one of those "well since the ancestors of the capitalist worked hard and the workers were lazy, its justified." If this is the case then your perception of how exaclty the capitalists accumulated their wealth is quite idealistic and ahistorical. Simply research how capitalism developed and you will be sadly mistaken.

[Blake's Baby]

No class is an artificial construct, because it's it's based on property, which is an artificial construct. However, if like the propertarians you believe that property is somehow 'natural' then class is also 'natural'. They can't have it both ways though. They can't have 'natural' property but 'unnatural' classes.

To the OP: you want some working defintions of the state?

Marxist definitions: 'men armed in defence of property relations'; 'an organisation for one class to suppress another'

Anarchist definition: an organisation for a minority to oppress the majority.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Class an artificial construct? Now that is just absurd. Class is the objective relation to the production and distribution of resources accompanied by a definite set of interests. While you are correct that class can be boiled down to a collection of individuals, these individuals have long-term collective interests. Members of the owning capitalist class will certainly have different interests than eachothers within the confines of the capitalist system, but it is in the interest of all capitalists to sustain this system. The same goes for the proletariat except sustaining capitalism is antagonistic to its interests.

As for your claim that entry into individual production is an option for just about anyone in a market economy, your lack of life experience bleeds through. The expenses of starting and maintaining a business is far beyond what any working person can afford on their working salary alone. That kind of wealth is not earned in a lifetime with the exception of few professions, professions mostly entered into based on talent (entertainment, financial management.) That kind of wealth is almost exclusively inherited, and is exclusively inherited in the case of any large businesses.

Now I'm sure you are one of those "well since the ancestors of the capitalist worked hard and the workers were lazy, its justified." If this is the case then your perception of how exaclty the capitalists accumulated their wealth is quite idealistic and ahistorical. Simply research how capitalism developed and you will be sadly mistaken.

As somebody who is familiar with economic history, I actually do know how capitalism came to be. The only contribution of Marx that I really agree with is his criticism of how capitalism first developed.

The average small business takes 10,000 dollars to start. I have 10,000 dollars in the bank, and I am a poor college student.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

No class is an artificial construct, because it's it's based on property, which is an artificial construct. However, if like the propertarians you believe that property is somehow 'natural' then class is also 'natural'. They can't have it both ways though. They can't have 'natural' property but 'unnatural' classes.

To the OP: you want some working defintions of the state?

Marxist definitions: 'men armed in defence of property relations'; 'an organisation for one class to suppress another'

Anarchist definition: an organisation for a minority to oppress the majority.

I don't believe in natural rights, I am a utilitarian. Property is essentially a policy instrument necessary to prevent conflict in a society with relative abundance.

I use the "monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territorial area" as my definition of the state.

[Positivist]

As somebody who is familiar with economic history, I actually do know how capitalism came to be. The only contribution of Marx that I really agree with is his criticism of how capitalism first developed.

The average small business takes 10,000 dollars to start. I have 10,000 dollars in the bank, and I am a poor college student.

If you have 10,000 dollars in the bank, then you are not a poor college student. In fact your quite priviliged considering the overwhelming majority of college students are in steep debt, usually exceeding 100,000 dollars. And where exactly are they reporting that it is just 10,000 dollars to start a small business? That figure is clearly low considering the thoroughly biased and adamantly pro-business Small Business Association (SBA) puts that figure as three times as much. Source: http://www.sba.gov/community/blogs/community-blogs/small-business-cents/how-estimate-cost-starting-business-scratch

[rti]

I don't believe in natural rights, I am a utilitarian. Property is essentially a policy instrument necessary to prevent conflict in a society with relative abundance.

Well if you have total abudance you dont need property at all just like case of an air.

Advances in technology allows us to achieve such an abundance.
It definitely wont happen in any market system though



I use the "monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territorial area" as my definition of the state.
And how privative institutions that uphold private property rights does not fit into above definition ??

[helot]

No class is an artificial construct, because it's it's based on property, which is an artificial construct. However, if like the propertarians you believe that property is somehow 'natural' then class is also 'natural'. They can't have it both ways though. They can't have 'natural' property but 'unnatural' classes.

To the OP: you want some working defintions of the state?

Marxist definitions: 'men armed in defence of property relations'; 'an organisation for one class to suppress another'

Anarchist definition: an organisation for a minority to oppress the majority.

As an anarchist myself i'd consider that definition you proposed lacking as it makes no mention of class and states are a product of class society.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't believe in natural rights, I am a utilitarian. Property is essentially a policy instrument necessary to prevent conflict in a society with relative abundance.

Is this a re-hash of some Hobbes I see here :glare:


I use the "monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territorial area" as my definition of the state.

Well here is where you are wrong. A state is an organ of class rule, ie: the institution one class uses to exert its collective hegemony. The state, therefore, can only be abolished once classes cease to exist.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I use the "monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territorial area" as my definition of the state.

Tautology.

Who decides what is 'legitimate' if not the ruling class organised in a state?

So your definition of a state is 'it's a state'.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Tautology.

Who decides what is 'legitimate' if not the ruling class organised in a state?

So your definition of a state is 'it's a state'.

This is actually a very good point.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Institutions and norms are what ultimately enforce things like property rights. Decentralized institutions and a society with propertarian norms could enforce property rights.

One would think as radical leftists who believe communities can communalize to raise living conditions would have a hard time arguing that the same couldn't be true of institutions in society.

Basically I cannot grasp how people who think that communities can unite behind common goals would think it impossible for the same to occur under an alternative system to socialism.

1. Institutions are set up by people. Capitalist institutions (bourgeois assemblies, law, separation of church and state) differ from feudal institutions (interventionist monarchy, demesnes etc.) because the social relations between the rulers and the ruled differ. Institutions are not norms, and norms are not objective; they exist because they serve the interests of the ruling class of a society at that particular time. Besides, Capitalism does not tend to have a set of unique social norms: it can exist with social liberalism, social conservatism; it can exist when markets are only controlled a little by the state, or when price controls are put in place by the state.

2. Just like feudal institutions were not 'communalised' or altered to fit Capitalism but abolished, so we can see that Capitalist institutions: the market, the rule of law in its current form and the political bourgeois assemblies are not fit for the purpose of Socialism. They are all geared towards propping up a system where production is motivated by profit, which as we know is not compatible with Socialism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1. Institutions are set up by people. Capitalist institutions (bourgeois assemblies, law, separation of church and state) differ from feudal institutions (interventionist monarchy, demesnes etc.) because the social relations between the rulers and the ruled differ. Institutions are not norms, and norms are not objective; they exist because they serve the interests of the ruling class of a society at that particular time. Besides, Capitalism does not tend to have a set of unique social norms: it can exist with social liberalism, social conservatism; it can exist when markets are only controlled a little by the state, or when price controls are put in place by the state.

2. Just like feudal institutions were not 'communalised' or altered to fit Capitalism but abolished, so we can see that Capitalist institutions: the market, the rule of law in its current form and the political bourgeois assemblies are not fit for the purpose of Socialism. They are all geared towards propping up a system where production is motivated by profit, which as we know is not compatible with Socialism.

In what way is "seperation of church and state" an inherently capitalist idea? It may have been invented when capitalism was on the rise, but unless you're implying that there will be no religion at all in a post-capitalist society (a nice idea but somehow I think it unlikely), I say there needs to be an understanding that the laws and customs of society should have a secular basis, and that they should apply equally to all persons regardless of religious status. Such a thing has nothing to do with money or markets or the ownership of the means of production by an elite, so in what way is it capitalist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In what way is "seperation of church and state" an inherently capitalist idea? It may have been invented when capitalism was on the rise, but unless you're implying that there will be no religion at all in a post-capitalist society (a nice idea but somehow I think it unlikely), I say there needs to be an understanding that the laws and customs of society should have a secular basis, and that they should apply equally to all persons regardless of religious status. Such a thing has nothing to do with money or markets or the ownership of the means of production by an elite, so in what way is it capitalist?

I was more contrasting Capitalism with Feudalism. You're probably right, and it wasn't my intention to cast separation of church and state as inherently Capitalist as an institutional idea, merely that hitherto, considering the history of Capitalism and before it Feudalism, that is what was.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It can be seen as something that was, however, invented as a Capitalist permeation, for religion is inherently (when it is institutionalised a la teh Middle East) backwards and constrains economic growth, for its customs and norms are prohibitive (i.e. no work on the sabbath, dietary constraints, banning of certain 'pleasures' etc.) to sustained economic growth. In that respect, the idea of secularism as the de facto state ideology can actually be seen as - hitherto I must add - Capitalism's own, since Capitalism is a philosophy which requires growth to establish profit (via accumulation/saving and investment/re-investment) and sustain itself for any great period of time, as it has done.

It's certainly an interesting point, feel free to come back at me and continue the debate.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It can be seen as something that was, however, invented as a Capitalist permeation, for religion is inherently (when it is institutionalised a la teh Middle East) backwards and constrains economic growth, for its customs and norms are prohibitive (i.e. no work on the sabbath, dietary constraints, banning of certain 'pleasures' etc.) to sustained economic growth. In that respect, the idea of secularism as the de facto state ideology can actually be seen as - hitherto I must add - Capitalism's own, since Capitalism is a philosophy which requires growth to establish profit (via accumulation/saving and investment/re-investment) and sustain itself for any great period of time, as it has done.

It's certainly an interesting point, feel free to come back at me and continue the debate.

I certainly see what you mean - even without pro-active secularisation on the part of the capitalist ruling classes, the demands of profit act as an "acid" that eats away at religious institutions under capitalist society.

But I think the corrosive effects of profit-seeking of are also balanced by the usefulness of religion to the ruling classes under capitalism. If it were possible for a truly "capitalist" religion to take root then doubtless it would have happened by now. Instead what we see are the rise of new variants of old religions, such as prosperity theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology).

Although having said that, I suppose one could argue that New Age spirituality and "positive thinking" constitute new forms of (quasi-)religion arising under capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

The seperation of Chuirch and State in the US (and in France) was a result of the revolutions against feudalism. In Feudal Europe, even though Pope and Emperor (and later the King of France) fought like billy-oh, both militarily and over priviliges (appointing bishops, deriving revenues etc) they were two parts of a corporate ideology that stressed obediance to authority - 'lords temporal and spiritual' was the phrase in English law (still is). They sum up two of the the three 'classes' of medieval society (at least as seen from the top): 'those that fight (the nobles), those that pray (the clerics) and those that work (everybody else)'.

Enlightenment ideas, and earlier even Protestantism, encouraged the break-down of that social picture. A personal relationship with God, or even a personal relationship with a rational universe, require no priests to pray; every Protestant is his or her own church, and every rationalist is capable of forming his or her own enlightened circle for education and discussion of rational things. No state church necessary, because religion and philosophy have become matters of private conscience not public policy.

You can't really have a secular monarchy, it doesn't make sense (who choses the king, if not God/the Gods?) though a secular republic is perfectly understandable; the people, who all have different opinions on things (including gods) can decide.

But capitalism lost any civilising mission it may have had more than a century ago when the remaining areas of the world not yet subject to it were swallowed up; after the end of feudalism in all important respects, in other words, when capitalism ceased to be a development and started to become a fetter on society, when socialism actually came on the agenda and capitalism was seen to be another historically-bound system, that's when the religious revival of the late C19th started, I'd argue. Both 'official' religions and random mystery cults like Spiritualism and Theosophy that are more like today's New Age stuff.

Marx writes that religion is almost dead among the working class in the mid-19th. Well, not now it isn't. There has been a great increase in 'faith' over the last 150 years as capitalism has revealed itself as an increasingly bankrupt system and people cling to spars of hope (no matter ludicrous those spars seem from the outside).

[Positivist]

And yet another opposing ideologies participant has made a thread, debated for three days, and never came back to the site.

[rti]

And yet another opposing ideologies participant has made a thread, debated for three days, and never came back to the site.

Another one bites the dust ... just by intellect alone .

[Rafiq]

As somebody who is familiar with economic history, I actually do know how capitalism came to be. The only contribution of Marx that I really agree with is his criticism of how capitalism first developed.

The average small business takes 10,000 dollars to start. I have 10,000 dollars in the bank, and I am a poor college student.

Oh yeah, and what the fuck was that? What "criticism"? Christ, you're a fool. Get your head out of your ass and then I'll consider taking you semi seriously.

[Rafiq]

Let me get this straight. Neoclassical starts a thread asserting all sorts of garbage. We then tell him to read up on some shit. He tells us that because he's a student, he has no time for learning. Let me ask this question to him personally, with that said: Why the fuck should we take anything you say seriously, then, if your "Neoclassical Anarchism" is merely a product of your own ignorance (refusal to study) to revolutionary leftism?

[Positivist]

Let me get this straight. Neoclassical starts a thread asserting all sorts of garbage. We then tell him to read up on some shit. He tells us that because he's a student, he has no time for learning. Let me ask this question to him personally, with that said: Why the fuck should we take anything you say seriously, then, if your "Neoclassical Anarchism" is merely a product of your own ignorance (refusal to study) to revolutionary leftism?

Yea I really don't mind debating people with opposing ideologies, I just can't stand when they come here, reject all of our views, meet some opposition, and never come back to the site.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is why I support grassroots "privatized" safety nets as a means to support the poor. The state cannot be trusted with the safety net, as this is simply the public till that is pilfered to fuel the war machine.

But why do we need social safety nets period? Would it not make more sense to address the core causes of the problems inherent within the system such as inequality outright instead of putting a band-aide on it or ignoring it? As far as economics go, I'm more into Technocratic and Anarchist-Communist theories, felt I should mention before proceeding further.

[Baseball]

If anything other than this was the case under capitalism, the employer (the capitalist) would not be able to make any money. A company will only hire someone if hiring them contributes more profit to the company than it detracts. This is only possible through exploitation.

OK-- so in a socialist community, it does not matter whether labor performed on any particular task, job ect contributes more for the production of that task or job, than it detracts from it?

And since the quoted was a critique of capitalism, it cannot be true of socialism.

Do you truly wish to stand by your assertion as to that part of the nature of socialist production?

[helot]

OK-- so in a socialist community, it does not matter whether labor performed on any particular task, job ect contributes more for the production of that task or job, than it detracts from it?


What positivist said "A company will only hire someone if hiring them contributes more profit to the company than it detracts" is not the same as what you said.

You provided a red herring.

Within capitalist society the maximisation of profit and the accumulation of capital is the driving force of economic activity. This, however, is completely different to the fulfillment of social needs.

Therefore, within a socialist society a particular task will be performed if it contributes more to the fulfillment of social needs than it detracts while in a capitalist society a particular task is performed if it contributes more profit to the owners of capital than it detracts.

[The Jay]

Hello, I am new to RevLeft. I consider myself left-wing, but I am not a socialist, so I am posting in Opposing Ideologies.

Hi there.


I am a market-anarchist and an economics student who considers himself neoclassical. I do not consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, nor an adherent to the Austrian School of economics. I am a little l libertarian who feels that I have more in common with the revolutionary left than I do with the vast majority of who I would consider "right wing" libertarians.I used to feel similarly.


I presume that many of you would take issue with my usage of the term anarchist and left-wing. That is fair enough, but there is no monopoly on the terms, and in the end it is pure semantics anyhow.As long as you provide context I'm fine with you using irregular uses of nearly any word. Just don't go switching contexts.


One point I feel that need be articulated further however is that the market can be viewed as a weapon against the state. Casting aside whatever prejudices you harbor against the market, those of us who do not believe that markets are necessarily exploitative view it as a weapon against state power. A market that is outside of the states control is a heavily decentralized entity that can not be manipulated by our overlords to wage wars against other states or build massive police states.If the market cannot be manipulated then what is advertising and why is so much money spent on it? Both state and private propaganda do have effects on people and their actions, which includes economic decisions: aka market choices. If you are one of those "get money out of politics" people then you must also, by extension, be a "get money out of money" person too.


This is why I support grassroots "privatized" safety nets as a means to support the poor. The state cannot be trusted with the safety net, as this is simply the public till that is pilfered to fuel the war machine. Institutions must be created at the community level to erect the infrastructure necessary to provide for those in need. You as revolutionary leftists presumably have a certain degree of faith in the strength of the community to achieve great things. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that such a community could not exist without socialism?Communities do exist without Socialism, but they would be better off with a socialist system. People can also do without tooth brushes.

As for your call to build community-level structures I completely agree, but I think it would work better as a non-profit. We can learn from some of the Evangelical churches in their recruitment and community aiding strategies. There are many of us on this site that support building alternative cultures and institutions through these community-level activities.


I know that none of this will convince any of you, and is not intended to. The purpose of this post was merely to shed some light on the anti-state argument for markets. I am not a conspirator in some sort of enslavement of the working class. I do not worship capital or put profits before people. I believe that markets are the only way to protect against the tyranny of the state and its agents.
Markets preceded Capitalism so you don't necessarily support Capitalism more than us. What matters is property relations. I would personally support a communally planned economy with that being said. You should look into market socialism or maybe even revolutionary syndicalism if you want to look into a more voucherish system.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Oh yeah, and what the fuck was that? What "criticism"? Christ, you're a fool. Get your head out of your ass and then I'll consider taking you semi seriously.

His criticism of how capitalism first developed, in that land was often expropriated and privatized.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Yea I really don't mind debating people with opposing ideologies, I just can't stand when they come here, reject all of our views, meet some opposition, and never come back to the site.

Believe it or not, I have obligations to things that trump revolutionary leftist web boards on my scale of priorities.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

But why do we need social safety nets period? Would it not make more sense to address the core causes of the problems inherent within the system such as inequality outright instead of putting a band-aide on it or ignoring it? As far as economics go, I'm more into Technocratic and Anarchist-Communist theories, felt I should mention before proceeding further.

I understand your view that solving the root causes should be the ultimate goal of any coherent position (hence why I am anti-state). However, I personally do not believe that "left-wing" economics can do much of anything to improve living conditions. I don't mean offense to any of you, but I just see socialism as a sort of prelude to going back to nature. Even technocracy ignores the fact that technology is empirically demonstrated to not replace labor. There will never be a time when humans do not have to work.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Another one bites the dust ... just by intellect alone .

