Capitalism is economically invalid, period.

[Lowtech]

Again, why should we do the most sufficient thing?
Because utilitarianism.

fascinating.

i wasn't familiar with Utilitarianism and consequentialism until you had mentioned it to me. and it is very interesting that it sounds much like my reasoning. however, my reasoning is not based on a belief that "the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility" or that "the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct." my conclusions regarding capitalism come out of direct observation of capitalism. economics is utilitarian in nature, being that people participate in economics due to the need to survive (in contrast, the capitalist, however, participates in order to exploit; they must, as they do not produce any value of their own)

some kind of "consequentialism" has to be used when analyzing something anyway, in order to understand what you are observing. however, i am not testing the "rightness" of capitalism, i am directly observing it's economic function, being that proponents of capitalism legitimize it by excusing it's ill effects and painting a picture of economic subjugation being a necessary evil. i am testing the validity of these notions and so far, none of it holds up.

a breakdown of economics reveals that need creates jobs, not the rich, and market dynamics; "supply and demand" do not equal actual supply (as money distorts value) and demand does not equal to need as commodities, designed for exchange value, can never fully satisfy need, not only because of it's design but also as its reach is diminished when sold at a profit. in addition, market dynamics are not an axiom of economics anyway, as they only exist in markets. and as stated previously, the real economic process does not require markets, money nor the rich.

profit cannot exist without artificial scarcity. our labor cannot be profitable to the rich unless we are paid less than the value of our labor. this is mathematically observable. every aspect of financial economics is based on this. so-called "demand" is inflated based on people from day one being subjected to artificial scarcity (as all things are sold at a profit), they are immediately set at a disadvantage that can only be overcome by working more than economically required. in turn, capitalists attempt to validate profit, calling it a necessary means to satisfy the "need for capital," which as explained, is a condition of artificial scarcity produced by capitalism. so this is circular reasoning.

the assertion that "human nature" validates capitalism is also bogus as we do not require money to understand the merit of our deeds. our true "incentive" is one of innate vitality that is an instinctual and cultural need to improve our own condition and the condition of our families to ensure the highest level of survival.

competition does not validate capitalism either, being that DNA cannot account for the gap in performance capitalists insist makes the rich superior to other humans. additionally, the disproportion of value between those who produce it (workers) and those who consume it (the rich) is much too vast to be explained by competition. the use of the profit mechanism/ownership of assets are the only means capital is accumulated at industrialized levels.

further, value in the real economic process finds it's end of life much quicker than value does in monetary systems. it starts as a raw resource, converted to human usable materials, items or fuel, then expended or transmigrates in a fashion most conducive to the economic infrastructure as a whole, with maximum throughput. the only means to manipulate this process, and produce plutocratic society is to introduce artificial scarcity, or as i call it, the profit mechanism, which is a social construct that allows one to decrease the scarcity one experiences by increasing scarcity artificially for everyone else. obscuring and legitimizing this process is the primary function of money.

simply put, capitalism is an elaborate fiction that the rich use to economically subjugated the rest of humanity.

the people that built the pyramids are considered to be "ancient," yet the plutocratic economics that compelled thousands to slave away to build the pyramids is still out in force today.

[Remus Bleys]

Well, yes.
And this is a very compelling article, and I agree full heartedly with you.
Capitalism is an inefficient system, the only truly sufficient one should be communism.
My point however, was that at it's very base, arguing that capitalism should be abolished because how inefficient it is, and that a truly efficient economy is communism, and therefore arguing for communism to be established, is a form of utilitarianism.
In theory, communism is the most efficient. Capitalism is a plutocratic parasite. But that is not enough to say we need communism without at least some base of morality or ethics, you see?

[Vireya]

I don't see how you make an advanced industrial economic operate without a market or a medium of exchange (aka currency in some form). With those we'd be back to bartering with raw goods and resources, something that isn't compatible with a developed society.

The only way you could operate like that is for the community to be incredibly small. It'd be like sending humanity back 1000 years. No way a technologically modern civilization could work like that.

(Note: I'm not using "market" as a stand in for capitalism, they are two separate constructs.)

