Capitalist Dogma

[Positivist]

Two connected but basically separate assertions made by libertarians are:

"Sales data best communicates what the general population wants, and the opportunity for profit induces specific groups of people to satisfy these wants."

I single these out because they penetrate to the heart of the common myth that; "Capitalism is imperfect but it is the only system that works" with 'works' in this context meaning "delivers appropriate goods in sufficient supply to the general population so that the system does not inwardly collapse."

I have my own refutations to these, but I'd like to see what other people have to say on them first, and if any capitalists wish to elaborate and expand on the validity of them.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I would argue that markets are too important to be left to the capitalists. Markets predated capitalism and quite possibly will exist after its passing.

[danyboy27]

"Sales data best communicates what the general population wants, and the opportunity for profit induces specific groups of people to satisfy these wants."

sales data does not necessarly represent the real need of a given population for the fallowing reasons:

1.publicists with sophisticated mean can trick peoples into buying something that is not really needed.

2.high sales figure of a thing dosnt reflect societal need for it in any way. if you got millions of people hungry in a particular area it dosnt matter if a small slice of the elite there want to buy a ton of Xbox for their families and friends, ressources would be better spent on infrastructures in order to allow the population to thrive.

Market are usually doing verry poor job at fufilling needs, mainly beccause it will disregard anything not aimed at making a short term profit.

Its the state that is keeping capitalism together, not the market.

[Polaris]

"Sales data best communicates what the general population wants,
Sales data does not best communicate what the 'general population' wants. Danyboy pretty much hit it, but I will elaborate. The sales data best communicates
a) What the people with the money to make purchases want. For example, a high demand for the next gen iPod only shows that those who can afford to spend a few hundred dollars want an iPod; it does not consider whether someone without that kind of money wants an iPod.

b) What people can afford to buy. For example, if generic brand cereal (eg Fruity Os) sells better than name brand cereal (eg Fruit Loops), this does not mean that more people actually want the generic brand, but instead suggests that either the population is too poor to afford name brand cereal or would rather spend their money on something other than what is perceived as 'higher quality' cereal.

c) What products have the best advertising/brainwashing departments or are 'endorsed' by certain demographics (sorry, did not know how to phrase that). Take Starbucks for example. Even though their prices are highway robbery, people still go there because of the 'status' associated with it. Also, take Old Spice, whose commercial became so (in?)famous that it hardly matters what the quality of their products is like, consumers would buy them just for their marketing.

This argument would only be valid if everyone had an unlimited amount of money to spend on whatever they like, and there were no persuasion techniques/social status associated with products. And obviously neither is true in capitalism. On the other hand, in a communist society goods would be 'free' in a sense, and I suspect there would be a lot less advertising, if any (?). Thus, the communist equivalent of "sales data," (which would of course be how much of a product is actually consumed by the population) would be a much more accurate representation of "what the general population actually wants," than actual sales data today.

So not only is this argument invalid and can be refuted easily, but can actually be turned around to work in your favor.


and the opportunity for profit induces specific groups of people to satisfy these wants."
Yes, and these specific groups of people are generally greedy people who could care less about "satisfying these wants," and instead only care about "the opportunity for profit." This means they will do anything to increase profit and get your money. And so a want in the US for iPods gets outsourced to China, where desperate workers are treated as if they are less than shit and suicides become so common that the factory actually puts up 'suicide nets.'


I single these out because they penetrate to the heart of the common myth that; "Capitalism is imperfect but it is the only system that works" with 'works' in this context meaning "delivers appropriate goods in sufficient supply to the general population so that the system does not inwardly collapse."
Why don't you go tell those who can't afford treatment for their excruciating disease, or are forced to work for almost nothing but have no other choice in order to support their family, or are dying of starvation due to exploitation in countries all over the world that capitalism "delivers appropriate goods in sufficient supply to the general population."

[Fakeblock]

I would argue that markets are too important to be left to the capitalists. Markets predated capitalism and quite possibly will exist after its passing.

Well, merchant capitalism is the basis of industrial capitalism. How exactly could post-capitalist markets function in a socialist way and how extensive could they be? Would sale of labour-power, for instance, be prohibited or would it be illegal to make further profit by reselling the product?

The role of the market is not to allocate resources where they are needed or to fulfill the needs of the buyer, but to deliver profit to the seller. I don't really see how a system based on commodity production and exchange for profit could function in a non-capitalistic way.

