Socialists/Communists/other leftist where's your proof that capitalism fails?

[TheFalseprophet]

Give me documented evidence.

[Remus Bleys]

uhhh look around you and you want to say things is good?

[Alonso Quijano]

Definitely not in Greece.

[Bourgeois]

uhhh look around you and you want to say things is good?

"Good" is relative. What I may classify as "good" others may classify as "bad". You need to be more specific.

[TheFalseprophet]

That's not documented....

[DDR]

Compare Cuba to any other Latinamerican country. See its Gini coefficient, life expectancy, it literacy rate, human development index, etc. and that after a 50 years blockade.

Also worth reminding that the bigges demographic disasters of the XXth century without a war was the transition from socialist to capitalis economies in the Eastern Block, compare data about those countries prior to 1991 and today, frightening to say the least.

[TheFalseprophet]

Where's is the statistics that show this.

[rylasasin]

Give me documented evidence.
Where's your proof that Monarchy fails? Or that slavery fails? Or that Theocracy fails? Or Tribalism? Or Feudalism? Give me documented evidence.

Seriously, this is got to be one of the most loaded questions I've ever seen. It's not a question of whether capitalism simply "fails" or not. Capitalism "works" very well... for the capitalists. Most of the time. Rather, the question should be of whom capitalism fails and why.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

http://s21.postimg.org/z0yri37qf/depression.jpg
The great depression and all the other economic disasters that have occurred since capitalism's inception seem to be ample proof enough. It's funny, capitalism fails for everyone at some point in their lives but it only really 'succeeds' for a tiny minority.

[TheFalseprophet]

How is that capitalisms fault?

[Ele'ill]

Give me documented evidence.

without poverty where would it be

[Dodo]

If we are to get more into it, you have to understand the Marxist analysis of capitalism and the kind of society-relations it creates, which are full of contradictions and hence permanent problems. From a Marxist analysis, everything ranging from simple economic concepts like low living standards, inequality, crisis, unemployment to daily life things like corruption, social oppression, racism, gender discrimination to massive things like unfair global trade relations, wars, environmental destruction are a product of class stratified society, and in our contemporary case capitalism.

[Bourgeois]

Compare Cuba to any other Latinamerican country. See its Gini coefficient, life expectancy, it literacy rate, human development index, etc. and that after a 50 years blockade.

Also worth reminding that the bigges demographic disasters of the XXth century without a war was the transition from socialist to capitalis economies in the Eastern Block, compare data about those countries prior to 1991 and today, frightening to say the least.

So, comparing Cuba to other Latin American countries automatically makes Capitalism a failure in comparison to Communism? Cherry-picking facts out like healthcare isn't going to help your cause.

[argeiphontes]

Ahem...

http://dupress.com/articles/success-or-struggle-roa-as-a-true-measure-of-business-performance/?icid=hp:ft:01

Declining return on assets over the last 47 years is proof of what Marx called the declining rate of profit. They blame it on a vacuous thing they call "companies lack of clear long-term vision and strategy", but Marx knew better.

[Einkarl]

Here are some fucking statistics

There are about 7 billion people on earth, 80%-85% live in poverty (under $10 a day). That is about 5.6 Billion.

Of those 7 billion, 2.2 billion are children; of which 1 billion children live in poverty

22,000 children die each day due to poverty related issues

1 in 3 children lack shelter.

I bet it's real easy to jerk off to Ayn Rand from the safety of your middle class home


Also I'd really your reply to
rylasasin's comment

[Dodo]

This attitude of the "leftist" friends are not the way to spread our way of thinking. You guys should handle people who are not of our way of thinking better than this. We are not at war with these people, we need these people. So when someone asks why capitalism is a failure from our perspective, I believe you should approach better than this.
I hate it when I say I am a Marxist and people just think I am an angry teenager.
There is a whole epistomological framework here. Don't simplify things.

[Communist(stalinist)]

It just fails. Rich people live, poor - survive. Is this normal? No.

[DDR]

So, comparing Cuba to other Latin American countries automatically makes Capitalism a failure in comparison to Communism? Cherry-picking facts out like healthcare isn't going to help your cause.

I'm not cherry picking it, the UN and international organisms say so:

Unicef: Cuba is the only Latin American Country without child malnutrition (http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/04-01-2010/111545-cubaleads-0/)
UN: Cuba is the only Latin American country without drug related problems
ONEC: Cuba has onle of the highest lie expentancies in Latin America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba)
UNESCO: Cuba has one of the highest literacy rate in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba)
WWF: Cuba is the only country that has sustainable development (http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/107ns_004.htm)

Bonus (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/why-is-birminghams-infant-mortality-rate-worse-than-in-cuba-8880959.html)

But yeah, maybe it isn't fair to compare cuba to Haiti, Mexico o Colombia, we could compare it also to the US, but then you'll weep a lot :D

[#FF0000]

Give me documented evidence.

We almost watched the system collapse because of itself five years ago and have been watching it barely hobble along ever since.

If you're interested in actual outlines and critiques of capitalism, then you're going to want to check out something a little more substantive. I could point you straight to Marx's Das Kapital or Brendan M. Cooney's youtube series on Kapital, but I think a more recent and perhaps a little more readable book would be The Enigma Of Capital by David Harvey, which talks about the recent crisis.

Either way, the way this question is framed makes it impossible to answer -- because capitalism doesn't "fail". It chugs along well enough, making the people who "matter" very, very powerful, even through crisis. By any sensible metric, the number of people who starve every year despite our ability to produce enough to feed everyone, the number of homeless despite the abundance of houses standing vacant (specifically in America, here), the people who killed and were killed in wars fought for business, and who kill and are killed now that war is a business, would seem like the markers of a disastrous system.

But human need is only a passing concern. So long as there's profit, capitalism is working as intended.

[#FF0000]

How is that capitalisms fault?

Because crisis is inherent to capitalism. You can't have capitalism without poverty, without violence, without exploitation, and without devastating crises.

[Bala Perdida]

It's hypocritical how he cherry picks your argument instead of addressing all our arguments.

[Czy]

Capitalism slices people into classes like a loaf of bread is viciously cut into pieces. How can such a system appeal, on a purely analytic level?

Pointing out capitalism's failures isn't a philological issue, or a philosophical issue, but a concrete issue. The quest for capital, hence the name capitalism, drives this system. When you conflate fulfilment with material thirst, you create a system of hagiographical distortion: the entire basis of human existence, co-operation, is dislodged.

You only have to look as far as the fact that a small minority of people benefit immensely from the building block of society, production, while the majority struggle through life. Such a system, regardless of outcomes (which, if you're up for that debate, has produced absolute poverty, war, environmental catastrophe and egregious crime) is unjustifiable. Any system that contradicts human Pièce de résistance, harmonic co operation, is twisted.

I'm glossing over foundational criticisms, such as capitalism's inherent flaws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory), but the mere ideological composition of capitalist theory is a sick joke.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Capitalism doesn't fail it does exactly what it is supposed to do, (of course with exceptions like Greece but its not completely capitalisms fault) and it is supposed to have inequality so how it looks today in most places is how it is supposed to work, it only has interests in building up the bourgeoisie if the bourgeoisie isn't strong and rich then capitalism has failed, it is not supposed to make life good for workers and other regular people.

it is about that capitalism is an horrible system that doesn't care about peoples needs but only a few. (and much more of course)

[Stalinist Speaker]

That's not documented....

Das Capital by karl marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ Volume 1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ Volume 2
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ Volume 3


read this, this is documented and fits you perfectly. and don't complain that its to long, because you don't listen to what we say with our "short" posts anyway.

[Dodo]

Capitalism is not a "horrible" system. It is a product of humans, class stratified humans. Capitalism's contributions to human civilazation is there. But like every class stratified system, it has its inner contradictions which lead to problems on the long run and make it unsustainable, even harmful for the majority.

Marxists are not anti-capitalist for the sake of being anti-capitalist. We are anti-capitalists because WE ARE IN CAPITALISM. That is very important.

[Captain Red]

Whats wrong with capitalism? If you look around in the world today and you think that whats going on is good there is really no point in discussing this with you. It's not hard finding statistics on that you can just Google "how many children dies in Africa" or "how many people live with under just 1 dollar a day" and you'll find it. And capitalism isn't an ideology its an economic system used by almost the entire world today. The reason we can have it so good in the western world is because the rest of the world are starving to death.

But all that is not really the point. The only reason why USA:s economy hasn't collapsed yet is because the dollar is the global currency of the world. And that is the reason why they can just keep printing money without inflation, because the demand for it is so high for instance when you buy oil you use dollar(thats also one of the reasons USA invaded Iraq, because Saddam Hussein frightened to use Euro in staid of dollar when the world bought oil from there.)And then when the oil will run out what do you think will happen.

Anyways if the world decides they don't want to use a broken currency anymore USA:s economy will collapse and with it probably the world. Also all the western countries have been using loans in order to pay off debts, the result of that has been that we have created an evil circle, a bubble in the economy like the real estate bubble and when it burst the only way to fix it was through more loans thus creating a bigger bubble. Capitalism is a broken system the only reason that more countries aren't turning towards socialism is because of the interdependence created by WTO, countries today needs to be apart of the global economy or else the country is by itself and can't survive. But that has also bound all countries together and that will make it so the fall will be so much greater. And all this is not counting the environment, that the easiest way and almost the only way to make money is at the cost of the environment.

Like Marx said the proletariat will eventually overthrow the bourgeois it is inevitable.

[TheFalseprophet]

Ok I'll read it.

[Bourgeois]

If we are to get more into it, you have to understand the Marxist analysis of capitalism and the kind of society-relations it creates, which are full of contradictions and hence permanent problems. From a Marxist analysis, everything ranging from simple economic concepts like low living standards, inequality, crisis, unemployment to daily life things like corruption, social oppression, racism, gender discrimination to massive things like unfair global trade relations, wars, environmental destruction are a product of class stratified society, and in our contemporary case capitalism.

Inequality, crisis, racism, wars, these are all a result of "Capitalism"? Interesting, as everything you listed has taken place in a platitude of different economies. Many, many instances of this have actually been worse in societies where the people have less power, both socially and economically.



The great depression and all the other economic disasters that have occurred since capitalism's inception seem to be ample proof enough. It's funny, capitalism fails for everyone at some point in their lives but it only really 'succeeds' for a tiny minority.

So you post a picture of individuals looking for support after a natural disaster.... Great.

You've also mentioned the Great Depression. You know what's also interesting, is that the Great Depression was caused by a Keynesian approach to economics involving a federal reserve. This isn't even mentioning the New Deal...

Even if you disagree with me, there are facts on both sides that support that a multitude of differing factors caused the Great Depression. There is no clear-cut, ultimate cause of the Great One, but instead a wide array of issues that plagued America prior to the issue. The Great Depression was an evil necessity, to the same extent of other evil necessities that have occurred in our past. If they didn't occur then, when would it occur?


Here are some fucking statistics

There are about 7 billion people on earth, 80%-85% live in poverty (under $10 a day). That is about 5.6 Billion.

Of those 7 billion, 2.2 billion are children; of which 1 billion children live in poverty

22,000 children die each day due to poverty related issues

1 in 3 children lack shelter.

I bet it's real easy to jerk off to Ayn Rand from the safety of your middle class home


Also I'd really your reply to
rylasasin's comment

I see you've posted random statistics about poverty and want somebody else to connect the dots to Capitalism? Sorry, not buying it.

Please do not make accusations that do not have sufficient evidence to be backed up. This goes for your Ayn Rand statement.


Because crisis is inherent to capitalism. You can't have capitalism without poverty, without violence, without exploitation, and without devastating crises.

Violence, exploitation, and crises are natural occurrences and events that have happened from the beginning of society to this very day. To think that because Capitalism exists, these problems are caused by Capitalism is a fallacy. This is Cum hoc ergo propter hoc taken to absolute extremes.

[argeiphontes]

You've also mentioned the Great Depression. You know what's also interesting, is that the Great Depression was caused by a Keynesian approach to economics involving a federal reserve.

Impossible; probably propaganda to slander Keynesian economics. Reference please?

The Federal Reserve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System) was established in 1913, the same year Keynes published his first book, Indian Currency and Finance.

A "Keynesian approach to economics" couldn't have been formulated until Keynes formulated it, as a response to the Great Depression.

[argeiphontes]

The Great Depression was an evil necessity, to the same extent of other evil necessities that have occurred in our past.

Exactly, it was an evil necessity of capitalism, because capitalism requires periodic crises and devaluations of capital in order to restore the rate of profit, just as should have happened in 2008 but wasn't allowed to by the class-war scam of bailouts and austerity.

This is an argument for capitalism, then?

[Czy]

Inequality, crisis, racism, wars, these are all a result of "Capitalism"? Interesting, as everything you listed has taken place in a platitude of different economies. Many, many instances of this have actually been worse in societies where the people have less power, both socially and economically.

No Marxist claims that economic modes prior to capitalism were favourable. We acknowledge that capitalism improved society in many ways; but at the same time, this progressive improvement has stifled, due to inherent contradictions in the system. What capitalism has done, objectively, is maintain or worsen (nominally) inequality, create an imperialistic paradigm, encourage nationalism and racism, and increase inequality of bargaining power between the two groups of capitalism's stratification, the bourgeois and proletariat. A thundering labour movement has fought for every inch of privilege workers enjoy today - capitalist and proletariat interests are diametrically opposed. Nothing was granted out of altruism or some other absurd notion.


I see you've posted random statistics about poverty and want somebody else to connect the dots to Capitalism? Sorry, not buying it.

Capitalism is a global system. A hegemonic system, if you like. Ascribing poverty to the system that creates and distributes wealth is fair, as it shows that system has not 'trickled down' this accumulated wealth, but rather privatized it. The fact that Western companies dominate emerging economies, appropriating most of the subsequent growth while wages and living standards accord in a delayed fashion is a testament to this notion.


This goes for your Ayn Rand statement.

You do realize that Randian Objectivism has been rejected by mainstream philosophy, who have, for good reason, rendered its entire metaphysical approach as not only lacking in ontological sophistication, but more than that: Objectivism has been deemed, and I think fairly so, as one of the most misanthropic ideologies ever conceived, taking on a different flavour to monarchism and fascism.


Violence, exploitation, and crises are natural occurrences and events that have happened from the beginning of society to this very day. To think that because Capitalism exists, these problems are caused by Capitalism is a fallacy. This is Cum hoc ergo propter hoc taken to absolute extremes.

Please refrain from using formal logic if you do not grasp it. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy that can be quantified in analytic philosophy as: A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.

