The state should never prop up unprofitable firms.

[Schumpeter]

The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private. Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate. Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Shut the fuck up. Are you a fan of Thatcher? Shove this idiotic reductionist utlitarianism up your arse. Apart from the fact that people are not rational and that "happiness" is nothing measurable or even considerable in any significant way, it's just utterly preposterous. There won't be any unprofitable enterprises in a socialist world, because there won't be any monetary profits and no monetary values on which to gauge this. An 'unprofitable' company in this world would be a place where the human toll (whatever this would be) of regular operations would not outweigh the societal benefits (widely defined) and this could not be made safe and useful.

[Sinister Intents]

The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private. Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate. Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?

How about you shut the hell up. Obviously you don't belong here considering your beliefs. My opinion is that you should read some Marx starting with the Communist Manifesto, and after that read The Principles of Communism, and after that start the first volume of Capital and expand from there.

[Sabot Cat]

Obviously you don't belong here considering your beliefs. My opinion is that you should read some Marx starting with the Communist Manifesto, and after that read The Principles of Communism, and after that start the first volume of Capital and expand from there.

Not that I disagree, but this is the Opposing Ideologies forum.


The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private. Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate. Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?

If we're going by utilitarianism, there should be no profit, because profit can only occur when a workers' labor is undervalued, while the goods and services produced from therein are overpriced. By undervalued I mean that workers gain less pleasure than suffering from their work because the amount of compensation they receive for is not equivalent to the amount of labor they give (labor theory of value), and by overpriced I mean that the amount of labor needed to procure certain goods and services is always more than the cost of producing them. A utilitarian economy would have cost (as) the limit of price, and the means of production controlled by the proletariat, with no capitalist exploiters of labor.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm just going to spend a minute picking this apart, should be fun:


The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private.

OK, let's see where this takes us...


Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand

Do people not demand energy? I'd have thought that's probably the primary good we demand.

Do people not demand jobs?

Do people not demand wages? Wages that are spent in order to stimulate economic growth. Really, destroying jobs and industry to fund tax cuts is the epitomy of false economy; it doesn't benefit ordinary people since their wages are so low that the percentage tax cut they get is, in real terms, going to be low, whereas having a job and a decent wage will benefit not only them, but the local, regional and national economy as they spend said money on consumer goods.


this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate.

OK, but this assumption (if it even holds, which is questionable) has no bearing on people's actions if there are effects caused from external actions, such as the closing down of industries, or tax cuts. Back to the 1st year economics textbook for you...



Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas,

How can you talk about utility maximisation in one sentence, and ethics in the very next sentence? This makes no sense. Either you are making an economics argument, or a woolly 'ethics' argument. Make your mind up. And which areas do people channel more resources into? Resources are generally owned by a tiny amount of wealthy people, who channel resources into whatever enterprises are most profitable. Ethical indeed. :rolleyes:


producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

What? Why are producers incentivised to increase production? Tax cuts would lead to less incentives to increase production, since they can make the same amount of total post-tax profit by producing somewhere below the profit-maximising level of output. So, in actual fact, production would decrease, as would jobs.

As for utility maximisation, that is a micro-economic theory that operates based on assumptions about atomised behaviour of individuals. It has little to do with macro-economic factors such as the overall level of production, or employment levels.

I think you're confused, very confused, about basic capitalist economic theory.

[liberlict]

Yeah it makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Keep putting resources into making things that nobody wants.

[Sabot Cat]

Yeah it makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Keep putting resources into making things that nobody wants.

"Everyone" =/= "those with the money to consistently make things profitable", and "a thing that's profitable" =/= "something people want". The first is because most wealth is controlled by a small group of people who have considerably more influence in a community that anyone else due to their ability to invest in whatever they want (even if consumers might like a competing enterprise), and the second is because there are things that people like that aren't very profitable, such as libraries.

[tallguy]

The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private. Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate. Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?
A capitalist state red in tooth and claw should, by definition, never prop up an unprofitable firm. However, we do not live in a capitalist state. "Capitalism" being just the latest bullshit fairy story fed to the peasants (of which I am one) to justify why a minority always get to own nearly all the stuff and the peasants get the crumbs. It used to be the "Word of God", or the "Divinity of kings". Then, with the advent of the industrial age and mass education and the inevitably secular culture that arose from that, the bullshit became transformed into the immutable "laws" of all the various "isms". Same tune different lyrics.

Same shit, different day.

[Sinister Intents]

A capitalist state red in tooth and claw should, by definition, never prop up an unprofitable firm. However, we do not live in a capitalist state. "Capitalism" being just the latest bullshit fairy story fed to the peasants (of which I am one) to justify why a minority always get to own nearly all the stuff and the peasants get the crumbs. It used to be the "Word of God", or the "Divinity of kings". Then, with the advent of the industrial age and mass education and the inevitably secular culture that arose from that, the bullshit became transformed into the immutable "laws" of all the various "isms". Same tune different lyrics.

Same shit, different day.

How the fuck do we not live in a capitalist state?

[#FF0000]

The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private. Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate. Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?

Yeah, that's cool and all until you start to look at firms that provide an absolutely necessary service that people depend upon and yet remain unprofitable (see: mass transit -- particularly rail lines)

[Yuppie Grinder]

My guess is that OP thinks socialism means government bailouts and shit and came to debunk us.

[tallguy]

How the fuck do we not live in a capitalist state?
I believe the technical term is "false consciousness" is it not?

There's no such thing as "God"

There's no such thing as as the "divinity of rule"

There's no such thing as "capitalism"

There's probably not even any such thing as "communism"

There's just the few psychopaths at the top, and then there are the rest of us. All the rest is bullshit.

However, to the extent that the enslavement of the majority of mankind that has existed since the earliest civilisations and the generation of the first surpluses; communism, or some variant of it, is our nearest best bet to removing that slavery if only at least partially. I'm not hopeful, but that is the best hope I have.

[Sinister Intents]

I believe the technical term is "false consciousness" is it not?

There's no such thing as "God"

There's no such thing as as the "divinity of rule"

There's no such thing as "capitalism"

There's probably not even any such thing as "communism"

There just the few psychopaths at the top, and then there are the rest of us. All the rest is bullshit.

Ummm ok. Obviously there is no "God" certaintly the bourgeoisie act in times as if they're divine rulers, as in the case with an individual who was to rich to be imprisoned for the murder of four. We live under capitalism if you haven't realized this. You sell your labour for a fucking profit don't you? You sell your labor to the capitalist class for a shitty fucking wage, and they expect you to work with a fucking smile. Communism is what is going to replace this shitty thing we understand as capitalism. Indeed members of the bourgeoisie are very fucking disconnected from reality, but to call them all 'psychopaths' is alienating to the ones that would assist the proletariat in the time of revolution. I think you're very confused 'Tallguy'.

[Sinister Intents]

and fucking mark your edits tallguy.
edit: to answer what you didn't mark in your edit I think you should read this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[tallguy]

and fucking mark your edits tallguy.
Will do. That's a fair point. My apologies for that.

[tallguy]

As for psychopaths. I stand by that. I am referring to the few at the very top when I say that, not the minions of bourgeoisie who manage the world on their behalf.

[Sinister Intents]

Will do. That's a fair point. My apologies for that.

thanks. I sincerely think you could benefit from reading Marx's and Engels' writings. I would start with Communist Manifesto.

[liberlict]

"Everyone" =/= "those with the money to consistently make things profitable", and "a thing that's profitable" =/= "something people want". The first is because most wealth is controlled by a small group of people who have considerably more influence in a community that anyone else due to their ability to invest in whatever they want (even if consumers might like a competing enterprise), and the second is because there are things that people like that aren't very profitable, such as libraries.

The wealthy invest in making things they think consumers want. That's the whole point of investing.