Yes, your blinding intellect has destroyed me. Your South Parkian analysis and criticism of my status as a student has convinced me of the importance of revolutionary left-wing politics.

[rti]

I understand your view that solving the root causes should be the ultimate goal of any coherent position (hence why I am anti-state).

State is not the root cause. It has been pointed that many times in this topic.




However, I personally do not believe that "left-wing" economics can do much of anything to improve living conditions.

Can you at least tell us why in logical coherent matter ?
Some people believe in hell, fairy tales and so on, how can i debate that of course i cant.



I don't mean offense to any of you, but I just see socialism as a sort of prelude to going back to nature.

Well there is no other way long term.
Infinite growth is unsustainable long term. Nothing grows forever.
It doesn't mean we cant manage thing intelligently.



Even technocracy ignores the fact that technology is empirically demonstrated to not replace labor.

What BS is this ? Of course it replaces it, but labor shifts. Those are two distinct functions.

It will be enough if technology will replace jobs faster than people can adopt , and the problems will arise in cyclical consumption based economy ( which is already ).
Does labor shift to useful jobs or useless ones such as , banking, day trading , marketing, lawyers , administration and now the youngest one - jail industry LOL.

Right now most of the population is employed in useless occupation from grand perspective,




There will never be a time when humans do not have to work.

There is literally no job that cant be automated eventually.
Every work is based on pattern recognition and responding to it.

There is already robot machine in existence that do scientific experiments.

Besides the real question is

Will there be enough labor left to sustain cyclical consumption based economy ( right wing )

Of course not.

[Marxaveli]

I understand your view that solving the root causes should be the ultimate goal of any coherent position (hence why I am anti-state).

The state isn't the root cause of the problem. Capitalism is - the State is merely a tool designed to uphold and legitimize Bourgeois hegemony, aka Capitalism.



However, I personally do not believe that "left-wing" economics can do much of anything to improve living conditions.

Sure they can. Just the fact workers would have self-determination in a Socialist society, as opposed to Capitalist modes of production where they are subject to the will of the ruling class, would be self-evident of this. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be Socialists to begin with.


I don't mean offense to any of you, but I just see socialism as a sort of prelude to going back to nature.

How so? Do you mean like in pre-history? You are looking at this in an idealist perspective I think. Communism today would look very different from society, say before, the Inquisition, when native Americans arguably had a near perfect tribal-Communist society. This should be a no brainer.


Even technocracy ignores the fact that technology is empirically demonstrated to not replace labor. There will never be a time when humans do not have to work.

I don't think that is the goal of Communists anyways. Most people like to be proactive and productive. We don't mind that we still have to work in a Socialist society - our goal isn't to end work, but to remove the exploitation and dependency of a ruling class for surivival, from it - which is the only incentive to work in Capitalism, unless of course, you are a Capitalist.

[Rafiq]

His criticism of how capitalism first developed, in that land was often expropriated and privatized.

Except, of course, for the fact that this wasn't a criticism. Marx unequivocally supported all developments of capitalism, at the time.

[CryingWolf]

I also consider myself a neoclassical. :D

But what you're missing here is that markets are not exploitation-free just because they are decentralized. For example, those with the most disposable income have the most say in what is produced and to whom it is sold. That's why overwhelming amounts of food are sold to Americans to the point of it becoming a serious public health risk, while millions starve in Africa.

Another thing is that those who simply happen to not be participating in a market transaction, but who are going to be affected by an externality of that transaction, don't get any say over the matter.

My position is simply that there exist alternative economic institutions that can do better than markets.

[Baseball]

Within capitalist society the maximisation of profit and the accumulation of capital is the driving force of economic activity. This, however, is completely different to the fulfillment of social needs.

Not really-- turning profit is a demonstration that needs are met-- the benefits of a particular line of production outstrips the costs of that production.


Therefore, within a socialist society a particular task will be performed if it contributes more to the fulfillment of social needs than it detracts while in a capitalist society a particular task is performed if it contributes more profit to the owners of capital than it detracts.

Yes, the objective in a socialist community is for the benefits of production to exceed the costs of production.

Its called "turning a profit" and as you agree (though you do not use that term), production in a socialist community has to be geared in that direction.

But Positivist didn't just leave it at that. He condemned companies in capitalism for terminating labor when the costs of that labor exceeded the benefits of that labor. It certainly is reasonable to wonder why a socialist community in that same situation, however they define "social needs", would not do the same thing.Its certainly reasonable to request further explanation.

Of course, the other problem is the vague standard of the term "social need" which has to be quantified and explained, and be consistent and objective.

[Positivist]

OK-- so in a socialist community, it does not matter whether labor performed on any particular task, job ect contributes more for the production of that task or job, than it detracts from it?

And since the quoted was a critique of capitalism, it cannot be true of socialism.

Do you truly wish to stand by your assertion as to that part of the nature of socialist production?

I did not say that this process was inherently bad (I refer to the process of extracting more energy out of an act than is required to perform it) I merely acknowledged that it is antagonistic to the interests of an oppressed class within the contexts of a stratified society. You are viewing profit and benefit as it would be measured within a socialist society as synonymous. The extraction of profit does not necessarily, and usually doesn't benefit the whole human community.

[Positivist]

Believe it or not, I have obligations to things that trump revolutionary leftist web boards on my scale of priorities.

Yes, you told us, your a "busy student" who doesn't have time to read books and is poor despite having 10,000 dollars in the bank. Just if you have so little time that you can't participate on the site, then don't join, make forceful assertions, and then dissappear.

[Positivist]

Yes, the objective in a socialist community is for the benefits of production to exceed the costs of production.

Its called "turning a profit" and as you agree (though you do not use that term), production in a socialist community has to be geared in that direction.

You also ignore that cost is different between capitalist and socialist political economy. In capitalism, cost is specifically monetary and is only assessed within each isolated company. Within socialism, "cost" would extend beyond labor times within a particular company and the companies it purchased from, and would include the consequences for every industry and further would factor in the externalities of these operations.

Oh and the assertion that profitability indicates the satisfaction of needs is just absurd.

[Le Socialiste]

Much of what you put forth here remains unsubstantiated, though. Nor do you fully grasp the role of the state within class society; the very presence of the state is reliant on the separation and division of peoples into classes, as an organ exercising the predominating interests of its ruling-class. These interests are fundamentally rooted in material developments and historical circumstances which, believe it or not, require a state. The state and the market are not polar opposites operating independently of each other, nor is it a question of one dominating the other and bending it to the other’s will. That’s simply not the case here. The market is exploitive, regardless of what you believe.

Let’s not reduce it to a question of morals, let’s look at the cold hard facts: capitalism produces a variety of goods and services, not according to human need, but according to the profitability of commodities and their subsequent fetishization in relation to economic relationships and concepts of value. The role of the market is not to meet human demand, but to extract from this process of production and distribution profit. Profit, then, supersedes social need; it subjects the latter to the anarchic characteristics of the market.

The state does not arise independently of this phenomenon, but in conjunction with the historical and economic developments of the market. While political and media pundits speak endlessly about the natural dichotomy of the market and the state, the two overlap quite a bit - and do so naturally. A market must encourage growth and expansion if it is to continually profit from the extractive properties of private capital. This requires a state, a military, and the means of guarding against competitive foreign interests. Thus you have clashes, skirmishes, and war - not as an expression of the moral failure and inherent ambition of humanity, but as an example of market expansion edging out the competition. WWI, WWII, and various other armed conflicts are certainly results of the inner workings inherent in the functioning of the market.

Look at it this way: capitalism creates and perpetuates the very antagonisms that weaken and expose it to periods of instability. More concretely, it subjects the vast mass of society to the demands of an economy reliant on a continuous stream of profits in order to sustain and expand itself. This throws the working-class, itself a product of capitalist market relations, into opposition with those reaping the benefits from their collective labor. Such a conflict necessitates the creation of a police force capable of subduing the restive movements of labor, the perpetuation of artificial divisions to keep workers separated along racial and religious lines (among others), and a body that can oversee and exercise this process - the state.

This renders your vision of privatized safety nets a result of personal idealism with little to no basis in basic conditions. The market does not operate according to human need, but profit. Why do you think bankers, lobbyists, and politicians constantly rail against “entitlements”, social nets like social security, medicare, and other programs? Why do you think Obamacare received such fierce backlash and pushback from the medical-pharmaceutical complex? Lobbyists for the insurance industry weren’t happy until it became clear their profits wouldn’t be on the chopping block - in fact, Obamacare expands profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies (but that’s another matter).

Let’s look at some examples of the private market at work: in cities where figures are nominated and installed by businesses (like Detroit), conditions have worsened, schools closed, evictions skyrocket, charter schools replace struggling public ones, entire communities live without electricity or running water, and political “representatives” are wholly responsible for ensuring each devastating cut be carried out. This still happens where the institutions remain in state hands, but situations like what’s happening in Detroit and elsewhere are pushed through by unaccountable financial figureheads with startling rapidity. This is because, as I’ve highlighted above, markets are dictated by the profitability of commodities (goods and services), not the needs of society. It’s not a matter of good vs. bad, crony vs. “free” market capitalism, or the market vs. the state - these are irrelevant factors that find little to no basis in the material realities confronting societies for centuries.

[Baseball]

I did not say that this process was inherently bad (I refer to the process of extracting more energy out of an act than is required to perform it) I merely acknowledged that it is antagonistic to the interests of an oppressed class within the contexts of a stratified society.

So how is it in the interest of an individual worker to be let go from his or job, within a socialist community? Does that the worker have the choice whether to be terminated?


You are viewing profit and benefit as it would be measured within a socialist society as synonymous.

I would agree that socialists would look at such things somewhat differently. So then one would have to examine whether the socialist way of looking at is, is in fact, true and the correct way.


The extraction of profit does not necessarily, and usually doesn't benefit the whole human community.

Usually it does, and is a good measurement of benefit.
So how is the socialist measurement superior?

[Baseball]

You also ignore that cost is different between capitalist and socialist political economy. In capitalism, cost is specifically monetary and is only assessed within each isolated company.

"monetary" is the way which cost is measured-- and it is indeed measured throughout the economy.
Labor which is used in one industry cannot be used, at the same time, somewhere else. Energy which is used in one industry, at the same time, somewhere else ect. All this is a cost for the community. How does one measure whether that cost is worth it?



Oh and the assertion that profitability indicates the satisfaction of needs is just absurd.

Of course it is-- the objective of production is to produce goods and services to people. Profit measures that success-- that people are obtaining their needed wants and desires.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course it is-- the objective of production is to produce goods and services to people. Profit measures that success-- that people are obtaining their needed wants and desires.

This is a serious misapprehension of the purpose of production under capitalism, which is to produce a profit, not to provide goods and services, a secondary consideration.

Don't believe me? Try running a company providing any good or service without prioritising profit, and then watch as your business collapses or gets overtaken by the ones that do prioritise profit.

[rti]

"monetary" is the way which cost is measured-- and it is indeed measured throughout the economy.
Labor which is used in one industry cannot be used, at the same time, somewhere else. Energy which is used in one industry, at the same time, somewhere else ect. All this is a cost for the community.


You only need one word that makes all this theory of your useless , meaning externalities.

In fact you are forced to externalize costs by systemic design.The more you externalize, the lower your costs thus better market position.

If you wont do it , your competition will.



How does one measure whether that cost is worth it?

By doing math and science, you know something connected to the real world ??





Of course it is-- the objective of production is to produce goods and services to people. Profit measures that success-- that people are obtaining their needed wants and desires.

Of course it is not. The objective of doing any business is to make money flow into your industry period. Whether people will get their needs and desires fulfilled/partially fulfilled/not fulfilled at all/or even die or get harm in the process (such as arms dealing ) is irrelevant to the person doing the business as long as money flows.

Another things is that you operate on a false assumption that consumers have 100% of information and they always choose logically which is obviously not the case.
Advanced capitalism operates on the premise of creating demand and it works due to asymmetry of information and malleability of human mind.

Another aspect of that any business need cyclical income in order to sustain it self which in fact creates condition where servicing human needs is essential instead of actually fulfilling it f.a. ( better to continuously heal then to actually cure or even better to prevent )

There are even more aspects to it but i feel my argument should be enough at this point.

In short making profit is not the same as people fulfilling their needs and desires ( sometimes can be but only for the part of population , there always certain group that is just not included in market ( another aspect i dont wont into a detail right now ) ). The aspect of being is very well pushed and showed by capitalism propaganda while ignoring all the rest , which is most of it anyway.

All of this is irrelevant whether state interfere in the market process or not. Just point for all those "stateless capitalists" fanatics.

[Blake's Baby]

So how is it in the interest of an individual worker to be let go from his or job, within a socialist community? Does that the worker have the choice whether to be terminated?...

What does this mean? The community decides what it needs; the workers decide if they can or need to produce it; if not, everyone has a holiday. What's the problem?


...
I would agree that socialists would look at such things somewhat differently. So then one would have to examine whether the socialist way of looking at is, is in fact, true and the correct way...

And the 'true and correct' way to look at it is, 'does it increase human happiness?' If it doesn't, then we don't do it.


...
Usually it does, and is a good measurement of benefit.
So how is the socialist measurement superior?

No it doesn't, it only benefits the owners.

Socialist society would produce socially-necessary goods for use. How is that not superior to 'capitalist society produces to enrich a few already-rich owners'?

[Sakura]

Well, of course, you're never going to get support for any market-based theory from the majority of the Marxists, so the reaction here doesn't surprise me.

The biggest problem with any market is that because the concept is a response to scarcity, that it depends on scarcity to work effectively. They also reduce everything to something to be bought and sold, if left unchecked. Competition can produce some very undesirable behaviour, such as deceit and passing off costs as "externalities".

That being said, scarcity is probably perpetual to some extent, even if certain human needs can be met through a different system, so I expect that money and trade are going to be something lasting, unless of course, humanity kills off all the life on the planet. We've seen from experience that the command economy does not work well, despite what apologists claim, and that's not going to change, even if based on control by majority vote. That is, the positive side of markets is autonomy - which includes the ability to take a minority position that most people would consider unimportant.

So, I see a place for markets, even if not as expansive as today, without capitalism. Of course, it won't be the Glorious Workers' Paradise promised by the 20th century socialists, but it behooves us all to learn something from that experience.

[Baseball]

This is a serious misapprehension of the purpose of production under capitalism, which is to produce a profit, not to provide goods and services, a secondary consideration.

Don't believe me? Try running a company providing any good or service without prioritising profit, and then watch as your business collapses or gets overtaken by the ones that do prioritise profit.

A profit cannot be accrued unless one is providing a needed good or service.

[Baseball]

Another things is that you operate on a false assumption that consumers have 100% of information and they always choose logically which is obviously not the case.
Advanced capitalism operates on the premise of creating demand and it works due to asymmetry of information and malleability of human mind.

It seems rather absurd for socialists to suggest people are basically easily duped, then turn around and insist that the answer is to construct a marvelous, wonderful society, which can occur by placing such easily duped people in charge.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A profit cannot be accrued unless one is providing a needed good or service.

Nonsense. What "need" is met by Coca-Cola that could not be met by any half-way competent purveyor of sugary carbonated drinks? The market system produces wasteful duplication of effort on a literally industrial scale.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2507744]What does this mean? The community decides what it needs; the workers decide if they can or need to produce it; if not, everyone has a holiday. What's the problem?

I was responding to a quote that complained that the value of a worker in a capitalist community extends only insofar as he or she produces needed goods and services. I was wondering about the value a worker in a socialist community if he or she produces unneeded goods and services.
But Positivist clarified by saying essentially yes, it not unreasonable for a capitalist community to value a worker that way.

The "holiday" solution is off course, called a "lay-off" in a capitalist community.



And the 'true and correct' way to look at it is, 'does it increase human happiness?' If it doesn't, then we don't do it.

Did sending typewriter workers on holiday extend "human happiness"? Not for those workers. Was it neccessary? Tough for anyone, right now, to say "no."





Socialist society would produce socially-necessary goods for use.

Production for profit is production for use; a profit cannot be turned if the product has no use for anyone. In the same vein, production for use has to aim for a profit, since the value of that finished would have to be greater than the sum of its parts.

[Baseball]

Nonsense. What "need" is met by Coca-Cola that could not be met by any half-way competent purveyor of sugary carbonated drinks? The market system produces wasteful duplication of effort on a literally industrial scale.

Coca Cola is providing that "need." There are are other brands which offer different options in taste and price. It is not clear why this is a bad thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Coca Cola is providing that "need." There are are other brands which offer different options in taste and price.

One brand of cheap lemonade or cola is much the same as any other. As for particular formulations like Coke and Pepsi, personally I have trouble telling the two apart, but if people still want to drink them then I think they can do that without markets.


It is not clear why this is a bad thing.

I already mentioned wasteful duplication of effort, but you appear to be missing also the really shitty behaviour of the Coca-Cola company. That seems to be what it takes to be an industry leader under capitalism...

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2507837] but if people still want to drink them then I think they can do that without markets.

Nope.




I already mentioned wasteful duplication of effort,

No wasteful duplication. But I would add that that since socialism will result in less productivity in general, any "duplication" within a capitalist community becomes dismissive.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

[QUOTE]

Production for profit is production for use; a profit cannot be turned if the product has no use for anyone. In the same vein, production for use has to aim for a profit, since the value of that finished would have to be greater than the sum of its parts.If that is so; how are financecompanies able to turn profit off f.e. derivatives on mortgage debts or insurance policies? They turn profit but how are they useful to anyone in the real world?

[Positivist]

@Baseball, you don't seem to actually be reading any of the arguments we're presenting here. We make an assertion and explain you reasoning, and then you say "No." Or you take a statement and say "well in capitalism that just means x." A perfect example is how you misconstrued Blake's Baby's post to read that a holiday in socialism is equivalent to a layoff. Wouldn't it just be equivalent to, I don't know, a holiday in capitalism? Where does anyone sanction layoffs? I certainly haven't. I simply acknowledged that less energy should be exerted than benefit accrued if possible. How would "terminating" a worker increase benefit? Your really not making arguments at this point.

Furthermore, you are yet to seriously address externalities, and have simply blown off the notion that demand is manufactured.