The scientific study that proposes capitalism has inherent contradictions that lead to crisis cannot be brushed aside by saying that crisis is a natural occurrence. Empirically, there are structural inefficiencies of capitalism (such as under-consumption, over-production, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, to name a few) that manifest themselves in the form of cyclical fluctuations. It would not be fallacious to ascribe the results of an economic system to its characteristics (wage labour, capital-circuit-accumulation, commodity production).

[Einkarl]

I see you've posted random statistics about poverty and want somebody else to connect the dots to Capitalism? Sorry, not buying it.

Please do not make accusations that do not have sufficient evidence to be backed up. This goes for your Ayn Rand statement.



OP asked for statistics and I gave him/her some, I don't see how these are random.

Further more seeing as Capitalism is a global condition present in all places on Earth, it seems very disingenuous to brush it off and claim that a connection between the state of the world's people (through these statistics) and the system which they live isn't there. The "dots" connect themselves; how come billions of people, the majority no less, live in inadequate conditions if Capitalism is such a success?

:rolleyes: OK John Galt, I'm suuuure you don't furiously jack it to objectivist porn. How could I have ever thought that.

[#FF0000]

Violence, exploitation, and crises are natural occurrences and events that have happened from the beginning of society to this very day. To think that because Capitalism exists, these problems are caused by Capitalism is a fallacy. This is Cum hoc ergo propter hoc taken to absolute extremes.

I think you're being a little obtuse here. Of course capitalism isn't the first kind of society based on a class structure -- but it's what's in place now. Doesn't make sense to be anti-feudalism in 2013, does it?

[Per Levy]

Ok I'll read it.

you mean kapital? all 3 books? well see you in a couple of years, hope it is a fun read.

[The Idler]

Where's your proof that capitalism fails?
Recessions.

[Bourgeois]

Impossible; probably propaganda to slander Keynesian economics. Reference please?

The was established in 1913, the same year Keynes published his first book, Indian Currency and Finance.

A "Keynesian approach to economics" couldn't have been formulated until Keynes formulated it, as a response to the Great Depression.

Sigh. You're arguing semantics here. A Keynesian approach usually takes the stance that the private sector and its decisions can lead to economic issues and instability. A Federal Reserve is a Keynesian approach to economics. The Federal Reserve was a cause of (still debated, however it's generally agreed it played a decent sized role) The Great Depression. You can play out the rest.


Exactly, it was an evil necessity of capitalism, because capitalism requires periodic crises and devaluations of capital in order to restore the rate of profit, just as should have happened in 2008 but wasn't allowed to by the class-war scam of bailouts and austerity.

This is an argument for capitalism, then?

Of course not. Is violent revolution an argument for Communism? There are imperfections in every economic system ever practiced. It's a realization of imperfection and the impossibility of utopia.

Oh, and America isn't a completely laissez-faire economic society. It's actually very much a mixed economy. Our experiences with recessions are much more complex than first analyzed, and not only caused by those "greedy" wall-street pigs.


No Marxist claims that economic modes prior to capitalism were favourable. We acknowledge that capitalism improved society in many ways; but at the same time, this progressive improvement has stifled, due to inherent contradictions in the system. What capitalism has done, objectively, is maintain or worsen (nominally) inequality, create an imperialistic paradigm, encourage nationalism and racism, and increase inequality of bargaining power between the two groups of capitalism's stratification, the bourgeois and proletariat. A thundering labour movement has fought for every inch of privilege workers enjoy today - capitalist and proletariat interests are diametrically opposed. Nothing was granted out of altruism or some other absurd notion.

It seemed that the prior statement would not completely agree with your ideology. That statement took so many universal flaws and assigned them as proof that Capitalism fails. Thanks for clarifying a more approachable if yet generalized position.


Capitalism is a global system. A hegemonic system, if you like. Ascribing poverty to the system that creates and distributes wealth is fair, as it shows that system has not 'trickled down' this accumulated wealth, but rather privatized it. The fact that Western companies dominate emerging economies, appropriating most of the subsequent growth while wages and living standards accord in a delayed fashion is a testament to this notion.

So, you believe that "wealth", or in many cases currency, is not an ultimatum of civilized and organized society? You realize that wealth can mean so much more than currency, correct?


You do realize that Randian Objectivism has been rejected by mainstream philosophy, who have, for good reason, rendered its entire metaphysical approach as not only lacking in ontological sophistication, but more than that: Objectivism has been deemed, and I think fairly so, as one of the most misanthropic ideologies ever conceived, taking on a different flavour to monarchism and fascism.

Where did I say I completely agreed with Objectivism? I agree with certain tenants, however I reject many other claims(Mainly involving self-interests completely benefiting society.)

Let's not talk about main-stream views here, either. The main-stream has denounced Left Extremism to the same extent that they have denounced Right Extremism.


Please refrain from using formal logic if you do not grasp it. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy that can be quantified in analytic philosophy as:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.



In context, my logic is sustainable. The prior poster made the claim that Capitalism is inherently a cause of many of these issues. If you want to replace my logic (based off of chronology) with a third-cause fallacy then feel free. My point remains: Because x and y exist, y is not necessarily caused by x.


The scientific study that proposes capitalism has inherent contradictions that lead to crisis cannot be brushed aside by saying that crisis is a natural occurrence. Empirically, there are structural inefficiencies of capitalism (such as under-consumption, over-production, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, to name a few) that manifest themselves in the form of cyclical fluctuations. It would not be fallacious to ascribe the results of an economic system to its characteristics (wage labour, capital-circuit-accumulation, commodity production).

Under-consumption and over-production.... really? You realize these issues would fix themselves in true Capitalist societies? I'm not saying there wouldn't be losers... But you know. :unsure:


OP asked for statistics and I gave him/her some, I don't see how these are random.

Further more seeing as Capitalism is a global condition present in all places on Earth, it seems very disingenuous to brush it off and claim that a connection between the state of the world's people (through these statistics) and the system which they live isn't there. The "dots" connect themselves; how come billions of people, the majority no less, live in inadequate conditions if Capitalism is such a success?

:rolleyes: OK John Galt, I'm suuuure you don't furiously jack it to objectivist porn. How could I have ever thought that.

Once again, you're not connecting the dots. Because there are problems in society does not mean that such problems are caused by a singular source. Oh, and only specific parts of Capitalism are present in all societies. True Capitalism is extremely rare, and is tainted by cronyism, corporatism and corruption. It seems everyone I've talked to looks at Capitalism through a specific, hate filled lens, and has no motivation to change their lens.

Name-calling, how nice and constructive.


I think you're being a little obtuse here. Of course capitalism isn't the first kind of society based on a class structure -- but it's what's in place now. Doesn't make sense to be anti-feudalism in 2013, does it?

I'm afraid I'm not being obtuse. I'm responding to other statements that appear, note I said appear, to blame societies problems on capitalism and do not take into account a massive platitude of other issues.

[#FF0000]

Welp, I have a job interview in a bit and so I'm going to post this and then come back later with something more substantive and probably a whole lot of corrections for what's probably going to be poor, sleep-deprived writing.


I'm afraid I'm not being obtuse. I'm responding to other statements that appear, note I said appear, to blame societies problems on capitalism and do not take into account a massive platitude of other issues.

I was referring specifically to where you said (I'm paraphrasing here) "You can't blame it on Capitalism, because these problems predated capitalism" -- and that's true. A lot of these problems in some form or another predated capitalist society. But they are a result of class society. When we criticize these issues and capitalism, we are criticizing this iteration of class society and the way it perpetuates these issues that have (sometimes) existed since the dawn of human "civilization".

And further, I think a lot of disagreement from here on out is based in the fact that we have different definitions of capitalism. To you, it would seem that capitalism is a sliding scale based on how "free" a market is, rather than a distinct economic order of society, and that things like the Federal Reserve and the State are alien intruders on a free-market.

We don't define capitalism as such. For us, any system in which the means of production are exclusively or privately owned by an individual or group for profit, and the predominance of wage labor is a capitalist society.

You'll probably take issue with that, and I'll expand on it later.

[Czy]

So, you believe that "wealth", or in many cases currency, is not an ultimatum of civilized and organized society? You realize that wealth can mean so much more than currency, correct?

When did I say anything that suggested this? My point was that capitalism is a global system; an inescapable, objective fact. Marxism is not a bourgeois idealist ideology, but a grounded, scientific theory. A mode of production, in this case capitalism, can be viewed in a way that makes analysing it very concrete and not idealist as you propose to view it (as shown in your post further down, that I'll address).

It isn't an opinion if I say that most of society's wealth is enjoyed by a small minority. This is a statistic; once again, inescapable. Marxism views class as a relationship to the means of production. Quantifying the rough fact that a small minority control the majority of wealth created is simply translating this relationship to the means of production into socioeconomic terms.


Let's not talk about main-stream views here, either. The main-stream has denounced Left Extremism to the same extent that they have denounced Right Extremism.

I want to stress an important point here. One that non-Marxists don't seem to understand. If I asked you what Marx wrote about, you would say communism. But nothing could be further from the truth. Marx was not an idealist; his goal was not drawing up a precise map of what a future society should look like. Rather, Marx was interested in philosophy and economics. His entire theory is a theory of history; a way of making sense of knowledge, power and society. He has been one of the most influential people in history in this respect - large amounts of deconstructionism, postmodernism, existentialism, critical theory, etc, are heavily influenced by Marxism and flow into and out of it fluently. Marx set out to understand why and how people act and how the way society produces its wealth affects people.

On the other hand, Objectivism has had no influence on philosophy.


My point remains: Because x and y exist, y is not necessarily caused by x.

So you're out right denying that capitalism has structural inefficiencies? Just because inequality or poverty was worse under feudalism doesn't mean that capitalism is not a culprit in sustaining poverty today. Capitalism adopted many problems, as I noted, and has improved some of them; however, the improvement stagnated a long time ago, and instead a period of imperialism ensued. Today, monetary and cultural hegemony rule.


Under-consumption and over-production.... really? You realize these issues would fix themselves in true Capitalist societies? I'm not saying there wouldn't be losers... But you know.

Yeah, of course you had to bring up this argument. If only unicorn-flower-princess-capitalism existed there would be no inefficiencies, right? :laugh:

But for the sake of argument I'll continue, even though your position is inherently contradictory ("Every success of capitalism was true capitalism and every failure the government intervened". Am I right? :glare: )

Capitalism creates artificial scarcity through the price mechanism. "Poverty in the midst of plenty." Its irrationality is profound - food is thrown away as people starve. This is with government intervention to soften the blow of cyclical fluctuations. What makes your position baffling is that you want to remove government safety nets to produce pure capitalism. Do you not see how workers would violently revolt when a recession hit and they had absolutely no benefits?

Your unicorn-capitalism is also a logical possibility as it desires the removal of the state, when the state's historical purpose is to further the interests of the ruling class (right from the nation state protecting slave owners through to the monarchy protecting lords and nobles). "Libertarians" (in the crude U.S-usage of the word - in other words not real libertarians but reactionaries) want business and government to separate. Do they not realize that this is an impossibility. Objectively, we have entered a period of monopoly capitalism. The only way this order can be sustained is through monetary hegemony.

[Dodo]

Inequality, crisis, racism, wars, these are all a result of "Capitalism"? Interesting, as everything you listed has taken place in a platitude of different economies. Many, many instances of this have actually been worse in societies where the people have less power, both socially and economically.


To clarfiy also for your debate with the other poster.
I am not saying it is solely a product of capitalism. It is a product of class-stratified society, since humans involved themselves in production and as a result surplus.

By the time of capitalism many of these issues are addressed from a bourgouise perspective, from within the dynamics of the system. Marxists float on another framework and claim that ultimately these problems can not be solved on a long-run because they are inherent in class antagonisms and relations created by that.
Obviously, when mode of production was based on slaves or feudal relations, many things that are outrageous by today's standards were worse off. I am not an anti-capitalist for the sake of being anti-capitalist. I am anti-capitalist in the context I live in, in the world I live which I am a product of.
Prior to that, bourgousie enlightenment and capitalism were seen as very progressive things.

So no, it is not a product of capitalism but it is entrenched in capitalism because ultimately it is built on class stratification.

[helot]

Whether or not capitalism fails really depends on the perspective. My perspective is very different to that of a CEO because we have fundamentally different class interests.


If you think the purpose of a mode of production is, at the very least, to make sure people are fed then of course capitalism is failing considering there's more than enough food produced to guarantee 2700 calories per person per day yet over 800,000,000 people go malnourished (source UN Food and Agricultural Organisation).

[TheFalseprophet]

I thought the Great Depression was caused by bank failure.

[Dagoth Ur]

No it was caused by extremely reckless speculation, and the banks failed because they had no backup plan in case shit fell apart.

[Bourgeois]

Welp, I have a job interview in a bit and so I'm going to post this and then come back later with something more substantive and probably a whole lot of corrections for what's probably going to be poor, sleep-deprived writing.



I was referring specifically to where you said (I'm paraphrasing here) "You can't blame it on Capitalism, because these problems predated capitalism" -- and that's true. A lot of these problems in some form or another predated capitalist society. But they are a result of class society. When we criticize these issues and capitalism, we are criticizing this iteration of class society and the way it perpetuates these issues that have (sometimes) existed since the dawn of human "civilization".

And further, I think a lot of disagreement from here on out is based in the fact that we have different definitions of capitalism. To you, it would seem that capitalism is a sliding scale based on how "free" a market is, rather than a distinct economic order of society, and that things like the Federal Reserve and the State are alien intruders on a free-market.

We don't define capitalism as such. For us, any system in which the means of production are exclusively or privately owned by an individual or group for profit, and the predominance of wage labor is a capitalist society.

You'll probably take issue with that, and I'll expand on it later.

Class is an inevitability. If you believe economic classes can be conquered, then others will simply arise. A classless society is utopian, to the same extent from which a stateless society is utopian.

And yes, I can agree that there are problems when production is privately owned. However, bashing the system without diving into why Capitalism fails is where you go wrong. I could bash Communism under the guise that it creates a power funnel in newly revolutionized nations that ultimately falls victim to totalitarian regimes. You would disagree, as there would be many more factors involved in this failure aside from the fact that it was simply Communism. I make the same argument. The issues themselves may be present in a Capitalist society, but does that make Capitalism inherently wrong? Or is there a deeper, more underlying issue that plagues the market? Or perhaps poverty is impossible to truly cure?


When did I say anything that suggested this? My point was that capitalism is a global system; an inescapable, objective fact. Marxism is not a bourgeois idealist ideology, but a grounded, scientific theory. A mode of production, in this case capitalism, can be viewed in a way that makes analysing it very concrete and not idealist as you propose to view it (as shown in your post further down, that I'll address).

ANY economic system is going to create and distribute wealth. It's how economics work. Heck, if we lived in a Marxist society I could blame all-world problems on the lack of classes if I wanted to. History has shown that class is not an all out stratifying issue in crises or problems. History has also shown that early states did not simply arise out of the need to protect private property or enforce the wills of the "Bourgeois".