[tallguy]

The wealthy invest in making things they think consumers want. That's the whole point of investing.
The wealthy invest in things that make them more wealthy. Sometimes, in some places, that is in things they think consumers want. At other times, in other places, it is for other reasons. Some wealthy people used to invest in slavery. Some wealthy people invest in weapons of mass destruction.

Profit, in a capitalist society, is the whole point of investing.

[Sinister Intents]

The wealthy invest in making things they think consumers want. That's the whole point of investing.

Is this meant to contradict what Red Rose said?
It fails to do so because the wealthy invest for profitability. I fail to see your point.

[liberlict]

The wealthy invest in things that make them more wealthy. Sometimes, in some places, that is in things they think consumers want. At other times, in other places, it is for other reasons. Some wealthy people used to invest in slavery. Some wealthy people invest in weapons of mass destruction.

Profit, in a capitalist society, is the whole point of investing.

Profit is the reward you get for making people happy. It's not my fault that in the past people wanted slaves, or weapons. People still do want weapons, that is not my fault either.

[Sabot Cat]

The wealthy invest in making things they think consumers want. That's the whole point of investing.

Which is a distinct thing from what consumers themselves might actually want, profitable or no.

[Sinister Intents]

Profit is the reward you get for making people happy. It's not my fault that in the past people wanted slaves, or weapons. People still do want weapons, that is not my fault either.

Profit isn't a fucking reward, profit comes from exploiting anothers labour. It has nothing to do with making people happy at all. People wanted slaves to exploit there labour for profit, and weapons to keep them enslaved and other coercive tactics.

[liberlict]

Profit isn't a fucking reward, profit comes from exploiting anothers labour. It has nothing to do with making people happy at all. People wanted slaves to exploit there labour for profit, and weapons to keep them enslaved and other coercive tactics.

Ahhhhh yes, and here we are back to the labor theory of value. Round in circles we go.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private.

Sure, I agree. In fact, I'm guessing that you're failing really hard to take this to its obvious conclusion, though, and failing to grapple with all the ways in which the state props up capital generally. Police forces? Well there's a subsidy to those lousy business people who can't organize their own security! Borders? A nationalist manipulation of labour markets for the benefit of firms that wouldn't survive without this indirect support! Highways, traffic lights, hospitals, childcare? Dammit, an enterprise should be able to cover its fucking costs, and, if it can't it ought to go bankrupt!


Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate.

More crucially! What about the money spent on riot cops, on spy operations, and on PR? The government should have let the miners tear their bosses to tiny shreds and reorganize the mines on a sensible basis (if such a thing is possible). The state's intervention at the level of subsidies is only a tiny tip of the iceberg, and you're not grappling with the real issue.


Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?

Well, for one, I think your economics in terms of an understanding of "producers" here is probably pretty shoddy, because it sounds like you mean "capital", which, obviously, doesn't produce anything at all. That said, let's run with it: Without state interference (particularly in the form of the police and prison industrial complex) you're right: we'd create conditions where the economy could be appropriately restructured, beginning, ideally, with the just re-appropriation of the means of production by the producers.

So, really, when it comes down to it, I agree with you. You're just not pushing things nearly as far as you ought to.

[liberlict]

Which is a distinct thing from what consumers themselves might actually want, profitable or no.

Why would a capitalist invest in something consumers don't' 'actually' want?

[Sinister Intents]

Ahhhhh yes, and here we are back to the labor theory of value. Round in circles we go.

How about you actually provide a contradictory response.

[Sinister Intents]

Why would a capitalist invest in something consumers don't' 'actually' want?

Capitalists want profit, not to make something the "consumers" want.

[tallguy]

Profit is the reward you get for making people happy. It's not my fault that in the past people wanted slaves, or weapons. People still do want weapons, that is not my fault either.I didn't say it was. What I am getting at is that the point of investing, in a capitalist system, is to profit materially (that is to say, to come out the other side of an investment with more material wealth than they went in with), not in the vague, wishy-washy "making people happy" way you have implied. That's just the nice hand-wringing way that profiteers square their consciences if the situation allows for it. When it doesn't allow for it, such niceties are easily dispensed with. As I said, the whole point of capitalist investment is profit.

Which means, by definition, a loss must be incurred by someone or something, somewhere else. The last two hundred years of industrial growth is the only thing that has masked (to some extent) those losses for other humans. Though they have still been heinous enough. To that extent, the major losses have been incurred by the rest of life on earth in terms of loss of habitat and severe degradation of what remains. However, as we begin to hit the resource buffers at a planetary level, this little trick of masking those losses is also drawing to a close. From now on in, for profits to be maintained for the super-wealthy, the majority of humans are going to have to incur even greater losses than many of them have already suffered and God help the rest of life. We are beginning to see this in the wholesale transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the form of the monetary shenanigans going on for the last half decade. We are also seeing it in the form of the hollowing-out of the state provisions that were the sop to the masses following the end of the second world war and the coming home of several million men who had been trained to fight and were not going to put up with the kind of shit they had to endure before that war. It's only surprising it's taken the bastards 70 odd years to begin to seriously claw it all back.

In any event, those at the top are only too aware that we are all going to start kicking off in the not too distant future as we all begin to realize the game that is being played out. In anticipation of this, we are getting CCTV on every street, detention without trial, trial without jury and, in the UK, an ever increasingly armed police on the streets. There a war coming between the rulers and the ruled.

The future will either be some form of socialism or a return to serfdom for the majority.

And you think the wealthy invest in order to make us all nice things we will like and, in doing so, this gives them all a nice warm feeling inside cos they've made us happy?

....and I thought I was politically naive.....

[liberlict]

How about you actually provide a contradictory response.

Boring. Been done to death. If you're still convinced of LTV despite the abundance of countervailing evidence there's nothing I could possible say to change your mind.

[Sinister Intents]

Boring. Been done to death. If you're still convinced of LTV despite the abundance of countervailing evidence there's nothing I could possible say to change your mind.

How has it been done to death? What works have you read? "Countervailing evidence"? How are you so absolutely sure of yourself?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why would a capitalist invest in something consumers don't' 'actually' want?

I think this is actually a really interesting question, and I'm glad you've brought it up!

What it comes down to is that the market (contrary to its official ideology) isn't driven by individual wants/needs: production in capitalist society is socialized to the highest degree in human history, spanning the globe, and involving "pieces" from everywhere. In this context, what Marx called "anarchy" in the pejorative sense, individual wants/needs are subsumed within a much broader, "headless" collective process. Further, this process isn't a common project, it's wracked with contradictions and conflict. So, what we actually end up getting in terms of where investment goes reflects these contradictions and conflicts - it's a class thing and it reflects responses by the ruling class to the struggle of proletarians (in the broad sense, including unwaged labour, etc.).
Do people want or need condos? It's irrelevant - but condos are necessary in the context of displacing sites of workers' geopolitical power (the urban core), and securing the cities in the context of energy instability. Do people want or need fighter jets? No, but there's fat stacks in it because of capital's collective interest in projecting imperial power. Etc.

[liberlict]

Capitalists want profit, not to make something the "consumers" want.

Profit comes only by producing things consumers want. The reason Coca-Cola are rich is because people like drinking coke. The reason my company selling my own feces is floundering is because nobody wants it. Except that very niche copraphiliac market, of course, but it's really not enough to return my investment. Most of these stingy shit-eaters today just get it for free by plundering unflushed public toilets, anyway.

[liberlict]

How has it been done to death? What works have you read? "Countervailing evidence"? How are you so absolutely sure of yourself?

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

[liberlict]

I didn't say it was. What I am getting at is that the point of investing, in a capitalist system, is to profit materially (that is to say, to come out the other side of an investment with more material wealth than they went in with), not in the vague, wishy-washy "making people happy" way you have implied. That's just the nice hand-wringing way that profiteers square their consciences if the situation allows for it. When it doesn't allow for it, such niceties are easily dispensed with. As I said, the whole point of capitalist investment is profit.