[Positivist]

I generally agree with the responses here, and would like to see the contributions continue, though if at all possible I would like to read the thoughts of some capitalist sympathizers and more focus on the opportunity for profit.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Would a market socialist or mutualist anarchist do? ;)


I generally agree with the responses here, and would like to see the contributions continue, though if at all possible I would like to read the thoughts of some capitalist sympathizers and more focus on the opportunity for profit.

[Baseball]

Sales data does not best communicate what the 'general population' wants. Danyboy pretty much hit it, but I will elaborate. The sales data best communicates
a) What the people with the money to make purchases want. For example, a high demand for the next gen iPod only shows that those who can afford to spend a few hundred dollars want an iPod; it does not consider whether someone without that kind of money wants an iPod.


Sure it does. It considers that such people would prefer to use their money to purchase other services.



b) What people can afford to buy. For example, if generic brand cereal (eg Fruity Os) sells better than name brand cereal (eg Fruit Loops), this does not mean that more people actually want the generic brand, but instead suggests that either the population is too poor to afford name brand cereal or would rather spend their money on something other than what is perceived as 'higher quality' cereal.


And...



c) What products have the best advertising/brainwashing departments or are 'endorsed' by certain demographics (sorry, did not know how to phrase that). Take Starbucks for example. Even though their prices are highway robbery, people still go there because of the 'status' associated with it. Also, take Old Spice, whose commercial became so (in?)famous that it hardly matters what the quality of their products is like, consumers would buy them just for their marketing.


This critique suggests people are easily manipulated. But, if true, doesn't that suggest a weakness of socialism, which after all, supposedly requires greater power and authority placed in the hands of people?



On the other hand, in a communist society goods would be 'free' in a sense,

In what "sense" is that?



and I suspect there would be a lot less advertising, if any (?). Thus, the communist equivalent of "sales data," (which would of course be how much of a product is actually consumed by the population) would be a much more accurate representation of "what the general population actually wants," than actual sales data today.


What people wanted yesterday, is more accurate to say.
And who cares what people wanted then? What matters is what people want tomorrow, which, as you concede, does not concern the socialist.

[liberlict]

I would argue that markets are too important to be left to the capitalists. Markets predated capitalism and quite possibly will exist after its passing.

I find this very interesting. How do you imagine post-capitalist markets functioning?

[Polaris]

Sure it does. It considers that such people would prefer to use their money to purchase other services.
No. This would only work if said person bought something else of about the same price instead of an iPod-- for example, an android. But I am specifically referring not to this, but to a situation where either a person has no money at all, or has so little money that all of it must be allocated to necessities of life. I would not say that the purchase of these necessities means that they prefer them over an iPod-- it means that they prefer to remain alive over an iPod. Additionally, just because they don't have any money doesn't make their "want" for an iPod disappear-- but sales data does not show their opinion of wanting an iPod, since they didn't buy one.

My specific argument stands on the use of the word "want," and more importantly, "general population," in the original post. Wanting something is a state of mind that (for the most part*) is unaffected by whether or not you can afford to buy something.

But even more essential is the use of the word "general population." According to a dictionary, general means "affecting or concerning all or most," while population used in this sense is the total amount of people in an area. So for sales data to show what the general population wants, it has to include the thoughts and opinions of all or most of the population. I don't know whether this was being used to mean the general population of a small area, a state/province, a country, or the world, but not matter which I can guarantee that there will always be a product which monetarily wise is out the reach of the general population, that is most or all of the population.

Maybe an iPod wasn't the best example, so let's switch to wine with gold flecks. Maybe there is a billionaire who is just absolutely enamored with this wine, so they purchase a lot of it, resulting in sales data being interpreted as showing a high demand for it. In this case, although the high demand does show that someone wants weird gold wine, it does not shows that the general population wants it**; it only shows that one eccentric rich person does.

* I say for the most part because people tend to want things that they know they can't have, so it is likely that those who cannot afford luxuries may want them more than those who can.

**It, in fact, doesn't show neither that they want it or don't want it. It is possible no one bought it because they didn't like it, but, considering the expensive nature of the wine, it is more likely that although they may have wanted it, they didn't purchase it because they could not afford it; whereas the billionaire can afford both the necessities of life and the golden wine. Reading my post was making my head hurt, so I can only imagine what it does/did to others; it didn't feel right to get rid of that wall of text so I just did this. Feel free to use it as you see fit.