The problem is, Communists are deterministic. Every conflict seems to have or be related to economic roots with you folk...


It isn't an opinion if I say that most of society's wealth is enjoyed by a small minority. This is a statistic; once again, inescapable. Marxism views class as a relationship to the means of production. Quantifying the rough fact that a small minority control the majority of wealth created is simply translating this relationship to the means of production into socioeconomic terms.

You're just restating a commonly known Marxist thought... Yes, in a Capitalist society there will be differentiations within economic classes. The thing is, almost anyone can have access to a mean of production (Whether it's easy to accomplish or not is an issue, yes). The thing we should be questioning, however, is why do the small minority control the majority of wealth?


I want to stress an important point here. One that non-Marxists don't seem to understand. If I asked you what Marx wrote about, you would say communism. But nothing could be further from the truth. Marx was not an idealist; his goal was not drawing up a precise map of what a future society should look like. Rather, Marx was interested in philosophy and economics. His entire theory is a theory of history; a way of making sense of knowledge, power and society. He has been one of the most influential people in history in this respect - large amounts of deconstructionism, postmodernism, existentialism, critical theory, etc, are heavily influenced by Marxism and flow into and out of it fluently. Marx set out to understand why and how people act and how the way society produces its wealth affects people.

On the other hand, Objectivism has had no influence on philosophy.

Marx also made several predictions. Many of Marx's predictions did not come true. Marx was envisioning a perfect society. What he left behind could barely be called a framework if anything. Why? Because there was no real way for him to explain how Communism could be carried out in practice. Marx was studying specific human and social behaviors, but not humanity as a whole. This is why we've seen the terrible disasters like Stalinism and Maoism arise. You can praise his writing and his ideas all you want, but how well has this translated over to real life? This is where Communism starts to crumble into pieces.

Not sure why you're talking about Objectivism. Yes, my avatar is a symbol of the idea, but I never introduced it in any of my arguments.


So you're out right denying that capitalism has structural inefficiencies? Just because inequality or poverty was worse under feudalism doesn't mean that capitalism is not a culprit in sustaining poverty today. Capitalism adopted many problems, as I noted, and has improved some of them; however, the improvement stagnated a long time ago, and instead a period of imperialism ensued. Today, monetary and cultural hegemony rule.

I don't deny any inefficiencies. I simply see true Capitalism as being the most moral, ethical, and sustainable economic system of our time. Capitalism can corrupt just as Communism can corrupt, but I don't attack the idea as a whole for this corruption, I instead choose to look into why this corruption occurs and how it can be fixed.

Do you happen to know what real Imperialism is? It's nothing like true Capitalism.


Yeah, of course you had to bring up this argument. If only unicorn-flower-princess-capitalism existed there would be no inefficiencies, right? :laugh:

Unicorn-flower-princess-capitalism, unicorn-flower-princess-communism, and unicorn-flower-princess-socialism are all impossible. From my readings of history (I don't believe they are biased), I'd rather live in a flawed Capitalist society than a flawed Communist/Socialist society.


But for the sake of argument I'll continue, even though your position is inherently contradictory ("Every success of capitalism was true capitalism and every failure the government intervened". Am I right? :glare: )

Not at all. I'm simply stating that alleviating society's problems to the extreme barebone basics of Capitalism is not a just way of thinking. Capitalism is deeper than private property... Looking at the world and saying: "Class is the cause of all problems, and because Capitalism involves class, Capitalism is the cause of all problems" is a logically unsustainable way of thinking and won't get your ideas very far in public society. Did you ever think, hey maybe, collectivism could cause class-warfare...?


Capitalism creates artificial scarcity through the price mechanism. "Poverty in the midst of plenty." Its irrationality is profound - food is thrown away as people starve. This is with government intervention to soften the blow of cyclical fluctuations. What makes your position baffling is that you want to remove government safety nets to produce pure capitalism. Do you not see how workers would violently revolt when a recession hit and they had absolutely no benefits?

No benefits? Why look at society through a government or no-government only set of lenses? In the case of a recession in a free-market society (which would be much less likely to happen in a free-market), the economy would bounce back extremely fast, to the point from which violent revolts would be unnecessary. Do you seriously believe government benefits are the only thing that kept/keep workers from revolting during recessions? We can agree that Crony-Capitalism makes recessions painful and devastating.

Your unicorn-capitalism is also a logical possibility as it desires the removal of the state, when the state's historical purpose is to further the interests of the ruling class (right from the nation state protecting slave owners through to the monarchy protecting lords and nobles). "Libertarians" (in the crude U.S-usage of the word - in other words not real libertarians but reactionaries) want business and government to separate. Do they not realize that this is an impossibility. Objectively, we have entered a period of monopoly capitalism. The only way this order can be sustained is through monetary hegemony.

Why is it impossible? Why must this order be sustained through monetary hegemony? How does this overtake competition? How is this not Corporatism or Crony-Capitalism?


To clarfiy also for your debate with the other poster.
I am not saying it is solely a product of capitalism. It is a product of class-stratified society, since humans involved themselves in production and as a result surplus.

By the time of capitalism many of these issues are addressed from a bourgouise perspective, from within the dynamics of the system. Marxists float on another framework and claim that ultimately these problems can not be solved on a long-run because they are inherent in class antagonisms and relations created by that.
Obviously, when mode of production was based on slaves or feudal relations, many things that are outrageous by today's standards were worse off. I am not an anti-capitalist for the sake of being anti-capitalist. I am anti-capitalist in the context I live in, in the world I live which I am a product of.
Prior to that, bourgousie enlightenment and capitalism were seen as very progressive things.

So no, it is not a product of capitalism but it is entrenched in capitalism because ultimately it is built on class stratification.

Once again, history has shown that all of the problems mentioned in this thread are not only a result of "class-stratification."

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Two quick points:
1. Classless, stateless societies have not only existed, but have existed longer than states or class by a significant degree. They also reappear in embryonic form on a startlingly regular basis, from the various popular egalitarian heresies that fueled the German peasant wars to the present day Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. So, you know, it might be utopian to posit a mass industrial classless stateless society (though this is by no means a settled question, giving their relatively recent appearance on the world stage), but to simply say that classless stateless forms of life are impossible is wildly disconnected from reality.

2. So, uh, so, what does True Capitalism(TM) look like, and has it ever existed in human history? Given that a) it is a matter of historical fact that capitalism emerged with the advent of European colonial expansion, and b) there is a pretty compelling case that capitalism necessitates imperialism ('cos, y'know, tendency of the rate of profit to fall, etc.), what makes you so sure that True Capitalism(TM) lacks imperialist drive?

[argeiphontes]

Our experiences with recessions are much more complex than first analyzed, and not only caused by those "greedy" wall-street pigs.


Right. It's systemic failure. The rate of profit has been falling since the mid 1950s, as predicted by Marx. This caused lack of investment with record levels of cash hoarding by corporations. Demand was being floated by unsustainable levels of debt, and when that bubble burst, the whole house of cards came crashing down.

Only Keynes can save you now. But there's no political will to actually do it. The alternative is a massive devaluation of capital that would restore the rate of profit, but this was prevented by the bailouts.



Under-consumption and over-production.... really? You realize these issues would fix themselves in true Capitalist societies?
I don't think any of us understand this. You'll have to explain why the result wouldn't be an unstable oligopolistic or monopolistic Gilded-Age capitalism, and complete private tyranny of corporations over the individual? Real libertarianism is impossible in capitalism because you need the government to protect you from private power.



True Capitalism is extremely rare, and is tainted by cronyism, corporatism and corruption.
Why would capitalists want to subject themselves to the market? They'll use any means they can to distort it to ensure their own wealth and power, just as the ruling classes of previous systems had done. They would do exactly the same in any "true capitalism" unless prevented by some contravalent power.

[Baseball]

.
If you think the purpose of a mode of production is, at the very least, to make sure people are fed then of course capitalism is failing considering there's more than enough food produced to guarantee 2700 calories per person per day yet over 800,000,000 people go malnourished (source UN Food and Agricultural Organisation).

This has nothing to do with it.

The problem is once a decision has been made to produce a certain line of goods and services, what is the best way forward.

[argeiphontes]

The problem is once a decision has been made to produce a certain line of goods and services, what is the best way forward.

Why, by rolling up your sleeves and picking up your tools, of course. :laugh:

[Stalinist Speaker]

you mean kapital? all 3 books? well see you in a couple of years, hope it is a fun read.

:laugh::laugh:

[Czy]

ANY economic system is going to create and distribute wealth.

You're dodging the question. Either agree or disagree with the following point: capitalism's wealth is mostly appropriated by those who own the means of production and not those who sell their labour power.


It's how economics work. Heck, if we lived in a Marxist society I could blame all-world problems on the lack of classes if I wanted to.

No. Capitalism's problems are directly traceable to its inequality and the crises that result from its contradictions.


History has also shown that early states did not simply arise out of the need to protect private property or enforce the wills of the "Bourgeois".

Firstly, the bourgeois only emerged towards the end of feudalism; that's why feudalism collapsed, because the rising (and at the time, radical) bourgeois's interests came into conflict with those of the nobles and monarchy. All change results from internal contradictions (dialectics). Heard of the negation of the negation? The bourgeois wanted bourgeois democracy and bourgeois meritocracy, so the old system tumbled down starting industrial capitalism.

Secondly, states did develop to protect the ruling classes. For centuries humans lived in egalitarian societies, what Marx and Engels referred to as 'primitive communism', where all people were dependent on one another and co-operation was the guiding principle of society. However, as labour became more productive, society produced a surplus beyond its immediate needs.

This created the conditions for class society - the minority who came firstly to administer and then to control and own this surplus protected their right to it by force. The class with economic dominance and power, the ruling class, created the state to protect itself, hold down its adversaries and guarantee that its will was done. This is a very important point because the reverse is also true. When classes themselves disappear, as a classless socialist society comes into being, that same force will no longer be needed.


The problem is, Communists are deterministic. Every conflict seems to have or be related to economic roots with you folk...

Misinterpretations like this are often based on isolated quotations from Marx’s writings taken out of context.

When Marx describes what he sees as the laws of motion of capitalism, he describes tendencies, not deterministic laws. So, for example, he argues that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall in capitalist economies, since labor is the ultimate source of value and production tends to become more capital intensive. However, he immediately goes on to make clear that there are many counteracting influences that can keep the rate of profit high, including increasing the intensity of exploitation, pushing down wages below the value of labor power, lowering the value of capital goods, and the effects of foreign trade.

I'd recommend Molyneux's essay: Is Marxism Deterministic? (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/molyneux/1995/xx/determin.htm)



The thing we should be questioning, however, is why do the small minority control the majority of wealth?

Exactly! I'd like to hear your answer as you support the system. Shouldn't those who produce the wealth control the wealth? Investors sitting back swirling their monocles while workers bust their ass for hours isn't quite natural, is it?



Marx also made several predictions. Many of Marx's predictions did not come true.

Please give examples when you make sweeping statements so I can address them.


Marx was envisioning a perfect society.

No, he was heavily criticizing capitalism. Nowhere did Marx create a blueprint with a step-by-step manual on how to create a 'perfect society'.


What he left behind could barely be called a framework if anything. Why? Because there was no real way for him to explain how Communism could be carried out in practice.

Firstly, even if his alternative was invalid, that doesn't make his critique of society, capitalism and his Pièce de résistance, dialectical materialism invalid. In order to invalidate his framework, please address his theses.


Marx was studying specific human and social behaviors, but not humanity as a whole.

Evidence please.


This is why we've seen the terrible disasters like Stalinism and Maoism arise. You can praise his writing and his ideas all you want, but how well has this translated over to real life? This is where Communism starts to crumble into pieces.

Not true. Russia and China were fucking backward at the time of their respective revolutions. Marx envisaged revolution in economies that had developed their productive forces sufficiently. Also, Marx acknowledged that economic systems are global, and an isolated economy in a capitalist system is doomed to fail.


Not sure why you're talking about Objectivism. Yes, my avatar is a symbol of the idea, but I never introduced it in any of my arguments.

Fair enough. You claimed Marxism has been denounced by the mainstream, but I proved otherwise. I just wanted to illustrate that its equivalent right wing rivals have had no influence whatsoever.



I don't deny any inefficiencies. I simply see true Capitalism as being the most moral, ethical, and sustainable economic system of our time. Capitalism can corrupt just as Communism can corrupt, but I don't attack the idea as a whole for this corruption, I instead choose to look into why this corruption occurs and how it can be fixed.

True Capitalism (TM) eh? Let me ask you: golden age capitalism, from post WWII to 1970s, was that true capitalism (very high growth). Was the capitalism of the USA pre-1900 'true capitalism'?

This period of ‘golden age’ capitalism ended with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, which led to the 1970s recession. As Marxists, we recognize that capitalism cannot be fixed; it will always come tumbling down due to cyclical fluctuations, usually caused by i) full employment profit squeeze ii) overproduction iii) the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.



Do you happen to know what real Imperialism is? It's nothing like true Capitalism.

True Capitalism (TM) is not imperialism? Really? Imperialism is impossible without capitalism as the need for more resources and larger markets directly lead to imperialism, this cannot be disputed. Tell me how True Capitalism (TM) could not involve imperialism, whether a more monetary-hegemonic form or direct conquering of foreign territory?



Unicorn-flower-princess-capitalism, unicorn-flower-princess-communism, and unicorn-flower-princess-socialism are all impossible. From my readings of history (I don't believe they are biased), I'd rather live in a flawed Capitalist society than a flawed Communist/Socialist society.

See, here's the difference: everyone agrees that what exists now is capitalism. There's no 'true capitalism': capitalism is an evolving system that constantly adapts to the economic climate (This is probably my most important point that dismisses your True Capitalism (TM) nonsense) (think about how it picked itself up from the 08 crisis through quantitative easing, etc). On the other hand, the Soviet Union, its satellites and other "Communist" states were not communist or even socialist. Firstly, communism is a stateless, classless society. Secondly, the USSR was state capitalist, and this is indisputable as it copied the West's price signals, used heavy capital reinvested techniques, and traded with the West, etc etc.



Not at all. I'm simply stating that alleviating society's problems to the extreme barebone basics of Capitalism is not a just way of thinking. Capitalism is deeper than private property... Looking at the world and saying: "Class is the cause of all problems, and because Capitalism involves class, Capitalism is the cause of all problems" is a logically unsustainable way of thinking and won't get your ideas very far in public society. Did you ever think, hey maybe, collectivism could cause class-warfare...?