[Fakeblock]

Well, yes.
And this is a very compelling article, and I agree full heartedly with you.
Capitalism is an inefficient system, the only truly sufficient one should be communism.
My point however, was that at it's very base, arguing that capitalism should be abolished because how inefficient it is, and that a truly efficient economy is communism, and therefore arguing for communism to be established, is a form of utilitarianism.
In theory, communism is the most efficient. Capitalism is a plutocratic parasite. But that is not enough to say we need communism without at least some base of morality or ethics, you see?

It's pointless to judge a mode of production by its efficiency. Efficiency would imply that the system has a purpose that it can't fulfill. The current economic system does exactly what it's supposed to do, delivers profit to the capitalists. In that respect it's a 100 times more efficient than a classless society could ever be.
It's much more useful to see the question in terms of class interest. Converting private property into common property is in the class interest of the proletariat and so we, as communists, support it.

[Remus Bleys]

It's pointless to judge a mode of production by its efficiency. Efficiency would imply that the system has a purpose that it can't fulfill. The current economic system does exactly what it's supposed to do, delivers profit to the capitalists. In that respect it's a 100 times more efficient than a classless society could ever be.
It's much more useful to see the question in terms of class interest. Converting private property into common property is in the class interest of the proletariat and so we, as communists, support it.
Why do we support whats in the proletariat's interest? Because we are proletariats, therefore the answer is egoism. If not, then it is against our own class interests, and you oppose capitalism from again, a moral or ethical standpoint.

[Fakeblock]

Yeah, but my point was just that efficiency is vague and a pretty useless starting point for revolutionary theory. Speaking of efficiency vs. inefficiency, rather than bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, of systems ignores the class dynamics of society, it makes it seem like society has a universal interest in efficiency. But efficiency is relative, so judging by objective class interests is much more useful.

I wasn't talking about morals, just to be clear.

[Sotionov]

As I've alread explained:

Saying that morality doesn't exist, and that people should disregard morality itself- is nonsensical, literally no one can be void of ethical views. Every "ought" statement is an ethical statement. Take for example statments that capitalism should be abolished and socialism should be established. If you ask the question "why" a few times, you are bound to get to some form of ethical theory. Talking about justice, hierarchy, suffering, poverty, survival, well-being, efficiency, those are all ethical appeals.

Ethical theories are grouped into virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism. Anyone saying that capitalism is unjust or inhumane or similar- talks about virtue ethics; anyone talking about wrongness of oppression and exploitation (etc) in themselves talks about deontology, anyone talking about bad consequences of capitalism and good consequences of socialism is talking about some from of consequentionalism.

There is a bunch of ethical theories falling into those three categories, e.g. in virtue theory you have aristotelianism, stoicism, epicureanism, situational ethics, ethics of care, various justice theories etc; in deontology you have kantianism, divine command theories, natural rights theories, contractarianist theories, deontological voluntaryism, deontological anarchism, in consequentialism you have utilitarianism, egoism, altruism, prioritarianism, and they all have different versions, e.g. utilitarianism has literally more then a dozen types.

[Lowtech]

Well, yes.
And this is a very compelling article, and I agree full heartedly with you.
Capitalism is an inefficient system, the only truly sufficient one should be communism.
My point however, was that at it's very base, arguing that capitalism should be abolished because how inefficient it is, and that a truly efficient economy is communism, and therefore arguing for communism to be established, is a form of utilitarianism.
In theory, communism is the most efficient. Capitalism is a plutocratic parasite. But that is not enough to say we need communism without at least some base of morality or ethics, you see?yes, it is obvious that capitalism is very inefficient, although my argument isn't solely regarding capitalism's inefficiency, but moreso capitalism's invalidity as an economic system. all social problems today have socioeconomic causes. the drug trade, human trafficing, economic inequality, war, poverty, military industrial complex, social and environmental irresponsibility of corporations, governments corrupted by the private sector. capitalism fails in every aspect, yet we still tolerate morons singing the praises of capitalism.

i find communism not to be theory at all. the real economic process is the processing of raw resources into usable materials and items, so communism is a system closer to the real process of economics. capitalism is a vast manipulation and perversion of this basic process for the sake of creating and perpetuating a plutocratic society.
I don't see how you make an advanced industrial economic operate without a market or a medium of exchange (aka currency in some form). With those we'd be back to bartering with raw goods and resources, something that isn't compatible with a developed society.