Which means, by definition, a loss must be incurred by someone or something, somewhere else. The last two hundred years of industrial growth is the only thing that has masked (to some extent) those losses for other humans. Though they have still been heinous enough. To that extent, the major losses have been incurred by the rest of life on earth in terms of loss of habitat and severe degradation of what remains. However, as we begin to hit the resource buffers at a planetary level, this little trick of masking those losses is also drawing to a close. From now on in, for profits to be maintained for the super-wealthy, the majority of humans are going to have to incur even greater losses than many of them have already suffered and God help the rest of life. We are beginning to see this in the wholesale transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the form of the monetary shenanigans going on for the last half decade. We are also seeing it in the form of the hollowing-out of the state provisions that were the sop to the masses following the end of the second world war and the coming home of several million men who had been trained to fight and were not going to put up with the kind of shit they had to endure before that war. It's only surprising it's taken the bastards 70 odd years to begin to seriously claw it all back.

In any event, those at the top are only too aware that we are all going to start kicking off in the not too distant future as we all begin to realize the game that is being played out. In anticipation of this, we are getting CCTV on every street, detention without trial, trial without jury and, in the UK, an ever increasingly armed police on the streets. There a war coming between the rulers and the ruled.

The future will either be some form of socialism or a return to serfdom for the majority.

And you think the wealthy invest in order to make us all nice things we will like and, in doing so, this gives them all a nice warm feeling inside cos they've made us happy?

....and I thought I was politically naive.....

There's no doubting that profit-seeking is selfish. That doesn't bother me though. I like my car. It doesn't bother me that Henry Ford didn't build it as some act of gift-giving. Why would it?

[Sinister Intents]

Profit comes only by producing things consumers want. The reason Coca-Cola are rich is because people like drinking coke. The reason my company making selling my own feces is floundering is because nobody wants it. Except that very niche copraphiliac market, of course, but it's really not enough to return my investment. Most of these stingy shit-eaters today just get it for free by plundering unflushed public toilets.

Consumers may 'want' Coca Cola is besides the point. The whole goal is profit, and the capitalists use marketing to make people have this 'want.' People don't need that shitty caffeinated product, the corporation has groups that come up with ideas for commercials and other advertising. They inundate the consumers with advertising to gain this want. You really truly do deserve your restriction, the whole shit thing is just disgusting.

[Sinister Intents]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism
Marginalism proves me nothing, nothing at all.

[liberlict]

Consumers may 'want' Coca Cola is besides the point. The whole goal is profit, and the capitalists use marketing to make people have this 'want.' People don't need that shitty caffeinated product, the corporation has groups that come up with ideas for commercials and other advertising. They inundate the consumers with advertising to gain this want. You really truly do deserve your restriction, the whole shit thing is just disgusting.

Yeah I've heard this line of argument before. The 'manufacturing of demand', as though consumers are too stupid to know what they actually want. I think it's pompous and insulting. Yes, it bothers me that people love listening to Brittany Spears and watching shit TV shows like Friends. But I don't believe it to be some nefarious scheme by capitalists to keep people buying rubbish. Capitalists are completely indifferent to the 'use value' of the things they make for consumers. If there was a greater demand for things that you or I think more respectable, they would make that instead.

[liberlict]

Marginalism proves me nothing, nothing at all.

Fair enough.

[Sinister Intents]

Yeah I've heard this line of argument before. The 'manufacturing of demand', as though consumers are too stupid to know what they actually want. I think it's pompous and insulting. Yes, it bothers me that people love listening to Brittany Spears and watching shit TV shows like Friends. But I don't believe it to be some nefarious scheme by capitalists to keep people buying rubbish. Capitalists are completely indifferent to the 'use value' of the things they make for consumers. If there was a greater demand for things that you or I think more respectable, they would make that instead.

Or how about marketing is a very multi faceted tool the capitalists use to procure profits from consumers. They use the internet, radio, television, newspapers, magazines. They develop whole IMC plans and create checks and balances through sales, surveys, et cetera. It's all about profit, they inundate the targeted market with advertising of all sorts, and this does increase consumers' wants. They are very indifferent to the products they have made through wage slave labour or slave labour. The goal is profitability, they don't care how well crafted the product is made, in some cases yes because they're marketing a fashion accessory. Electronics are made to fail, vehicle parts made to falter, and other obsolescence. They do manipulate consumers' demands in multiple ways, and again through advertising, then the supply is made, and the products are sold for profit.

[liberlict]

I think this is actually a really interesting question, and I'm glad you've brought it up!

What it comes down to is that the market (contrary to its official ideology) isn't driven by individual wants/needs: production in capitalist society is socialized to the highest degree in human history, spanning the globe, and involving "pieces" from everywhere. In this context, what Marx called "anarchy" in the pejorative sense, individual wants/needs are subsumed within a much broader, "headless" collective process. Further, this process isn't a common project, it's wracked with contradictions and conflict. So, what we actually end up getting in terms of where investment goes reflects these contradictions and conflicts - it's a class thing and it reflects responses by the ruling class to the struggle of proletarians (in the broad sense, including unwaged labour, etc.).
Do people want or need condos? It's irrelevant - but condos are necessary in the context of displacing sites of workers' geopolitical power (the urban core), and securing the cities in the context of energy instability. Do people want or need fighter jets? No, but there's fat stacks in it because of capital's collective interest in projecting imperial power. Etc.

Ahhh yeah. I'm familiar with this argument too. It seems to reduce to the human nature debate, which is kind of tired too. The idea goes that the economic actions people make (capitalists and consumers) are determined by the mode of production, in our times, that being capitalism. I don't believe it, (as you might have guessed :D ). I can't envision a world where people labor altruistically. And when I try to what I come up with doesn't appeal to me anyway. The ingredients of capitalism are timeless.

[Sabot Cat]

Ahhh yeah. I'm familiar with this argument too. It seems to reduce to the human nature debate, which is kind of tired too. The idea goes that the economic actions people make (capitalists and consumers) are determined by the mode of production, in our times, that being capitalism. I don't believe it, (as you might have guessed :D ). I can't envision a world where people labor altruistically. And when I try to what I come up with doesn't appeal to me anyway. The ingredients of capitalism are timeless.

Thankfully, the real world doesn't have to adhere to your limited imagination. :)

[liberlict]

Thankfully, the real world doesn't have to adhere to your limited imagination. :)

True. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Sinister Intents]

Ahhh yeah. I'm familiar with this argument too. It seems to reduce to the human nature debate, which is kind of tired too. The idea goes that the economic actions people make (capitalists and consumers) are determined by the mode of production, in our times, that being capitalism. I don't believe it, (as you might have guessed :D ). I can't envision a world where people labor altruistically. And when I try to what I come up with doesn't appeal to me anyway. The ingredients of capitalism are timeless.

There is just so much wrong with your procapitalist sentiment.
Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1387851709-8cf982a37835a6dac5426fddfbeb7f1d71922bba)

[liberlict]

People don't need that shitty caffeinated product, the corporation has groups that come up with ideas for commercials and other advertising.

You gotta love the holy arrogance of this breed of communist. As though YOU know better than other people what THEY want. I like coke, coffee, and bourbon and coke. It comforting to know that there's some genius like you out there that can intuit from his ivory tower my own motivations. Cheers buddy.

[liberlict]

There is just so much wrong with your procapitalist sentiment.
Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1387851709-8cf982a37835a6dac5426fddfbeb7f1d71922bba)

Didn't work. VBulletin probably coded this software you are using to disallow hyperlinked logouts. Either that or you stuffed up the html.

[Sinister Intents]

You gotta love the holy arrogance of this breed of communist. As though YOU know better than than other people what THEY want. I like coke, coffee, and bourbon and coke. It comforting to know that there's some genius like you out there that can intuit from his ivory tower my own motivations. Cheers buddy.

Fuck you. Know I don't think I know better you asshole, I'm partial to Coke myself, but I hate soft drinks in general. I prefer to drink tea and water, but that's besides the point. Absolutely fuck you.