So you're still denying that the mode of production a society uses is responsible for the wealth distribution. Oh boy. The fact that poverty still exists, despite the fact that technology is so sophisticated is fucking sad. How can children go hungry while food is thrown away? Artificial scarcity, that's how. Capitalism is irrational.

Now, capitalism's two classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, have diametrically opposed interests. You cannot dispute this. If the owner increases wages, profit decreases. Opposed interests, indisputable.




No benefits? Why look at society through a government or no-government only set of lenses? In the case of a recession in a free-market society (which would be much less likely to happen in a free-market), the economy would bounce back extremely fast, to the point from which violent revolts would be unnecessary. Do you seriously believe government benefits are the only thing that kept/keep workers from revolting during recessions? We can agree that Crony-Capitalism makes recessions painful and devastating.

I believe capitalism is inherently crony, so sorry, I cannot buy this libertarian argument. Business and government merge together under capitalism; it is unavoidable.

If the government's only function was to protect property rights, the workers would be pretty fucking unhappy when they become unemployed and don't receive shit, they'll be pretty fucking miserable when they get fired and have no rights. A government protecting property rights means it is proecting those that own the property: the bourgeoisie. Don't you see, now, how the libertarian position affirms the reality of the state's purpose: to serve those that fucking own society's wealth while those around them struggle to survive.



Why is it impossible? Why must this order be sustained through monetary hegemony? How does this overtake competition? How is this not Corporatism or Crony-Capitalism?

It is Crony-Capitalism. But that is capitalism's final form. The growth of multinationals makes this unavoidable. Lobbying, goldman sachs & co running government, etc is a product of capitalism. The current system would collapse without government. The economy's lifeblood is things you hate: subsidies, grants, etc. The current level of trade could not exist without a crony-government.



Once again, history has shown that all of the problems mentioned in this thread are not only a result of "class-stratification."

The fact is that these problems are inseparable from class society. As long as class society exists, the various problems listed will exist.

[Dodo]

Thats a pretty sweet post czy. There seems to be this problem though which I go through in my daily life a lot as well. There is a lot of established popular beliefs regarding Marxist thought, and the opposing side generally debates with those in their mind even as you say something else.
It is therefore very important to make sure the "framework" we are floating on which is not an easy task due to its complexity. Its kind of annoying because even wikipedia has a good intro to it and people still keep coming with the "hearsay" they have. A lot of the blame falls on "Marxists" though who go around in a very "dogmatic" fashion and empty criticisms without framework.

[Lokomotive293]

Under-consumption and over-production.... really? You realize these issues would fix themselves in true Capitalist societies? I'm not saying there wouldn't be losers... But you know. :unsure:

No, under-consumption and over-production will not fix themselves in any capitalist society.

Let me explain some economics to you:

You work for a capitalist. He pays you a wage. However, he will not pay you the exact value of the product you make. Why not? Because, guess what, if he did, he wouldn't have anything for himself.
Now, the capitalist gets revenue from his business. However, he does not put all of what he gets on his private account. In fact, he re-invests most of it back into his company, to make it grow, and produce more goods. Why does he have to do that? Because if he didn't, others would soon outcompete him, and he would go out of business.
Now, obviously, if you add together all the value of the goods produced, and then add together all the money people have available for consumption, you will realize that there is a difference.
In other words: It is impossible in any capitalist society that people as a whole consume all the products that are produced.
This what we call, guess what, over-production.
Now, if the whole economy continuously produces more than can be sold, this will eventually lead to crisis - in which huge masses of capital need to be devalued / destroyed, before the economy can work again.

And it gets even more interesting - because in every crisis, smaller capitalists will go out of business, while bigger capitalists will pick up the pieces. That works until the market is dominated by a few huge monopolies. Now, the bigger companies are and the fewer of them there are, the worse it gets if they go broke, which means: Not only will solution of a capitalist crisis always prepare the next crisis, it will actually prepare an even bigger one.

And, now, the last point: Value, and therefore profit, can only be created from actual labor - machines do not create value. However, with every technological improvement, labor is replaced by machines. Which means that, even though capitalists produce more and more with better and better machines, the rate of profit will fall. How do capitalists react to that? Well, they somehow have to grow their business faster than their rate of profit falls. That is only possible, however, if they take over other businesses, or whole countries. So, competition between the different capitalists increases, and eventually, capitalists will start going to war, taking over other countries, expanding anywhere where they can expand to, and if even that is not possible anymore, creating bubbles after bubbles, in an endless race against the falling rate of profit - however, they cannot but lose this race.

So, this is the (very short) explanation for why capitalism fails - even for the capitalists.

[nor-commie]

The lack of equality, and imperialism.
h t t p://i.imgur.com/hi2rtPc.jpg

[Loony Le Fist]

The concept of free markets leads to suboptimal solutions. We are taught in high school economics how everything balances out and free markets solve everything. See my thread on economic non-convexity http://www.revleft.com/vb/non-convexity-markets-t183952/index.html?t=183952. Much of this was uncovered in the late 60's.

It's a bit dense, but the gist of it is that free markets lead to intractable problems. It takes an infinite amount of time to compute whether your decision in a free market even right. Furthermore it takes an infinite amount of time, on average, to compute whether your decision lead to your success.

In other words, all the self-made hype is bologna. Attempting to solve something that is intractable reduces to pure chance. Not just that, many solutions lead to lose-lose scenarios. All of these computations waste a lot of time and energy on unproductive business strategy to "create new markets" that in the end reduce to coin flips in the grand scheme. Add to that the fact you are walking around in a minefield of bad solutions that actually can leave both counter-parties to transactions worse off. And let's not forget, the local minima that creep up, which in combination with our human ability to concoct meaning to random bs, make us believe that we have discovered some secret to success.

Capitalism = Fail.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Ahem...go to Bangladesh. It's a prime example of a laissez-faire, free market economy--a place where the private sector is allowed to solve society's problems.

It also happens to be hell on Earth.

Billions of people in this world make less than two dollars a day. Billions more have no access to adequate housing and sanitation.

And that sure as hell isn't because of socialism, because socialism hasn't come about yet. No, my dear comrade, it is because of capitalism, a system that has been idolized by leaders in countries worldwide for decades. A system that is driven by greed and a desire for profit--even Ayn Rand was quick to admit it.

Many say that socialism, communism, and anarchism are against human nature. That is not necessarily true.

More importantly, capitalism is against humanity.

Considering that your post was about one sentence long and focused on confrontation rather than reasonable discussion, I think most of us here on Revleft are happy to see you banned. Good day!:lol:

[RedBen]

you mean kapital? all 3 books? well see you in a couple of years, hope it is a fun read.

4

[Bourgeois]

I apologize for being a bit late, as well as not responding to all presented points. I've been rather busy lately and a fan in my computer is about to go.


Two quick points:
1. Classless, stateless societies have not only existed, but have existed longer than states or class by a significant degree. They also reappear in embryonic form on a startlingly regular basis, from the various popular egalitarian heresies that fueled the German peasant wars to the present day Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico. So, you know, it might be utopian to posit a mass industrial classless stateless society (though this is by no means a settled question, giving their relatively recent appearance on the world stage), but to simply say that classless stateless forms of life are impossible is wildly disconnected from reality.

2. So, uh, so, what does True Capitalism(TM) look like, and has it ever existed in human history? Given that a) it is a matter of historical fact that capitalism emerged with the advent of European colonial expansion, and b) there is a pretty compelling case that capitalism necessitates imperialism ('cos, y'know, tendency of the rate of profit to fall, etc.), what makes you so sure that True Capitalism(TM) lacks imperialist drive?

1. Zapatistas? You and I have different ideas on societies. Yes, there have been instances in the past of these so-called stateless societies surviving, but it's more complex than that. Early-mesopotamiac groups could function without a state, as they were quite nomadic, as well as being hunter-gatherers. History has shown that as these civilizations begin to practice agriculture, settle down, populate, and adopt more sustainable, and well, debate-ably more civilized methods of collecting essentials, we saw the ultimate formation of the state(s). If you asked me right now if I believed Communism could work in Communes, I would say yes. But the issue is there are many dark horse Communists out there that would attempt to take the entire world via violent revolution. They wouldn't tolerate anything except their own mindset, using fake "democratic states" to enforce the censorship of opposing ideology. Fortunately, the vast majority of people believe the end does not justify the means.

2. A question just as loaded as the OP's. When I refer to Capitalism I don't refer to the barebone basics as this site seems to, but rather free-market Capitalism, which I see as being true Capitalism. It's easy to attack the barebones of Capitalism for causing issues, but when someone attacks the basics of Communism for causing issues, the world must be ending. It's a silly double-standard. I wish for true-capitalism just as you wish for true-communism. The flawed versions of each are nearly impossible to overcome, but we both share in common (I hope) the idea that just because an idea or theory seems impossible, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards that idea. Based on factors like culture and history, I see Capitalism as being a less-dangerous flawed system, and as being much more likely to be fixed in opposition to Socialism or Communism.


Right. It's systemic failure. The rate of profit has been falling since the mid 1950s, as predicted by Marx. This caused lack of investment with record levels of cash hoarding by corporations. Demand was being floated by unsustainable levels of debt, and when that bubble burst, the whole house of cards came crashing down.

Yet Capitalism it still here. It still feeds pretty much all of America. It clothes all of America. Does it do it to a utopialistic tee? Absolutely not. There is still poverty, war, corruption, and sweatshops in the world. But the progress Capitalism has made in relative terms of history and time is undeniable even by the most staunch leftists. Masses of workers are not rising up to overcome the "Bourgeois." Heck, America is seeing individualist liberty movements rising up, as well as the recent popularity of the Libertarian party. Far from the decline of Capitalists that Marx envisioned, much less that it would start in America??? :ohmy:

There's a reason no one takes Marx seriously in any national debate aside from the evil Capitalist propaganda that extreme leftists love to espouse. It's because the right-wing meme is true: Communism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it, fails to be implemented and has failed to be implemented in society. Radical factionalization, ambitious military leaders, tyrannical demogogues, violent purges in the name of revolution; these are just a few of the issues when it comes to instituting a stateless and classless society. You can blame it on broken economies or the lack of world Communism all you want, the truth will never leave and it will be a very, very long time before the world starts considering the creation or institution of new economic systems, especially ones that have a rich history of failure and tyranny.

Also, Marx is now nearly obsolete in terms of politics because the flawed system of Capitalism is beginning to work in once collectivist societies. Communist-esque nations, or once Communist-esque nations like China and Vietnam are opening up to the market more and more. Accepting private business/ownership more and more. Looking at people as individuals and not collectives more and more.


Only Keynes can save you now. But there's no political will to actually do it. The alternative is a massive devaluation of capital that would restore the rate of profit, but this was prevented by the bailouts.

I don't think any of us understand this. You'll have to explain why the result wouldn't be an unstable oligopolistic or monopolistic Gilded-Age capitalism, and complete private tyranny of corporations over the individual? Real libertarianism is impossible in capitalism because you need the government to protect you from private power.


Keynesian? You mean regulated Capitalism? That's great. The only power a corporation has is the power to offer you a job, service, or product. The reason they seem to be such over-arching evil syndicates is because they are in bed with the gov. Bailouts, tax-breaks, they could do whatever they please without fear of failure. The gov is right in that their failure would bring about economic downturn, but we would recover and adapt just as Capitalism has done for the past century. Natural monopolies are so entirely rare that it's even hard to use the argument in a debate.

There would be a government in a Libertarian society. The problem that Libertarians must overcome is keeping a powerful government confined within boundaries (such as the constitution). I don't claim it to be an easy or even completely achievable task, but it's something that Libertarians fight for and they should garner your respect for that.


Why would capitalists want to subject themselves to the market? They'll use any means they can to distort it to ensure their own wealth and power, just as the ruling classes of previous systems had done. They would do exactly the same in any "true capitalism" unless prevented by some contravalent power.

This is why we make sure that those evil capitalists have no power to twist and distort the system. Criminal activity would be illegal, and activity within the government would be impossible as the government would have no power in the area. Once again, did I say it to be easy? No. I never did state that. But we all can agree that implementing a system that sounds great will never be easy.

[Czy]

I know my post was long, so can you just respond to this point I made:


See, here's the difference: everyone agrees that what exists now is capitalism. There's no 'true capitalism': capitalism is an evolving system that constantly adapts to the economic climate (This is probably my most important point that dismisses your True Capitalism (TM) nonsense) (think about how it picked itself up from the 08 crisis through quantitative easing, etc). On the other hand, the Soviet Union, its satellites and other "Communist" states were not communist or even socialist. Firstly, communism is a stateless, classless society. Secondly, the USSR was state capitalist, and this is indisputable as it copied the West's price signals, used heavy capital reinvested techniques, and traded with the West, etc etc.

[servusmoderni]

It may work for the first world, but with the second and the third, capitalism is a useless piece of crap. The first world being the exploiting class and the second and third being the exploited classes. If the second and third world start revolting tomorrow, you'll see, our great nations founded on the sweat and blood of foreign workers will tremble. If the first world's means of productions disappear, being China or other Asian and African countries. Our "capitalism" will not work anymore. The first purpose of Capitalism is to exploit and make profit, thus if there's exploitation, there's also exploited people.

Sorry if it's not clear, English is not my main language...

[Remus Bleys]

everytime i see this thread i read "where's your proof that capitalism is false" lol

[argeiphontes]

Keynesian? You mean regulated Capitalism? That's great.


That's great, for Libertarians?? So you're saying so-called Libertarians support corporate welfare and redistribution of income in the form of Keynesianism? That doesn't sound right to me. Why would they want to eliminate cheap social programs but keep expensive government intervention in capitalist firms? Wouldn't that be inconsistent and morally bankrupt? And if that's what you want, you should say it. Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh won't say it, but maybe you have principles.



The only power a corporation has is the power to offer you a job, service, or product. The reason they seem to be such over-arching evil syndicates is because they are in bed with the gov.
Why wouldn't they try to control the government? You just said that Keynesianism is OK. So, you'll need a state apparatus to administer it. You'll need a central bank. Corporations will lobby Congress for preferential treatment and redistribution. Wait a minute... we have that system now.

Only a child would believe that all corporations and other capitalists do is offer you beneficial things in a pollyanishly benign free market. Ask some workers in Bangladesh, or even the United States, how great these "offers" are. Ask the NGOs that corporations routinely spy on. Ask people who've gone bankrupt from medical bills or lost their homes because of predatory lending. These things aren't bugs, they're features.