[Zealot]

One point I feel that need be articulated further however is that the market can be viewed as a weapon against the state. Casting aside whatever prejudices you harbor against the market, those of us who do not believe that markets are necessarily exploitative view it as a weapon against state power. A market that is outside of the states control is a heavily decentralized entity that can not be manipulated by our overlords to wage wars against other states or build massive police states. As a student of economics, I can understand the desire to create a welfare state and a state that takes care of its citizens. The well funded welfare state however may just as well be labeled the warfare state.

Perhaps you don't understand the dynamics and the relationship between state and class. The very reason that many wars are started in this age is Capitalism; hence the need for a state and a monopoly on state-power by capitalists. This is not merely a dogmatic assertion but can be showed to have happened on numerous occasions. Capitalism is driven by profit, which necessarily leads them abroad and, as a result, war. A relevant example for our present consideration, given the war-mongering against them that has been ratcheted up in recent years, might be the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat). Long story short; Iran's democratically elected government nationalises oil, intelligence agencies of US and UK orchestrate a coup on behalf of their capitalist masters, and replaces the government with an authoritarian pro-western monarch. The result? The 1979 Islamic Revolution that installed the theocratic anti-western government that everyone so hates today.

This is text-book imperialism. If you have the time and sincerity you should read "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/)" by Vladimir Lenin.


I know that none of this will convince any of you, and is not intended to. The purpose of this post was merely to shed some light on the anti-state argument for markets. I am not a conspirator in some sort of enslavement of the working class. I do not worship capital or put profits before people. I believe that markets are the only way to protect against the tyranny of the state and its agents.

The "tyranny of the state" is a direct result of capitalist dynamics.


I use the "monopoly of the legitimate use of force in a given territorial area" as my definition of the state.

I take it that your Weberian definition of the state is a regurgitation of what you were taught in university/college. As Marx and Engels long ago noted, and Lenin later expanded upon, the state is also an 'organ of class rule'. The state is currently the organ of bourgeois class rule. It's not hard to see how this is so since capitalists influence the state in a variety of ways; through pumping funds into certain parties and campaigns, through "interest groups", through going into politics themselves, through private media/propaganda campagins, by giving politicians lofty positions in their corporations, and even through outright bribery.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nope.

Of course, you think humans are so stupid they cannot do anything without the crutch of a market to help them. Thankfully a look at history will reveal that we've been much more clever than that since long before capitalism.


No wasteful duplication.

So there aren't loads of companies making essentially the same product?


But I would add that that since socialism will result in less productivity in general, any "duplication" within a capitalist community becomes dismissive.

Actually socialism will result in more productivity since the means of production are not being clogged up by the bureaucratic mess caused by having to deal with money.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE]


Production for profit is production for use; a profit cannot be turned if the product has no use for anyone. In the same vein, production for use has to aim for a profit, since the value of that finished would have to be greater than the sum of its parts.

Humans have been producing for use practically their entire existence without generating a profit. When pre-historic humans tracked down animals or dug up roots they did it to feed their community, not for profit.

Capitalist production for profit is not only production for use, or use-value, it is also, more importantly, production for exchange-value or market value. In fact, the capitalist has absolutely no "use" for anything produced in capitalist production. His only interest is the profit generated by the production. The profit is only generated when a value is produced at a cost which has not been paid by the capitalist.

Just as a slave produces a value, but the slave owner has not paid the slave the full amount of the work done by the slave. It is basically the same principle in feudalism and capitalism. This is the concept that the apologists for capitalism never understand: that the capitalist gets something for nothing.

[rti]

It seems rather absurd for socialists to suggest people are basically easily duped, then turn around and insist that the answer is to construct a marvelous, wonderful society, which can occur by placing such easily duped people in charge.

Is that you entire counter-argument for market failures ?

Answering your post.

1) Incentive for duping other people is greatly reduced in sociological condition where cooperation is rewarded instead of competition ( which in capitalism duping is business as usual ).
2) Education which is established to benefit bourgeois class creates individuals lacking of critical thinking abilities.

[Blake's Baby]

...

The "holiday" solution is off course, called a "lay-off" in a capitalist community...

There's a difference. In a socialist society, where the object of working is not to get paid but to produce, a holiday is a good thing. In a capitalist society where the object of working is not produce things but to get paid, a 'lay off' (which is not the same as a holiday, holidays in capitalism are paid) is a bad thing.



...
Did sending typewriter workers on holiday extend "human happiness"? Not for those workers. Was it neccessary? Tough for anyone, right now, to say "no."...

Do you think a paid holiday is the same as being made redundant? You must be a really cheap worker to employ. You do know you're entitled to 4 week paid holiday a year, right?




...
Production for profit is production for use; a profit cannot be turned if the product has no use for anyone. In the same vein, production for use has to aim for a profit, since the value of that finished would have to be greater than the sum of its parts.

Not really, unless by 'value' you mean 'utility'. Burned coal isn't as valuable as unburned coal, but we still burn coal. The 'aim' of getting coal out of the ground is not to make a profit from it, but to consume it. There are bazillions of things that are used up (and are therefore less valuable) when we use them. So ultimately the point of production is not 'profit' but use. Capitalism rather loses sight of that, and only produces for 'profit', whether there is any 'use' in that at all. Having produced, it then has to create markets for that production, in order to generate profit.

Look at the rise of the mobile phone over 20 years. In the early '90s, the only people who had mobiles were dealers (in shares, or in illegal drugs). Now almost everyone in the developed world has one or two or three. Were all those phones 'necessary'? We got on all right without them until 1997. So, no, probably they're not necessary. But they're a good way of capitalists to make money. Create a demand for a product that you've just developed. It's the only way capitalism can survive.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Positivist;2507850]@Baseball, you don't seem to actually be reading any of the arguments we're presenting here. We make an assertion and explain you reasoning, and then you say "No." Or you take a statement and say "well in capitalism that just means x."

It isn't enough to simply condemn capitalism. Even if the socialist critique of capitalism was a 100% correct, it says nothing about whether socialism is any better. Socialism has to proven as per socialism, not via condemnations of capitalism.


A perfect example is how you misconstrued Blake's Baby's post to read that a holiday in socialism is equivalent to a layoff. Wouldn't it just be equivalent to, I don't know, a holiday in capitalism?

No, because the context was in relationship to dealing unneeded labor in a particular production.


I simply acknowledged that less energy should be exerted than benefit accrued if possible.

Yes. The objective of production is that the benefits of that production is greater than its costs.



How would "terminating" a worker increase benefit?

Perhaps the labor of that worker is not needed to produce those goods. Thus costs are reduced by reducing labor.

[Baseball]

Humans have been producing for use practically their entire existence without generating a profit. When pre-historic humans tracked down animals or dug up roots they did it to feed their community, not for profit.

Yes. The benefits of the labor of our pre-historic ancestors exceeded its costs.
But going back to pre-history to justify socialism in the modern age strikes me as rather ridiculous. Maybe there is a reason we are no longer have to dig up roots to survive.


In fact, the capitalist has absolutely no "use" for anything produced in capitalist production.

How much use does a worker on an auto assembly line have for the vehicle he is presently building? Would it be greater in a socialist community when that worker "owns" the auto factory?


His only interest is the profit generated by the production. The profit is only generated when a value is produced at a cost which has not been paid by the capitalist.

No, the profit is generated when the value of the completed item is greater than its parts.

[Baseball]

Is that you entire counter-argument for market failures ?

No. my argument would be that people are not perfect. Nothing is perfect.



1) Incentive for duping other people is greatly reduced in sociological condition where cooperation is rewarded instead of competition ( which in capitalism duping is business as usual ).

But of course, cooperation still has to described and explained. There is a great deal of cooperation within capitalism. And cooperation can occur at the point of a gun.


2) Education which is established to benefit bourgeois class creates individuals lacking of critical thinking abilities.

This is only marginally better an explanation than the vacant claims that how people think is based upon one's class. But it still remains a clever way of prohibiting any sort of "critical thinking" into the nature of dynamics of a socialist community.

[Baseball]

There's a difference. In a socialist society, where the object of working is not to get paid but to produce, a holiday is a good thing. In a capitalist society where the object of working is not produce things but to get paid, a 'lay off' (which is not the same as a holiday, holidays in capitalism are paid) is a bad thing.

The objective of working in either a capitalist or socialist community is to produce needed goods and services.




Do you think a paid holiday is the same as being made redundant?


Blake-- a "holiday" is when the employee asks the employer that he or she does not wish to work for a certain period of time.
A lay-off is when the employer tells the employee that his labor is no longer needed, it is redundant.
The context was in how socialism responds to a situation where labor is not needed; where it is redundant.
I CORRECTLY pointed out that a solution which was offered is generally NO different than what a capitalist would generally do in the same situation.



Not really, unless by 'value' you mean 'utility'. Burned coal isn't as valuable as unburned coal, but we still burn coal. The 'aim' of getting coal out of the ground is not to make a profit from it, but to consume it. There are bazillions of things that are used up (and are therefore less valuable) when we use them. So ultimately the point of production is not 'profit' but use.

If the coal is not going to be burned, it will not be extracted, because there is no profit in doing so. The costs of extracting that coal is greater than the benefits it accrues.


Capitalism rather loses sight of that, and only produces for 'profit', whether there is any 'use' in that at all. Having produced, it then has to create markets for that production, in order to generate profit.

Look at the rise of the mobile phone over 20 years. In the early '90s, the only people who had mobiles were dealers (in shares, or in illegal drugs). Now almost everyone in the developed world has one or two or three. Were all those phones 'necessary'? We got on all right without them until 1997. So, no, probably they're not necessary. But they're a good way of capitalists to make money. Create a demand for a product that you've just developed. It's the only way capitalism can survive.

Capitalism doesn't create demand in such circumstances; it responds to unneeded and unmet need.
People have been wanting to communicate with others quicker, easier, cheaper, for ages, I suppose. Telegrams, telephones, radios, TV's all the same. A cellphone simply satisfies those same needs for more immediate communication far greater than the above items.
That's is what capitalism does.
But, perhaps at the risk of sounding smarmy, thank you for conceding that such developments is an unrealistic expectation in a socialist community.
Hell, people survived until the mid-1980s without personal computers...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But, perhaps at the risk of sounding smarmy, thank you for conceding that such developments is an unrealistic expectation in a socialist community.
Hell, people survived until the mid-1980s without personal computers...

If people want improved communications and information management technologies, then what is stopping them from getting the education, training and experience in the relevant fields necessary to make a difference?

I mean good grief, I don't need a market to tell me I need more compact storage as well as simply more of it.

[Baseball]

If people want improved communications and information management technologies, then what is stopping them from getting the education, training and experience in the relevant fields necessary to make a difference?

I mean good grief, I don't need a market to tell me I need more compact storage as well as simply more of it.

What stops them? As per Blake, socialism stops them.

The argument was that capitalism creates a demand in order to make a profit; the argument was that we do not really need these items.

[rti]

No. my argument would be that people are not perfect. Nothing is perfect.


But if we stand still we will end up like Neanderthals - extinct.

We must adapt because those market failures are literally destroying the planet.

Socialism address those issues because it destroys incentive for forced cyclical consumption that is needed to sustain current economic system.



But of course, cooperation still has to described and explained. There is a great deal of cooperation within capitalism.

Sorry but market forces based on competitive advantage are everything but cooperation



And cooperation can occur at the point of a gun.

Yes and it also can happen natural since its human nature to cooperate.

We evolved as tribes, humans found out that by working together they were stronger against natural world.

Unless of course cooperation is blocked by systemic design such as markets . competition for jobs etc, then unnatural human relations starting to happen and ti creates downward spiral of lack of empathy in society.

And by all means humans are equipped by nature to be empathic by mirror neurons.




This is only marginally better an explanation than the vacant claims that how people think is based upon one's class. But it still remains a clever way of prohibiting any sort of "critical thinking" into the nature of dynamics of a socialist community.
How does creating education that help develop humans that are critical thinkers is prohibiting "critical thinking" ?

[rti]

What stops them? As per Blake, socialism stops them.

And how exactly socialism stops them ??



The argument was that capitalism creates a demand in order to make a profit; the argument was that we do not really need these items.

Nope the argument was that capitalism only cares about money flowing into your industry which sometimes is similar to the "better mouse trap".

But just because you can find example it doesn't means its rule because for every example of yours i can find counter-example that shows how capitalism create demand .

Basic logic rules. You cant prove something by giving an example.

Obviously creation of demand creates flow of money into certain industry thus it tactic often employed -> it is this f*****g simple.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A profit cannot be accrued unless one is providing a needed good or service.In Marxist terms this would be use value which is not the same as exchange value (profit). So while something with no use value (a hunk of toxic goo, for example) can't really have an exchange value, many useful things are kept from the market or never developed because the exchange value wouldn't be enough for a company to keep up in competition. If one company is raking in money by selling as many SUVs as your company sells less profitable sedans, then you can not afford to produce a lower-profiting item even if demand is the same because the SUV-producer will increase their profits and eventually overtake you and drive you out of business.

Another example: there are more people who want affordable small family homes than want McMansions - but one turns a higher profit for the labor and material costs, so which one gets built?

So I think the problem isn't that capitalism creates demand, or that it creates only crap, the problem is how this is arranged and organized and for what purpose: profit, not use.


It seems rather absurd for socialists to suggest people are basically easily duped, then turn around and insist that the answer is to construct a marvelous, wonderful society, which can occur by placing such easily duped people in charge.I don't think people are easily duped, and that's part of the reason our societies pretty regularly have disruptions and movements. Yeah not every era is like the post-WWI era or the 1960s/70s and whatnot, but compared to feudalism or even slavery, just the concentration and numerical percentage of workers tends to produce a lot of fight-back compared to people in more isolated or rural settings.

I also don't think people are easily duped because if they were, then our rulers wouldn't need to spend so much time energy and money trying to convince us of things. Commercials are propaganda ever 12 minutes or so (in fact Ad agencies were once called Propaganda departments), schools tell roughly the same top-down narratives of US history, think tanks develop ploys to get people to support things that aren't really in their interests, politicians spend most of their time trying to convince the population that ruling class plans are in their interest, both parties will join up to squash any popular movement or left-wing popular challenge to the two-party system, op-eds, radio pundits, political organizations within religious communities and on and on and on. Any objective look at our society from the outside, say by historians from some other kind of society, would immediately see how much effort is put into shaping opinion and what is considered "realistic" and "common sense". Despite all this effort, what is the end result in the population: generally not wide-spread sheep-ism (although like the Lincoln quote goes, "you can fool some of the people most of the time...") but general cynicism and resignation. Tons of people just don't believe commercials or politicians or even education - but they also don't automatically come up with an alternative - especially when there is little ongoing struggle or independent political culture. And even then when sometimes people are able to knit a working class opposition together, what happens: massive repression, red scares, deportations, McCarthyism etc.

So I don't think people are stupid or dupes at all. I think most people go along to get along because they don't believe anything else is possible.

[Positivist]

Sigh. Baseball we have explained several models of how a socialist economy would potentially function multiple times already and you are yet to muster a satisfactory response at all. Again you just keep spouting out your same beliefs post after post, thread after thread even when confronted by rational argument. Lets try this out as simply as possible.

Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals compete to maximize profits. This competition is skewed due to unequal entry into the economy. The gaping inequalities we see today were originally established by massive dispossession, and then were perpetuated and expanded across generations to the point we are at today. Since the great dispossession, the majoirty of the population has not owned sufficient private property to enter the economy as a distributor, and has therefore been forced to accept employment which pays less than the value of the labor the worker provides and which alienates the worker. This is the first contradiction of capitalism. The establishment of social production (which was achieved through the dispossession) coupled with the retention of individual appropriation created two primary classes with opposing interests to one another.

As production became large and socalized, it was revealed to be necessary to carry out the productive processes according to a definite plan, and thus within each business, economic planning was carried out. Though this planning is relegated to a fraction of each industry and the interactions of different businesses is uncoordinated and chaotic, resulting in systemic crisis, duplication and ample waste. Here we find the second contradiction of capitalism, that between definite planning in each business, but discorde between different sectors of the economy.

After the dispossession of the free peasants of Europe (as well as the raiding of the native Americans and enslavement of Africans) the majority of Europeans were forced to accept employment which paid less than the value of the work performed. This presented its own contradiction. By paying workers less than their products are sold for, and this happening in every business, aggregately, supply will always be higher than demand. So here we have a constant problem of too low aggregate supply relative to demand. In this, the capitalist economy runs into a constant problem of overproduction in which small amounts of additional unplanned inventory can cause businesses to downsize and, cut their labor forces, resulting in economic crisis. And the individual consumption of capitalists can not prevent this conflict lest they choose not to invest in future production and only consume for the now (which is obviously impossible.) This problem is offset multiple ways, primarily through the issuance of credit. By issuing credit, workers are able to spend more than they actually have, offsetting the contradiction of low aggregate demand relative to aggregate supply. Unfortunately, this solution is limited as it creates credit bubbles which, upon bursting, result in economic crisis.

Socialism is the resolution of these contradictions. In socialism, classes are abolished and no one is forced to endure exploitation or alienation as the association of production allows people to avoid these ailments. Planning is coordinated across all sectors of the economy and consequently systemic crisis is avoided. Determinative power (in capitalism money) is distributed according to labor value, thus averting the problem of low aggregate demand relative to aggregate supply.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What stops them? As per Blake, socialism stops them.

Blake said nothing of the sort. How, exactly?


The argument was that capitalism creates a demand in order to make a profit; the argument was that we do not really need these items.

The sheer volume of information required to run an industrial civilisation demands better forms of information management generally, but not the Apple iPad specifically.

[Baseball]

Sigh. Baseball we have explained several models of how a socialist economy would potentially function multiple times already and you are yet to muster a satisfactory response at all. ect ect


A very nice synopsis of the socialist opinion of capitalism.


Socialism is the resolution of these contradictions. In socialism, classes are abolished and no one is forced to endure exploitation or alienation as the association of production allows people to avoid these ailments. Planning is coordinated across all sectors of the economy and consequently systemic crisis is avoided. ect

So prove this about socialism Positivist. This is all I have asked.

Your synopsis of capitalism does not all mean that socialism abolishes classes, or resolves the issues, that planning avoids systemic crisis ect.

[Baseball]

Blake said nothing of the sort. How, exactly?