[Sinister Intents]

Didn't work. VBulletin probably coded this software you are using to disallow hyperlinked logouts. Either that or you stuffed up the html.

Aww damn.

[liberlict]

Fuck you. Know I don't think I know better you asshole, I'm partial to Coke myself, but I hate soft drinks in general. I prefer to drink tea and water, but that's besides the point. Absolutely fuck you.

Calm down buddy. Have a chamomile tea. It's only words on a screen.

[liberlict]

Aww damn.

Did you know vBulletin is commercial software? How do you feel about that?

[Sinister Intents]

Did you know vBulletin is commercial software? How do you feel about that?

Why does it matter?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ahhh yeah. I'm familiar with this argument too. It seems to reduce to the human nature debate, which is kind of tired too.
I feel like "human nature" is a pretty worn-out conceptual framework. I certainly don't think framing market relationships in the context of class really says much about human nature one way or the other. In fact, I think it would be wildly reductionist - something like saying, "Oh, this argument reduces to physics," - well, sure, chaos aside, we could say that it's all swirling atoms, but that wouldn't really be particularly useful, right?


The idea goes that the economic actions people make (capitalists and consumers) are determined by the mode of production, in our times, that being capitalism. I don't believe it, (as you might have guessed :D ). I can't envision a world where people labor altruistically. And when I try to what I come up with doesn't appeal to me anyway. The ingredients of capitalism are timeless.
Well, that seems to miss the point rather entirely doesn't, it? Whatever economic activity is "determined by", we still need to look at how it actually plays out. Do you seriously look at the market and see the aggregate desire of individuals expressed in economic terms? I think you'd have to be wearing some pretty heavily rose-tinted glasses to come to any such conclusion. Now, you can quibble about why that's not the case (state interference, imperfect knowledge, whatever), but I'm not particularly interested in ideology - I want to seriously take on reality here. So, if we look at the market and, as any sober analysis would reveal, see that it does not, in fact, express the aggregate desire of individuals who participate in it (at this juncture, basically everyone, including those who are ostensibly excluded, as in reproductive labour), we need to ask "What's actually happening?" I've provided an explanation, and I'd love to hear one to the contrary.

[liberlict]

Why does it matter?

A capitalist here has given you a want (proselytizing communism). And he has been rewarded by whoever pays for this site. Your capitalist hatred is really a perfect example of biting the hand that feeds.

[Sinister Intents]

A capitalist here has given you a want (proselytizing communism). And he has been rewarded by whoever pays for this site. Your capitalist hatred is really a perfect example of biting the hand that feeds.

Again, this tells me nothing. It's not really biting the hand that feeds you, have you learned nothing from what anyone has said? Are you that stuck under the impression capitalism is somehow rewarding that you can't see past your narrow, petty views?

[liberlict]

I feel like "human nature" is a pretty worn-out conceptual framework. I certainly don't think framing market relationships in the context of class really says much about human nature one way or the other. In fact, I think it would be wildly reductionist - something like saying, "Oh, this argument reduces to physics," - well, sure, chaos aside, we could say that it's all swirling atoms, but that wouldn't really be particularly useful, right?


Well, that seems to miss the point rather entirely doesn't, it? Whatever economic activity is "determined by", we still need to look at how it actually plays out. Do you seriously look at the market and see the aggregate desire of individuals expressed in economic terms? I think you'd have to be wearing some pretty heavily rose-tinted glasses to come to any such conclusion. Now, you can quibble about why that's not the case (state interference, imperfect knowledge, whatever), but I'm not particularly interested in ideology - I want to seriously take on reality here. So, if we look at the market and, as any sober analysis would reveal, see that it does not, in fact, express the aggregate desire of individuals who participate in it (at this juncture, basically everyone, including those who are ostensibly excluded, as in reproductive labour), we need to ask "What's actually happening?" I've provided an explanation, and I'd love to hear one to the contrary.

OK, so we'd have define specific demands. What demands do you think are not being satisfied?

[liberlict]

Again, this tells me nothing. It's not really biting the hand that feeds you, have you learned nothing from what anyone has said? Are you that stuck under the impression capitalism is somehow rewarding that you can't see past your narrow, petty views?

If it wasn't for a capitalist, you wouldn't have this platform.

[Sabot Cat]

OK, so we'd have define specific demands. What demands do you think are not being satisfied?

The malnourished peoples of the world want food. And presumably those dying of preventable diseases want vaccinations. Or the purification of drinking water that is infected with things like cholera. Et cetera.

[Sinister Intents]

If it wasn't for a capitalist, you wouldn't have this platform.

Lol. blah blah blah blah blah... It doesn't matter who made it, thanks mistuhr kapitalyst

[Sabot Cat]

If it wasn't for a capitalist, you wouldn't have this platform.

If it weren't for the exploited proletariat, capitalists wouldn't have anything.

[liberlict]

The malnourished peoples of the world want food. And presumably those dying of preventable diseases want vaccinations. Or the purification of drinking water that is infected with things like cholera. Et cetera.

Capitalists cannot invest there, and when they try, communists oppose it. Most of the problems in the 3rd world aren't economic issues. There's no economic solution to a country in perpetual civil war. Bill gates is trying very hard though.

[liberlict]

If it weren't for the exploited proletariat, capitalists wouldn't have anything.

Yeah, labor theory of value.

[Sinister Intents]

Capitalists cannot invest there, and when they try, communists oppose it. Most of the problems in the 3rd world aren't economic issues. There's no economic solution to a country in perpetual civil war. Bill gates is trying very hard though.

Capitalists exploit them, they are investing in exploitation and death. Communists oppose the exploitation, and all of their problems are a FUCKING RESULT OF CAPITALISM. Fuck Bill Gates.

Do you find it disheartening that we shoot everything you say down?

[liberlict]

If it weren't for the exploited proletariat, capitalists wouldn't have anything.

They're only exploited if you believe in the labor theory of value.

[Sinister Intents]

Yeah, labor theory of value.

LTV succeeds everytime, capitalism will always fail. Capitalism is destined to fail under its own weight, capitalism is parasitism.

[liberlict]

Fuck Bill Gates.

Do you find it disheartening that we shoot everything you say down?

lol fuck Bill Gates. I hope you're not using Windows.

[Sinister Intents]

lol fuck Bill Gates. I hope you're not using Windows.

Indeed I am. I hope it's an insult to his parasitic ass.

and I'm listening to some really good Death Fucking Metal.

[liberlict]

LTV succeeds everytime, capitalism will always fail. Capitalism is destined to fail under its own weight, capitalism is parasitism.

You're like a communist platitude generator.

[liberlict]

Indeed I am. I hope it's an insult to his parasitic ass.

How mature.

[Sinister Intents]

You're like a communist platitude generator.


How mature.

*Yawn*
BTW I'm an anarchist.

[Sabot Cat]

Capitalists cannot invest there, and when they try, communists oppose it. Most of the problems in the 3rd world aren't economic issues. There's no economic solution to a country in perpetual civil war. Bill gates is trying very hard though.

*rubs my temples in exasperated disbelief*

I'll let someone else take this one.

You realize that the defining feature of nations that suffer from poverty are that... they're poor? Right?


Yeah, labor theory of value.

Even without buying into that, investors and industrialists would be nowhere if they didn't have any workers.

[liberlict]

O.K, so we've reached a dead end here. I look forward to chatting with 'The Garbage Disposal Unit', because he seems intelligent. Bye.

[Sinister Intents]

O.K, so we've reached a dead end here. I look forward to chatting with 'The Garbage Disposal Unit', because he seems intelligent. Bye.

Giving up? good, Goodbye.

[liberlict]

Even without buying into that, investors and industrialists would be nowhere if they didn't have any workers.

This is not in dispute. It's whether they (workers) are being exploited that is the question ..

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, so we'd have define specific demands. What demands do you think are not being satisfied?