Bailouts, tax-breaks, they could do whatever they please without fear of failure. The gov is right in that their failure would bring about economic downturn, but we would recover and adapt just as Capitalism has done for the past century.
But governement support of business was OK a minute ago when I mentioned Keynes. You're also disregarding the human cost, as well as the class struggle. They have to prop the system up to ensure its reproduction and prevent revolution. It has to deliver the goods to a great extent or people stop believing in it. There's a limit to how much bullshit people are willing to take, they consider their material situations and interests (they just have less power and are subject to propaganda and "education"). Ultimately though, even the Soviet Union is better than complete destitution. Everybody sides with Stalin against starvation, even a libertarian socialist ;). How do you think Roosevelt got the marginal tax rate up to 95%? The threat that Uncle Joe's system, or some kind of syndicalism, would be preferred by people living in the Great Depression. The threat of the people getting at their throats, basically. Or are you going to send the army into the streets to shoot US citizens in order to protect inanimate objects, like they do in third-world dictatorships?



Natural monopolies are so entirely rare that it's even hard to use the argument in a debate.
It doesn't have to be an actual "natural monopoly". Remember that CitiBank memo describing the United States as a oligarchy? That's just a natural result of capitalism. Capitalists love to use the state for class war and as a site for their own intra-capitalist conflicts. (Also actual war and imperialism.) The state is great for first-world capital, but they want the "free market" for everyone else.

There doesn't have to be any "criminal activity" when you're the one writing the laws. The point we are making is that these are systemic and structural issues. Only left-libertarianism is possible, if any libertarianism is, because it also rejects private tyranny. Otherwise I'll have to quote Sarah Palin and say "there'll be death panels!" ;)

edit: This thread is somewhat fun, but it's tiresome. Try reading about left-libertarianism or communism or something so we don't have to do as much work.

[Bourgeois]

I know my post was long, so can you just respond to this point I made:

I'd love to respond to your entire post and will in due time. For now...

To an extent, yes, what exists now is a form of Capitalism in relative terms of markets and private property. Capitalism does evolve, like every other economic system, and therefore does change. The issue is that any and all problems listed here do not indicate that Capitalism has failed. Capitalism has resulted in creating the highest standards of living our history has ever seen. Making vague and mystic correlations between class and issues like poverty, war, etc. is silly and remote nonsense. Marx himself, if I remember correctly, consented that social and cultural ties can be responsible for issues like these to the same extent that economic ties can be responsible. I don't deny that these issues will be present in a Capitalistic society, but I don't see them as an indication of failure.

When I refer to true Capitalism, I refer to laissez-faire Capitalism, or free-enterprise. You ask: Where has this occurred in history? I respond: Every economy has been mixed to an extent in history. Capitalism, however, seems to display the most growth and progress... Usually indicated by the fact that it (albeit extremely crude forms) has taken over the world... Maybe?

You are correct on the Soviet Union, but I'm not going to retort with nonsense like: "Where has true Communism existed (on a massive scale) in history?" Note that you'd have to define a society that had no state, no economic classes, no social classes, no racial classes, feudal classes, tribal classes, was settled (to an extent), populous and did not rely on hunter-gather techniques to collect resources (needs agriculture or industry). However, the state-capitalism used was simply as a vain attempt to industrialize and boost the economy before revolution. The issue that arises is that there would never be a proletariat revolution or could have ever been one. The Mensheviks would blame it on the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks would blame it on the Mensheviks... meanwhile tens of millions of civilians are dying in a crude and barbaric form of Capitalism under the iron fist of... You guessed it, a totalitarian regime! Communism's implementation had failed, just as it had in every other society that exists. I see this as an issue.


That's great, for Libertarians?? So you're saying so-called Libertarians support corporate welfare and redistribution of income in the form of Keynesianism? That doesn't sound right to me. Why would they want to eliminate cheap social programs but keep expensive government intervention in capitalist firms? Wouldn't that be inconsistent and morally bankrupt? And if that's what you want, you should say it. Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh won't say it, but maybe you have principles.

I was not being serious...


Why wouldn't they try to control the government? You just said that Keynesianism is OK. So, you'll need a state apparatus to administer it. You'll need a central bank. Corporations will lobby Congress for preferential treatment and redistribution. Wait a minute... we have that system now.

Exactly... Keynes rarely has its uses... But I don't deny that he was a brilliant man.


Only a child would believe that all corporations and other capitalists do is offer you beneficial things in a pollyanishly benign free market. Ask some workers in Bangladesh, or even the United States, how great these "offers" are. Ask the NGOs that corporations routinely spy on. Ask people who've gone bankrupt from medical bills or lost their homes because of predatory lending. These things aren't bugs, they're features.

Beneficial is dependent among many factors. Seriously, where do you think the individuals would be working in Bangladesh without these corporations? In no way am I justifying the corporations' actions, It's simply common knowledge that this form of crude-capitalism will result in crime and corruption. There's a reason they have no choice but the "Evil" corporations forcing them to work in sweatshops at meager pay... Maybe you should look at that more closely instead of pointing the finger at an entire economic concept. Spying in that sense is illegal. Predatory lending is an issue and relies on manipulation and trickery, and in no way is it a feature of Capitalism (Really man?).


But governement support of business was OK a minute ago when I mentioned Keynes. You're also disregarding the human cost, as well as the class struggle. They have to prop the system up to ensure its reproduction and prevent revolution. It has to deliver the goods to a great extent or people stop believing in it. There's a limit to how much bullshit people are willing to take, they consider their material situations and interests (they just have less power and are subject to propaganda and "education"). Ultimately though, even the Soviet Union is better than complete destitution. Everybody sides with Stalin against starvation, even a libertarian socialist ;). How do you think Roosevelt got the marginal tax rate up to 95%? The threat that Uncle Joe's system, or some kind of syndicalism, would be preferred by people living in the Great Depression. The threat of the people getting at their throats, basically. Or are you going to send the army into the streets to shoot US citizens in order to protect inanimate objects, like they do in third-world dictatorships?

Seems like a bunch of rhetoric and assumption to me about revolution and the reasoning behind it. I can't really make any argument to this as I could make an exact counter-statement with just as much assumption. Neither one of our statements would really hold any substance.

I
t doesn't have to be an actual "natural monopoly". Remember that CitiBank memo describing the United States as a oligarchy? That's just a natural result of capitalism. Capitalists love to use the state for class war and as a site for their own intra-capitalist conflicts. (Also actual war and imperialism.) The state is great for first-world capital, but they want the "free market" for everyone else.

More rhetoric... The "oligarchy" has no power over you. They can infiltrate the government to control power, but I don't consider that real Capitalism, just as you wouldn't consider anything except Marxism, Communism.


There doesn't have to be any "criminal activity" when you're the one writing the laws. The point we are making is that these are systemic and structural issues. Only left-libertarianism is possible, if any libertarianism is, because it also rejects private tyranny. Otherwise I'll have to quote Sarah Palin and say "there'll be death panels!" ;)

That's why we don't allow the government to make those laws in the free-enterprise system. There can be as many oligarchs in the government as possible, but as long as their power is limited and controlled, what can they do? The problem for the Libertarian movement is keeping this power limited and controlled.


edit: This thread is somewhat fun, but it's tiresome. Try reading about left-libertarianism or communism or something so we don't have to do as much work.

It's impossible for me because I can't hide in a room of mirrors and turn the lights off like some Communists like to do. Everything about the movement is rooted in non-empirical, philosophical mysticism. Any moment it's attacked, all I hear is a blather of excuses as to why it's perfect. I don't deny Capitalism as having flaws, I simply see it as bringing about, and continuing to bring about a great amount of progress, science, and infrastructure, compared to our systems of past. I then see the attempts at Communism, and you wonder why I'm a bit turned away from the prospect, and the bloody, violent revolution (most likely World War, as you'd never gain complete support from the proletariat) that would ensue in its attempt to be instilled and eventually maintained?

[Remus Bleys]

To an extent, yes, what exists now is a form of Capitalism in relative terms of markets and private property. Capitalism does evolve, like every other economic system, and therefore does change. The issue is that any and all problems listed here do not indicate that Capitalism has failed.
No one is arguing if capitalism has failed, the argument is that it has fulfilled its usefulness.

Capitalism has resulted in creating the highest standards of living our history has ever seen.
Did anyone deny this?

Making vague and mystic correlations between class and issues like poverty, war, etc. is silly and remote nonsense.

Marx himself, if I remember correctly, consented that social and cultural ties can be responsible for issues like these to the same extent that economic ties can be responsible.
lol. marx himself. source?

When I refer to true Capitalism, I refer to laissez-faire Capitalism, or free-enterprise. You ask: Where has this occurred in history? I respond: Every economy has been mixed to an extent in history. Capitalism, however, seems to display the most growth and progress... Usually indicated by the fact that it (albeit extremely crude forms) has taken over the world... Maybe? Capitalism has been progressive. No one denies that. But the fact that its recessions are getting worse and worse, its harder to recover, is indicative of its usefulness being fulfilled.


You are correct on the Soviet Union, but I'm not going to retort with nonsense like: "Where has true Communism existed (on a massive scale) in history?" Note that you'd have to define a society that had no state, no economic classes, no social classes, no racial classes, feudal classes, tribal classes, was settled (to an extent), populous and did not rely on hunter-gather techniques to collect resources (needs agriculture or industry).
What?

However, the state-capitalism used was simply as a vain attempt to industrialize and boost the economy before revolution.
Capitalism was used during the revolution, and the proletarian failure was signified in the switch to regular capitalism.

The issue that arises is that there would never be a proletariat revolution or could have ever been one.
Never? The russian revolution was a proletarian revolution (at least partly).

The Mensheviks would blame it on the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks would blame it on the Mensheviks
what?

meanwhile tens of millions of civilians are dying in a crude and barbaric form of Capitalism under the iron fist of.
nevermind the capitalist aggression, civil war, or white terror

.. You guessed it, a totalitarian regime!
Oh no totalitarianism!

Communism's implementation had failed, just as it had in every other society that exists. I see this as an issue.
Communism's implementation? Didn't you just say it wasn't? The issue with these failures is bourgeois aggression. You have to look at what the bourgeois states did in response to this, not just the failures of the proletariat.

It's impossible for me because I can't hide in a room of mirrors and turn the lights off like some Communists like to do. Everything about the movement is rooted in non-empirical, philosophical mysticism.
Oh okay Mr. Fountainhead is my avatar.

[argeiphontes]

When I refer to true Capitalism, I refer to laissez-faire Capitalism, or free-enterprise.

I was not being serious...

Exactly... Keynes rarely has its uses... But I don't deny that he was a brilliant man.


What exactly are you advocating here? You can only pick one among several contradictory positions. You're playing both sides and being vague on purpose. You'll have to address the contradiction between government being able to rescue capitalism and laissez-faire.



Spying in that sense is illegal. Predatory lending is an issue and relies on manipulation and trickery, and in no way is it a feature of Capitalism (Really man?).
First, my point is that you'll need a strong government to enforce any right-libertarian society. Spying is illegal, but that is not enforced, even now. Why? Because corporations control the government, just as they would in your system. How are you going to prevent predatory lending? If it's not a feature, then why did THIS (http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-settlement-with-department-of-justice-335-million-2011-12) happen? Is everybody going to play nice in a laissez-faire system just because Ayn Rand says they will or what?



Seems like a bunch of rhetoric and assumption to me about revolution and the reasoning behind it. I can't really make any argument to this as I could make an exact counter-statement with just as much assumption. Neither one of our statements would really hold any substance.
How is a laizzez-faire capitalist system going to prevent unions from forming and suppress the class struggle? There are more of us than there are of them. Simple math, not assumptions.



More rhetoric... The "oligarchy" has no power over you. They can infiltrate the government to control power, but I don't consider that real Capitalism, just as you wouldn't consider anything except Marxism, Communism.

....

That's why we don't allow the government to make those laws in the free-enterprise system. There can be as many oligarchs in the government as possible, but as long as their power is limited and controlled, what can they do? The problem for the Libertarian movement is keeping this power limited and controlled.
The oligarchy has no power over me, despite being in the government huh? That's either contradictory or extremely pollyanish, take your pick. There is no way to limit private power without a strong government. And that government will become a tool of corporations and capitalists like it is now. In other words, there is no way to limit private power in capitalism; your system would just be worse, especially for libertarian ideals. That's my whole thesis, which you are attempting to defeat with mere rhetoric.

In the current system, any rational person must side with the government, because even though it is imperfect, it is the only force limiting private power over the individual, which is a greater form of tyranny than one that gives lip service to democracy. Why do you think liberals and progressives do it?



It's impossible for me because I can't hide in a room of mirrors and turn the lights off like some Communists like to do.If you'd like to argue against communism, you can't just argue against your idea of what it is, you'll have to find out something about it and argue against the the actual ideas communists present. Furthermore, you can't just flip positions from paragraph to paragraph, based on other people's arguments, you have to have a logically consistent position, which I just can't seem to find. You haven't addressed any of the practicalities of your laissez-faire system or even given any specifics.

Instead of convincing us to give up our positions, you'll be giving good reason for anyone coming across this conversation to investigate communism further. Is that your real purpose?

[Rafiq]

Communism is proof of capitalisms failure. No such lasting state of affairs could birth such a movement, it is proof of class contradiction.

[Czy]

I'd love to respond to your entire post and will in due time. For now...

No worries.


Capitalism has resulted in creating the highest standards of living our history has ever seen.

You're right! Capitalism meant that there was an incredible development of the means of production, due to competition and new techniques and technologies. A big step up from Feudalism, as Feudalism was a big step up from slave societies. The problem with this logic, is that you could use this argument to argue for any superseding mode of production. Feudalism was a step up from slave societies, but that doesn't mean we should advocate for it.

The superiority and sophistication of the means of production today should mean that production should be carried out for-use and not for-profit; we could fulfil everyone's needs - the current system is starting to crumble under its own logic.


When I refer to true Capitalism, I refer to laissez-faire Capitalism, or free-enterprise. You ask: Where has this occurred in history? I respond: Every economy has been mixed to an extent in history. Capitalism, however, seems to display the most growth and progress... Usually indicated by the fact that it (albeit extremely crude forms) has taken over the world... Maybe?

No disagreement here. Know why it took over the world though, Bourgeois? Because the bourgeoisie from fast-growing European economies sent men to the far-reaches of the world to take resources to fuel this fast-paced development; this exploding horizon of factories and oil wells and mines.


Communism's state-capitalism's implementation had failed, just as it had in every other society that exists. I see this as an issue.

Fixed for ya!


Seriously, where do you think the individuals would be working in Bangladesh without these corporations? In no way am I justifying the corporations' actions

But you just did, right there in the first part of that sentence :) You're saying that these corporations are helping these workers by providing work they would otherwise not have had, and therefore the company is justified in paying them cringeworthy wages and forcing them to work under dangerous conditions.


It's simply common knowledge that this form of crude-capitalism will result in crime and corruption.

Fixed for ya!


The problem for the Libertarian movement is keeping this power limited and controlled.