Sure he did-- he said that cellphones were created simply to create profit for the capitalist. He went on to explain got along perfectly fine without them.
OK fine. So in a socialist community, there is no demand for an item therefore no production of that item. At once point there was no demand for cellphones, thus there would be no need to produce them in the socialist community.




The sheer volume of information required to run an industrial civilisation demands better forms of information management generally, but not the Apple iPad specifically.

Not just "information management" but also "information" as to what that "management" consists of.

[Baseball]

But if we stand still we will end up like Neanderthals - extinct.

capitalism is not all about standing still. Indeed, its refusal to do so is one of the critiques if often faces from socialists.




Sorry but market forces based on competitive advantage are everything but cooperation

There is competition between Ford and Toyota.
But there is also cooperation between Ford and Firestone.



Yes and it also can happen natural since its human nature to cooperate.

Nothin wrong with cooperation.




Unless of course cooperation is blocked by systemic design such as markets . competition for jobs etc,

Out of curiosity-- in a socialist community is ANYONE automatically qualified for ANY job?







How does creating education that help develop humans that are critical thinkers is prohibiting "critical thinking" ?

That is not to what I responded to.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Blake-- a "holiday" is when the employee asks the employer that he or she does not wish to work for a certain period of time.
A lay-off is when the employer tells the employee that his labor is no longer needed, it is redundant.
The context was in how socialism responds to a situation where labor is not needed; where it is redundant.
I CORRECTLY pointed out that a solution which was offered is generally NO different than what a capitalist would generally do in the same situation...

False.

In capitalism, if a worker cannot work (is made redundant) that worker has to take a drop in income (goes from a wage to welfare payments, or gets no welfare payments - either way they suffer a drop in standard of living).

In socialism as the worker's needs are met regardless, the worker suffers no drop in standard of living. No work is done because no work is necessary; everything that needs to be done at the moment has been done, so the worker gains more leisure time, ie improves their standard of living, by not working.

Can you really not see the difference there?

Imagine, being sent home with full pay under capitalism, and you will maybe see what we're talking about.




...
If the coal is not going to be burned, it will not be extracted, because there is no profit in doing so. The costs of extracting that coal is greater than the benefits it accrues...

Which has to do with what exactly? Your contention is that burning coal makes it more valuable, and that's why people do it. That's wrong of course, burning coal makes it less valuable. Consumption of anything necessarily makes it less valuable. Even capitalism recognises that some things have utility that isn't just making more money. People can't eat credit cards. Every time something is consumed value is destroyed.




...
Capitalism doesn't create demand in such circumstances; it responds to unneeded and unmet need.
People have been wanting to communicate with others quicker, easier, cheaper, for ages, I suppose. Telegrams, telephones, radios, TV's all the same. A cellphone simply satisfies those same needs for more immediate communication far greater than the above items.
That's is what capitalism does.
But, perhaps at the risk of sounding smarmy, thank you for conceding that such developments is an unrealistic expectation in a socialist community.
Hell, people survived until the mid-1980s without personal computers...

You don't sound smarmy, you sound slimey.

Yes, people did survive until the 1980s without personal computers. Now a good many people have them.

So? Are you claiming that for 500 years people have been yearning to play Angry Birds and instantly search for pictures of the future queen of the United Kingdom's tits, and now, thanks to capitalism those socially defined necessities have been filled?

I would dispute whether in any reasonable society those could be considered necessities.

Back to mobiles, they ar obviously not necessary for humans - I know several people who don't have them, and I'm old enough to remember when most people didn't. I'm old enough to remember when people didn't have home computers either. I'm not aware that people were dying for the lack of these things, in the way they might die if they didn't have food or shelter.

However, in socialism, if we decide that we need mass access to geiger counters or flourescent wellingtons or tiny little laser-emitters that resemble sea-creatures or lots and lots of pineapples, we will organise society to produce these things so that people can have them.

Which is a little like capitalism, except that there will be no rationing by price (and no outside agencies deciding what gets produced. So really, not very like capitalism). If these things are necessary (if we, as a society, decide that they are necessary) we'll produce them and then we can have them. There is no necessity in that case for a market or money. A basic level of production that says 'one pineapple per person per day, one tiny little laser-emitter that resembles a sea-creature every 6 years or so' will do fine.

We're humans. We're quite creative. It's one of the things you're gonna notice about us, if you chose to live among us and take an interest in what we do. We make things. We invent things. Some of them are clever. Some of them are stupid. The difference in this instance between capitalism and socialism is, in socialism, we decide what gets developed.

[Positivist]

So prove this about socialism Positivist. This is all I have asked.

Your synopsis of capitalism does not all mean that socialism abolishes classes, or resolves the issues, that planning avoids systemic crisis ect.

Well I'll be honest, I nor anyone else can "prove" that socialism accomplishes this but we can provide models for how a future system potentially could. I tried to present this to you in another thread but I attempted to do so briefly which undoubtedly accounted for some of your resistance to it though, expansion by my comrades and I was sufficient to answer your questions, you just disagreed. Perhaps if you ask me (or us in general) some specific questions, we can provide answers, post by post.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sure he did-- he said that cellphones were created simply to create profit for the capitalist. He went on to explain got along perfectly fine without them.
OK fine. So in a socialist community, there is no demand for an item therefore no production of that item. At once point there was no demand for cellphones, thus there would be no need to produce them in the socialist community.

Why would demand for cellphones disappear in a socialist economy? People would still want to be able to telecommunicate verbally while on the move, surely?


Not just "information management" but also "information" as to what that "management" consists of.

Seems like websites would be a good solution to that; ready access to reviews of various systems by a wide variety of groups and individuals should be sufficient for most to make an informed decision. For those who wish to go into more detail then having ready access to professional advice or an experienced enthusiast would serve. No need for marketing or advertising bullshit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your synopsis of capitalism does not all mean that socialism abolishes classes, or resolves the issues, that planning avoids systemic crisis ect.

A socialist system, that is the working class with political power organizing production cooperatively, can potentially get rid of classes first by toppling the political power of the current minority ruling classes and then by reorganizing how society decides and makes the things it needs and wants. Initially this will take prioritization which to me necessitates a democratic decision-making process on various levels. So there might be some divisions of tasks: elected and re-callable representatives from work sites and then industries working out more complex things like distribution. There are many ways to insure that these positions don't undermine democratic processes such as not being paid anymore than those they represent or rotating positions where new reps are voted for every meeting of regional bodies etc. But this is different than the kind of divisions in labor created by capitalism which are generally designed to manage labor from above and act as a buffer between the labor force and the executives and owners. Further classes can be eliminated because the social surplus would be controlled by the actual worker/producers rather than controlled by a tiny percentage of the population: a fraction of a percent of the absurdly rich who do nothing but invest money in here and there but do no managing; executive rich who run companies who are less absurdly rich but probably just as influential in society.

For professional classes (a part of the petty-bourgeoisie) they would probably not see much of change in their lives initially since many of these tasks and skills would still be needed right after a revolution. So a Doctor, rather than reporting to a Hospital Board made up of bureaucrats would, instead be subjugated to the will of a new boss, the Hospital Staff of which they would be an equal part. This goes for other technicians and specialists and is due to their "support" role in capitalism. But I think worker's would have an interest in changing the nature of these tasks as they change the nature of other production tasks to eliminate the artificial division between mental and physical labor. So partly this could be accomplished through de-skilling professional tasks - a process which capitalism does anyway but only uses in order to get rid of parts of the profession workforce and save money by either using technology to have fewer people doing more, or shifting the professional (and higher paid) tasks to contracted labor or semi-professionals like having more nurses do what doctors normally would have done. And partially this specialization in labor could be eliminated by substantial ongoing access to education so that anyone could learn new skills and move to other tasks as they wanted and as available.

For other parts of the petty-bougies like people who run their own shops or artisan producers and what not, I think worker's would not want to force immediate socialization of their production because a small shop-owner is not much of a threat by selling their pots - they just aren't a huge part of the economy. So as long as the majority of major production and distribution was controlled democratically by workers for the purpose of worker's power, these small producers would be subordinated to the larger socialist economy just as today they are subordinated to the ups and downs and demands of the larger capitalist economy.

So in this way, the things that society produces to support itself become more and more controlled democratically and collectively by the producer/workers in society and essentially this arrangement is how people existed for most of history - of course they did this in times of relative scarcity where everyone was needed for their production in order for the tribe or band to continue. Instead, people under this new arrangement would be able to produce more than they need (just with current levels of technology and before more efficient ways of organizing production or eliminating waste - like eliminating the billions spent on advertising and corporate lawyers) and therefore give us the potential for a huge increase in private free-time and just a more pleasant existence.

Because in short, where do classes come from? Classes arise because there is a need for specialized people who control surplus (people who keep track of surplus, who hold it in hordes initially then as cash in banks) people who do just mental tasks while everyone else produces... the worker/producer doesn't share in the full wealth because if early societies did this, then it would be sharing a little wealth equally and not create the space for people to develop artisan crafts or dedicate themselves to tasks other than farming or hunting. This situation has changed because of capitalism and industrialization - we can now produce enough to share the results more or less equally and still have free time to do with as we want and devote social resources to things we just don't need but want like the arts and education and research for the sake of discovery etc.

Classes are not some kind of natural phenomena, but the result of conditions in the world and the way production is organized in society. By replacing a minority class with the majority class which is also the wealth-producing (but currently not wealth-controlling) class, there is no longer a political interest in maintaining the positions of an elite as there is under capitalism where the elite protect their monopoly on the vast majority of control of the economy through the state and legal ownership laws or the aristocracy which maintained it's control over land through a caste system. Workers don't need to make other people produce for them, they just need to collectively control the results of what they produce and so there would be no material reason for maintaining classes.

[Blake's Baby]

There wouldn't be just no reason to maintain classes, there would be no basis for maintining classes. Classes are a mechanical result of property relations. If property is ordered in such and such a way, then particular classes will result, as different groups of people have different relationships to production and each other. If property is ordered in a different way, then different classes will result.

If there is no property, there will be no classes, because no groups will have different relationships to production. We will all be both 'workers' in the sense that we produce, and 'owners' in the sense that we benefit from that production, without any of us ever being workers or owners as they exist under capitalism.

[Baseball]

Why would demand for cellphones disappear in a socialist economy? People would still want to be able to telecommunicate verbally while on the move, surely?

Mismatched time frames. Yes, in the here and now,there is no reason to suppose that in a socialist community people would eschew cellphones.

My comment along these lines was in response to Blake who suggested that the invention of cellphone is a proof that capitalism simply creates demand where none, in the hear and now, exists. It creates a demand for an unnecessary item, an item of which absence for humanity has heretofore gotten along with quite splendidly, simply to create profit for himself.

The reasonable conclusion is therefore that in a socialist community investigations into inventing a cellphone would not occur, or occur very restrictively. So yes, socialism limits growth and development.




Seems like websites would be a good solution to that; ready access to reviews of various systems by a wide variety of groups and individuals should be sufficient for most to make an informed decision. For those who wish to go into more detail then having ready access to professional advice or an experienced enthusiast would serve. No need for marketing or advertising bullshit.

That is only half the equation. the other half involves determing the better ways of reaching that productivity demand.

[Baseball]

Well I'll be honest, I nor anyone else can "prove" that socialism accomplishes this but we can provide models for how a future system potentially could. I tried to present this to you in another thread but I attempted to do so briefly which undoubtedly accounted for some of your resistance to it though, expansion by my comrades and I was sufficient to answer your questions, you just disagreed. Perhaps if you ask me (or us in general) some specific questions, we can provide answers, post by post.

I have. A critique of capitalism is insufficient. I have asked directly how certain circumstances in the capitalist critique do not pertain to a functioning socialist community. At best, the response was along the lines of 'no difference' which isn't inspirational proof of socialism.

[Baseball]

A socialist system, that is the working class with political power organizing production cooperatively, can potentially get rid of classes first by toppling the political power of the current minority ruling classes and then by reorganizing how society decides and makes the things it needs and wants.

Obviously, this is sort of the bread and butter of it all...


Initially this will take prioritization which to me necessitates a democratic decision-making process on various levels. So there might be some divisions of tasks: elected and re-callable representatives from work sites and then industries working out more complex things like distribution.

Upon what basis do these industries work out "more complex things like distribution"? More bread and butter.
Another question: To what extent do the elected reps have authority to 'do things, like work "complex things like distribution"?


There are many ways to insure that these positions don't undermine democratic processes such as not being paid anymore than those they represent or rotating positions where new reps are voted for every meeting of regional bodies etc.



But this is different than the kind of divisions in labor created by capitalism which are generally designed to manage labor from above and act as a buffer between the labor force and the executives and owners. Further classes can be eliminated because the social surplus would be controlled by the actual worker/producers rather than controlled by a tiny percentage of the population:

If this is a "democratic" community, would it not be more accurate to say the "surplus" is controlled by the majority of the workers who vote to dispose of it whichever they so choose?




For professional classes (a part of the petty-bourgeoisie) they would probably not see much of change in their lives initially since many of these tasks and skills would still be needed right after a revolution. So a Doctor, rather than reporting to a Hospital Board made up of bureaucrats would, instead be subjugated to the will of a new boss, the Hospital Staff of which they would be an equal part. This goes for other technicians and specialists and is due to their "support" role in capitalism. But I think worker's would have an interest in changing the nature of these tasks as they change the nature of other production tasks to eliminate the artificial division between mental and physical labor. So partly this could be accomplished through de-skilling professional tasks - a process which capitalism does anyway but only uses in order to get rid of parts of the profession workforce and save money by either using technology to have fewer people doing more, or shifting the professional (and higher paid) tasks to contracted labor or semi-professionals like having more nurses do what doctors normally would have done. And partially this specialization in labor could be eliminated by substantial ongoing access to education so that anyone could learn new skills and move to other tasks as they wanted and as available.

Why would the community want to invest resources in training a person for a particular skill, only for hat person to p and do something else? Would not the community be stronger when their skilled labor practices daily on that skill? Granted, people change jobs all the time in a capitalist community, but nobody argues it is essential for the capitalist system, a system, to survive.




Instead, people under this new arrangement would be able to produce more than they need (just with current levels of technology and before more efficient ways of organizing production

You sort of need to describe what is this more "efficient means of production " is all about. The above descriptions DO NOT do so.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mismatched time frames. Yes, in the here and now,there is no reason to suppose that in a socialist community people would eschew cellphones.

Except if they invent something better.


My comment along these lines was in response to Blake who suggested that the invention of cellphone is a proof that capitalism simply creates demand where none, in the hear and now, exists. It creates a demand for an unnecessary item, an item of which absence for humanity has heretofore gotten along with quite splendidly, simply to create profit for himself.

Just because something isn't "necessary" doesn't mean a use for it can't be found once it has been invented. Just that in a socialist society the uses to be found won't have anything to do with profits.


The reasonable conclusion is therefore that in a socialist community investigations into inventing a cellphone would not occur, or occur very restrictively. So yes, socialism limits growth and development.

How is that a "reasonable conclusion" when you admit that there is no reason to suppose that cellphones will be abandoned in a socialist society?


That is only half the equation. the other half involves determing the better ways of reaching that productivity demand.

Vague enough not to rule out non-market mechanisms for doing so. Taking a leaf from your book then, the reasonable conclusion is that in a socialist economy such non-market mechanisms will be found out of necessity.

[Baseball]

Just because something isn't "necessary" doesn't mean a use for it can't be found once it has been invented. Just that in a socialist society the uses to be found won't have anything to do with profits.

In a socialist community, the resources are controlled by the community, the people, yes? Yes. Are those resources going to be deployed for research and invention of goods and services for which there is no known need? Or is going to be used to house, clothe, and feed people?
We both know the answer.




How is that a "reasonable conclusion" when you admit that there is no reason to suppose that cellphones will be abandoned in a socialist society?

Mismatched time frames (again)

[Marxaveli]

Baseball's entire critique is based on a logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. A negative does not, and cannot, be proven. The only way to directly "prove" Socialism is superior to Capitalism is to actually put it into physical reality, and this is obviously beyond our capacity to do so - we can't just implement a Socialist society any time we feel like it and see what works and what doesn't. Your argument is completely unreasonable and ridiculous.

We have demonstrated many potential models and aspects of how Socialism would likely function, and though we cannot physically demonstrate this for the reasons I stated above, it goes without saying that Socialism lacks the inherit contradictions that Capitalism does, that much WE DO know. Just because we cannot physically manifest and test a Socialist model doesn't mean that it cannot work. Your whole argument is based on trying to prove a negative, as well as affirmation of the consequent fallacies (it hasn't happened yet, therefore it cannot happen). :rolleyes:

[Baseball]

Baseball's entire critique is based on a logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. A negative does not, and cannot, be proven. The only way to directly "prove" Socialism is superior to Capitalism is to actually put it into physical reality, and this is obviously beyond our capacity to do so - we can't just implement a Socialist society any time we feel like it and see what works and what doesn't. Your argument is completely unreasonable and ridiculous.

I would agree it is beyond the capacity of anyone to put socialism into a "physical reality" as I would argue socialism is impossible.


We have demonstrated many potential models and aspects of how Socialism would likely function, and though we cannot physically demonstrate

But you can argue this; Thus Chikhaiutsu (sp) in another thread, I believe, has demonstrated the value of unemployment in a functioning socialist system, which one would think be counterintuitive to a socialist system.
A socialist "model" still needs to be explained, and can be explained, if its feasable.


this for the reasons I stated above, it goes without saying that Socialism lacks the inherit contradictions that Capitalism does, that much WE DO know.

How does ANYONE know this? Oh yes, it is typed out above.
Case closed.


Just because we cannot physically manifest and test a Socialist model doesn't mean that it cannot work.

Then make the argument. Sketching a model is not sufficient (though it is a start).

[Baseball]

False.

In capitalism, if a worker cannot work (is made redundant) that worker has to take a drop in income (goes from a wage to welfare payments, or gets no welfare payments - either way they suffer a drop in standard of living).

In socialism as the worker's needs are met regardless, the worker suffers no drop in standard of living. No work is done because no work is necessary; everything that needs to be done at the moment has been done, so the worker gains more leisure time, ie improves their standard of living, by not working.

Can you really not see the difference there?