Summary:
Yes, to an extent. In the case I was specifically referring to (a person with little or no money) this just shows that the person would prefer to use their money on necessities in order to remain with the living instead of spending their money on a luxury. Imo, although both can be considered 'wants' according to Positivist's explanation below as both can cause happiness, they are not comparable.

Also, someone in the aforementioned situation may still 'want' an item just as much as someone with the extra $ to actually buy one does, and unlike what the op suggests, their want of the item is not factored in. It's safe to say that many items are out of reach of the 'general population' yet sales data still shows a high demand for them b/c of their appeal to wealthy people; so for this reason sales data cannot accurately show what the wants of the general population is.
Basically what I'm saying here is that in our capitalist society the wants of those who lack $ are unvoiced, whereas in a communist society everyone's wants would be voiced as goods/services would be in the reach of everyone.

This critique suggests people are easily manipulated. But, if true, doesn't that suggest a weakness of socialism, which after all, supposedly requires greater power and authority placed in the hands of people?
I don't see how the first argument shows that people are easily manipulated. Could you please elaborate?

Oh no, not the spoilers again (below)! I promise it's not as bad this time. Here's a summary:
a) the rulers in societies where authority is not in the hands of people are just as susceptible to this "weakness"
b) Advertising deliberately exploits certain tendencies that most people have (eg setting things to catchy jingles, the want to feel like you belong)
c) If "greater power was placed in the hands of people," then who would there be to manipulate them in the first place?
d) Your use of the phrase "greater power and authority in the hands of people," makes me question your knowledge of socialism with such nebulous terms... are you suggesting that you believe socialism is simply greater government control?
But with the second: I am not saying that all people are generally weak easily manipulated, it is just that advertisement for products deliberately takes advantage of mindsets and tendencies that the majority of the population has. For example, if set something to a nice jingle, people are more likely to remember it. Same goes if you repeat it again and again and again. I'm sure there are some people that don't share these traits or at least do their best to suppress them, but it is safe to say that most people do posses them. Thus, the people in power currently are just as susceptible to this 'weakness,' as the workers are; except in our current system, if someone up top fell prey to propaganda their power over others means that they might 'infect' those below them and that people may be hesitant to call them out on it because of consequences of criticizing officials or others with authority. Whereas in socialism/what post-revolutionary society have you, if someone was brainwashed, there would be plenty of people unafraid to attempt to show them the error of their ways.

This 'manipulability' is actually quite irrelevant to socialism/communism/etc. as who would be manipulating the workers if the workers had power? And if your answer is another worker who hopes to manipulate society in their own favor, then you would have hit the nail on the head for why many people (mainly anarchists, there might be others) reject the DoTP (that refers to worker control of the state) in favor of (at least for anarchists) abolishing the state altogether. If your thinking more along the lines of a remnant of the bourgeoisie, then I highly doubt anyone would fall for that assuming the conditions after the revolution were for the most part better than before the revolution.

To my interpretation your argument is saying that because people are easily manipulated they need people who have authority over them to manipulate them. This makes no sense, as it is the people who have power over them who manipulate them so if there is no one who has power over them then they wouldn't be manipulated in the first place.
In what "sense" is that?
Well assuming we are referring to a communist society, most would say that goods would all be completely free. There are probably some people who feel that having systems like labor credits/vouchers, rationing, etc. would be necessary*, although it was my understanding that these tend to be oriented towards a socialist society and are phased out as time goes by.

*NB although technically you could not say that such a society's goods are free, this is quite different from money as they are based on labor time/other factors (eg working in hazardous conditions...) Add. some support a system where basics are free but other items you have to use labor credits to get.
The reason I used the word "sense," in that sentence is just because it felt weird to say that things are free when everything is free; the concept of things being free only exists if there are things that aren't free. Also, the word free tends to mainly be used in the context of money, which of course would not exist in a communist society; so again, it just felt weird to use it. Sorry for the confusion.
I wish I could post links, but anyway if you search "Obtaining commodities in a communist society" on this website with the quotation marks it'll be the second thread down. Basically it says that in a communist society you just take what you want. So in the sense that you in no way have to pay for the goods you take, they are free.
What people wanted yesterday, is more accurate to say. And who cares what people wanted then? What matters is what people want tomorrow, which, as you concede, does not concern the socialist.
If this is true, then sales data in a capitalist society is just as useless.
Generally there are trends in what is consumed; of course there are exceptions, which is why common sense would be used (eg people would only choose to produce fireworks near holidays). How do you propose what people want/need tomorrow is figured out? A prophet?