Dialectically, this is an unsolvable problem. The state is a weapon used by the bourgeoisie to further its class interests, and the bourgeoisie run this form of democracy, so you cannot keep government 'limited and controlled' without reconfiguring the logic of capitalism.


Yet Capitalism it still here.

Sadly.



It still feeds pretty much all of America.

Is 'pretty much' good enough for you? Surely every human should have the right to be fed? That's why we should implement a system that will respect the environment, our fellow humans and ourselves (a system that doesn't turn our labour into a commodity and our soul into a purchasing-machine).

[Bourgeois]

Seems I'm getting behind again, I'll have to start responding to older posts so If I don't immediately respond to new ones, please don't be angry. :)


No one is arguing if capitalism has failed, the argument is that it has fulfilled its usefulness.

That's what I thought this thread was about. Huh. Anyways, if Capitalism is no longer useful, then why aren't the labour parties of the world booming? Why are we seeing less and less state control of many markets? The global socialism stage is a bit far off - unless you don't believe in Marx's idea of history and think we can make a straight jump into complete Communism.


Did anyone deny this?

Hard to have this statistic then try to prove Capitalism fails based off of philosophical claims from a very old man. Not to say his philosophy is wrong because it's old, but that most of what he has said has not come true. The majority of his "predictions" that did come true were actually observations or had been developed by other theorists years prior.


lol. marx himself. source?

I'll put some research in to it. It's not something I know off the top of the dome.

That being said: Do you believe social evolution is entirely dependent upon the economic conditions of society in its current state in time?


Capitalism has been progressive. No one denies that. But the fact that its recessions are getting worse and worse, its harder to recover, is indicative of its usefulness being fulfilled.

You can't compare the severity of the modern recessions to those of the past... However, an interesting note is that the average length of depressions and the severity of certain GDP drops has actually decreased post World War I. Unquestionable evidence of "better" recessions? Not really. But the same can be said for evidence of "worsening" recessions.


What?

I was asked where true capitalism existed. I stated it was a loaded question and jokingly responded with another loaded question. Those questions don't help in debate.


Capitalism was used during the revolution, and the proletarian failure was signified in the switch to regular capitalism.

There was never any regular Capitalism. State-control ran rampant. The "Revolution" failed because the state would not cease to exist, and the people were not willing to complete a true communist revolution. It was much more a coup than anything. The only thing that fueled the "proletariat" were the actions of the Tsar and the promise of food and land for all.


Never? The russian revolution was a proletarian revolution (at least partly).

No. In context I refer to Marxist revolutions. If I did not make that clear I apologize. It did not overthrow Capitalism. A Leninist revolution was actually somewhat successful.


what?

Joke about factionalization that actually holds truth, though they would later not attribute themselves to such names.


nevermind the capitalist aggression, civil war, or white terror

Rhetoric. Can't expect anyone to take you seriously when it comes to race baiting remarks.


Oh no totalitarianism!

Seems to be a bit of an inherent problem when it comes to implementing Communism. Not a bit worrying to you?


Communism's implementation? Didn't you just say it wasn't? The issue with these failures is bourgeois aggression. You have to look at what the bourgeois states did in response to this, not just the failures of the proletariat.

Yes... I said it wasn't... because it failed. :rolleyes:

I'd agree with you on the Bourgeois statement, if only lightly. The problem comes in that the Bourgeois ends up being (in reality) much more than a wealthy upperclass.


Oh okay Mr. Fountainhead is my avatar.

Once again, I am not a proponent of the entire philosophy, only parts.

I say this because there are problems everywhere. Extreme leftists believe legitimate Capitalism is everywhere. Therefore they believe Capitalism is the cause of all problems, or at least, a good bit of them. Attacking Communism is almost impossible for me, because it's nothing to reality and only a theoretical, philosophical concept that has failed to successfully manifest itself in reality without hundreds of issue, the primary being human nature, causing to to become nothing more than totalitarian states of control.

[Ritzy Cat]

Hello friends, as I do not mean to disrupt the conversation, but I also share a similar question to the OP. Is there a sticky on this forum that contains statistics and data regarding capitalism and how it has failed globally? I would like some actual numbers/studies etc. I can use in my arguments against my capitalist friends.

[MWM958]

I think we should distinguish between Communism "failing" and just simply being overthrown. For example, the fall of the Soviet Union was not so much a failure of Communism, but an overthrowing of the existing system by bourgeois leaders.

[tallguy]

Give me documented evidence.
I haven't formally read any socialist or communist theory and so I only have to go on the bits I I have picked up here and there, plus my own thinking on capitalism overt the last few years as everything has started to fuck up around the Western world. From what I understand, according to Marx, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. What I've interpreted that to mean is that the endless competition between bosses would inevitably lead to a collapse of their customer base. This, in turn, would lead to civil unrest and, eventually, revolution.

The reason for the above seems to be the need for profit. In its most essential form, profit may be defined as a situation whereby someone exits an economic transaction with more resources than when they went in with. In order for anyone to extract a profit, then, a loss must be incurred by someone, or some thing, somewhere else. Either the supplier of the raw materials makes a loss, or the manufacturer makes a loss, or the retailer makes a loss, or the customer makes a loss, or the workers all the way up the production chain makes a loss. Someone or something has to make a loss. The above leads to the paradox of a situation where the ideal for any boss would be to do away with all workers and automate all production since this would prove to be the most profitable arrangement.

However, those workers are also the boss's customers. Thus, in doing away with them, they have destroyed their customer base's capacity to spend money on buying their products.

Economic growth, it seems to me, is the only thing that has allowed capitalism to paper over this fundamental flaw in its heart and so allow it to last for as long as it has. Which, in historical terms, is not very long at all really. In other words, while growth has occurred, workers have indeed been replaced by more profitable automation in successive industries. But, those same workers have, to a greater or lesser degree, been able to relocate to new industries born of that continuing economic growth. This is not to say that any system of human organisation would not have run up against the same resource buffers. It's just that capitalism has proved to be very efficient at getting us here. In this sense, whilst resources were available to enable growth to occur, the "loss" was at least partially incurred by the Earth itself. Now that growth is becoming ever more difficult to effect and will, at some point, become no longer physically possible, the days of win/win capitalism (to the extent that it ever existed for more than a mere portion of humanity anyway) are over. In a static or contracting economy all profits must be balanced with losses.

Or, to put all of the above more succinctly: Capitalism does not work in a static or contracting economy unless one is prepared to accept considerable levels of bankruptcies/social unrest etc. Fractional reserve banking (FRB) stimulates and amplifies economic growth by borrowing from the future and so avoids, for a time, the inherent flaw in capitalism. The earth has finite amounts of easily accessible industrial resources eventually resulting in a situation where growth has stopped. Capitalism's inherent flaw is exposed.

I need to expand here, on a subsidiary, but very important factor. That of fractional reserve banking. FRB is a financial process whereby if I go to a bank and borrow money from them I must pay it back with the monetary fruits of my own future productive activities. The money that the domestic bank lent to me, they also borrowed from a commercial bank. The commercial bank lent that money into existence. However, they only did so on the back of knowing that they can go to the central bank, after-the-fact and make good their lendings. Thus, ultimately, central banks/commercial lenders decide how much is lent into existence to you and me based on an assumption of how much productive activity will be happening in the future such that the lending can be repaid. Of course, the reality of how the credit trickles down through the system is far more tortuous and indirect than the schematic, above. But, in principle, this is how our FRB "money" supply grows.

FRB, in the above conceptualisation, may be seen as borrowing from the future. Or, if you prefer, FRB is a form of the lending of the future to today. The semantics of the description matter less than the actuality of the process. FRB has been yet another weapon in the armoury of capitalism whereby the losses incurred today can be papered over. In FRB's case, by drawing down profits from the future. Thus, economic growth is accelerated under an FRB system of money creation.

However, there is a fundamental truth we all know in our guts and which science has merely formalised. Namely, that there is no such thing as free lunch. As long as there are a large amount of resources, we can pretend, for a while, that there is. Once we hit the limits of those resources, though, FRB stops working as a consequence of the future failing to honour the FRB promises of today. At that point, we get economic collapse (the current crisis is the beginning of that collapse). From now on in, in order for profits to be maintained, someone has to lose for someone else to gain.

Perpetual economic growth is over. A money supply that is increased over time via FRB credit is over. Capitalism is over. The future will be either some form of socialism/communism or a return to serfdom for the majority

If history is anything to go by, I'm not hopeful.

[liberlict]

'fails' is very relative.

[ColossalButtwipe]

This idea that "real capitalism" doesn't exist is bull. Does private property exist? Yes. Do we have a system where profits are made using wage labor and capital? Yes.

We live under a "real" capitalist system. How free the market is/the extent of government intervention is irrelevant to this fact.

[Bourgeois]

What exactly are you advocating here? You can only pick one among several contradictory positions. You're playing both sides and being vague on purpose. You'll have to address the contradiction between government being able to rescue capitalism and laissez-faire.

You automatically assume that a government is required to prevent the failure of Capitalism. You probably have these ideologies because of recessions and Keynes but that's a whole other debate entirely as you'll find there are many different economic theorists who would disagree (as well as agree) with your claim. I don't look at the barebones of the systems but rather the intricacies.


First, my point is that you'll need a strong government to enforce any right-libertarian society. Spying is illegal, but that is not enforced, even now. Why? Because corporations control the government, just as they would in your system. How are you going to prevent predatory lending? If it's not a feature, then why did happen? Is everybody going to play nice in a laissez-faire system just because Ayn Rand says they will or what?

Why would they have any will to control the government if there was no economic power in the government? I advocate for a Libertarian-esque government in that the limited laws it will have are well-enforced and regulated. If you look at the budget disaster of the current US government you'll start to see why laws in the nation aren't being enforced.

I don't claim that there wouldn't be issues- there are issues in every economic system- but the issues would be limited and it would not devolve into crony-capitalism because the government in place would be limited, yet efficient in enforcing its policies instead of bloated and inefficient in enforcing its policies.


How is a laizzez-faire capitalist system going to prevent unions from forming and suppress the class struggle? There are more of us than there are of them. Simple math, not assumptions.

More assumptions. You are using your predetermined bias of Capitalism and your experiences with crony-capitalism and corporatism to slander your view on a more philosophical, theoretical economic system. I always see so much anger when I relate the written, theoretical and philosophical views of Communism to the real world... Yet when I advocate for a system that in many ways is similar in nature- in that it hasn't truly existed or is often infested with corruption in reality- I get this. Here's your question that can be applied to any economic system:

How is a Communistic system going to prevent a power funnel and the radical factionalization of a newly revolutionized, fragile social and economic structure?

I know the response- A written archetype of how the system should be instituted to work- But isn't that what I'm advocating?


The oligarchy has no power over me, despite being in the government huh? That's either contradictory or extremely pollyanish, take your pick. There is no way to limit private power without a strong government. And that government will become a tool of corporations and capitalists like it is now. In other words, there is no way to limit private power in capitalism; your system would just be worse, especially for libertarian ideals. That's my whole thesis, which you are attempting to defeat with mere rhetoric.

A Libertarian system advocates for a state capable of enforcing its laws. A Libertarian system would not allow a government to expand beyond it's means or institute laws not in line with the Libertarian political philosophy. This isn't to mention that a private power has no legal power over you in a Libertarian society. Any power they'd exert over you would be illegal. ILLEGAL. If this illegal activity happened and the government made no move to stop it, we would no longer be in a Libertarian society and your premise would be bogus.


In the current system, any rational person must side with the government, because even though it is imperfect, it is the only force limiting private power over the individual, which is a greater form of tyranny than one that gives lip service to democracy. Why do you think liberals and progressives do it?

I'm confused as to what power the private sector would have over you in a Libertarian society. Last I checked all they can do is offer you a job, service, or product. The moment a private power exerts true force and tyranny over you and the government has no means or will to stop it, we would no longer be living in a Libertarian society.


If you'd like to argue against communism, you can't just argue against your idea of what it is, you'll have to find out something about it and argue against the the actual ideas communists present. Furthermore, you can't just flip positions from paragraph to paragraph, based on other people's arguments, you have to have a logically consistent position, which I just can't seem to find. You haven't addressed any of the practicalities of your laissez-faire system or even given any specifics.

Here's my argument: To the same extent you find the theoretical, philosophical concept of laissez-faire Capitalism unpractical and unachievable in reality, I find the theoretical, philosophical concept of Communism unpractical and unachievable in reality. I then examine history to see which system is more likely to have success under failed implementation and which system has brought about the greatest results of prosperity upon attempted implementation. From my collected evidence, I make a rational decision about which system would be better off being instituted in a society. The economists of the world have done the same.


Instead of convincing us to give up our positions, you'll be giving good reason for anyone coming across this conversation to investigate communism further. Is that your real purpose?

You can read all you want about Communism - because that's all it is: words. No matter how deep you go, no matter how much you tell me to dive into the philosophy, it doesn't matter, because you can't honestly expect a rational person to keep trying the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results because this time it'd be done "right".

So please, wanderers, investigate Communism. Investigate the idea, then investigate the attempted implementation of the idea. Ask yourself: "Why can't Capitalists imagine a system where everything goes right and follows its written archetype, while Communists can?"

-Bourgeois

P.S. There's a reason you get so few opposing ideologies here.

P.P.S. Everyone who advocates for Capitalism and recognizes the failure of Communism is not necessarily brainwashed or attempting to exploit their fellow human beings. :ohmy:

[Remus Bleys]

P.P.S. Everyone who advocates for Capitalism and recognizes the failure of Communism is not necessarily brainwashed or attempting to exploit their fellow human beings. :ohmy:
well your name is listed as "bourgeois"

[argeiphontes]

You automatically assume that a government is required to prevent the failure of Capitalism. You probably have these ideologies because of recessions and Keynes but that's a whole other debate entirely as you'll find there are many different economic theorists who would disagree (as well as agree) with your claim. I don't look at the barebones of the systems but rather the intricacies.


I look to actual failures like the Great Depression and the current Great Recession. The declining rate of profit, the zero lower bound. Yeah--empirical facts. Things aren't a whole lot worse for people at the top during these periods, like now, so it's not that capitalism has failed in some end-of-the-world sense. it's that it's failed for the people, causing real suffering.

And that's not counting the fact that capitalism is systemic exploitation that appropriates the surplus value to the people who own capital, which is based on the legal fiction of private property in the means of production. So, socialism is desirable on its own terms, even if capitalism never failed. No consistent defender of individual liberty would support such a system.



Why would they have any will to control the government if there was no economic power in the government? I advocate for a Libertarian-esque government in that the limited laws it will have are well-enforced and regulated. If you look at the budget disaster of the current US government you'll start to see why laws in the nation aren't being enforced.
Because elites always use the government for their own purposes. Laws benefit them at the expense of the people. You didn't notice how a shitstorm was raised over SNAP benefits but not about the parts of the Farm Bill that benefit agribusiness (and are far more expensive), I take it?