Buddy, c'mon, step back for a second, and consider which of us is making a ridiculous ideological claim here. You're asking me to prove a negative - you want me to show that god doesn't exist while I'm at it? No way Jose. You're the one pulling some Pangloss "all for the best in the best of all possible worlds" shit here - I want to know how the market authentically reflects aggregate desire, especially in the context of the imbalances among actors, the irrationality of actors, imperfect information, etc.

I'm relatively certain that you can't show this, which brings me back to my original line of questioning: What's actually going on? Again, I've provided an explanation, which you haven't even really tried to talk about yet. There was the dismissive "Oh, you're just talking about human nature" to which I responded with clarification. Instead of then going back to original point, you've gone off on another ridiculous tangent.

So, enough already. Shit or get off the pot. What, if not broader social class dynamics/conflicts (apparent) or aggregate desire (theoretically incoherent) directs capitalist production?

[xxxxxx666666]

OK, so we'd have define specific demands. What demands do you think are not being satisfied?

Well, how about the Bangladesh famine of 1974 where no relief was provided because the country was unprofitable for capitalists to provide help so people died?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974

One may also want to look up John Pilger's video documentry: "An Unfashionable Tragedy" for some videos of the famine.

Oh and there was no civil war there during the famine, so it was "strategically unimportant" to provide help.

For a more modern example, how about the 2010 Sahe famine?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129316900

Yes, there were kiddnappings according to the article above (unlike in Bangladesh)

To quote a passage from the above article:

"The crisis is compounded by the decision last weekend by international agencies to withdraw foreign aid workers from some areas, for fear of kidnappings in the volatile region. Niger's government spokesman Mahamane Lawali Danda told the BBC that the pullout came as a surprise. "There's no mistaking the fact that these Western workers and their charities have been helping Niger, but they should know that their withdrawal from those areas cannot be justified," he said. "This will only give the terrorists more power in what they want to achieve. Our government and the army have been deploying their best forces to contain whatever threats there are."


You, liberlict, mentioned sources, I've mentioned some of mine, so why don't you provide some link to your's?

[liberlict]

Buddy, c'mon, step back for a second, and consider which of us is making a ridiculous ideological claim here. You're asking me to prove a negative - you want me to show that god doesn't exist while I'm at it? No way Jose. You're the one pulling some Pangloss "all for the best in the best of all possible worlds" shit here - I want to know how the market authentically reflects aggregate desire, especially in the context of the imbalances among actors, the irrationality of actors, imperfect information, etc.

I'm relatively certain that you can't show this, which brings me back to my original line of questioning: What's actually going on? Again, I've provided an explanation, which you haven't even really tried to talk about yet. There was the dismissive "Oh, you're just talking about human nature" to which I responded with clarification. Instead of then going back to original point, you've gone off on another ridiculous tangent.

So, enough already. Shit or get off the pot. What, if not broader social class dynamics/conflicts (apparent) or aggregate desire (theoretically incoherent) directs capitalist production?

OK, I'll go back and read your posts to see what I have missed. Hold on.

[Sinister Intents]

This is not in dispute. It's whether they (workers) are being exploited that is the question ..

I know first hand what having your labour exploited is like, do you not? Perhaps it is you who are the one who doesn't realize they're being exploited.

[Sabot Cat]

This is not in dispute. It's whether they (workers) are being exploited that is the question ..

Well, actually, you're shifting the goal posts there. You were trying to imply communists were ungrateful for all that capitalists have "given them", and that we should respect them because we owe 'em one. I'm saying that analysis is flawed, not just because that's a pretty nonsensical defense for the ethics of an economical system, but because capitalists owe workers as well, and consumers owe much more to the workers than the capitalists because it's the former who actually do most of everything.

[liberlict]

I know first hand what having your labour exploited is like, do you not? Perhaps it is you who are the one who doesn't realize they're being exploited.

I've had jobs that I fucking hate, but I don't think I'm being exploited because I don't agree with the labor theory of value.

[Sinister Intents]

I've had jobs that I fucking hate, but I don't think I'm being exploited because I don't agree with the labor theory of value.

Okay, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with the labour. I particularly love my job because I love doing concrete work. I fucking hate the fact that my labour is being exploited though. I know I'm being exploited because I'm working for a shitty fucking wage!

[liberlict]

Well, actually, you're shifting the goal posts there. You were trying to imply communists were ungrateful for all that capitalists have "given them", and that we should respect them because we owe 'em one. I'm saying that analysis is flawed, not just because that's a pretty nonsensical defense for the ethics of an economical system, but because capitalists owe workers as well, and consumers owe much more to the workers than the capitalists because it's the former who actually do most of everything.

It was just an observation from my POV, I personally find it rather comical that you all hate capitalists yet you are all so dependent on them. But, if I believed, like I'm assuming you do, that everything that is produced is the fruit of laboring, I can see how you would feel that way.

[Sabot Cat]

It was just an observation from my POV, I personally find it rather comical that you all hate capitalists yet you are all so dependent on them.

First of all, I don't necessarily I hate capitalists, although I find most of them evil for not diverting funds to save people that are dying from things they could easily help with using their money, instead of indulging themselves in their waxing opulence.

Secondly, it's an enforced dependence. Like when a dictator or oligarchical clique controls the means of production; if you had lived in the Soviet Union I doubt you'd see this as a valid point: "It's so comical that you criticize the Communist Party of the Soviet Union! Without the communists, you wouldn't have any food or clothes!"


But, if I believed, like I'm assuming you do, that that everything that is produced is the fruit of laboring, I can see how you would feel that way.

Um, it is. Like, there would be no clothes on your back if workers didn't take the time to help process those in a factory or get the relevant supplies for it. There would be no food when you go to McDonald's if there are no cooks. There would be no supplies in your grocery store if there were no truck drivers to distribute it to you. You would be out of luck without laborers.

[Sinister Intents]

It was just an observation from my POV, I personally find it rather comical that you all hate capitalists yet you are all so dependent on them. But, if I believed, like I'm assuming you do, that that everything that is produced is the fruit of laboring, I can see how you would feel that way.

Red Rose hit this head on perfectly imo. I don't think you quite understand, perhaps you should read some Marx n Engels.

[Sinister Intents]

Also I looked up why you were restricted on Google. I found this: link Are you the same Liberlict as the OP of this thread?
edit: ugh... nevermind.

[liberlict]

First of all, I don't necessarily I hate capitalists, although I find most of them evil for not diverting funds to save people that are dying from things they could easily help with using their money, instead of indulging themselves in their waxing opulence.

I have the same complaint.


Secondly, it's an enforced dependence. Like when a dictator or oligarchical clique controls the means of production; if you had lived in the Soviet Union I doubt you'd see this as a valid point: "It's so comical that you criticize the Communist Party of the Soviet Union! Without the communists, you wouldn't have any food or clothes!"

Yeah but this only is an appealing argument if you have a viable alternative. In the case of the USSR it was obvious; capitalism. You have no coherent alternative, so it is unconvincing. IMO, of course.



Um, it is. Like, there would be no clothes on your back if workers didn't take the time to help process those in a factory or get the relevant supplies for it. There would be no food when you go to McDonald's if there are no cooks. There would be no supplies in your grocery store if there were no truck drivers to distribute it to you. You would be out of luck without laborers.

Workers contribute a lot. Capitalists contribute a lot. It's a symbiotic relationship. Your goal of getting rid of the capitalist just ruins the whole production process. As would getting rid of the worker.

[Sinister Intents]

I have the same complaint.



Yeah but this only is an appealing argument if you have a viable alternative. In the case of the USSR it was obvious; capitalism. You have no coherent alternative, so it is unconvincing. IMO, of course.




Workers contribute a lot. Capitalists contribute a lot. It's a symbiotic relationship. Your goal of getting rid of the capitalist just ruins the whole production process. As would getting rid of the worker.