How in the world did I concede that what people want tomorrow does not concern the socialist? I was operating on the premises in the op that sales data shows what the general population wants. As sales data is also from the past, it seemed est. that past records of what have been consumed were useful to predict what will be consumed in the future/ what will be wanted in the future. In a communist society, someone wouldn't produce something that they didn't think anyone would want when they were finished, as most people would agree that that is a waste of their time. Someone who is a master of building fireworks would have the common sense to only make them only around when they think the demand will be high (ie, holidays).

How did I concede that what people want tomorrow does not concern the socialist? The only way I see that you could is if you interpreted my statement to mean that what was consumed in past is exactly what will be produced in the future. That is not what I meant at all; the original post's question said that sales data was an accurate way to tell what people wanted, I said it wasn't, and also said that "sales data" would be more accurate if everyone could just get whatever they want. Apologies if I did not address this properly, but I really do not know how you reached that conclusion.

[Positivist]

As I see some confusion concerning the concept of "communicating the wants of the general population," I will elaborate.

I am operating on the common economic assumption that people want what is good for them, and thus that situations where people's wants are satisfied result in the greatest possible human happiness. Further then, whichever economic system most effectively communicates the wants of the people and sees to their satisfaction is the best possible economic system. Keeping this in mind I have presented two assertions which are often used in support of the notion that capitalism (or market economies in general) is the best possible economic arrangement.

[Dave cook]

Two connected but basically separate assertions made by libertarians are:

"Sales data best communicates what the general population wants, and the opportunity for profit induces specific groups of people to satisfy these wants."

I single these out because they penetrate to the heart of the common myth that; "Capitalism is imperfect but it is the only system that works" with 'works' in this context meaning "delivers appropriate goods in sufficient supply to the general population so that the system does not inwardly collapse."

I have my own refutations to these, but I'd like to see what other people have to say on them first, and if any capitalists wish to elaborate and expand on the validity of them.


I think the idea is that high prices encourage production as producers attempt to cash in on whatever's in demand at that particular moment in time. Leftists call this 'greed', but capitalists point out that an increase in production reduces scarcity, increases aggregate wealth and also lowers prices as the market becomes saturated with supply. Lower prices obviously benefit the poor and vulnerable.

[Popular Front of Judea]

In a sentence the task is to socialize large investment decisions while leaving day to day allocation of goods to the market. Alec Nove's book 'The Economics of Feasible Socialism' is the classic work on the subject.


I find this very interesting. How do you imagine post-capitalist markets functioning?

[Popular Front of Judea]

There's a fair amount of linguistic confusion on this thread. Are we discussing 'capitalism' here or market allocation of goods? Let's go to the dictionary shall we?:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

source (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism)

Note that there are three components to that definition, only one of which is the market. ('Free' markets don't actually exist in the real world but let's move on' shall we.):


1)"private or corporate ownership of capital goods"

2) "investments that are determined by private decision"

3) "distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a "free" market

I assume we are talking about market allocation of goods in this thread. Having looked at the alternatives such as Parecon or rationing I would put my vote in for the market.

Yes markets only function if you have money. So the solution is to provide money to those who lack money. Income transfer payments, vouchers and programs like food stamps are all means to this end. Personally I am a fan of a guaranteed basic income -- but that's another thread.

[Positivist]

I think the idea is that high prices encourage production as producers attempt to cash in on whatever's in demand at that particular moment in time. Leftists call this 'greed', but capitalists point out that an increase in production reduces scarcity, increases aggregate wealth and also lowers prices as the market becomes saturated with supply. Lower prices obviously benefit the poor and vulnerable.

I have never encountered this argument before. The more common theory on prices amongst capitalists is that they reflect the supply-demand ratio of a particular good, and are ultimately set according to what is simultaneously profitable and competitive (with this happy medium elucidating the nature of this item's supply and demand.)

[Lowtech]

I would argue that markets are too important to be left to the capitalists. Markets predated capitalism and quite possibly will exist after its passing.

you're making the assumption that people will never out grow inefficient and disorganized production.