Imagine, being sent home with full pay under capitalism, and you will maybe see what we're talking about.

You make a nice argument that not working is better than working. For the individual, sure... for the community... don't think so.. even in the socialist community.




Yes, people did survive until the 1980s without personal computers. Now a good many people have them.

So? Are you claiming that for 500 years people have been yearning to play Angry Birds and instantly search for pictures of the future queen of the United Kingdom's tits, and now, thanks to capitalism those socially defined necessities have been filled?

I am claiming simply that capitalism responded to a demand, it did not create it.


I would dispute whether in any reasonable society those could be considered necessities.

That's fine.


Back to mobiles, they ar obviously not necessary for humans - I know several people who don't have them, and I'm old enough to remember when most people didn't. I'm old enough to remember when people didn't have home computers either. I'm not aware that people were dying for the lack of these things, in the way they might die if they didn't have food or shelter.

However, in socialism, if we decide that we need mass access to geiger counters or flourescent wellingtons or tiny little laser-emitters that resemble sea-creatures or lots and lots of pineapples, we will organise society to produce these things so that people can have them.

I would suggest that in a socialist community, the efforts of the community would be indeed to feed and house people; suggestions of producing "little laser-emitters" would result in those folks being laughed at. Indeed, why would people vote for such nonsense when faced with the critical need to feed and clothe all?
But then hey- thus technological progress slows and the community does NOT benefit, even if it thinks it has.


Which is a little like capitalism, except that there will be no rationing by price

then by bureacracy which is a step back.


(and no outside agencies deciding what gets produced.

Of course it will-- it will be decided by some subset of a committee somewhere deciding whether the metal for cellphones should go there ,or to build some streetlamps so people don't break their necks tripping and falling while walking down the street at night.
So what do you think the decision would be?


If these things are necessary (if we, as a society, decide that they are necessary) we'll produce them and then we can have them.

Not enough. have to also determine the value of producing cellphones versus other items.


A basic level of production that says 'one pineapple per person per day, one tiny little laser-emitter that resembles a sea-creature every 6 years or so' will do fine.

Unfortunately, the world is not stationary. It moves, it changes. People are born, they grow-up, they develop interests, they change those interests. Their needs and wants change. You're "basic level of production" sketch imagines a world where nothing changes, everything stays the same. Such a world does not exist. Such a world has never existed.

[Dean]

A socialist "model" still needs to be explained, and can be explained, if its feasable.

This is where you're wrong and this is the fundamental conflict you are trying to raise.

No explanation was needed for the advent of the capitalist system. It was more efficient in its time. And the same is true for the advent of the fascist system in the global West, while free markets have been isolated to the 3rd world and regimes with weak civil societies. Cooperative systems have at times shown themselves to be more or less efficient than capitalist ones. There have been vastly different models in this regard.

But the capitalist system has reached a point at which it is simply untenable. The emphasis of financial profit and service industries guarantee an increasing extraction of wealth from the economy. The replacement of wages with credit has limited the incentive for the working class to participate in the capitalist framework and made labor much less valuable for the working class. The response has been to withdraw more capital from investment and further indemnify the wealth of an increasingly small minority of the population.

There are cooperative organizations that have sprung up as of late, but more importantly, there is an intensity to the demand for the fruits of the production process that will guarantee a new kind of social order once capitalism sufficiently advances its retreat from our social structures.

You can bemoan the individual programs and ideas of RevLeft members. But nothing about your pedantry will inform about the current situation of the global economy. Keep wasting away in your theoretical dearth; you'll be no richer at the end of the day, while the members you criticize can say this: at least they can envision an order more valuable to the members of society.

[Blake's Baby]

You make a nice argument that not working is better than working. For the individual, sure... for the community... don't think so.. even in the socialist community...

Why would a socialist community require people to work if there was no work to do? How could it possibly benefit society as a whole to get people to do uneccessary work?



I am claiming simply that capitalism responded to a demand, it did not create it...

Well, you claim erroneously then. There wasn't a great demand for mobile telephones in the '80s, though there were demands for jobs, and houses, and food for Africa, that capitalism wasn't very good at providing.

You're not talking about demand, you're talking about profit.



...
I would suggest that in a socialist community, the efforts of the community would be indeed to feed and house people; suggestions of producing "little laser-emitters" would result in those folks being laughed at. Indeed, why would people vote for such nonsense when faced with the critical need to feed and clothe all?

So, what you seem to be saying here is, capitalism can't feed and clothe people 9ie, provide necessities), but it can produce electronic doo-dads that aren't necessary, so it's better?

If we decide we need electronic doo-dads, we'll produce electronic doo-dads. If we don't, we won't. What we won't do, is produce them in vast numbers, even though there are very few people who need them, and then convince everyone else that they need one too.


...
But then hey- thus technological progress slows and the community does NOT benefit, even if it thinks it has...

Because you believe people are stupid, then perhaps this is what it looks like to you.


...

then by bureacracy which is a step back...

Again, with the underestimating people. There's no necessity for bureaucracy.


...

Of course it will-- it will be decided by some subset of a committee somewhere deciding whether the metal for cellphones should go there ,or to build some streetlamps so people don't break their necks tripping and falling while walking down the street at night...

Why?


...
So what do you think the decision would be?
...

I reject the premises of the question. I think people are clever enough to make streetlights where they need them, and decide that resources should go into production of small laser-pointers shaped like sea-creatures, should they be deemed necessary.



Not enough. have to also determine the value of producing cellphones versus other items...

Oh, wow, you mean people might need more than one thing? Crikey, how ever will we be able to sort out the muddle? Lawks!




Unfortunately, the world is not stationary. It moves, it changes. People are born, they grow-up, they develop interests, they change those interests. Their needs and wants change. You're "basic level of production" sketch imagines a world where nothing changes, everything stays the same. Such a world does not exist. Such a world has never existed.

Yeah, because I really think that one post in an internet forum constitutes the entire planning for ever of the socialist society. For fuck's sake, do you expect anyone to take that contention seriously? Of course things can change. The way they change is more responsive to demand than in capitalism, because we are all involved in the process.

[rti]

Baseball believe thats capitalism means progress and change.

He fail to realize that new inventions and ideas are often threats to existing industries and so they are forcefully suppressed.
So in reality capitalism is progress at hold and change is resisted by systemic design.

The rest of his train of thought derives from failed assumption, nothing will change his mind until he realize above.

Baseball if full of such a failed assumptions.
Another one is that capitalism responds to demand.

As i stated many time in this thread over industries respond to money flow. If poor person creates demand for food just by being alive but cant provide money flow by paying, the food for him wont be created. So how is that responding to demand ?

Really, after so many repeats of obvious things i start to think it is just a troll.

[Baseball]

Baseball believe thats capitalism means progress and change.

So did Karl Marx. Maybe I should be unrestricted...


He fail to realize that new inventions and ideas are often threats to existing industries and so they are forcefully suppressed.

Such can be true in a socialist community as well. Blake himself has has demonstrated thus already.





Another one is that capitalism responds to demand.

As i stated many time in this thread over industries respond to money flow. If poor person creates demand for food just by being alive but cant provide money flow by paying, the food for him wont be created. So how is that responding to demand ?

Food won't be grown? Don't capitalists eat also?

[Baseball]

Why would a socialist community require people to work if there was no work to do? How could it possibly benefit society as a whole to get people to do uneccessary work?

To follow the argument thus far more exactly, why would a socialist community treat NOT working as no different than working?




Well, you claim erroneously then. There wasn't a great demand for mobile telephones in the '80s, though there were demands for jobs, and houses, and food,


That is true today as well. There was great demand for jobs, housing and food in the 1950, the 1890s, 1730s ect ect ect.
The difference of course is that now there is a demand for cellphones, for which a capitalist community was able to respond.

In fact, there will be a continued demand for jobs, housing and food in the 2020s, the 2060s ect ect ect. This in fact will be true even if those decades occur after the socialist revolution.
But as you yourself have conceded, it is fair to question whether the socialst community will be able to meet those unmet needs, such as of faster forms of communication.



You're not talking about demand, you're talking about profit.

Profits cannot be accrued without satisfying demand. Indeed, a socialist community will need to aim for profit in its production, since that is what informs it whether its production decisions are rational.





So, what you seem to be saying here is, capitalism can't feed and clothe people 9ie, provide necessities), but it can produce electronic doo-dads that aren't necessary, so it's better?

I'm suggesting that capitalism can do both. It seems you are suggesting that socialism cannot do both.
So which is better?


If we decide we need electronic doo-dads, we'll produce electronic doo-dads. If we don't, we won't. What we won't do, is produce them in vast numbers, even though there are very few people who need them, and then convince everyone else that they need one too.

Yet again, slamming people. Nothing wrong with that of course. Sort of makes the arguments about the superiority of socialism rather suspect, however.




Again, with the underestimating people. There's no necessity for bureaucracy.



Why?

Of course there will be. Not everybody is an electronic geek.




I reject the premises of the question. I think people are clever enough to make streetlights where they need them, and decide that resources should go into production of small laser-pointers shaped like sea-creatures, should they be deemed necessary.

That isn't the question. The question is that once he decision has been made on a course of action, HOW is it accomplished, in the most rational way possible, using the existing production capabilities.

[Baseball]

No explanation was needed for the advent of the capitalist system. It was more efficient in its time.

It's true it was more efficient; its not true that no explanations were necessary.




You can bemoan the individual programs and ideas of RevLeft members. But nothing about your pedantry will inform about the current situation of the global economy. Keep wasting away in your theoretical dearth; you'll be no richer at the end of the day, while the members you criticize can say this: at least they can envision an order more valuable to the members of society.

Wel yes.. they can "envision" something... But one still has to explain that vision actually functioning, its nuts and bolts so to speak.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Profits cannot be accrued without satisfying demand.

Ha, really? So how is it that, today, McDonalds, Burger King and the rest of them will make millions in profits, whilst over 1 billion people go hungry?

I just wanted to highlight that the quoted sentence is actually not true.


Indeed, a socialist community will need to aim for profit in its production, since that is what informs it whether its production decisions are rational.


Profit per unit occurs when the sale price of a unit is higher than the cost to produce a unit. To do this, either wages are depressed below the use-value of that unit, or the exchange value (the price) is augmented above the use-value of that unit (this is the case when demand is highly inelastic, or a cartel has formed).

Profit, when understood properly, has nothing to do with democracy. Socialism can only be democratic, and in a proper, grassroots democracy, production will be based on need - demand will be collectively assessed, and production will be made to meet this. Now, this of course is not without its own problems, but it means that Socialism and profit are quite clearly incompatible, because profit requires exploitation in some form, and this cannot be the case in a democratic system of Socialism, since logically people will not democratically decide to exploit themselves, or allow exploitation of themselves.

[Baseball]

Ha, really? So how is it that, today, McDonalds, Burger King and the rest of them will make millions in profits, whilst over 1 billion people go hungry?

People wish to purchase that which McDonald's et. al produce.


I just wanted to highlight that the quoted sentence is actually not true.

That doesn't prove it.




Profit per unit occurs when the sale price of a unit is higher than the cost to produce a unit. To do this, either wages are depressed below the use-value of that unit, or the exchange value (the price) is augmented above the use-value of that unit (this is the case when demand is highly inelastic, or a cartel has formed).

Or when other costs beside labor are kept low.
It makes little sense to suppose that a socialist community would not be interested in this as objective. Why would hey want to use more resources in the production of items than less?

Or that a computer is valuable to somebody than the sum total its sillicon, glass and plastic.


Profit, when understood properly, has nothing to do with democracy.

What it as to is as a guiding source, a font of information as to how production should.


Socialism can only be democratic, and in a proper, grassroots democracy, production will be based on need - demand will be collectively assessed, and production will be made to meet this.

yep, now you need to explain this.


Now, this of course is not without its own problems,

Absolutely true.
So what are those problems?


but it means that Socialism and profit are quite clearly incompatible, because profit requires exploitation in some form, and this cannot be the case in a democratic system of Socialism, since logically people will not democratically decide to exploit themselves, or allow exploitation of themselves.

Perhaps one of the problems of socialism is how a socialist community utililizes the existing productive capabilities in the most rational way possible WHILE maintaing its commitment to the principles of socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

People wish to purchase that which McDonald's et. al produce.

That doesn't prove it.

No, people purchase McDonald's not only because they wish to; there are reasons why they wish to purchase it - propaganda and visibility play a large part.

It does prove it - you said profit cannot occur without satisfying demand. I say to you - when it doesn't satisfy the demand of over 1 billion people in the world, yet food companies are still making a huge profit, then your statement is quite clearly false.






Or when other costs beside labor are kept low.
It makes little sense to suppose that a socialist community would not be interested in this as objective. Why would hey want to use more resources in the production of items than less?

Without labour, nothing has a use-value. Value does not exist objectively, it is a construct. Diamonds, for example, are valued for rarity and beauty. But what use are they buried deep in a seabed? They have no value there. Their value exists because of the labour hours worked to extract and finish the diamonds, in order for them to be saleable. Without labour there is no commodity production and no use-value to any commodity therefore.

And without commodity production, there would be no exchange value, no sales, and thus no profit and no capital accumulation. Without these things there would be no investment in production and no fixed costs or other variable costs would exist, because there would be no capital to invest in them.

So, the use-value of a product should, in theory, equal the exchange-value (the price). And since labour is the source of all commodity production, then labour costs should equal the exchange value of the product. Of course, under Capitalism this is not possible, because the production process must bear other capital costs. Under a Socialist system without money, the only 'cost' would be labour - there would be no need for capital investment because money would not exist, all that would be 'paid' is the free exchange of goods for all those who contribute their labour in a fair way.

This is not utopia, it is merely unbelievable for those who think only within the confines of the current mode of production - a little reform here, a little re-distribution there. The theory behind Socialism makes perfect sense.



Perhaps one of the problems of socialism is how a socialist community utililizes the existing productive capabilities in the most rational way possible WHILE maintaing its commitment to the principles of socialism.


See above. The tool of ensuring production is stable (i.e. supply at least meets demand) in a Socialist society is extreme democracy; local economic democracy to decide on what people want to be produced, local/regional political democracy to ensure the stability of this local economic democracy, and finally workplace democracy to ensure that the democratic will of the populace outside the workplace is adhered to within the productive process.

[Blake's Baby]

To follow the argument thus far more exactly, why would a socialist community treat NOT working as no different than working?...

Because socialism isn't capitalism. If there is no need to work, no work is done. Not working, if it not necessary to work, is a social good. Why would socialism want to deny people social goods?


...
That is true today as well. There was great demand for jobs, housing and food in the 1950, the 1890s, 1730s ect ect ect.
The difference of course is that now there is a demand for cellphones, for which a capitalist community was able to respond...

So capitalism can't respond to basic human needs (food, housing etc) but it can respond to demands that don't exist until it has the ability to fulfill them?

Yeah, that's what I said



...In fact, there will be a continued demand for jobs, housing and food in the 2020s, the 2060s ect ect ect. This in fact will be true even if those decades occur after the socialist revolution.
But as you yourself have conceded, it is fair to question whether the socialst community will be able to meet those unmet needs, such as of faster forms of communication.
...

You've already said that capitalism can't meet needs. real needs, not manufactured ones. So, why exactly is socialism worse than that?



...
Profits cannot be accrued without satisfying demand. Indeed, a socialist community will need to aim for profit in its production, since that is what informs it whether its production decisions are rational....

Don't be silly. There is no 'profit' in socialist production. Socialism is production for need, there is no money or profit.




...

I'm suggesting that capitalism can do both. It seems you are suggesting that socialism cannot do both.
So which is better?...

Where's your eveidence that capitalism can feed and clothe people? I think the 2 billion people in the world that are one meal from starvation would disagree with your assessment.

I'm suggesting that socialism would propritise people's survival over the development of electronic goods no-one has asked for. Of course if we are successfully feeding and clothing everyone, I don't see a problem with the development of any doo-dad you like.



...

Yet again, slamming people. Nothing wrong with that of course. Sort of makes the arguments about the superiority of socialism rather suspect, however...

On the contrary, I have a very high regard humanity. However, I also recognise that the people who control society also control the education system, the media, the whole means of replicating and diseminating ideas, the means of social discourse. It's hardly surprising that there are a lot of mistaken ideas about.




...

Of course there will be. Not everybody is an electronic geek.
...

What has being an electronic geek got to do with anything? We'll be making decisions face-to-face, we'll be networking with each other in a variety of ways.



...
That isn't the question. The question is that once he decision has been made on a course of action, HOW is it accomplished, in the most rational way possible, using the existing production capabilities.

We (the people that need the stuff, whatever it is) and also we (the people who know how to make the stuff), pool our information about what we need, and how to make it, then make the stuff. Exactly what is the problem again?

[Baseball]

So capitalism can't respond to basic human needs (food, housing etc) but it can respond to demands that don't exist until it has the ability to fulfill them?

There will always be demand for housing food et. even in a socialist community. Presumably, people will still need to eat after the great revolution.



Don't be silly. There is no 'profit' in socialist production

How unfortunate for socialism. So how does socialism determine if their production is actually beneficial?



I'm suggesting that socialism would propritise people's survival over the development of electronic goods no-one has asked for.

And I have not disputed that. I have said the result of this is slowdown in progress and development of the society.


Of course if we are successfully feeding and clothing everyone, I don't see a problem with the development of any doo-dad you like.

Since you have stated elsewhere that change is constant, you cannot come to the conclusion that the socialist community is "successfully feeding and clothing everyone" since things change. Unless of course success can include considered a drafty shack and a bowl of gruel.




On the contrary, I have a very high regard humanity. However, I also recognise that the people who control society also control the education system, the media, the whole means of replicating and diseminating ideas, the means of social discourse. It's hardly surprising that there are a lot of mistaken ideas about.

Do you think maybe the socialists themselves are a bit responsible for the predicament they are in? What do those excuses say about the claims of the inevitability of socialism ect ect?







We (the people that need the stuff, whatever it is) and also we (the people who know how to make the stuff), pool our information about what we need, and how to make it, then make the stuff. Exactly what is the problem again?[

Because it isn't enough. The auto factory and consumers of cars are never the only people in the equation. Such decisions also rely upon other workers in other industries, perhaps in other communities who in turn have their own customers for their product, and their own demands.
In other words, your sketch is woefully inadequate.