The only way you could operate like that is for the community to be incredibly small. It'd be like sending humanity back 1000 years. No way a technologically modern civilization could work like that.

(Note: I'm not using "market" as a stand in for capitalism, they are two separate constructs.)in actuality, markets and capitalism are so intrinsically linked, that you cannot have one without the other. markets foster the sociology of capitalism and capitalism requires a market to facilitate the profit mechanism. in turn, markets require money. all of it of course an elaborate fiction used to obscure and legitimize artificial scarcity (and economic subjugation: wage slavery/poverty). the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items, so there is no reason advanced civilization would need markets, money or the rich.

As I've alread explained:

Saying that morality doesn't exist, and that people should disregard morality itself- is nonsensical, literally no one can be void of ethical views. Every "ought" statement is an ethical statement. Take for example statments that capitalism should be abolished and socialism should be established. If you ask the question "why" a few times, you are bound to get to some form of ethical theory. Talking about justice, hierarchy, suffering, poverty, survival, well-being, efficiency, those are all ethical appeals.

Ethical theories are grouped into virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism. Anyone saying that capitalism is unjust or inhumane or similar- talks about virtue ethics; anyone talking about wrongness of oppression and exploitation (etc) in themselves talks about deontology, anyone talking about bad consequences of capitalism and good consequences of socialism is talking about some from of consequentionalism.

There is a bunch of ethical theories falling into those three categories, e.g. in virtue theory you have aristotelianism, stoicism, epicureanism, situational ethics, ethics of care, various justice theories etc; in deontology you have kantianism, divine command theories, natural rights theories, contractarianist theories, deontological voluntaryism, deontological anarchism, in consequentialism you have utilitarianism, egoism, altruism, prioritarianism, and they all have different versions, e.g. utilitarianism has literally more then a dozen types.it is invariably human to contemplate these things.

it is vital to the human condition to understand what hardships are inevitable and what are created out of human frailty; which are fully correctable.

capitalism being the grandest example of human created adversity.

[liberlict]

How are you using "invalid" in this context? Capitalism is obviously valid in some context, maybe a historical one, because it is the dominant system. Maybe you don't like it, but that's not an issue of validity, is it?

[Sotionov]

Lowtech, now that you've come to know about some concepts you didn't know before, do you accept that every case you (or anyone) makes against capitalism is an ethical case? Utilitarianism, a form of which you seem to espouse, generally prides itself in being scientifical and rational, but it undeniable that it is an ethical theory.

[robbo203]

I don't see how you make an advanced industrial economic operate without a market or a medium of exchange (aka currency in some form). With those we'd be back to bartering with raw goods and resources, something that isn't compatible with a developed society.

The only way you could operate like that is for the community to be incredibly small. It'd be like sending humanity back 1000 years. No way a technologically modern civilization could work like that.

(Note: I'm not using "market" as a stand in for capitalism, they are two separate constructs.)

No one is advocating a return to barter. If you want to operate a modern industrial economy on the basis of the basic of market exchange then yes you need a medium of exchange - money - to do that. But this is not what is being advocated either - certainly not by communist. What we advocate is the complete elimination of market exchange by bringing the means of production into common ownershiip. Common or social ownership is incompatible with any kind of market exchange since that implies the mutual exclusivity of property rights pertaining to the buyer and seller in a market transaction who are effectively engaged in exchange of property rights.


Can a non-exchange economy based on the free distribution operate in an advanced industrial society? Of course it can and far more effectively and efficiently that a market economy in which most of what is produced is socially useless . The entire banking system for instance produces nothing whatsoever that meets huiman needs but absorbs incredible amounts of human resources and labour. Banks simply exist to keep the commercial system ticking over


The operational mechanics of a system of communist free distribution give the lie to the now utterly discredited "economic calculation argument" of Von Mises and co if that is what you are getting at...