I don't claim that there wouldn't be issues- there are issues in every economic system- but the issues would be limited and it would not devolve into crony-capitalism because the government in place would be limited, yet efficient in enforcing its policies instead of bloated and inefficient in enforcing its policies.
Yeah, capitalists would magically stop funding their pet politicians, think-tanks, and lobbyists, if only government would keep its hands from regulating them? Why is that not a contradiction?



How is a Communistic system going to prevent a power funnel and the radical factionalization of a newly revolutionized, fragile social and economic structure?
I'm not sure what you mean by a power funnel and 'radical factionalization'? There are always political disagreements in any nontotalitarian, nontotalized system.



A Libertarian system advocates for a state capable of enforcing its laws. A Libertarian system would not allow a government to expand beyond it's means or institute laws not in line with the Libertarian political philosophy. This isn't to mention that a private power has no legal power over you in a Libertarian society. Any power they'd exert over you would be illegal. ILLEGAL.
Private property and the unequal power it confers would be abolished? Great, that's what left-libertarians, anarchists, and socialists want. If no, then why not? Private property is a legally-granted fiction that confers actual power in the market, isn't it? Why don't you want to abolish it then? To quote Richard Stallman (the GNU/Linux guy), "a choice of masters is not freedom." Why do you think it is? Don't you think there is a difference between equality on paper and actual equality, because of the real functioning of socioeconomic power structures?

As for the class struggle, it has always existed. Are you saying that you would unequally defend the right of capitalists to organize into corporations but deny workers the right to organize into unions, or to strike against employers? Workers have been resisting capitalist domination since it began, since the Diggers and the Luddites.

See, I think it's a fundamental problem of values here. Who an economic system should work for. The people on this board think that it should work for everyone, not just support the ability of capitalists to exploit others. You should take a look at your principles and see who they benefit.

edit: Oh, what do you mean, my experience with crony non-laissez faire capitalism has soured me? If you're saying I'd be happier in 19th century free-for-all capitalism, you've got to be kidding me. Giant trusts, bread cut with sawdust, Pinkertons killing strikers--a Libertarian paradise indeed.

[Bostana]

P.P.S. Everyone who advocates for Capitalism and recognizes the failure of Communism is not necessarily brainwashed or attempting to exploit their fellow human beings. :ohmy:

You're right.

And the people of Germany who didn't recognize the evil in Nazism weren't brainwashed by the government either

Seriously dude.
I know you think America is fucking beautiful but flip open a civics text book and pick the left or right page because undoubtedly there is something in there that tries to justify something evil that the U.S. has done. I know this because I am every time i read from my civics text book i see something evil the U.S. has done but the book decides to twist it and justify it and most of the time tries to pass it off as good, while if the evil commie Soviet Union did the exact same thing it is from the start condemned.

Also, I remember reading about the different governments sections. I flip to China and you know what I read? "China is a communist state run by a communist country" I laugh but then I get frustrated knowing people believe this without even reading what the fuck Communism is. I have no problem if you criticize Communism but read fucking Marx and know what the hell you're talking about before you start pulling arguments out your ass

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't claim that there wouldn't be issues- there are issues in every economic system- but the issues would be limited and it would not devolve into crony-capitalism because the government in place would be limited, yet efficient in enforcing its policies instead of bloated and inefficient in enforcing its policies.you repeatedly call your preferred society, a system but it's not really in the sense that the underlying mechanisms and drives of a society are a "system". You're advocating more of a set of policies; more analogous to Keynesianism policies, or state capitalist policies than to "communism" as a way society reproduces itself or "capitalism". This seems like a snarky point probably, and I don't really care about semantics, but I think it's important in terms of the debate. From our perspective, because your blueprint for managing capitalist relations leaves the "systemic" problems untouched. I wouldn't say capitalism "fails" but I do think we can historically conclude that it is inherently unstable, contradictory, undermines itself through it's own rules of the game, and is ultimately, in my view, unsustainable.

What you advocate is an overhaul and this might solve some problems on capitalist terms and it would probably create different problems. But the foundation would still be cracked. Crony-capitalism does not cause the problems in capitalism, the bad corporations that liberals counter pose to good local businesses... The basic mechanisms of they system create conditions for these specific forms to arise, these are expressions of capitalism, not something alien and imposed. In this system where the capitalists must expand or die in competition, they would have to be idiotic not to use any means possible to gain an advantage.


How is a Communistic system going to prevent a power funnel and the radical factionalization of a newly revolutionized, fragile social and economic structure? communism as a system of relations, as a general way society functions would make something like that nonsensical. As far as how a revolutionary movement would ensure that power is held by the working class... Well yeah that's getting into a more specific area of speculation on certain schemes or theories of how this could be ensured. This is one of the main dividing points among revolutionaries and a big part of why there are so many flavors.

But as a system, communism prevents a concentration of power because there would be no ability for some to enrich themselves as the expense of others.


I'm confused as to what power the private sector would have over you in a Libertarian society. Last I checked all they can do is offer you a job, service, or product. The moment a private power exerts true force and tyranny over you and the government has no means or will to stop it, we would no longer be living in a Libertarian society. the power it has over us is one of the fundamental drives of capitalism: the commodification of everything. You say the only power it has is over jobs, consumer goods, and services in your society as if these are optional as if in order to survive people don't need to buy products and sell their labor. The only power they have is over shelter (rent and a job to pay for it) and shelter also covers water other than public parks I guess, and food. So aside from the power to bar basic foot transportation, the only power the economic side of capitalism holds over us is the same power a jailer has over a prisoner.

[Ahab Strange]

Bourgeois




I say this because there are problems everywhere. Extreme leftists believe legitimate Capitalism is everywhere. Therefore they believe Capitalism is the cause of all problems, or at least, a good bit of them. Attacking Communism is almost impossible for me, because it's nothing to reality and only a theoretical, philosophical concept that has failed to successfully manifest itself in reality without hundreds of issue, the primary being human nature, causing to to become nothing more than totalitarian states of control.

How does something being a theoretical concept make it invalid? Wind back 800 years, and there could have been people saying the same thing about capitalism in the face of Feudalism. There were many fits and starts and different implementations before the present system became prevalent, different from the previous system but still inheriting many of its contradictions. Communism will be borne out of the present circumstances the same way capitalism was, but will be far more consciously applied than capitalism was/is.


Im intrigued about what obstacles you think "human nature" provides to communism....


Everything about the movement is rooted in non-empirical, philosophical mysticism.

Whoa. Everything? This really needs to be backed up. Explain how it is any more "mystical" than the certainty of a perfectly self correcting market?

[Dagoth Ur]

Guys state capitalism is and always was bullshit.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

[Marshal of the People]

Guys state capitalism is and always was bullshit.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm

I don't like state capitalism but it can be more humane than ordinary capitalism (take the Soviet Union for instance) or a lot worse.

[Dagoth Ur]

If you'd read my link you'd realize the USSR was never state-capitalist and any "Marxist" claiming otherwise has yet to make a real case.

That said I prefer state capitalism over "libertarian" (read: Randian) Capitalism.

[Czy]

Then what was it, if not state-capitalism, Dagoth? Humour me.

[Tim Cornelis]

If you'd read my link you'd realize the USSR was never state-capitalist and any "Marxist" claiming otherwise has yet to make a real case.

That said I prefer state capitalism over "libertarian" (read: Randian) Capitalism.

Of course it was state capitalism.


Direct producers confronting the objective conditions of their labour as alien property or non-property (i.e. the existence of private class property)
The dispossessed working class selling their labour-power to the owners of the means of production (i.e. the existence of a proletariat and wage-labour)
The Soviet proletariat producing commodities and performing unpaid surplus labour (i.e. the extraction of surplus value)
Soviet enterprises conducting exchange through monetary-commodity relations of consumer goods and instruments of labour (i.e. generalised commodity production)
Soviet enterprises being reciprocally autonomous as evidenced by this exchange (i.e. the existence of singular capitals)
Soviet enterprises, operating as singular capitals, confronting each other through this exchange (i.e. the existence of competition of capitals)
The often ruthless pursuit of economic growth through the extraction of surplus value (i.e. the accumulation of capital).
The existence of the law of value and profit considerations in production


Further reading: The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience

Socialism, in contrast, is freely associated and cooperative labour administrating common property producing without the law of value. This mode of production was never even approximated by the Soviet Union.

[argeiphontes]

without the law of value

What law of value? That commodities are produced only for their exchange value, or that they have any value at all apart from use value? (I'm not too sure how people on this site use Law of Value in the sense that there is one Law of Value, rather than the entire Marxian workup of how value operates in a capitalist system.)

[Bourgeois]

No worries.



You're right! Capitalism meant that there was an incredible development of the means of production, due to competition and new techniques and technologies. A big step up from Feudalism, as Feudalism was a big step up from slave societies. The problem with this logic, is that you could use this argument to argue for any superseding mode of production. Feudalism was a step up from slave societies, but that doesn't mean we should advocate for it.

I don't deny that Capitalism is finite... Not sure where you could get this from. All economic systems will eventually be replaced, including Capitalism, whether it could be in one hundred years like some of the more hardcore Marxists like to believe, or rather five hundred years which I believe to be a more accurate range. Of course it's impossible to know how factors outside the actual economic system contribute to it's downfall. We saw it with the Plague in Feudalism and we very well could see it occur in a similar manner when it comes to Capitalism. I made the point because for something to fail it has to fail more than it succeeds... We haven't seen this with Capitalism.

Also depends on your definition of Capitalism... I believe there will always be some form of markets and private property... So I guess in some senses I do believe in infinite Capitalism.


The superiority and sophistication of the means of production today should mean that production should be carried out for-use and not for-profit; we could fulfil everyone's needs - the current system is starting to crumble under its own logic.

I think you miss the point of the system. Things like needs are entirely dependent among who you ask. If you refer to the needs of life - water, food, and shelter, then I would make the argument that these needs are readily supplied in a Capitalist society.




No disagreement here. Know why it took over the world though, Bourgeois? Because the bourgeoisie from fast-growing European economies sent men to the far-reaches of the world to take resources to fuel this fast-paced development; this exploding horizon of factories and oil wells and mines.

You want me to condemn this I suppose? I'm sorry Capitalism's spread was not up to your moral standards. It spread, and if it had brought terrible tyranny, death, and all of these other crises to the people then I doubt they would have so easily backed down to this new evil.


Fixed for ya!

I'm not sure how State Capitalism's implementation had failed when the society ended up being run by State Capitalism.




But you just did, right there in the first part of that sentence :) You're saying that these corporations are helping these workers by providing work they would otherwise not have had, and therefore the company is justified in paying them cringeworthy wages and forcing them to work under dangerous conditions.

Really not sure how you're getting that. I simply asked where would these individuals be working in Bangladesh without these corporations. If you implement a broken form of Capitalism, then you can expect morally broken systems to arise. The same would come if you implemented a broken form of Socialism or Communism. It must be nice to be able to attack an entire system like Capitalism using these forms of rhetoric.




Fixed for ya!

Right.... Then let's say that Laissez-Faire Capitalism will fail because State Capitalism fails... Not a logical fallacy at all....

Doesn't seem like a sweeping generalization to you to attribute the barebones of Capitalism as being a failure when the barebones of Capitalism are not the only factors that actually effect the system? Don't think that there are a MULTITUDE of other factors at play besides profit and markets that could contribute to the failure of an economic system?

Sorry, I'm really struggling to understand the debate philosophy here. You seem the most reasonable of the bunch so I'm hopping for a good answer.


Dialectically, this is an unsolvable problem. The state is a weapon used by the bourgeoisie to further its class interests, and the bourgeoisie run this form of democracy, so you cannot keep government 'limited and controlled' without reconfiguring the logic of capitalism.

Not sure what you're going on about. We simply neuter the government when it comes to regulating the economy. If the Bourgeoisie infiltrated the government and altered the policies to suit their needs, then it would no longer be a laissez-faire system. You're arguing against a system that I would argue against as well.


Is 'pretty much' good enough for you? Surely every human should have the right to be fed? That's why we should implement a system that will respect the environment, our fellow humans and ourselves (a system that doesn't turn our labour into a commodity and our soul into a purchasing-machine).

What's the rate of death by starvation in Capitalist America?


This idea that "real capitalism" doesn't exist is bull. Does private property exist? Yes. Do we have a system where profits are made using wage labor and capital? Yes.

We live under a "real" capitalist system. How free the market is/the extent of government intervention is irrelevant to this fact.

I have a question.... why is there a correlation between higher prosperity and more economic freedom?


well your name is listed as "bourgeois"

Didn't say I wasn't one of those. :)

[argeiphontes]

I think you miss the point of the system. Things like needs are entirely dependent among who you ask. If you refer to the needs of life - water, food, and shelter, then I would make the argument that these needs are readily supplied in a Capitalist society.


You can't just focus on the West. The prosperity here is merely relative, because of protectionist policies and government intervention and imperialism. Now that those regimes are eroding in favor of free trade (capital mobility) you're seeing greater inequality and there will be a general equalization across the world that hasn't been seen before. People aren't liking this trend.



Really not sure how you're getting that. I simply asked where would these individuals be working in Bangladesh without these corporations. If you implement a broken form of Capitalism, then you can expect morally broken systems to arise. The same would come if you implemented a broken form of Socialism or Communism. It must be nice to be able to attack an entire system like Capitalism using these forms of rhetoric.


But in a laissez faire system, they wouldn't even have to give any lip service to rights, working conditions, or fair pay. Conditions for those workers would be even worse. Those workers are between a rock and a hard place, and you're praising the rock instead of trying to develop a soft spot of local democratic development.



I have a question.... why is there a correlation between higher prosperity and more economic freedom?


Prove it. The highest prosperity is found is countries like Sweden and Denmark, which you would probably say are socialist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/denmark-happiest-country_n_4070761.html

[Tim Cornelis]

We saw it with the Plague in Feudalism and we very well could see it occur in a similar manner when it comes to Capitalism. I made the point because for something to fail it has to fail more than it succeeds... We haven't seen this with Capitalism.

Are you suggesting the plague caused the downfall of feudalism? I'd like a source for that. It was proto-industrialiation and the Industrial Revolution the lead to it being transplanted by capitalism.




You want me to condemn this I suppose? I'm sorry Capitalism's spread was not up to your moral standards. It spread, and if it had brought terrible tyranny, death, and all of these other crises to the people then I doubt they would have so easily backed down to this new evil.

Really not sure how you're getting that. I simply asked where would these individuals be working in Bangladesh without these corporations. If you implement a broken form of Capitalism, then you can expect morally broken systems to arise. The same would come if you implemented a broken form of Socialism or Communism. It must be nice to be able to attack an entire system like Capitalism using these forms of rhetoric.