[Blake's Baby]

There will always be demand for housing food et. even in a socialist community. Presumably, people will still need to eat after the great revolution...

Brilliant failure to address the point. I like how you don't know the difference between socialism's ability to meet those needs and capitalism's inability to do so. It's like doing something and not doing it are exactly the same to you. Good luck eating breakfast.



How unfortunate for socialism. So how does socialism determine if their production is actually beneficial?

'Unfortunate'? Hardly. 'Boo hoo, no one else is getting rich from exploiting people who need to eat, oh let's all cry for the poor rich dears'.

If we decide it needs doing we do it. If we decide it doesn't need doing, we don't do it. You really do have a problem understanding the most uncomplicated ideas, don't you? 'Do/don't do', 'need/don't need'... Is it just opposites, or is it other things too?


...
And I have not disputed that. I have said the result of this is slowdown in progress and development of the society...

Well, that's your opinion, but as you have no evidence to base that opinion on, I'll file it along with unicorns and angels thanks.



...
Since you have stated elsewhere that change is constant, you cannot come to the conclusion that the socialist community is "successfully feeding and clothing everyone" since things change. Unless of course success can include considered a drafty shack and a bowl of gruel...

Oh wow, yes, becasue on day 1 of a socialist society we'll just decide what everyone gets for ever and ever. Are you for real? You think a society where people get to deicde on policy will be less responsive than a society where people are told what to want? Obviously, it isn't just opposites you have trouble with, the entire process of cogitation seems to be beyond you.


...

Do you think maybe the socialists themselves are a bit responsible for the predicament they are in? What do those excuses say about the claims of the inevitability of socialism ect ect?



Certainly there are a number of people that bear responsibility for the misconceptions that abound about socialism. Stalin, for example. But I wouldn't call Stalin a socialist anyway, given that he was the bloody dictator of an imperialist and state-capitalist country.

What claims about the inevitability of socialism? Anyone who believes that socialism is the inevitable result of capitalism (without, you know, the working class overthrowing capitalism) is living in cloud cuckoo land, and should go away and read Marx.




...
Because it isn't enough. The auto factory and consumers of cars are never the only people in the equation. Such decisions also rely upon other workers in other industries, perhaps in other communities who in turn have their own customers for their product, and their own demands.
In other words, your sketch is woefully inadequate.

Yeah, and? That's surely the point of a sketch isn't it?

Decision-making is a continuous process. As we're not actually different people ('consumers of cars' are still workers in the car factory, and in the other industries) we have enough knowledge to make sensible decisions about resource allocation based on our knowledge of what's needed and how that can be achieved.

[Baseball]

Brilliant failure to address the point. I like how you don't know the difference between socialism's ability to meet those needs

The point is that how do we know socialism can meet those needs? You have done nothing to show this.






Well, that's your opinion, but as you have no evidence to base that opinion on, I'll file it along with unicorns and angels thanks.

I don't need to think about unicorns and angels. I just need to read your own posts for confirmation.





Oh wow, yes, becasue on day 1 of a socialist society we'll just decide what everyone gets for ever and ever.

Of course not. So, as I said, feeding and clothing will be be a challenge for the socialist community as well.


You think a society where people get to deicde on policy will be less responsive than a society where people are told what to want? Obviously, it isn't just opposites you have trouble with, the entire process of cogitation seems to be beyond you.

I am asking for you to describe the cogitation involved, from a socialist direction.



Decision-making is a continuous process. As we're not actually different people ('consumers of cars' are still workers in the car factory, and in the other industries) we have enough knowledge to make sensible decisions about resource allocation based on our knowledge of what's needed and how that can be achieved.

OK. So what IS that knowledge (knowing how to build that car is not the knowledge I am talking about. Saying that somebody wants a car is not -entirely- the knowledge I am talking about)?

[l'Enfermé]

There will always be demand for housing food et. even in a socialist community. Presumably, people will still need to eat after the great revolution.
And given that we've had capitalism on a global scale since the Europeans subjugated the greater part of the planet under their yoke quite some time ago, would it not be proper to conclude that capitalism has been unable to fulfill this demand for housing, food, etc? According to the UN, there were around 925 million undernourished people in the world, even though our planet produces enough food to satisfy the needs of 12-13 billion people. How many don't even have access have adequate housing, in our age of prosperity? Over a billion live in slums and the UN estimates that this number will rise to 3 billion by 2050.





How unfortunate for socialism. So how does socialism determine if their production is actually beneficial?

Are you just stupid or are you playing with us? Every self-proclaimed socialist on RevLeft.com proclaims that under a socialist mode of production, money will be abolished. A moneyless society, where production is done for profit...wait, something sounds wrong there.

Human societies have been producing for use and consumption, not for profit, for thousands of years. Does this mean that until the advent of capitalism, humanity has produced nothing beneficial? If not, point me to this barrier that prevents production from being beneficial unless the incentive is profit.


Do you think maybe the socialists themselves are a bit responsible for the predicament they are in? What do those excuses say about the claims of the inevitability of socialism ect ect?

Who has claimed that socialism is an inevitability? Marxists have always maintained that because class antagonism simply don't disappear through witchcraft, no matter how much you pretend they don't exist, the class struggle between contending classes in society has always resulted either in the overthrow of the old ruling class by a new one, or in the common ruin of all.

[Baseball]

Are you just stupid or are you playing with us? Every self-proclaimed socialist on RevLeft.com proclaims that under a socialist mode of production, money will be abolished. A moneyless society, where production is done for profit...wait, something sounds wrong there.

Yes.. The expectation that rational production will occur in a socialist community...


Human societies have been producing for use and consumption, not for profit, for thousands of years. Does this mean that until the advent of capitalism, humanity has produced nothing beneficial? If not, point me to this barrier that prevents production from being beneficial unless the incentive is profit.

What I have said is that socialism has to aim production where the benefits of production outweigh its costs. Any community any economy has to do this. What sense is production where the costs outweigh the benefits? A "profit" is the way (the best way really) to determine whether that aim is being reached.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes.. The expectation that rational production will occur in a socialist community...

You think capitalism does rational production? Then explain why it is that under capitalism enough food is produced to stuff everyone to the gills, and yet millions still go to bed hungry?


What I have said is that socialism has to aim production where the benefits of production outweigh its costs. Any community any economy has to do this. What sense is production where the costs outweigh the benefits? A "profit" is the way (the best way really) to determine whether that aim is being reached.

Benefit can be measured using better yardsticks than money and profits.

[Baseball]

Benefit can be measured using better yardsticks than money and profits.

Go for it

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Go for it

Lifespan, infant mortality, literacy, numeracy, whether or not one feels a sense of fulfillment with one's life, the nature and degree of engagement with civic society, the degree of workplace control one has... need I go on?

[Baseball]

Lifespan, infant mortality, literacy, numeracy, whether or not one feels a sense of fulfillment with one's life, the nature and degree of engagement with civic society, the degree of workplace control one has... need I go on?

Yes.

Some of those are nice yardsticks (but not all)- but they don't have any relevency for the here and now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes.

Some of those are nice yardsticks (but not all)- but they don't have any relevency for the here and now.

Why the fuck not? Isn't quality of life something we should be concerned with?

No, it's fucking profit, isn't it? Fuck off.

[Baseball]

Why the fuck not? Isn't quality of life something we should be concerned with?

No, it's fucking profit, isn't it? Fuck off.

Of course quality of life is something people should concerned about.
That can measure whether things in aggregate are getting better.

But its also vague about what is causing it. Is a 30something year old going to live to his 80s BECAUSE he bought a smart phone 50 years earlier? Kind of tough to say.
It says nothing about whether a particular economic act and decision is beneficial.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course quality of life is something people should concerned about.
That can measure whether things in aggregate are getting better.

But its also vague about what is causing it. Is a 30something year old going to live to his 80s BECAUSE he bought a smart phone 50 years earlier? Kind of tough to say.
It says nothing about whether a particular economic act and decision is beneficial.

If people want smartphones in a communist society, then they will be made because the means of production are under mass control. Maybe that would mean less of something else being produced, such as laptop computers, but that won't matter because people will be spending more time on their new smartphones than on a laptop.

There are indications (http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/02/study-computer-use-combined-with-exercise-may-protect-memory/) that computer use in general in combination with exercise can help to combat cognitive decline in older age. Further studies would be needed for confirmation, but I suspect this benefit is accrued regardless of the computer's form factor (desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone).

[Baseball]

If people want smartphones in a communist society, then they will be made because the means of production are under mass control. Maybe that would mean less of something else being produced, such as laptop computers, but that won't matter because people will be spending more time on their new smartphones than on a laptop.

That isn't enough. When producing the cellphone, there still needs to be ways to measure whether in fact the product is being made in the best way possible, in the sense of utilsing resources.


There are indications (http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/02/study-computer-use-combined-with-exercise-may-protect-memory/) that computer use in general in combination with exercise can help to combat cognitive decline in older age. Further studies would be needed for confirmation, but I suspect this benefit is accrued regardless of the computer's form factor (desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone).

Then would it not make sense to be able to produce as many computers as possible, with existing capabilities, using the least amount of resources? Profit is a tool which guides those decisions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That isn't enough. When producing the cellphone, there still needs to be ways to measure whether in fact the product is being made in the best way possible, in the sense of utilsing resources.

That's why one does research in order to test whether a given design is able to meet basic standards. This determines what quantity and quality of materials are needed per unit. Once a design has passed that hurdle, then the amount produced is dependent on the levels of demand for the design.


Then would it not make sense to be able to produce as many computers as possible, with existing capabilities, using the least amount of resources? Profit is a tool which guides those decisions.

Why produce more computers than are needed or wanted? Of course it might be a good idea to stockpile parts for use in certain exceptional circumstances (E.G. to repair shit if the Earth gets hit by a massive solar flare or something), but once those stockpiles are at capacity why then produce any more?

[Baseball]

That's why one does research in order to test whether a given design is able to meet basic standards. This determines what quantity and quality of materials are needed per unit. Once a design has passed that hurdle, then the amount produced is dependent on the levels of demand for the design.

That isn't all that is required.
All those things which make up a cellphone can be used for other needed items. That has to be measured as well. Do people want a cellphone at the COST of another needed good.

Also, one has to consider production techniques as well. Are the existing capabilities being used in the best way possible to produce these cellphones? How do you know if this is true?



Why produce more computers than are needed or wanted?

It doesn't. The claim was being made that computers can help slow down the aging process. Everyone gets old, so I was basing my comment that such a need will exist.
ONCE that need, any need, is established, though, then you are going to want to produce enough to satisfy that need. But you are also going to want to do it using the least amount of resources as possible. Profit is the way to make this determination; its the documentation, the proof, that your production is using the existing production capabilities properly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That isn't all that is required.

Of course not. An exhaustive list of requirements is beyond my level of expertise to provide. But for the sake of argument what I have given is sufficient.


All those things which make up a cellphone can be used for other needed items. That has to be measured as well. Do people want a cellphone at the COST of another needed good.

That's for them to decide, isn't it?


Also, one has to consider production techniques as well. Are the existing capabilities being used in the best way possible to produce these cellphones? How do you know if this is true?

Through comprehensive testing and research. You idiot.


It doesn't.

What doesn't?


The claim was being made that computers can help slow down the aging process. Everyone gets old, so I was basing my comment that such a need will exist.
ONCE that need, any need, is established, though, then you are going to want to produce enough to satisfy that need. But you are also going to want to do it using the least amount of resources as possible. Profit is the way to make this determination; its the documentation, the proof, that your production is using the existing production capabilities properly.

No it isn't. A company can produce a profit if it can offload the waste it produces to some underdeveloped country somewhere. Of course the enormous social & environmental cost to that country of having to deal with that waste is ignored by the likes of pricks like you.

[Blake's Baby]

Baseball, who do you never answer the questions anyone puts to you? Is it because, though capitalism is such a great system, you personally are hugely inadequate and incompetent to defend it? Or is it because you realise that the answers that you give will show up your ideology for the paltry excuse for failure that it is?

One simple question.

How has capitalism provided food for the millions who have died of starvation over the last... 40 years let's say? Tell us how your great system was able to save all those dead people, and we'll admit your system is superior. If you can't, then you're full of shit, because capitalism is a horroshow and a massive fraud. Simple as.

[Marxaveli]

Capitalism is epic fail, on all levels. The only reason it still exists is because the State props it up, both through direct force or coercion, and through propaganda and deceit. It certainly doesn't exist on its own merit - if it did, it wouldn't need a powerful state to protect ruling class interests and necessitate racial, gender, or other divisions that propagate those interests. Thus it is not a legitimate system.

Communism would exist on its own merits, or it would cease to exist at all.

[Baseball]

Of course not. An exhaustive list of requirements is beyond my level of expertise to provide. But for the sake of argument what I have given is sufficient.



That's for them to decide, isn't it?



Through comprehensive testing and research. You idiot.

You are looking at the issue through the lens of one line of production ie the production of cellphones, and by extention any product
But you can't. Such decisions of production are never in the realm of just that one factory.





No it isn't. A company can produce a profit if it can offload the waste it produces to some underdeveloped country somewhere.

As if every company has the ability to do such a thing! But I will accept the concession.

[Baseball]

Baseball, who do you never answer the questions anyone puts to you? Is it because, though capitalism is such a great system, you personally are hugely inadequate and incompetent to defend it? Or is it because you realise that the answers that you give will show up your ideology for the paltry excuse for failure that it is?

Blake-- it matters not my opinions of capitalism. In reality, it matters not yours either.
Because that opinion says NOTHING about the viability, or otherwise of socialism. Any argument mustered against capitalism does not lead to the conclusion that THEREFORE socialism is better. Socialism has to be demonstrated on its own terms, on its own merits.



I

[Blake's Baby]

Blake-- it matters not my opinions of capitalism. In reality, it matters not yours either.
Because that opinion says NOTHING about the viability, or otherwise of socialism. Any argument mustered against capitalism does not lead to the conclusion that THEREFORE socialism is better. Socialism has to be demonstrated on its own terms, on its own merits.



You've claimed that capitalism is superior. I'm asking for a demonstration that it is. For instance, your claim that capitalism responds to needs. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it supplied the needs of everyone that died of famine over the last 40 years of capitalism. Please provide evidence that this was the case, as against the theory that the socialists intervening in this thread are advancing, that capitalism only produces for profit. If you can't, then it is evident that socialism is a superior system because it will produce for people's needs. Those 40 million (or however many capitalism killed) would have been alive under socialism. That is evidently a superior system.

[Baseball]

If you can't, then it is evident that socialism is a superior system because it will produce for people's needs.

No, it isn't evident, or evidence. You haven't shown that socialism produces for need. All you have done is claim that is its objective. If anything, you have demonstrated that socialism will slow (and perhaps halt) technological progress. What is the impact of that upon food, or any other type, of production?

[Blake's Baby]

No I haven't, you've merely claimed that that is what I've done. How did capitalism brilliantly fulfill all of the needs of all the people who died of famine since the second world war? Answer the question.

[Marxaveli]

Ill answer for him: It didn't. Because it CAN'T.

[Baseball]

No I haven't, you've merely claimed that that is what I've done. How did capitalism brilliantly fulfill all of the needs of all the people who died of famine since the second world war? Answer the question.

You have indeed stated this.

As far as to answer your question, nope-- it proves NOTHING whether socialism would have done a whit better.
Disproving capitalism does not prove socialism. Defend socialism in terms of socialism, not in terms of capitalism.

[Marxaveli]

You have indeed stated this.

As far as to answer your question, nope-- it proves NOTHING whether socialism would have done a whit better.
Disproving capitalism does not prove socialism. Defend socialism in terms of socialism, not in terms of capitalism.

Actually, disproving capitalism DOES prove Socialism superior, because what are the alternatives to either? The workers either control the means to production and make decisions democratically, or they do NOT. It is that simple.

[Baseball]

Actually, disproving capitalism DOES prove Socialism superior, because what are the alternatives to either? The workers either control the means to production and make decisions democratically, or they do NOT. It is that simple.

There is nothing 'uncapitalist' about workers owning, controlling, the "means of production."

[Marxaveli]

There is nothing 'uncapitalist' about workers owning, controlling, the "means of production."

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have said yet. Classes are fundamentally defined by their relationship to the means of production.

[Blake's Baby]

No, Baseball is right. Co-operatives in capitalism are still capitalist.

Baseball, I have nowhere demonstrated that socialism will halt technological progress. Also, nowhere have you demonstrated that capitalism produces for need, though you have asserted it.

You've made a lot of assertions, with no evidence to back them up. Assertions about capitalism, which are demonstrably untrue, and assertions about socialism, which are logically untrue, but undemonstrable in practice, because every time socialism is attempted, some capitalists bomb it out out of existence. If only all the other pro-capitalists had your faith in the superiority of capitalism, they wouldn't need to declare war on the working class all the time.

Capitalism is a system to derive a profit from the work of others. Socialism is a system whereby those that work make the decisions about society. Those are in this epoch the only options. Capitalism is demonstrably a failure. all that's left is socialism. Even if it's shit it'll still be better than this. But of course, it won't be shit. It'll be fucking brilliant.

[Marxaveli]

But if the workers control the means to production, we no longer have Capitalism.....so how is it NOT 'uncapitalist'?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are looking at the issue through the lens of one line of production ie the production of cellphones, and by extention any product
But you can't. Such decisions of production are never in the realm of just that one factory.

Which is why factories will be in constant communication with each other, with testing and research labs, with designers, with standards-setters and with consumers. Did you really think that I imagined productive forces under social control to be so atomised?


As if every company has the ability to do such a thing! But I will accept the concession.

What concession, hunchbrain? I just blew a massive hole in your assertion that "profit" is a meaningful measure of social utility. Dumping toxic waste on poorer countries is just one of the very many shitty things corporations do to improve their bottom line.

[Baseball]

But if the workers control the means to production, we no longer have Capitalism.....so how is it NOT 'uncapitalist'?

Of course one can-- the workers own the paint company, they hire other workers, buy land to site a factory, pay other workers to build, sell paint on the market for market rices, adjust their production lines ect ect ect.