Check this link

http://socialistcommonwealth.webs.com/socialismagainstcapitalism.htm

[Lowtech]

How are you using "invalid" in this context? Capitalism is obviously valid in some context, maybe a historical one, because it is the dominant system. Maybe you don't like it, but that's not an issue of validity, is it?there are many things i do not like, but you don't have to dislike economic subjugation to observe it's detrimental effect on humanity. observation of capitalism shows it to be invalid. this is not a dislike, this is a fact. what i do dislike, is your annoying tendency to troll while bringing nothing of value to this debate.

it is economically invalid for a group to consume the majority of value while producing no value of their own - it should be obvious to you that if you do not produce value to offset your own consumption, you are dead weight economically and serve as a detriment to everyone else. if the rich came to you and said "give me the majority of your livelihood because i believe myself to be superior to you and i believe you should suffer scarcity because you are the lower class" you would tell them to go fuck themselves, however when the rich manipulate the entire economic process for billions of people in order to manufacturer consent for their ridiculous request, it becomes the most devious charade in the history of mankind.

Lowtech, now that you've come to know about some concepts you didn't know before, do you accept that every case you (or anyone) makes against capitalism is an ethical case? Utilitarianism, a form of which you seem to espouse, generally prides itself in being scientifical and rational, but it undeniable that it is an ethical theory.direct observation of capitalism is not a case against it. the fact of capitalism's failure is now academic. simple observation has made it obvious that every human problem today is created or amplified by plutocratic manipulation of the real economic process.

if you want to invalidate consequentialism-like reasoning in one hand (as you are comparing my reasoning to consequentialism) and respect the validity of science in the other, you're going to need to substantiate the difference between consequentialism and the scientific method. you "let the cat out of the bag" now show us that it's more than simple rhetoric.

[Sotionov]

You haven't even articulated your opinon on why is capitalism bad- why it should be abolished. Please do that first.

[liberlict]

there are many things i do not like, but you don't have to dislike economic subjugation to observe it's detrimental effect on humanity. observation of capitalism shows it to be invalid. this is not a dislike, this is a fact. what i do dislike, is your annoying tendency to troll while bringing nothing of value to this debate.

[B][I]it is economically invalid for a group to consume the majority of value while producing no value of their own

Saying that something is bad is not the same as saying it's "invalid. "

I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understanding your point of view.

Overall, I think I understand the gist of what you're saying, but I don't think "invalid" is the word you're looking for.

[Thirsty Crow]

Saying that something is bad is not the same as saying it's "invalid. "

I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understanding your point of view.

Overall, I think I understand the gist of what you're saying, but I don't think "invalid" is the word you're looking for.
Yeah, actually you're completely right.

The whole point of capitalist production is to make someone else produce the value which is socially consumed (since, I hope, no one would conclude that a capitalist consumes all the tires produced at her tire factory), it is a peculiar, historical way to organize social production (and increasing the degree of the very socialization in question, in relation to feudalism in question; of course, the meaning of the term "socialization" here is radically different from that used in reference to control and de facto ownership of the means of production).


there are many things i do not like, but you don't have to dislike economic subjugation to observe it's detrimental effect on humanity. observation of capitalism shows it to be invalid. this is not a dislike, this is a fact.The assumption here is that the real goal of capitalist production is the production of use values which enables increasing access to the very same use values by ever broader layers of humanity. Needless to say, this is not the case, as the purpose of such production is exchange valueand capital accumulation. It arises from the very way this organization works and has historically taken shape, and is not a product of deliberate human intentions (I haste to add this since the word "purpose" might be misleading here).

[Lowtech]

Saying that something is bad is not the same as saying it's "invalid. "

I'm not trolling, I'm just trying to understanding your point of view.

Overall, I think I understand the gist of what you're saying, but I don't think "invalid" is the word you're looking for.

Fair enough. Assuming youre right, If "invalid" doesn't fit, What would you suggest?

[liberlict]

Fair enough. Assuming youre right, If "invalid" doesn't fit, What would you suggest?

Well I'm feeling your augment as along the lines of 'the rich eat the poor in a capitalist economic system'. So I think 'immoral' , or even 'wrong', would suit. As others have observed, it's an ethical argument you are making. (nothing wrong with that, mind you).