Ok. Not really, you're very much forced to be dependent, do you have a bad understanding of coercion and its affects? Also under capitalism the workers contribute everything while the capitalists sit on their asses. Capitalism in no way is symbiotic, if this is your idea of symbiotic you're obviously a moron.

[Sabot Cat]

I have the same complaint.

I'm sincerely glad about that.




Yeah but this only is an appealing argument if you have a viable alternative. In the case of the USSR it was obvious; capitalism. You have no coherent alternative, so it is unconvincing. IMO, of course.

Workers' cooperatives demonstrate how a worker-owned and consensus managed enterprise would run on the small-scale, it's not too far of a leap to imagine it large scale.


Workers contribute a lot. Capitalists contribute a lot. It's a symbiotic relationship. Your goal of getting rid of the capitalist just ruins the whole production process. As would getting rid of the worker.

Okay, so what do capitalists do that workers cannot do by themselves? Count money? Spend it? Invest for the long-term? There are already businesses managed by their workers wherein they do all of that collectively. Although not perfect examples, you can see as much in Mondragon in Spain, the recovered factories in Argentina, the co-ops in Venezuela, the historical examples of the Russian Republic and Yugoslavia, as well as all of the workers' cooperatives around the world, including the United States.

[liberlict]

Buddy, c'mon, step back for a second, and consider which of us is making a ridiculous ideological claim here. You're asking me to prove a negative - you want me to show that god doesn't exist while I'm at it? No way Jose. You're the one pulling some Pangloss "all for the best in the best of all possible worlds" shit here - I want to know how the market authentically reflects aggregate desire, especially in the context of the imbalances among actors, the irrationality of actors, imperfect information, etc.

I'm relatively certain that you can't show this, which brings me back to my original line of questioning: What's actually going on? Again, I've provided an explanation, which you haven't even really tried to talk about yet. There was the dismissive "Oh, you're just talking about human nature" to which I responded with clarification. Instead of then going back to original point, you've gone off on another ridiculous tangent.



So, enough already. Shit or get off the pot. What, if not broader social class dynamics/conflicts (apparent) or aggregate desire (theoretically incoherent) directs capitalist production?

OK, I can clearly see where I ignored your point, and for that I apologize. Before I respond, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

The capitalist mode of production is chaotic, and leads to production being geared, in addition to simple supply and demand economics, to the protection of those with vested interest in the mode of production (that being capitalism).

Is that it?

[liberlict]

Ok. Not really, you're very much forced to be dependent, do you have a bad understanding of coercion and its affects? Also under capitalism the workers contribute everything while the capitalists sit on their asses. Capitalism in no way is symbiotic, if this is your idea of symbiotic you're obviously a moron.

I'm admitting that I'm "forced" to be reliant on capitalism, if you want to use that word. I would rationally choose a better alternative if there was one. There is no other possible system, so me being a slave to capitalism is about as interesting as me be enslaved to oxygen. It's just a fact of life.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm admitting that I'm "forced" to be reliant on capitalism, if you want to use that word. I would rationally choose a better alternative if there was one. There is no other possible system, so me being a slave to capitalism is about as interesting as me be enslaved to oxygen. It's just a fact of life.

Again, I disagree. There is a rational alternative, there is in fact, multiple rational alternatives one could chose from. There's a whole buffet of non-capitalist economic systems out there waiting for you.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm admitting that I'm "forced" to be reliant on capitalism, if you want to use that word. I would rationally choose a better alternative if there was one. There is no other possible system, so me being a slave to capitalism is about as interesting as me be enslaved to oxygen. It's just a fact of life.

I did go to bed, but checking my cellphone yielded this ignorant garbage post. WOW. I've heard this ignorant argument time and time again. Socialism is a great example of an alternative.

[liberlict]

Again, I disagree. There is a rational alternative, there is in fact, multiple rational alternatives one could chose from. There's a whole buffet of non-capitalist economic systems out there waiting for you.

Well if you guys ever get this workers paradise up and running I'll be the first to come and join. Obviously I won't be holding my breath.

[Sinister Intents]

Well if you guys ever get this workers paradise up and running I'll be the first to come and join. Obviously I won't be holding my breath.

We might accept you, but you could get exiled for being a capitalist and possibly a fascist.

[liberlict]

I did go to bed, but checking my cellphone yielded this ignorant garbage post. WOW. I've heard this ignorant argument time and time again. Socialism is a great example of an alternative.

Same as I said to Red Rose. I look forward to this wonderful economic system being realized. As it stands it belongs in the same category as one of the silly dreams you will have tonight. Sleep tight matey.

[liberlict]

We might accept you, but you could get exiled for being a capitalist and possibly a fascist.

I'm not a capitalist. Or a fascist. God what on earth are you talking about.

[Sinister Intents]

Same as I said to Red Rose. I look forward to this wonderful economic system being realized. As it stands it belongs in the same category as one of the silly dreams you will have tonight. Sleep tight matey.

Fuck you.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not a capitalist. Or a fascist. God what on earth are you talking about.

How would you label yourself? Are you a racist? Do you like the disease of patriotism?

[Sabot Cat]

Well if you guys ever get this workers paradise up and running I'll be the first to come and join. Obviously I won't be holding my breath.

Did you read my post about the worker owned enterprises? They already have existed, and do exist. They just aren't the dominant form of economic system, because there has not been a general strike or proletarian revolution in most places in the world, which is something that pretty much requires participation in order to be successful.

In the Western world, democracies only existed on paper or in the ancient past until the 18th Century for the most part, and beforehand there was only autocracies and the like. But if everyone just cynically accepted that state of affairs, seeing the artificial hierarchies as products of nature that they can do nothing about but endure, there would be no democracies. It takes realizing that there is a problem with the capitalist system, and that the problem is an invention of humanity's that can be rectified.

[liberlict]

Did you read my post about the worker owned enterprises? They already have existed, and do exist. They just aren't the dominant form of economic system, because there has not been a general strike or proletarian revolution in most places in the world, which is something that pretty much requires participation in order to be successful.

In the Western world, democracies only existed on paper or in the ancient past until the 18th Century for the most part, and beforehand there was only autocracies and the like. But if everyone just cynically accepted that state of affairs, seeing the artificial hierarchies as products of nature that they can do nothing about but endure, there would be no democracies. It takes realizing that there is a problem with the capitalist system, and that the problem is an invention of humanity's that can be rectified.

When the workers 'own' the enterprise they become 'capitalists'. So long as there is a monetary accounting system it's still capitalism.

I agree there's a lot of problems in the world that deserve our attention and outrage. However the lack of socialism is not one of them.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The wealthy invest in making things they think consumers want. That's the whole point of investing.

Alright since a fair amount of leftists on this site are to0 caught up in their desire for Communism to bother studying how capitalism works to respond I'll do it myself. but of course I don't want to frame this from the perspective of bourgeois economics because I don't want a better functioning capitalist system, I want its abolition. So I'll answer this with a personal anecdote.

I attend a little school by the name of Rutgers University in good old Newark New Jersey. Now there's a subway that connects my section of the town to the two rail ways which are close to the business district and other important landmarks people need to get to on a daily basis. The charge for a ticket is about 2 dollars but the city can't afford to post guards in the subway to check for tickets so it's de facto free. Now luckily I only need to use it very occasionally and during the few hours of the day when it's safe (from like 9 in the morning to about 4), however alot of people need to use it frequently throughout the day to get to work (alot of people still work at factories but you need to get around for your part time work, some time at the cash register helps the wallet out) and to do their daily necessities. If people actually paid the toll I wouldn't be surprised it they ended up with a bill of 12 dollars a day which for people working on a minum wage is alot. Now if they actually collected then alot of people would lose their only means to safe transportation throughout the city and would most likely abandon alot of services all together. And I say this as someone who has lived here and who has to evade people stalking me to try to mug me at least half the time I go out. So if those subways checked for tickets you'd see people never leaving their local fiefdoms except for work which would inevitably lead to a decline in the local economy. So tell me, should this unprofitable service cease?