Ownership gives that person, or people, the right to dispose of that property as he or they see fit. What makes it socialist is the "logic" which informs its decisions in its ownership.

[Baseball]

Which is why factories will be in constant communication with each other, with testing and research labs, with designers, with standards-setters and with consumers. Did you really think that I imagined productive forces under social control to be so atomised?

So now you need to describe the nature of the "social control" and the nature of "constant communication" and the impact the latter has on the former, and vice versa.

As per socialist "logic."

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But if the workers control the means to production, we no longer have Capitalism.....so how is it NOT 'uncapitalist'?

This is wrong. Workers can still own the means of production right alongside the profit motive, the law of value, private property, and other things antithetical to socialism.

[Baseball]

Baseball, I have nowhere demonstrated that socialism will halt technological progress.

Sure you have-- you have been quite clear that socialism would not divert resources for speculative technology-- such as at a time when cellphones were such a technology-- while people still needed to be housed, fed ext.
People will always need to be housed and people generally need to eat on a regular basis as well. These will therefore always be first and foremost in socialist "logic." as such, it will always remain a problem.
Capitalism can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't socialism?


Also, nowhere have you demonstrated that capitalism produces for need, though you have asserted it.

A profit can only be accrued when a product is purchased. Nobody buys the product, the capitalist does not make money. As such, production is geared to turn a profit, to produce those things which people want.


and assertions about socialism, which are logically untrue, but undemonstrable in practice, because every time socialism is attempted, some capitalists bomb it out out of existence. If only all the other pro-capitalists had your faith in the superiority of capitalism, they wouldn't need to declare war on the working class all the time.

As if a staple of socialist argument isn't that the entire world has to socialist in order for it to function...


Capitalism is a system to derive a profit from the work of others.

The objective of work is to produce goods and services that people want. It is not, despite what socialists often seem to think, an exercise of personal self-satisfaction.
An aim in producing goods and services which people is to devise ways where the value to the consumer of those goods is greater than the value of its parts. That's how you know that you are actually providing something of value


Socialism is a system whereby those that work make the decisions about society.

We are talking here about production. And again, why should the workers at the auto factory make decisions about what cars, in what quanity ect should be available to people who are in need of a car? Shouldn't it be the the other way around?

[Prinskaj]

Sure you have-- you have been quite clear that socialism would not divert resources for speculative technology-- such as at a time when cellphones were such a technology-- while people still needed to be housed, fed ext.
People will always need to be housed and people generally need to eat on a regular basis as well. These will therefore always be first and foremost in socialist "logic." as such, it will always remain a problem.
Capitalism can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't socialism? Are you seriously saying that the one billion people on this earth, that suffer under horrible conditions of hunger, dehydration and lack of proper shelter will have to continue to live under these conditions, so that we can fill more music into our cellphones?


A profit can only be accrued when a product is purchased. Nobody buys the product, the capitalist does not make money. As such, production is geared to turn a profit, to produce those things which people want.
Nope, capitalist produces for value, not for use. There is a clear distinction to be made here. You really need to read up on some of the basic principles of value before you start to argue about them.



We are talking here about production. And again, why should the workers at the auto factory make decisions about what cars, in what quanity ect should be available to people who are in need of a car? Shouldn't it be the the other way around?
There is such a things as compromise. The workers councils and the individual workers in the factory will work together in order to secure the most efficient production and highest quality products possible.

[Blake's Baby]

Sure you have-- you have been quite clear that socialism would not divert resources for speculative technology-- such as at a time when cellphones were such a technology-- while people still needed to be housed, fed ext.
People will always need to be housed and people generally need to eat on a regular basis as well. These will therefore always be first and foremost in socialist "logic." as such, it will always remain a problem.
Capitalism can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't socialism?
...

There is no reason for people to voluntarily put resources that they need to be diverted into food and shelter, to instead be diverted into researching improved communication tools, if that's what you're saying. Why would anyone say 'yeah, I'll die, in case you want a better mobile phone in a couple of years'? Are you volunteering to live in a shack wondering if malnutrition or cholera will get you first, just so I can have the chance of better technology in a few years? Very noble of you baseball, but I hope not necessary.

Capitalism kills 30,000 people every day from preventable diseases. The richest nation on earth cannot rebuild Iraq or afghanistan, it can't even rebuild New Orleans. 3 days military spending by the US is enough to give everyone on earth access to clean water, but it can't/won't do that. It's demonstrably failing to meet the needs of 2/3 of the the people of the planet and less spectacularly fucking over the majority of the other 1/3. So I'd dispute its ability to 'walk and chew gum'.


...
A profit can only be accrued when a product is purchased. Nobody buys the product, the capitalist does not make money. As such, production is geared to turn a profit, to produce those things which people want...

Wrong. Capitalism is geared to produce things that people are prepared and able to buy. No-one produces food that the 800,000,000 people on the verge of starvation right now both want and need but strangely for such a great system are unable to pay for.



...
As if a staple of socialist argument isn't that the entire world has to socialist in order for it to function...

Irrelevent. Socialism will need to be worldwide. But the process of the working class assuming politcal power and expropriating the capitalists has to start somehwere. Every time it seems to be starting some group representing the interests of capital bombs the shit out of it.


...

The objective of work is to produce goods and services that people want. It is not, despite what socialists often seem to think, an exercise of personal self-satisfaction...

Which is why 'work' is shit.

Socialism as far as possible will remove all the negative aspects of work; though, there will still be necessary but also unpleasant things to do. Not as many of them, and there's no reason why they can't be shared out. There's no necessity for some people to have to put up with the 'crap jobs' all the time.

Our nature as human beings is to be creative. Any system which doesn't give everyone that oppotrunity is ultimately anti-human.


...
An aim in producing goods and services which people is to devise ways where the value to the consumer of those goods is greater than the value of its parts. That's how you know that you are actually providing something of value...

Without defining what 'value' means there your statements mean nothing. 'Value' to a Marxist means 'amount of labour embedded in a product'. a mountain full of gold has no 'value' to a marxist, though the gold once it's been mined has. 'Value' to an 'ancap' means 'potential for exchange'. A mountain full of gold has more 'value' to an 'ancap' than the mined gold, because you can use a mountain as a gold supply, or as a mountain, whereas you can only use gold as gold. So, what sort of 'value' are you talking about?



...
We are talking here about production. And again, why should the workers at the auto factory make decisions about what cars, in what quanity ect should be available to people who are in need of a car? Shouldn't it be the the other way around?

They're the same people. 'People' need a certain amount of cars, yes? A hypothetical community or group of communities decide they need 2,000 cars. The 400 members of those communities that work at the engineering works can produce 1,000 cars in a year. That production requires x-amount of steel and y-amount of aliminium and z-amount of kilojoules of electricty etc. So they arrange with the steelworkers and the electricians and the aluminium-plant workers that the requisite quanties of resources be supplied to build their 1,000 cars. In the meantime, this group of communities approaches neighbouring engineering plants and finds that get 200 from one and 500 from another and 300 from a third outside their area - so they do.

'Demand', which is what you are talking about, is a given in the system. Production is for need. Only once needs have been established do productive units decide how things are produced. I could take your entire paragraph and only change one word nd it would be perfect critique of the problems of production in capitalism. However, you'd fail to see the irony as the problems of socialist production will be nothing like those you imagine.


...
We are talking here about production. And again, why should the bosses at the auto factory make decisions about what cars, in what quanity ect should be available to people who are in need of a car? Shouldn't it be the the other way around?

I really do think it should be other way around. Demand must come before supply - in other words, production must fulfill human needs - unlike in capitalism, where demanded is created to justify supply - in other words, production must provide profits.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE]Capitalism can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't socialism?

Socialism not only can walk and chew gum at the same time, it can fight and defeat the strongest capitalist military machine in history: Vietnamese socialists and communists ran the U.S. out of Vietnam; Cuba is still fighting the economic blockade of the U.S.; even a dysfunctional regime in North Korea has held the U.S. to a standoff. The Soviet Union? Defeated Hitler, put the first person in space. It also is the first world power in history which simply collapsed, which is exactly what Marx and Engels predicted: the withering away of the communist state.



A profit can only be accrued when a product is purchased. Nobody buys the product, the capitalist does not make money. As such, production is geared to turn a profit, to produce those things which people want.

The capitalist believes that because a profit accrues, is manifested, appears in the act of exchange, the market, then the profit must have originated in the market. The capitalist believes, essentially, that because the sun appears in the east, the sun must have come from the east. He confuses appearance with reality. The profit, or surplus value, originates in the act of production; when a product rolls off the assembly line, the profit has already been fixed in the product. The capitalist then sells the product. He has not paid the full value for the product, but he sells it at its full value. That is how profit is made.



An aim in producing goods and services which people is to devise ways where the value to the consumer of those goods is greater than the value of its parts. That's how you know that you are actually providing something of value


True enough, the question, however, is where that value is produced, where it is originated, and who takes the value or profit. The capitalist takes the value from the worker for himself, the socialist takes the value for first, the worker, then society.



We are talking here about production. And again, why should the workers at the auto factory make decisions about what cars, in what quanity ect should be available to people who are in need of a car? Shouldn't it be the the other way around?

It can be the other way around if you like. The question is who gets the profit when the car is sold. It is well known, or it should be, that giant car companies spend billions of dollars on advertising to convince people what car to buy, in other words, under monopoly capitalism even human desire becomes a commodity.

[Baseball]

There is no reason for people to voluntarily put resources that they need to be diverted into food and shelter, to instead be diverted into researching improved communication tools,

And this is why I am saying that progress slows under socialism. People are currently sinking resources into improved forms of communication (including, it must be stated, you) while there is still famine about.



Wrong. Capitalism is geared to produce things that people are prepared and able to buy

Yes-- they use their resources to satisfy their needs and wants. Capitalism produces for that.



Irrelevent. Socialism will need to be worldwide. But the process of the working class assuming politcal power and expropriating the capitalists has to start somehwere.

Absolutely. And, although this is off topic a bit, I have stated this period of time, when socialist communities are existing side by side of capitalist communities, also has to be taken into account when considering the viability of socialism.





Which is why 'work' is shit.

How do you propose to feed 800,000 starving people if the function of the farmer is to satisfy his own desires to grow food in a manner he chooses to do so, as opposed to a manner that provides to people who like to eat, food?
Work is ALWAYS first and foremost about providing people that which they want and need.



Without defining what 'value' means there your statements mean nothing. 'Value' to a Marxist means 'amount of labour embedded in a product'. a mountain full of gold has no 'value' to a marxist, though the gold once it's been mined has. 'Value' to an 'ancap' means 'potential for exchange'. A mountain full of gold has more 'value' to an 'ancap' than the mined gold, because you can use a mountain as a gold supply, or as a mountain, whereas you can only use gold as gold. So, what sort of 'value' are you talking about?

Certainly not Marxist definition.





They're the same people. 'People' need a certain amount of cars, yes? A hypothetical community or group of communities decide they need 2,000 cars. The 400 members of those communities that work at the engineering works can produce 1,000 cars in a year. That production requires x-amount of steel and y-amount of aliminium and z-amount of kilojoules of electricty etc. So they arrange with the steelworkers and the electricians and the aluminium-plant workers that the requisite quanties of resources be supplied to build their 1,000 cars. In the meantime, this group of communities approaches neighbouring engineering plants and finds that get 200 from one and 500 from another and 300 from a third outside their area - so they do.

Blake-- you have only described a small part of the equation. All these sub-contracted industries in turn need to do the same thing in order to find their suppliers, who in turn must do the same thing for their suppliers ect ect. Somrthing needs to coordinate this activity.

Because when that hypothetical community decides that it needs 2,000 new cars, it must mean it prefers those 2000 cars as opposed to other items. But it doesn't mean that every supplier down the line, every other community in the area, places that same value on those 2000 cars. There are going to be other needs for aluminum, for electricity than for the production of cars.


Only once needs have been established do productive units decide how things are produced.

But what sense does this make? Seriously. Why should decisions on producing cars be made by the producers? shouldn't those decisions be based upon what practices best meet consumer demand?

[Baseball]

T
here is such a things as compromise. The workers councils and the individual workers in the factory will work together in order to secure the most efficient production and highest quality products possible.

You still need to describe what "work together" means- as per socialist "logic."

[Blake's Baby]

And this is why I am saying that progress slows under socialism. People are currently sinking resources into improved forms of communication (including, it must be stated, you) while there is still famine about...

Oh, are we living in capitalism, a stupid and inhuman system where people starve while others enjoy luxury? I hadn't noticed.


...
Yes-- they use their resources to satisfy their needs and wants. Capitalism produces for that...

I see. People want to starve, they go to the store and buy a 'starvation lifestyle' do they?

Are you prepared to die in a shack of malnutrition/cholera so I can (maybe) have a better phone in 3 years? Yes or no?

You realise if you say 'no' it means you have no faith in the superiority of capitalism, I take it.




...
Absolutely. And, although this is off topic a bit, I have stated this period of time, when socialist communities are existing side by side of capitalist communities, also has to be taken into account when considering the viability of socialism...

They're not 'socialist communities' because it's not socialism. They may be liberated communities in that the working class has taken state power and ha command over the economy, but they still administering a truncated form of capitalism at this point. There will still have to be trade for necessary things that can't be secured locally, there will still be shortages of things so some form of rationing (by price, by work, by need or some other system or combination of systems), there will still be classes and states. So not socialism.






...
How do you propose to feed 800,000 starving people if the function of the farmer is to satisfy his own desires to grow food in a manner he chooses to do so, as opposed to a manner that provides to people who like to eat, food?...

The 'farmer' gets outvoted by the 800,000. He doesn't own the land. He works it. If he doesn't, the 800,000 can work it instead.

By the way, one farmer can't work enough land to feed 800,000 people.

Production is social. Production of food is a process that society undertakes. If society doesn't want to produce food, people go hungry. Why would masses of people want to starve themselves?


...
Work is ALWAYS first and foremost about providing people that which they want and need...

I agree, and capitalism is terrible at it and needs to be replaced by a better system.








Certainly not Marxist definition...

Well, that's helpful.

I'm not an owl, just thought you might want to know.







...

Blake-- you have only described a small part of the equation. All these sub-contracted industries in turn need to do the same thing in order to find their suppliers, who in turn must do the same thing for their suppliers ect ect. Somrthing needs to coordinate this activity...

Yes. Some kind of regional aggregate planning body seems feasable.


...Because when that hypothetical community decides that it needs 2,000 new cars, it must mean it prefers those 2000 cars as opposed to other items...

No, that's a logical fallacy. Just because I want sandwich it doesn't mean I prefer that to a drink. I want both. I also want a bed and and a bath, not necessarily at the same time, but definitely both of them. And the sandwich, and the drink.

If it's determined that society needs those 2,000 cars, then that's a given. if it's also decided that society needs 10 boats, then that's also a given. If it's discovered that society only has enough resources (raw materials, energy, labour power, time, lathes, oxy-acetylyne torches etc) to produce some of these things, then it needs to decide whether 1,000 cars and 5 boats is the best option in the short term, or 1,400 cars and 3 boats, or whatever. Maybe the society will forgo car production completely for a bit because the boats are vital; maybe not. It's not up to me to say in advance.


... But it doesn't mean that every supplier down the line, every other community in the area, places that same value on those 2000 cars. There are going to be other needs for aluminum, for electricity than for the production of cars...

Until you explain what meaning you're giving to the term 'value' i'm not taking any notice of what you're going to say about it. On the notion that if you do a with something, you can't also do b, see above.




But what sense does this make? Seriously. Why should decisions on producing cars be made by the producers?

Exactly. Why should corporations decide what gets produced? Production should be to fulfill needs, not make money for producers. I'm glad you agree, we'll make a socialist of you yet.


shouldn't those decisions be based upon what practices best meet consumer demand?

Yes, but why do you think that the people who actually do the work don't know how to do that? Society says 'we need 2,000 cars by the end of the year'. Engineering Works One says 'OK we can make you 1,000, you'll have to get the rest from somewhere else, or maybe put extra resources into developing the Works here, more machines and sheds and some workers and whatnot'. Society says 'No problem, we can do all those things. Oh, these cars, they need to be quite big'. Engineering Works One says 'no problem'. Society says 'they need to be able to go underwater'. Engineering Works One says 'not sure that's possible, can we build these 1,000 like Toyota Landcruisers first, while you research how to make a submacar?'. Society says, 'oh OK, that seems like a good plan'.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Apart from the fact that whoever suggested building something currently impossible really hadn't thought it through.

[RedMaterialist]

T

You still need to describe what "work together" means- as per socialist "logic."

Work together means working socially, which is how capitalism started. The capitalist brought thousands of people "together" to "work," typically in a giant factory. The workers then began to develop a social consciousness, right under the nose of the capitalist. Once workers begin to understand that it is they, not the capitalist, who creates wealth and profit, then the days of capitalism are numbered.

And all because the capitalist caused the workers to "work together." The capitalist digs his own grave.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

The whole exploitation thing is your guys ancient belief in classical economics rearing its ugly head. In modern economic theory there is little place for exploitation. This of course does not mean you guys are wrong, but it means that history is definitely not on your side. Not only did the collapse of the Soviet Union set you back, but so did your loss in the field of economics. Is the reason that you guys have so little impact on society because of bourgeoisie ideology, or is it because you guys lost the debate? I would argue the latter.

Dude, you as a very privileged student (i've worked myself up from prole to middle-class and i still don't have 10k on a bank!), you might not know of the lower classes.
The proletariat is not a made up class, it's the very product of capitalism.
In fact, one does not exist without the other. Capitalism can only be achieved by exploiting the working class. There is no capitalist without a bunch of people working their guts out for him.

And you call yourself an anarchist?

[Baseball]

Are you prepared to die in a shack of malnutrition/cholera so I can (maybe) have a better phone in 3 years? Yes or no?

You realise if you say 'no' it means you have no faith in the superiority of capitalism, I take it.

This has nothing to do with it. You keep harking back to the same thing-- and then denying its implications.






They're not 'socialist communities' because it's not socialism. They may be liberated communities in that the working class has taken state power and ha command over the economy, but they still administering a truncated form of capitalism at this point. There will still have to be trade for necessary things that can't be secured locally, there will still be shortages of things so some form of rationing (by price, by work, by need or some other system or combination of systems), there will still be classes and states. So not socialism.