[Lowtech]

Well I'm feeling your augment as along the lines of 'the rich eat the poor in a capitalist economic system'. So I think 'immoral' , or even 'wrong', would suit. As others have observed, it's an ethical argument you are making. (nothing wrong with that, mind you).
how do you come to this conclusion?

the rich do not produce value yet they consume the majority of value and this fact not having a mitigating factor is some how a moral issue?

how so?

i see it as a clear observation of the criminality of capitalism.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]a breakdown of economics reveals that [B]need creates jobs,

True. This discovery, however, has to be considered inconvenient to the socialist. Because what this means is:
1. Work needs to exist to satisfy need.
2. Jobs need to be created to satisfy that need.
3. The purpose of a job is satisfy somebody else's need.
4. Since jobs exist to satisfy somebody else's need, the structure, dynamic, training ect. of that job must be tailored so as to successfully provide that need.
5. The existence of that job, quantity and quality of that job, depends upon the value that consumer place on the need which that job satisfies.

Jobs are not defined how the workers wish them defined; they are defined how the consumers wish them defined.

This goes directly against the socialist demand for the "workers to control the means of production." Such a claim by the socialist is also highly irrational as it makes no sense for workers of goods and services to define to consumers what those goods and services are and will be.


the assertion that "human nature" validates capitalism is also bogus as we do not require money to understand the merit of our deeds. our true "incentive" is one of innate vitality that is an instinctual and cultural need to improve our own condition and the condition of our families to ensure the highest level of survival.

Now we are slipping into biological and cultural explanations and justifications in how to measure progress and success in a socialist community.
There was a bit of debate last week as to whether Fascism is Right or Left wing. One of the explanations as to why it should be Right wing was because Fascism places-- biological and cultural considerations in success and failure.




further, value in the real economic process finds it's end of life much quicker than value does in monetary systems. it starts as a raw resource, converted to human usable materials, items or fuel, then expended or transmigrates in a fashion most conducive to the economic infrastructure as a whole,

How does "innate vitality..." indicate whether raw resources "transmigrates in a fashion most conducive to the economic infrastructure as a whole"?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't understand why some here are so reluctant with regards to ethical arguments against capitalism. Unless you're some kind of sociopath, the misery of billions should be of great concern!

[Remus Bleys]

I don't understand why some here are so reluctant with regards to ethical arguments against capitalism. Unless you're some kind of sociopath, the misery of billions should be of great concern!I have found out many people say "Well, thats okay."
These are the same people that make up bs when you explain Capital to them.

[Lowtech]

True. This discovery, however, has to be considered inconvenient to the socialist. Because what this means is:
1. Work needs to exist to satisfy need.
2. Jobs need to be created to satisfy that need.
3. The purpose of a job is satisfy somebody else's need.not within the context of a market. the job within a market is designed to meet a demand, not a need. and i point this out because what is emphasized in markets is exchange value, not use value. this is why the menial job exists. the menial job increases in profitability as positions increase in volume. outside of profit and markets, the menial job does not exist.

4. Since jobs exist to satisfy somebody else's need, the structure, dynamic, training ect. of that job must be tailored so as to successfully provide that need. again, within the context and function of a market, jobs and commodities are designed for exchange value and profitability (exchange value), not to meet need. demand is not the same as need.

5. The existence of that job, quantity and quality of that job, depends upon the value that consumer place on the need which that job satisfies.you're describing market dynamics. markets are not an axiom of economics.
Jobs are not defined how the workers wish them defined; they are defined how the consumers wish them defined.incorrect. the plutocratic class designs the jobs. and they do so to increase profitability, not to meet need. in fact profit itself inhibits the ability for the output of production to meet need.
This goes directly against the socialist demand for the "workers to control the means of production." Such a claim by the socialist is also highly irrational as it makes no sense for workers of goods and services to define to consumers what those goods and services are and will be.this comment makes no sense, as capitalists themselves define to consumers goods and services; they decide what choices we chose from. and all those "choices" are sold at a profit.
Now we are slipping into biological and cultural explanations and justifications in how to measure progress and success in a socialist community.what is biological about the statement that we do not require money to understand our deeds?

There was a bit of debate last week as to whether Fascism is Right or Left wing. One of the explanations as to why it should be Right wing was because Fascism places-- biological and cultural considerations in success and failure.