That's idealist hogwash, but I'm not going to change your paradigm within the scope of one post. Indeed, the workers would be unemployed, hence why Marxists tend to not oppose corporations (as social-liberals do) but the relations of production and the entire mode of production--which compels them to a choice between horrid labour practices or even worse living conditions.



Not sure what you're going on about. We simply neuter the government when it comes to regulating the economy. If the Bourgeoisie infiltrated the government and altered the policies to suit their needs, then it would no longer be a laissez-faire system. You're arguing against a system that I would argue against as well.

Concentration of capital invites state control.


What's the rate of death by starvation in Capitalist America?

1 per 100,000 deaths. Also:

Overall, 4.5% of U.S. deaths were found to be attributable to poverty -- midway between previous estimates of 6% and 2.3%. However the risks associated with both poverty and low education were higher for individuals aged 25 to 64 than for those 65 or older.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110616193627.htm



I have a question.... why is there a correlation between higher prosperity and more economic freedom?

Because one measure of 'economic freedom' includes the prevalence of corruption, so these indexes are biased against poor countries. I'm generally skeptical, because Denmark, with its high tax rates, substantial government regulations, and more government spending is ranked higher in economic freedom than the US with lower tax rate and less government regulations and less government spending. Also, Ha-Joon Chang challenges exactly this notion though I've not read his books myself.

[Remus Bleys]

A good bit on the concept of "economic freedom"
http://revolutionarytotalitarians.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/on-economic-freedom/

[Bourgeois]

You can't just focus on the West. The prosperity here is merely relative, because of protectionist policies and government intervention and imperialism. Now that those regimes are eroding in favor of free trade (capital mobility) you're seeing greater inequality and there will be a general equalization across the world that hasn't been seen before. People aren't liking this trend.

Do you deny that the West (Mainly America) is Capitalist? If you can focus on the failures of "Capitalism" in third world countries why can't I focus on the success of it in first world ones? Face it, the needs of life are readily supplied in Capitalist America.




But in a laissez faire system, they wouldn't even have to give any lip service to rights, working conditions, or fair pay. Conditions for those workers would be even worse. Those workers are between a rock and a hard place, and you're praising the rock instead of trying to develop a soft spot of local democratic development.

I suppose you believe in this "wage slavery" idea. The fact of the matter is that all of the "corporations" and businesses are not going to band together and force the lower classes into terrible jobs. They would HAVE to give lip service to rights, or face the fact of being extinguished in a free-market system where competition is extremely prevalent and monopolies don't last for more than a few years.




Prove it. The highest prosperity is found is countries like Sweden and Denmark, which you would probably say are socialist.



I can't post links. Google economic freedom and prosperity correlations. There aren't exacts in that every economically free country there is prosperity, but there are highlighted and very recognizable trends.

[argeiphontes]

Do you deny that the West (Mainly America) is Capitalist? If you can focus on the failures of "Capitalism" in third world countries why can't I focus on the success of it in first world ones? Face it, the needs of life are readily supplied in Capitalist America.


Wait a decade, it'll all be over soon enough. There are historical reasons why the West is prosperous, but those systems are being eroded. The third world will be in your backyard soon enough.



I suppose you believe in this "wage slavery" idea. The fact of the matter is that all of the "corporations" and businesses are not going to band together and force the lower classes into terrible jobs. They would HAVE to give lip service to rights, or face the fact of being extinguished in a free-market system where competition is extremely prevalent and monopolies don't last for more than a few years.
I have no means of support except to work for capitalists who have much more power in the market than me. Surely you don't think I'm as powerful as a corporation?



I can't post links. Google economic freedom and prosperity correlations. There aren't exacts in that every economically free country there is prosperity, but there are highlighted and very recognizable trends.Freedom is a meaningless word in a capitalist society. I am free to work for wages that are offered, or else starve to death. At work, I am free to either submit to a totalitarian system or else be unemployed and starve. Capitalists are the people who are free in capitalism. If you don't have capital, you're nothing. You can't even buy a politician to get some freedom.

If somebody wants to claim they value freedom and democracy, then they should value freedom and democracy in the workplace and in the economic system. Otherwise it's just a bullshit fairy tale that's barely better than feudalism.

edit: People struggled to be able to live in social democracies like Sweden, and you'd like to take that away too? No thanks, you'll never convince me otherwise. You want me to give up what little freedom I have so that capital can be more free. Nice try, thanks for playing.

edit2: No offense intended but you caught me in a bad mood.

[Czy]

Thanks for the reply.


I believe there will always be some form of markets and private property

What leads you to believe that?


If you refer to the needs of life - water, food, and shelter, then I would make the argument that these needs are readily supplied in a Capitalist society.

Meanwhile in Africa...


Sorry, I'm really struggling to understand the debate philosophy here. You seem the most reasonable of the bunch so I'm hopping for a good answer.

I'm not sure I understand your concern here. Pointing out the failure of capitalism in certain parts of the globe seems a perfectly reasonable use of rhetoric. And, as I said but you didn't fully address, the areas where there has been success, such as the U.S, the success is starting to stagnate. Wages have been stagnant since the 70s, for example.

Today technology is incredible, mind-blowing, exceptional. We could harness it to solve the problems faced by the majority of people, but only if we abolish the profit system. That's my argument. The current system does not realize the potential in fulfilling human needs that current technology could actually achieve.


We simply neuter the government when it comes to regulating the economy. If the Bourgeoisie infiltrated the government and altered the policies to suit their needs, then it would no longer be a laissez-faire system. You're arguing against a system that I would argue against as well.

As myself and others have demonstrated, this is simply impossible. Capitalism requires government intervention and regulation to exist. Also, another important point, is that it is impossible to conceptualize such a situation. The bourgeoisie would never allow the size and scope of the government to be reduced in relation to intervention in the economy.

With this being said, you constantly refer to the successes of modern capitalism, and refer to correlations between "economic freedom"* (a bogus term, more on that underneath this) and prosperity. The successes of modern capitalism have been due to government intervention, as modern capitalism is centred around the government's role in the economy ("a mixed economy"). How can you reconcile your views when this fact is recognized? Either you disregard modern capitalism's achievements as the government intervened, or you accept that intervention is necessary (in that case I accept you gloating about modern capitalism's achievements, otherwise I think it is contradictory and hypocritical).

*What a farcical term. Capitalism is freedom for those who own capital, a small minority. A true economic freedom would be where people have a say in the work environment and in the running of the economy.


What's the rate of death by starvation in Capitalist America?

What's the rate of government intervention in 'Capitalist America' and other capitalist, western nations? Certainly none of this 'success' is attributable to "laissez faire" economics (i.e: your world view). You can't refer to these successes in your argument as you want to 'neuter' government involvement, remember?

Might I return a question: why should a small minority control the world's resources? What justifies this?


If you can focus on the failures of "Capitalism" in third world countries why can't I focus on the success of it in first world ones?

Because you don't want government involvement.

The failures today outweigh the successes; where success still lives, stagnation is hitting.

Let's abolish the current system and implement one that can fulfil more wants and needs and give people greater autonomy, human dignity, and respect.

Edit:
If somebody wants to claim they value freedom and democracy, then they should value freedom and democracy in the workplace and in the economic system. Otherwise it's just a bullshit fairy tale that's barely better than feudalism.

Well said. This is exactly my point. Economic democracy is when the majority have a say in the workplace. Plutocracy is when a minority have a say in the economy and workplace (capitalism).

Saying capitalism is economic freedom is risible.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Give me documented evidence.

Antibiotics and antimicrobial research.

Thousands of people are dying from infection due to bacterial infection every year due to microbes that are highly resistant to our current antibiotics. This includes tens of thousands of people in the US, and many times these are patients who contracted the bacteria while in a hospital (good luck finding a hospital exec who will talk about infection rates in their hospital, by the way). It's really scary shit, infection from small wounds in completely healthy people in their teens and twenties who die from unstoppable microbial infection like in the pre-penicillin days.

Of course the technology and research capabilities exist to develop new ways of dealing with this growing threat (and it is growing, rapidly), but there is no motivation to do so. Big Pharma does make a tremendous amount of money, but it still takes something like $600 mil to $1 bn to develop a drug and bring it to market. That represents a pretty significant investment, regardless of their profits. And here we have a need for drugs that will only be used when absolutely necessary.

Why the hell would you invest a billion dollars in that when you could just as easily develop a new drug for adhd, cholesterol, or ed that a patient is going to take everyday (or more)? The short answer is, They don't.

Only a public health campaign will lead to the necessary investment to address this tremendous health concern.

Edit: The pbs Frontline episode on this a few weeks back is great and terrifying, but there is some good news:


WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday put in place a major new policy to phase out the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in cows, pigs and chickens raised for meat, a practice that experts say has endangered human health by fueling the growing epidemic of antibiotic resistance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/health/fda-to-phase-out-use-of-some-antibiotics-in-animals-raised-for-meat.html?_r=0


At least the FDA is trying to do something other than defund Obamacare,

It has to be said that the only way reasonable way to control the flow of ALL antibiotics would be through, at the very least, a highly regulated body which monitors use but distributes the drug where needed rapidly. And not to where they'll be fed to chickens cows and pigs, then slaughtered and consumed by people.


The change, which is to take effect over the next three years, will effectively make it illegal for farmers and ranchers to use antibiotics to make animals grow bigger. The producers had found that feeding low doses of antibiotics to animals throughout their lives led them to grow plumper and larger. Scientists still debate why. Food producers will also have to get a prescription from a veterinarian to use the drugs to prevent disease in their animals.

It was when americans transitioned from pasture fed cows to factory farm meat and poultry that we started getting fatter. Just saying.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you deny that the West (Mainly America) is Capitalist? If you can focus on the failures of "Capitalism" in third world countries why can't I focus on the success of it in first world ones? Face it, the needs of life are readily supplied in Capitalist America.in a divided society, the question is always 'whose benifit'. In that sense when you compare the growth of u.s. Productivity and profits in the last 35 years you see a massive increase while for workers, there has been stagnation and decline. From a capitalist perspective this is success, but not for most people which is why for some reason the first world workers who work harder and longer than similar countries is also the culture where people flip out and where those who don't are self medicating themselves. That's an overstatement, but I think there is a connection between these phenomena. At any rate I'm sure the Nuevo riche of Africa think capitalism works great too... People suffering from aids and den eyed medication because of pharma patents, people living in workers settlements in South Africa, not so much. Chinese capitalists I'm sure also think their spectacular growth is great... The workers jumping off buildings or rioting, not so much.

As for wage slavery, you claim that the ruling class isn't going to just force people to take shitty jobs and yet historically this is part of how the working class was formed. Not to mention without any conspiracy needed, competition forces capitalist to unite in practice in terms of wages and benefits. If Walmart pays people x, then target will as well and as long as there is private property (compelling people to survive through the market... I.e. They need wages as much as a peasant needs a lord's estate and commons to survive) and poverty and not meaningful security net, then hundreds will line up for the chance to beg for a job they will resent, but need. This is not due to capitalists as people or conspiracies, but to the general laws and tendencies of the profit system.

[Bourgeois]

Are you suggesting the plague caused the downfall of feudalism? I'd like a source for that. It was proto-industrialiation and the Industrial Revolution the lead to it being transplanted by capitalism.

No, I'm suggesting that the plague was a contributing factor to the downfall of Feudalism.



That's idealist hogwash, but I'm not going to change your paradigm within the scope of one post. Indeed, the workers would be unemployed, hence why Marxists tend to not oppose corporations (as social-liberals do) but the relations of production and the entire mode of production--which compels them to a choice between horrid labour practices or even worse living conditions.

You once again use economic determinism to sway your beliefs against Capitalism. I simply choose to believe there are problems besides the primitive basics of Capitalism that cause third world countries to struggle.


Concentration of capital invites state control.

Unfortunately, if there's power to be had, a group of individuals will always try to seize such power. Libertarians wish to avoid a government in bed with business, as there is good reason to believe it is an entirely possible proposition to make. Note that it would not be perfect and no Libertarian would believe it to be so.


1 per 100,000 deaths. Also:

Overall, 4.5% of U.S. deaths were found to be attributable to poverty -- midway between previous estimates of 6% and 2.3%. However the risks associated with both poverty and low education were higher for individuals aged 25 to 64 than for those 65 or older.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110616193627.htm


But how can this be? America is a Capitalist country. They should be having people starving on the side of the like these third world countries.

Also, how can it be that worldwide poverty rates have been dropping for the past hundred years? It couldn't be because of the international liberalization of economies, now could it...?




Because one measure of 'economic freedom' includes the prevalence of corruption, so these indexes are biased against poor countries. I'm generally skeptical, because Denmark, with its high tax rates, substantial government regulations, and more government spending is ranked higher in economic freedom than the US with lower tax rate and less government regulations and less government spending. Also, Ha-Joon Chang challenges exactly this notion though I've not read his books myself.

Except indexes like the Heritage foundation are not the only ones measuring economic freedom... All of these indexes have correlations between economic freedom and standards of living. Note I say this isn't an exact causation relationship, but rather a correlation.

[Czy]

But how can this be? America is a Capitalist country. They should be having people starving on the side of the like these third world countries.

Your position has become dizzying. So are you supportive of capitalism in the form it is in at present? Because any success attributable to modern capitalism is due to precisely what you want to avoid, government intervention.

This quote is very naïve. The third world was dominated by the first world through first colonialism and then imperialism. Obviously it would not develop at the same rate as the first world for that very reason; it is miles behind in the crucial measure of capital accumulation. The first world's success is precisely due to its blatant theft of resources around the globe that funded its massive expansion. This is why Marxists refer to imperialism as the 'highest stage' of capitalism.


Unfortunately, if there's power to be had, a group of individuals will always try to seize such power.

Well then you must forfeit this argument. Capitalism revolves around power and dominance. The centralisation of capital, the absorption of the petit-bourgeoisie into the proletariat, and the increased hegemonic form of capitalism is unavoidable. This is due to its structural composition ; its inherent contradictions.

If you believe what is quoted here, then surely you would support a system that annihilates the very thought of plutocracy, namely a revolutionary socialist program.


I simply choose to believe there are problems besides the primitive basics of Capitalism that cause third world countries to struggle.

If you don't mind me asking, what are these problems and how do they have nothing to do with capitalism?


Except indexes like the Heritage foundation are not the only ones measuring economic freedom

Define economic freedom.

The notion as commonly espoused by libertarians is absurd. As mentioned, a small minority enjoy this supposed 'freedom'. True economic freedom would be socialism; worker ownership and a smashing of all the inconveniences of the capitalist mode of production such as wage-labour.