[liberlict]

Alright since a fair amount of leftists on this site are to0 caught up in their desire for Communism to bother studying how capitalism works to respond I'll do it myself. but of course I don't want to frame this from the perspective of bourgeois economics because I don't want a better functioning capitalist system, I want its abolition. So I'll answer this with a personal anecdote.

I attend a little school by the name of Rutgers University in good old Newark New Jersey. Now there's a subway that connects my section of the town to the two rail ways which are close to the business district and other important landmarks people need to get to on a daily basis. The charge for a ticket is about 2 dollars but the city can't afford to post guards in the subway to check for tickets so it's de facto free. Now luckily I only need to use it very occasionally and during the few hours of the day when it's safe (from like 9 in the morning to about 4), however alot of people need to use it frequently throughout the day to get to work (alot of people still work at factories but you need to get around for your part time work, some time at the cash register helps the wallet out) and to do their daily necessities. If people actually paid the toll I wouldn't be surprised it they ended up with a bill of 12 dollars a day which for people working on a minum wage is alot. Now if they actually collected then alot of people would lose their only means to safe transportation throughout the city and would most likely abandon alot of services all together. And I say this as someone who has lived here and who has to evade people stalking me to try to mug me at least half the time I go out. So if those subways checked for tickets you'd see people never leaving their local fiefdoms except for work which would inevitably lead to a decline in the local economy. So tell me, should this unprofitable service cease?

Yes.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Yes.

Alright, now let's look at the potential consequences of doing so:

1. Now if you live in Newark and you were thinking about going to the Portuguese section to eat or maybe go to the theater to watch a movie you're awfully disincentivized to partake in these activities, this will logically result in a reduction in demand for most services

2. If more people stop talking the subway and walk that means there are more potential targets to mug and there exists a greater amount of people for a criminal to blend in with during hours where people generally would not be out walking. Hence the profitability of crime would increase and there would be a greater incentive to mug people.

3. Now if there is a greater increase in crime this naturally ties down public resources such as the police force towards these problems and reduces property values.

So, it seems that following capitalism to its logical conclusion serves to disrupt that system rather than strengthen it, so then why exactly is this a system that is desirable?

[Sabot Cat]

When the workers 'own' the enterprise they become 'capitalists'. So long as there is a monetary accounting system it's still capitalism.

I agree there's a lot of problems in the world that deserve our attention and outrage. However the lack of socialism is not one of them.

I think it would cease to be a purely capitalist mode of production if the workers owned the means of production in a federation of democratic, autonomous enterprises they each collective own and manage, although I agree that banks and their attendant ills would need to be addressed as well. Again though, there exists an alternative even within the system: credit unions, which are more democratic than banks. We could take broader strides to a more equitable society if all banks were converted into credit unions, especially if they were made accountable to the aforementioned cooperative federation as a sort of public bank system.

We're not talking about colonizing Mars or creating O'Neill colonies here. It just takes different clerical work, and some people (the bourgeois) having much, much lighter wallets and much less control than they do now. Completely feasible stuff.

[liberlict]

I think it would cease to be a purely capitalist mode of production if the workers owned the means of production in a federation of democratic, autonomous enterprises they each collective own and manage, although I agree that banks and their attendant ills would need to be addressed as well. Again though, there exists an alternative even within the system: credit unions, which are more democratic than banks. We could take broader strides to a more equitable society if all banks were converted into credit unions, especially if they were made accountable to the aforementioned cooperative federation as a sort of public bank system.

We're not talking about colonizing Mars or creating O'Neill colonies here. It just takes different clerical work, and some people (the bourgeois) having much, much lighter wallets and much less control than they do now. Completely feasible stuff.

Yeah what you're alluding to here seems to me to be something close to Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is something I actually think is very plausible.

[Sabot Cat]

Yeah what you're alluding to here seems to me to be something close to Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is something I actually think is very plausible.

That is indeed what I'm alluding to~ I'm glad you think the system plausible, because if Anarcho-Syndicalism is a viable alternative from Capitalism, perhaps you don't have to resign yourself to the latter in such fatalistic terms~ :)

[liberlict]

Alright, now let's look at the potential consequences of doing so:

1. Now if you live in Newark and you were thinking about going to the Portuguese section to eat or maybe go to the theater to watch a movie you're awfully disincentivized to partake in these activities, this will logically result in a reduction in demand for most services

2. If more people stop talking the subway and walk that means there are more potential targets to mug and there exists a greater amount of people for a criminal to blend in with during hours where people generally would not be out walking. Hence the profitability of crime would increase and there would be a greater incentive to mug people.

3. Now if there is a greater increase in crime this naturally ties down public resources such as the police force towards these problems and reduces property values.

So, it seems that following capitalism to its logical conclusion serves to disrupt that system rather than strengthen it, so then why exactly is this a system that is desirable?

Capitalism needs businesses to fail. That's how it works out better ways of doing things. If it's just 'socialism for the rich', then there's really no point.

Of course it's sad when businesses fail and workers go out of work. But you have to weigh up that with the lost opportunities for workers that could be employed elsewhere, if the resources weren't tied up flogging dead horses.

[liberlict]

That is indeed what I'm alluding to~ I'm glad you think the system plausible, because if Anarcho-Syndicalism is a viable alternative from Capitalism, perhaps you don't have to resign yourself to the latter in such fatalistic terms~ :)

I'm close to a Syndicalist myself. AS seems to me closer to 'right libertarianism' than Marxian communism. It can operate within the framework of capitalism .. the workers should own the factories they work in. It's 'private' property still, but shared among those work there. No need to abolish private property and money calculation. There's nothing in capitalism stopping this happening as it stands. It's just not normal. There's no reason to think that is fixed, though. I would advocate for it. So yeah it's good to know that there's not so much of a difference between us as we thought. :)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, I can clearly see where I ignored your point, and for that I apologize. Before I respond, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

The capitalist mode of production is chaotic, and leads to production being geared, in addition to simple supply and demand economics, the protection of those with vested interest in the mode of production (that being capitalism).

Is that it?

A couple further clarifications:

1. I don't go in for the high school ECON11 "supply and demand" story too seriously as anything beyond a generalization. I would assume that you don't either because, well, duh.

2. None of this necessarily leads to production being geared toward the interests of "those with vested interests" in a mechanical way (ie to the benefit of individual capitalists), because the driving force isn't the individual activity of particular capitalists, but the social contradictions within capitalism. That is to say, it's a political question which can't be answered in purely economic terms.

[blake 3:17]

I'm close to a Syndicalist myself. AS seems to me closer to 'right libertarianism' than Marxian communism. It can operate within the framework of capitalism .. the workers should own the factories they work in. It's 'private' property still, but shared among those work there. No need to abolish private property and money calculation. There's nothing in capitalism stopping this happening as it stands. It's just not normal. There's no reason to think that is fixed, though. I would advocate for it. So yeah it's good to know that there's not so much of a difference between us as we thought. :)


Syndicalist hospitals and schools and day cares and homes for the elderly work so well...

But what do sick, young, small, and old people matter? They're inefficient!

[Sabot Cat]

Syndicalist hospitals and schools and day cares and homes for the elderly work so well...

But what do sick, young, small, and old people matter? They're inefficient!

Are you saying that a cooperative federation ran by workers would somehow be less attendant to the needs of those who are unable to participate than a bourgeois state?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Are you saying that a cooperative federation ran by workers would somehow be less attendant to the needs of those who are unable to participate than a bourgeois state?

I'm thinking that what he and any other Communist should realize is that worker's operating under the forces of capital would be impelled to head it's basic laws regardless of their subjective wishes. Usury was once considered a cardnial sin by Christians of the world, now it is a pillar of the modern financial system.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm thinking that what he and any other Communist should realize is that worker's operating under the forces of capital would be impelled to head it's basic laws regardless of their subjective wishes. Usury was once considered a cardnial sin by Christians of the world, now it is a pillar of the modern financial system.