How does "innate vitality..." indicate whether raw resources "transmigrates in a fashion most conducive to the economic infrastructure as a whole"? innate vitality is real incentive. the way resources transmigrate is a whole separate thing.

[Baseball]

not within the context of a market. the job within a market is designed to meet a demand, not a need.

The two are the same.


you're describing market dynamics. markets are not an axiom of economics.incorrect.

I am describing rational dynamics. I agree that such does not describe socialism.


the plutocratic class designs the jobs. and they do so to increase profitability, not to meet need.

The "plutocrats" (whoever they are) cannot turn a a profit without meeting a need.


in fact profit itself inhibits the ability for the output of production to meet need

Actually, it measures, far better than "innate vitality" or "cultural" considerations, whether need is being met.


this comment makes no sense, as capitalists themselves define to consumers goods and services; they decide what choices we chose from.

How's that typewriter of yours working these days? Still use the cellphone the size of a loaf of bread?


what is biological about the statement that we do not require money to understand our deeds?

Your own comment. Granted, its an effort at a solution for which you deserve credit.


innate vitality is real incentive. the way resources transmigrate is a whole separate thing.

Innate vitality is indeed. So again, how does "transmigate"?

[Conscript]

Yes, demand is the same thing as need. That's why it's measured in currency and a starving, penniless man is not represented in demand.

[Lowtech]

The two are the same.

User Conscript has already eloquently answered this^.


I am describing rational dynamics. I agree that such does not describe socialism.

incorrect. market dynamics is how markets/monetary system function. markets being a social construct, the function of which is a social construct as well. none of it an axiom of economics. all facets of monetary systems exist only in the management of those systems. in simpler terms, money is a human invention. therefore the ill effects of capitalism; class based society, economic inequality, poverty are all symptoms of a human invention.


The "plutocrats" (whoever they are) cannot turn a a profit without meeting a need.

profit is had when selling above production cost. profit as a mechanism has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of the product. in fact, the less useful it is (usually meaning a lower production cost), the more profit there is to be had.


Actually, it measures, far better than "innate vitality" or "cultural" considerations, whether need is being met.

need is determined by food, shelter and other life supporting requirements per population size. you predispose the idea that economics is an arcane thing best left to our plutocratic overseers.


How's that typewriter of yours working these days? Still use the cellphone the size of a loaf of bread?

people innovate, not capitalist plutocrats whom derive economic value from the worker.


Innate vitality is indeed. So again, how does "transmigate"?
the life cycle of a resource starts from it's raw state, then it transmigrates, into either a usable material or item, then it is put into various things like a chair, clothing, perhaps building materials, ultimately utilized by an end user in some form for the sake of meeting life supporting requirements as mentioned above.

profit inhibits the throughput of this process and serves only to allow a plutocratic class to derive value. however, profit is artificial scarcity. so for the few to obtain vast amounts of value, in turn thousands if not millions of people must go without value; the rich directly reduce the scarcity they experience by increasing scarcity for everyone else.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't see how you make an advanced industrial economic operate without a market or a medium of exchange (aka currency in some form). With those we'd be back to bartering with raw goods and resources, something that isn't compatible with a developed society.

The only way you could operate like that is for the community to be incredibly small. It'd be like sending humanity back 1000 years. No way a technologically modern civilization could work like that.

(Note: I'm not using "market" as a stand in for capitalism, they are two separate constructs.)

Hmm, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult. I always thought calculation in kind represents the best solution to this dilemma. All that it would entail is that investment be based on creating the most use value and that capital resources would be measured by the availability of labor, resources, and technology instead of money.

[Baseball]

incorrect. market dynamics is how markets/monetary system function. markets being a social construct, the function of which is a social construct as well. none of it an axiom of economics. all facets of monetary systems exist only in the management of those systems. in simpler terms, money is a human invention. therefore the ill effects of capitalism; class based society, economic inequality, poverty are all symptoms of a human invention




profit is had when selling above production cost. profit as a mechanism has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of the product.

As defined by whom? You?


need is determined by food, shelter and other life supporting requirements per population size.

Need is food, shelter and clothing. All else are wants.
What a dismal society you wish to establish.


you predispose the idea that economics is an arcane thing best left to our plutocratic overseers.people innovate, not capitalist plutocrats whom derive economic value from the worker.