As I see some confusion concerning the concept of "communicating the wants of the general population," I will elaborate.

I am operating on the common economic assumption that people want what is good for them,people do want what's good for them, but people who are assimilated into capitalism must choose from what is "on the shelf." capitalism produces those choices or commodities. these commodities are designed for exchange value not use value. also these commodities are sold at a profit so no matter what people choose to buy, they are still subjected to artificial scarcity.
and thus that situations where people's wants are satisfied result in the greatest possible human happiness. the problem is this doesn't happen in capitalism as commodities are designed to maximize profit rather than to meet a need.
Further then, whichever economic system most effectively communicates the wants of the people and sees to their satisfaction is the best possible economic system.absolutely, however when you have the interests of the individual and interests of "business owners/capitalists" and the business owner's wants being met are contingent on how many people they can derive economic value from, such a "system" can never satisfy the needs of everyone, only the needs of those who have derived enough economic value from others. also, do not confuse "markets" with "distributed computing." decentralized computing systems do not resemble markets at all and the way markets "function" would not be conducive to performance expected from decentralized computing.
Keeping this in mind I have presented two assertions which are often used in support of the notion that capitalism (or market economies in general) is the best possible economic arrangement.where this assumption breaks is that capitalism is not a system of economics, being that the real economic process is the processing of raw resources into usable materials and items, with this basic process not requiring markets, money nor the rich. therefore the economic subjugation the rich impose on the rest of humanity is economically invalid.
In a sentence the task is to socialize large investment decisions while leaving day to day allocation of goods to the market. Alec Nove's book 'The Economics of Feasible Socialism' is the classic work on the subject.

it is a myth that markets "allocate." resources are now moved and utilized for the purpose of deriving economic value from the working class (profit.) real allocation would be "there are x amount of people here, therefore we need x amount of homes, food, energy produced."

need on large scales follows very uniform patterns. the human body has trillions of cells, if the best form of "allocation" were capitalist markets, the human body would have evolved a kind of capitalism among cells. rather, the human body uses energy in a blatantly Marxist sense.
I have never encountered this argument before. The more common theory on prices amongst capitalists is that they reflect the supply-demand ratio of a particular good, and are ultimately set according to what is simultaneously profitable and competitive (with this happy medium elucidating the nature of this item's supply and demand.) supply and demand are market dynamics which are not axioms of economics. further, the capitalist notion of "supply" does not equate to economic value propagated in an economy as money distorts economic value and markets disorganize the use of resources. and "demand" does not equate to need as in "markets" people can only request to buy what is presented to them, and these commodities are designed for exchange value not to meet a need (use value.)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Two connected but basically separate assertions made by libertarians are:

"Sales data best communicates what the general population wants, and the opportunity for profit induces specific groups of people to satisfy these wants."Sales data best communicates sales - the point of capitalist production is to get the best exchange value and so "want" in the abstract or "use value" is secondary to the "exchange value".

People want the "use value" of food, but that tells us little about how food is produced and sold in capitalism - "exchange value" gets us much closer to understanding the rationale behind contemporary production. Food to eat can be produced (and has been produced) in any number of different ways, but the form it takes now is determined by how to achieve the best exchange value. So why "fast food"? Because it solves a number of problems for capitalism and in a way satisfies the "use" (though arguable according to some and the amount of fat while simultaniously undernurished people in society) at the best exchange (high rates of exploitation, highly regimented speedy production).

The whole basis of the argument is a conception of capitalism as based on "supply and demand" and while this is obviously a function of the system, it's not how it ultimately functions at the root - wealth isn't made by meeting abstract suply, it's made by supplying needs/wants at a favorable rate of exchange.


I single these out because they penetrate to the heart of the common myth that; "Capitalism is imperfect but it is the only system that works" with 'works' in this context meaning "delivers appropriate goods in sufficient supply to the general population so that the system does not inwardly collapse."The heart of this myth is just ruling class hegemony. If a caste system is a fact of life, it's hard to imagine how society would work if peasants wern't tied to the land and knights weren't there to stop bandits or whatnot. It's the same in capitalism - we can't imagine how we'd produce without current methods because as induviduals we are alienated from seeing the process as a whole and so commodities seem to appear to us, moved by "an invisible hand"... but really it's just a collective of visible laboring hands that are hidden by the way we have to live in this system.