Nope, that won't wash. Unless there is an instantaneous worldwide revolt, the socialist community is going to have to accept that they will, fr some period of time, function alongside a capitalist one. Saying such a situation is impossible because such communities are NOT socialist, makes no sense. Socialism has to start somewhere. And rationing can certainly be fairly argued as a blow against the possibilities of socialism.




Production is social. Production of food is a process that society undertakes. If society doesn't want to produce food, people go hungry. Why would masses of people want to starve themselves?

They wouldn't. Which is why in a capitalist community people FRELY choose to farm. In the socialist community...? Maybe some would, or perhaps some would judge it rather disgusting work and thus open to 'rotation.'



Yes. Some kind of regional aggregate planning body seems feasable.

OK-- based upon what?




No, that's a logical fallacy. Just because I want sandwich it doesn't mean I prefer that to a drink.

And if you can't have both...?


I want both. I also want a bed and and a bath, not necessarily at the same time, but definitely both of them. And the sandwich, and the drink.

Most people do.


If it's determined that society needs those 2,000 cars, then that's a given. if it's also decided that society needs 10 boats, then that's also a given. If it's discovered that society only has enough resources (raw materials, energy, labour power, time, lathes, oxy-acetylyne torches etc) to produce some of these things, then it needs to decide whether 1,000 cars and 5 boats is the best option in the short term, or 1,400 cars and 3 boats, or whatever. Maybe the society will forgo car production completely for a bit because the boats are vital; maybe not.

Yep, that's correct.



Until you explain what meaning you're giving to the term 'value' i'm not taking any notice of what you're going to say about it. On the notion that if you do a with something, you can't also do b, see above.

Confusing. "above" is all about people not being able to do both A and B.





Exactly. Why should corporations decide what gets produced?

They don't- in a capitalist community.
So why should workers do so in the socialist one?



Yes, but why do you think that the people who actually do the work don't know how to do that?

And why do you say they do?


Society says 'we need 2,000 cars by the end of the year'. Engineering Works One says 'OK we can make you 1,000, you'll have to get the rest from somewhere else,

Yep-- the engineers explaining the limits of what they can produce- given the existing production conditions.


or maybe put extra resources into developing the Works here, more machines and sheds and some workers and whatnot'. Society says 'No problem, we can do all those things.

Sure- maybe society says this. Then society has to decide whether those resources are more valuable in the production of cars than in some other needed item.


Oh, these cars, they need to be quite big'. Engineering Works One says 'no problem'. Society says 'they need to be able to go underwater'. Engineering Works One says 'not sure that's possible, can we build these 1,000 like Toyota Landcruisers first, while you research how to make a submacar?'. Society says, 'oh OK, that seems like a good plan'.

As above.


Seems pretty straightforward to me. Apart from the fact that whoever suggested building something currently impossible really hadn't thought it through.

Not thought it through from what direction? Why can't society simply order "research" into submacar?

[Blake's Baby]

This has nothing to do with it. You keep harking back to the same thing-- and then denying its implications...

Of course it has. You say capitalism is better because people die in poverty so that other people can develop new phones, and that means people must want to die in shacks for other people's phones, because capitalism is about fulfilling wants. That is exactly your argument, and as long as you continue to make it, I'm going to continue to call you out on the stupidity of it.






...

Nope, that won't wash. Unless there is an instantaneous worldwide revolt, the socialist community is going to have to accept that they will, fr some period of time, function alongside a capitalist one. Saying such a situation is impossible because such communities are NOT socialist, makes no sense. Socialism has to start somewhere. And rationing can certainly be fairly argued as a blow against the possibilities of socialism...

I agree that there will be a period when revolutionary territories and reactionary territories exist side-by-side, it's the description of revolutionary territories as 'socialist' that I'm disputing.

'Socialism has to start somewhere' - yes, Earth. The planet will be socialist or it will not be socialist. Socialism involves the conscious suppression by the working class of the existing social conditions. If those social conditions have not been suppressed - if there are still states and classes and property - then there is not 'socialism'.




...

They wouldn't. Which is why in a capitalist community people FRELY choose to farm. In the socialist community...? Maybe some would, or perhaps some would judge it rather disgusting work and thus open to 'rotation.'...

If it's decided by society to organise farming like that then what's your problem?




...
OK-- based upon what? ...

I don't understand the question. I said that may need to be a regional planning body. You said 'based on what'. Based on the region? based on planning? based on the people in the region deciding how they are going to co-ordinate production? As your question is vague, the answers must be vague.




...

And if you can't have both...?

I curse capitalism for not providing for my wants and needs, contrary to you assertions that capitalism provides everything we want.




Confusing. "above" is all about people not being able to do both A and B...

Is that not what you're asking about?

How much simpler can I make this, do you think? People chose whether A, or B, or a little of both, in such situations where 'all of A' and 'all of B' are not possible. It's not up to me to decide in advance on what basis those choices are made, or how the processes for making those choices will be set up. We're not in the business of providing blueprints for the perfect society.




They don't- in a capitalist community...

I'm sorry, think about what you are saying here. You are directly claiming that corporations do not decide what gets produced. I'll just say that again: you are claiming that corporations do not decide what gets produced.

It's against forum rules to suggest that another forum user has a neurological imparement causing faults with cognition and reasoning; so instead I shall have to say, we appear to be using words from the same language, but I cannot discern any meaning behind what you are saying. You are claiming that corporations do not make decisions about what gets produced.

I'm really not sure how you think production happens. Perhaps fridges or watches or Nintendo hand-held consoles fall from the sky, like leaves in autumn; perhaps new cars grow slowly underground like potatoes; perhaps Gucci bags and Jimmy Chu shoes are magicked into existence by pixies.


...
So why should workers do so in the socialist one?

Again - society decides what is produced (determines what the material needs are); the workers organised at the point of production decide how it is produced (as they are the ones with the knowledge of production process).



...
And why do you say they do?


Because they do. People who work on a process know that process better than people who don't work on that process. Why should people who don't know how to fish, tell people who do know how to fish, how to fish?

Much better if the people who don't know how to fish say 'we need some fish to eat, about 50 should do' and the people who know to fish say 'yeah, that should take us about 2 hours, if 5 of you come with us to the lake and do what you're told, we could do it in an hour'.

That's the point. Those who know how the production process works should control the production process; those who need things should decide what is produced.


...
Yep-- the engineers explaining the limits of what they can produce- given the existing production conditions.



Sure- maybe society says this. Then society has to decide whether those resources are more valuable in the production of cars than in some other needed item...

And? All societies must make decisions about what its prorities are. This is part of the 'determining social needs' thing. Need = 2000 cars; need = 10 boats; available resources = enough for 2000 cars OR 10 boats OR some compromise position of some cars and some boats on a ratio of 20:1. Is 1000 cars and 5 boats better than 1400 cars and 3 boats? Is it better to invest in expanding production now, even though it's essentially for a one-off, or get the extra resources from outside the system (go to another community and try to get some cars from them, let's say). Is it better to wait for the cars, because the boats are more important? Is it better just to have two boats (because it's vital that there's a working boat at all times) and produce more cars more quickly,building the other 3 boats next year, etc? These things will need to be decided. What is the problem?




...

Not thought it through from what direction? Why can't society simply order "research" into submacar?

It can decide that research into a submacar is a thing to put resources into. It can't order a submacar. If 'research into a submacar' is a socially-defined need, then resources will be put into it. That's the point. Society as a whole will make decisions about the 'investment of social product'. Social wealth will be put the uses that society determines, not the uses a few individuals or boards of corporations decide. I suspect 'research for research's sake' will be a socially-defined need. We need technological advancement, I'd argue. I'm no technophobe. I take it as axiomatic that knowledge is inherently a social good. But asking an engineering works to produce something that hasn't been invented is a ridiculous thing.

[Baseball]

Of course it has. You say capitalism is better because people die in poverty so that other people can develop new phones, and that means people must want to die in shacks for other people's phones, because capitalism is about fulfilling wants. That is exactly your argument, and as long as you continue to make it, I'm going to continue to call you out on the stupidity of it.

Nope. My argument is since socialism insists upon certain distribution issues first and foremost, its production thus its progress will be slowed.
And all of humanity suffers because of it.





It's not up to me to decide in advance on what basis those choices are made, or how the processes for making those choices will be set up. We're not in the business of providing blueprints for the perfect society.

So after a month, the answer remains the same-- you cannnot quantify exactly what is socialist "logic."





I'm sorry, think about what you are saying here. You are directly claiming that corporations do not decide what gets produced. I'll just say that again: you are claiming that corporations do not decide what gets produced.

That is correct. The market decides.



I'm really not sure how you think production happens. Perhaps fridges or watches or Nintendo hand-held consoles fall from the sky, like leaves in autumn; perhaps new cars grow slowly underground like potatoes; perhaps Gucci bags and Jimmy Chu shoes are magicked into existence by pixies.

Nope. It happens because the capitalist responds to needs. Production is adjusted and directed in a quest to best satisfy those needs




Again - society decides what is produced (determines what the material needs are); the workers organised at the point of production decide how it is produced (as they are the ones with the knowledge of production process).

the weakness there is that the best way to produce goods may not, will not be stationary. So there will still need to be mechanisms (ie "logic") to inform the workers whether their decisions about the best way to produce those goods, are in fact true.




Because they do. People who work on a process know that process better than people who don't work on that process. Why should people who don't know how to fish, tell people who do know how to fish, how to fish?

The question of how to fish is different from the question of whether the fishing undertaken is in fact productive, benefical, worthwhile ect ect ect.




That's the point. Those who know how the production process works should control the production process; those who need things should decide what is produced.

And as your note indicated, the "logic" involves someone telling someone else what they must do. Of course the question remains, why should I, who want fish, be compelled to fish? Why doesn't society simply figure out a way to supply sufficient fishing labor without instituting some sort of draft?



And? All societies must make decisions about what its prorities are. This is part of the 'determining social needs' thing. Need = 2000 cars; need = 10 boats; available resources = enough for 2000 cars OR 10 boats OR some compromise position of some cars and some boats on a ratio of 20:1. Is 1000 cars and 5 boats better than 1400 cars and 3 boats? Is it better to invest in expanding production now, even though it's essentially for a one-off, or get the extra resources from outside the system (go to another community and try to get some cars from them, let's say). Is it better to wait for the cars, because the boats are more important? Is it better just to have two boats (because it's vital that there's a working boat at all times) and produce more cars more quickly,building the other 3 boats next year, etc? These things will need to be decided. What is the problem?

The "logic" my man. What is the "logic" undertaken in making these choices? A vote? That is not an answer. What is the basis, what is the "logic" involved by the folks voting?






It can decide that research into a submacar is a thing to put resources into. It can't order a submacar. If 'research into a submacar' is a socially-defined need, then resources will be put into it. That's the point.


Yes. But the bigger point remains... at the cost of not researching something else. What is the "logic" involved in making that decision?

[Blake's Baby]

Nope. My argument is since socialism insists upon certain distribution issues first and foremost, its production thus its progress will be slowed.
And all of humanity suffers because of it...

Your argument is that capitalism is efficient because peoople die so that others can (maybe) have phones. 'All humanity' suffers because 1/3 of the planet is 2 meals from starvation. 'All humanity' suffers because resources are directed into making aprofit for a few not everyone.





...

So after a month, the answer remains the same-- you cannnot quantify exactly what is socialist "logic."

I know what socialist logic is. You just don't understand it. The logic is that decisions are taken by the people that those decisions affect. Understand?






...
That is correct. The market decides.

'The market' is not a conscious thing, it makes no decisions. It is a forum for a large number of decisions to be taken. The boards and managers of corporations take decisions based on their understanding of the market. If you actually believe that 'the market decides' then I have to say you are an idiot.




...
Nope. It happens because the capitalist responds to needs. Production is adjusted and directed in a quest to best satisfy those needs...

So, the need for food for strving people or shelter for those without, is not responded to, whereas the 'need' for a 3G phone is. This demonstrates rather that you're talking shit.






the weakness there is that the best way to produce goods may not, will not be stationary. So there will still need to be mechanisms (ie "logic") to inform the workers whether their decisions about the best way to produce those goods, are in fact true...

Yeah? Why is this a problem? 'Firms' will no longer compete so developments in technique will be rapidly deseminated. The workers themselves have no real interest in working harder than they need to, so they will find more efficient ways of working.




...

The question of how to fish is different from the question of whether the fishing undertaken is in fact productive, benefical, worthwhile ect ect ect. ...

If fish are required, the provision of fish is worthwhile. That's the point.





...
And as your note indicated, the "logic" involves someone telling someone else what they must do. Of course the question remains, why should I, who want fish, be compelled to fish? Why doesn't society simply figure out a way to supply sufficient fishing labor without instituting some sort of draft?

'Telling someone else what they must do'. Hmm. Not so sure.

Look at is this way. Does wishing for fish make them appear? If you want fish, someone has to fiind them. Fish do not appear without effort. If people want things, they have to work for them. Or work for something else, on the principle that I'm catching fish for you, while you're growing tomatoes for me. But someone has to do the work. If our community decides we need x-tonnes of fish a year, and 20 people in our community know how to fish, then what's wrong with them trying to provide those x-tonnes? If people don't know how to fish but can be taught to gut and pack fish then they can help in that part of the process allowing those of us who know ho to fish to concentrate on that. really can't see a problem here.



...

The "logic" my man. What is the "logic" undertaken in making these choices? A vote? That is not an answer. What is the basis, what is the "logic" involved by the folks voting?
...

The logic will change with every situation. In our community (we're on an island, but one big enough to have roads) we need boats and cars. Some of us think that we need to build the boats first. Some think that we'd be better of concentrating resources on the jeeps we need for going into the interior. A third group thinks that the best way forward is to build some boats and some cars - we can all see that in fact this makes most sense so we variously put our points of view as to what the best course of action is - two boats and 1600 cars, five boats and 1000 cars, six boats and 800 cars or whatever. And we come to a decision based on a discussion of the circumstances. What other logic is there?







...
Yes. But the bigger point remains... at the cost of not researching something else. What is the "logic" involved in making that decision?

The logic is, do we want to do it? Yes - good, we do it/no - we don't do it.

[Prinskaj]

You still need to describe what "work together" means- as per socialist "logic."
What? Working together means exactly what it has always meant, figuring out a solution which works best for both parties.
This could be open discussing, sharing of information, democratic voting, researching new ways to solve the problem or what ever floats your boat.
I don't see what so hard to grasp about this concept, we do this on a daily basis on an individual level with our friends, families and many times co-worker/students. So why can't this be extended into the mode of production?

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2520383]Your argument is that capitalism is efficient because peoople die so that others can (maybe) have phones. 'All humanity' suffers because 1/3 of the planet is 2 meals from starvation. 'All humanity' suffers because resources are directed into making aprofit for a few not everyone.

Doing the same old-- denouncing capitalism- but it remains no proof of socialism







I know what socialist logic is. You just don't understand it. The logic is that decisions are taken by the people that those decisions affect. Understand?

Of course-- how much of a vote do I get in the production of nail clippers- got to cut my nails.
Blake-- we are talking millions of people here, not some fictitious island somewhere.





'The market' is not a conscious thing, it makes no decisions. It is a forum for a large number of decisions to be taken. The boards and managers of corporations take decisions based on their understanding of the market. If you actually believe that 'the market decides' then I have to say you are an idiot.

Yes-- the market is what controls those actions. Errors in reading and understanding the market results in problems for the capitalist.




So, the need for food for strving people or shelter for those without, is not responded to, whereas the 'need' for a 3G phone is. This demonstrates rather that you're talking shit.

So now your argument is that all progress has to be equal. How marvelous.





Yeah? Why is this a problem? 'Firms' will no longer compete so developments in technique will be rapidly deseminated. The workers themselves have no real interest in working harder than they need to, so they will find more efficient ways of working.

Measured how? Seriously. Total Output? Output per worker? use of resources? ect ect. Maybe/maybe not.



I
f fish are required, the provision of fish is worthwhile. That's the point.

yes-- if the labor involved in fishing is worth the return of fish, there will people willing to fish.
But again, its called a profit. If the labor involved in fishing is not worth the return, then no fishing. Its not profitable.
In other words, production for profit has to be an aim of the socialist community as well as for a capitalist community.



Look at is this way. Does wishing for fish make them appear? If you want fish, someone has to fiind them. Fish do not appear without effort. If people want things, they have to work for them. Or work for something else, on the principle that I'm catching fish for you, while you're growing tomatoes for me. But someone has to do the work. If our community decides we need x-tonnes of fish a year, and 20 people in our community know how to fish, then what's wrong with them trying to provide those x-tonnes? If people don't know how to fish but can be taught to gut and pack fish then they can help in that part of the process allowing those of us who know ho to fish to concentrate on that. really can't see a problem here.

If its valuable for the community- sure. Its profitable. It brings wealth to the community. But if just that tomato farmer wanted fish, and nobody else, ought the communicaty allocate labor for fishing?





The logic will change with every situation. In our community (we're on an island, but one big enough to have roads) we need boats and cars. Some of us think that we need to build the boats first. Some think that we'd be better of concentrating resources on the jeeps we need for going into the interior. A third group thinks that the best way forward is to build some boats and some cars - we can all see that in fact this makes most sense so we variously put our points of view as to what the best course of action is - two boats and 1600 cars, five boats and 1000 cars, six boats and 800 cars or whatever. And we come to a decision based on a discussion of the circumstances. What other logic is there?

The "logic" can't change with every situation. But if that's the case, then it must be also be true that the "logic" of the interior will change with every situation they encounter-- which makes the "logic" of the island absurd.

[Baseball]

What? Working together means exactly what it has always meant, figuring out a solution which works best for both parties.
This could be open discussing, sharing of information, democratic voting, researching new ways to solve the problem or what ever floats your boat.
I don't see what so hard to grasp about this concept, we do this on a daily basis on an individual level with our friends, families and many times co-worker/students. So why can't this be extended into the mode of production?

Obviously, for socialism, working together cannot mean "whatever floats your boat."

[RedMaterialist]

Obviously, for socialism, working together cannot mean "whatever floats your boat."

Working together also means workers getting together and deporting the capitalists.