I pre-dispose that economics need to be argued beyond pamphleteering. I also pre-dispose that socialism needs to be demonstrated as per terms of socialism, not simply with 'capitalism bad so socialism must be good.'


the life cycle of a resource starts from it's raw state, then it transmigrates, into either a usable material or item, then it is put into various things like a chair, clothing, perhaps building materials, ultimately utilized by an end user in some form for the sake of meeting life supporting requirements as mentioned above.

Yep. Of course how these things "transmigrates" need to be described. However, Saying the workers will make the decisions is not an answer.


profit inhibits the throughput of this process and serves only to allow a plutocratic class to derive value. however, profit is artificial scarcity.

Profit is a reflection that a finished good is of greater value than the sum of its parts. If profit is not an objective of production, then the community will have no way of knowing whether their production is actually of value. This would be true in the socialist community as well. Measuring by Innate vitality or cultural knowledge is a poor substitute to profit.

[liberlict]

how do you come to this conclusion?

the rich do not produce value yet they consume the majority of value and this fact not having a mitigating factor is some how a moral issue?

how so?

i see it as a clear observation of the criminality of capitalism.

"Criminality" is contingent on a legal code to define it. It's' "criminal" in Iran to be homosexual. It's criminal in North Korea to go to South Korea. Maybe you'd like it to be criminal for capitalists to exploit workers. Still, the only way that this can be meaningful is if a community agrees to live under that aegis. I believe the nerds called this a "social contract". It means we all agree to abide by a certain code of conduct because it's in our mutual interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

it is invariably human to contemplate these things.

it is vital to the human condition to understand what hardships are inevitable and what are created out of human frailty; which are fully correctable.

capitalism being the grandest example of human created adversity.

This, I like this point very much and it speaks to fundamental reason I hold the beliefs I do and oppose capitalism.

[Baseball]

This, I like this point very much and it speaks to fundamental reason I hold the beliefs I do and oppose capitalism.

However, opposition to capitalism speaks to nothing as to whether socialism is is the better way.
Socialism needs to be argued in terms of socialism, not in terms of opposition to capitalism.

[Ultra-Imperialist]

I would argue that the Capitalism vs Socialism presentation is based on a False Dilemma fallacy.

Given the ability to regulate our economy by democratic means, might it not be more appropriate to say we live in a Social Market economy, where society works with market mechanics?

[#FF0000]

Given the ability to regulate our economy by democratic means, might it not be more appropriate to say we live in a Social Market economy, where society works with market mechanics?

No, and to say we can "regulate our market by democratic means" is a tremendous oversimplification and simply untrue in actual practice. And, even if your characterization was in any form correct, it still would not back up your idea that capitalism vs. socialism is a "false dichotomy", because these words have clear definitions in the Marxist perspective, and a society can't be both at once.

[Lowtech]

I would argue that the Capitalism vs Socialism presentation is based on a False Dilemma fallacy.

Given the ability to regulate our economy by democratic means, might it not be more appropriate to say we live in a Social Market economy, where society works with market mechanics?

what ability? the plutocracy makes all the decisions as well as having far greater influence on policy than the ordinary person.


However, opposition to capitalism speaks to nothing as to whether socialism is is the better way.
Socialism needs to be argued in terms of socialism, not in terms of opposition to capitalism.

there is a difference between how a human physically utilizes value and how a capitalist manipulates value. e. g. if there is a source of water, there is x amount of water, y amount of value needed to extract that water, and z amount of people who need that water. profit simply does not exist unless artificial scarcity is some how introduced. in a capitalist system, the capitalist "owns" the water or owns value needed to extract it (capital) and then sells it at y + profit. now less people have access to the water and the resulting surplus value is then transferred to the capitalist. capitalism IS artificial scarcity.

[Lowtech]

As defined by whom? You?
if you have a more physically accurate definition of value, i would love to her it.


Need is food, shelter and clothing. All else are wants.
What a dismal society you wish to establish.

your criticism tickles me. need also includes a society free of artificial scarcity. there is no reason millions should go with less or none at all, simply so a handful of people that produce no value can live lavish lives.


I pre-dispose that economics need to be argued beyond pamphleteering. I also pre-dispose that socialism needs to be demonstrated as per terms of socialism, not simply with 'capitalism bad so socialism must be good.'

i have stated several times and shown clearly that capitalism is artificial scarcity. value is not subjective and people do not require money to understand the merit of their deeds. neoliberalism fails to mitigate the failures of capitalism. the basis of capitalism is profit and profit simply does not exist without the introduction of artificial scarcity. and as such, capitalism cannot be presented as a legitimate economic system.


Yep. Of course how these things "transmigrates" need to be described. However, Saying the workers will make the decisions is not an answer.

the use or misuse of resources effects all of us, therefore decisions regarding the use of resources must not be left to an unaccountable plutocratic class. this garbage has lead us to poverty, the menial job and endless wars. enough is enough.


Profit is a reflection that a finished good is of greater value than the sum of its parts. If profit is not an objective of production, then the community will have no way of knowing whether their production is actually of value. This would be true in the socialist community as well. Measuring by Innate vitality or cultural knowledge is a poor substitute to profit.

you have no grasp of value at all. i know something has value if i can drink it, eat it, use it to shelter myself or wear it, etc. markets do not define value and value is not subjective. this erroneous sense of value is used to obscure the introduction of artificial scarcity.

[Baseball]

there is a difference between how a human physically utilizes value and how a capitalist manipulates value. e. g. if there is a source of water, there is x amount of water, y amount of value needed to extract that water, and z amount of people who need that water. profit simply does not exist unless artificial scarcity is some how introduced. in a capitalist system, the capitalist "owns" the water or owns value needed to extract it (capital) and then sells it at y + profit. now less people have access to the water and the resulting surplus value is then transferred to the capitalist. capitalism IS artificial scarcity.

The y amount of value needed to extract that water could instead be used to grow food, build a house, or build a sofa. But y amount of energy can't do all four. That is not artificial scarcity; its a basic reality with which the socialist community would also have to wrestle.

The question becomes in determining where Y amount of energy could be best utilized that gains the greatest return for the community.

Its entirely a rational and reasonable approach. Its also called a pursuing "profit" or "production for profit."

[Baseball]

you have no grasp of value at all. i know something has value if i can drink it, eat it, use it to shelter myself or wear it, etc. markets do not define value and value is not subjective. this erroneous sense of value is used to obscure the introduction of artificial scarcity.

Yes. You value clothes ahead of food when getting dressed, and food ahead of clothes when hungry.
So what?

Everyone does this kind of stuff. So why should your opinion of these things stir the drink?

[Lowtech]

The y amount of value needed to extract that water could instead be used to grow food, build a house, or build a sofa. But y amount of energy can't do all four.

your nonsense does not magically legitimize profit/concentration of wealth/wage slavery/poverty nor does it legitimize the rich consuming the majority of value while creating none.


That is not artificial scarcity; its a basic reality with which the socialist community would also have to wrestle.

when economics is seen as it is; the logistics of sustaining a civilization, there is no practicality for the existence of economic inequality and the few imposing economic subjugation on the many.


The question becomes in determining where Y amount of energy could be best utilized that gains the greatest return for the community.

this comment doesn't fit actual capitalism at all; where 20% of the population consumes over 80% of value.


Its entirely a rational and reasonable approach. Its also called a pursuing "profit" or "production for profit."

profit, which is unequal trade, has neither practicality nor benefit. you have blind faith in the idea that the few consuming the majority of value via the profit mechanism is somehow economically good/necessary while still failing to define why.


Yes. You value clothes ahead of food when getting dressed, and food ahead of clothes when hungry.
So what?

the issue is the definition of value. measurement of weight is not abstract, logistics of converting resources into usable materials and items is not abstract, yet when the rich want to perpetually subjugate the whole of humanity, the rich take money, which is supposed to represent non abstract things, and make it abstract to obscure and legitimize economic subjugation.


Everyone does this kind of stuff. So why should your opinion of these things stir the drink?

knowing what has value based on being able to eat it, use it for shelter or wear it is not an opinion, it is a fact of being a living being. distorting value using a social fiction like markets or "assets" is an invented behavior designed to introduce artificial scarcity in turn supporting plutocratic rule.