Yes, but why would the proletariat be less willing to make sacrifices for the elderly, the disabled, and children than the bourgeois? Furthermore, there would be no external forces of capital if the workers collectively owned the means of production.

[Radio Spartacus]

the argument about what consumers demand is pretty shallow when you consider demand is informed by an arbitrary and unnecessary system of stratification and scarcity

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

the argument about what consumers demand is pretty shallow when you consider demand is informed by an arbitrary and unnecessary system of stratification and scarcity

I don't think it's "arbitrary" at all - it's class war!

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Can you not just call them non-profits? Non-profits are businesses just like any other, aren't really 'non-profits," and I happen to have done marketing for a lot of non-profits. At best, roughly 60-65% of your donation(s) actually goes to the cause, the rest is profit (in the US). That's at best, for example, less than 10% of your donations to the NFL breast cancer awareness thing actually go to said thing, the rest? Again is profit. I mean, fuck, I think the breast cancer racket alone is like a multi-billion dollar affair.

My point is that, non-profits do make money and quite a bit of it, and it's actually pretty disgusting.

[Radio Spartacus]

I don't think it's "arbitrary" at all - it's class war!

Arbitrary in the sense that scarcity is unnecessary and capitalism is no longer historically progressive, so arbitrary in reference to the ideal I suppose? I phrased that improperly, there absolutely is a class war

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Arbitrary in the sense that scarcity is unnecessary and capitalism is no longer historically progressive, so arbitrary in reference to the ideal I suppose? I phrased that improperly, there absolutely is a class war

I guess to elaborate - my point being not simply that there is a class war, but the ostensibly neutral economic activity of capital is a decisive aspect, with what appears as "demand" reflecting the development of class conflict (ie the demands of capital generally) rather than "demand" as a reflection of human wants and needs.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Can you not just call them non-profits? Non-profits are businesses just like any other, aren't really 'non-profits," and I happen to have done marketing for a lot of non-profits. At best, roughly 60-65% of your donation(s) actually goes to the cause, the rest is profit (in the US). That's at best, for example, less than 10% of your donations to the NFL breast cancer awareness thing actually go to said thing, the rest? Again is profit. I mean, fuck, I think the breast cancer racket alone is like a multi-billion dollar affair.

My point is that, non-profits do make money and quite a bit of it, and it's actually pretty disgusting.

If you get $1 Million in donations for breast cancer research, and then give a group of doctors a donation of $100 and a cappuccino machine, technically you are still an organization that is working on a cure and not committing fraud.

With that said, there are non-profit organizations in which less than 5% goes to overhead costs, and there are non-profits in which more of that is eaten up by the nature of their work. The American Civil Liberties Union or the Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, both employ many lawyers who make a handsome salary, but not compared to other lawyers.

[liberlict]

A couple further clarifications:

1. I don't go in for the high school ECON11 "supply and demand" story too seriously as anything beyond a generalization. I would assume that you don't either because, well, duh.

2. None of this necessarily leads to production being geared toward the interests of "those with vested interests" in a mechanical way (ie to the benefit of individual capitalists), because the driving force isn't the individual activity of particular capitalists, but the social contradictions within capitalism. That is to say, it's a political question which can't be answered in purely economic terms.

I think we might still be on different wavelengths because I most assuredly do think that supply and demand is a good way to think about economic actions. I don't envision it to be different in the communist project either. The difference is that communists want workers to have direct control over making supply decisions rather than being exploited by capitalists. I actually think that supply and demand is a useful way to think about life in general. Take for example in 'sexual economics': when a gender shortage occurs there exits a 'crisis' due to supply exceeding demand. Or that there are more opportunities for females in the prostitution industry, presumably because the demand for sex is higher in males than females. But I digress.

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/chinese-marriage-crisis

In regards to market anarchy. You mentioned a 'pejorative sense'. Why is there a pejorative sense? As your distinction betrays, anarchy reigns in communism as well. The argument is just that workers are going to be better or more moral in controlling and allocated resources than capitalists. I can't see any reason for this assumption. Why do you? That capitalism is anarchistic a simple truism. But I think the distinction between market anarchy and social anarchy is spurious.

You asked if I think consumer behavior reflects aggregate demand. 'Aggregate' seems to imply some sort of averaging out of the worlds wants and contrasting it with resources available. There are many more people starving for basic things then there are people wanting fighter jets or yachts. This is because there are many more poor people than there are rich people. But again, communism doesn't solve this. If we take 'anarchy', just to mean 'free', then people are free to accumulate. The only way out of this is to say you want a society where people are not free.

Some common ground we might have is that I do think the way our institutions are formed, the laws that regulate how business is conducted etc, is not very democratic. We vote every 4 years or so and the whole affair is a tedious circus affair where most get bored and tune out. I advocate for a more participatory democracy, with constant referendums, like in Switzerland.

[liberlict]

Syndicalist hospitals and schools and day cares and homes for the elderly work so well...

But what do sick, young, small, and old people matter? They're inefficient!

I'm not defending the way my healthcare system is set up, but there will always be a higher demand for eternal life than there are resources to supply it. How exactly does communism addresses the black market organ trade?

[Baseball]

Workers' cooperatives demonstrate how a worker-owned and consensus managed enterprise would run on the small-scale, it's not too far of a leap to imagine it large scale.



Okay, so what do capitalists do that workers cannot do by themselves? Count money? Spend it? Invest for the long-term? There are already businesses managed by their workers wherein they do all of that collectively. Although not perfect examples, you can see as much in Mondragon in Spain, the recovered factories in Argentina, the co-ops in Venezuela, the historical examples of the Russian Republic and Yugoslavia, as well as all of the workers' cooperatives around the world, including the United States.

There is nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned business. Those co-ops you cite exist within a capitalist community, and they have to function accordingly.

Is it possible imagine such enterprises being run on a much larger scale? Absolutely-- one can just point to the old USSR.
However, one does not need to imagine that such efforts lead to failure.

On another note-- it is gratifying to see a recognition that the socialist community will need to recreate the function and role of the capitalist in its decisions about production. The question now becomes to what extent does the socialist community misunderstand the capitalist (tremendously) in production and to what extent that misunderstanding will cause all sorts of problems for the workers in their production.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

On another note-- it is gratifying to see a recognition that the socialist community will need to recreate the function and role of the capitalist in its decisions about production. The question now becomes to what extent does the socialist community misunderstand the capitalist (tremendously) in production and to what extent that misunderstanding will cause all sorts of problems for the workers in their production.

To be fair, Trotsky was saying that 80 years ago.


Nowhere else has the study of the internal market reached such intensity as in the United States. It has been done by your banks, trusts, individual businessmen, merchants, traveling salesmen and farmers as part of their stock-in-trade. Your soviet government will simply abolish all trade secrets, will combine all the findings of these researches for individual profit and will transform them into a scientific system of economic planning. In this your government will be helped by the existence of a large class of cultured and critical consumers. By combining the nationalized key industries, your private businesses and democratic consumer cooperation, you will quickly develop a highly flexible system for serving the needs of your population.

[liberlict]

On another note-- it is gratifying to see a recognition that the socialist community will need to recreate the function and role of the capitalist in its decisions about production. The question now becomes to what extent does the socialist community misunderstand the capitalist (tremendously) in production and to what extent that misunderstanding will cause all sorts of problems for the workers in their production.

Yeah, the function of capitalism as it currently operates is to innovate, I.e., sit around and come up with ideas about things people might want or need. Communists obviously want to hand this role over workers. But really, unless we are going to abandon the division of labor, workers would be better off focusing on working, letting capitalists specialize in innovation. I suppose there could be a job for 'inventor' in a communist society. But who's going to choose a job like ditch-digger when there are jobs like this floating around and no accountability? A capitalist risks loss when he invests his money. So he's forced to think about the use value of what he (or she) innovates. A tradesmen inventor in a Communist society could sit around inventing space ships for birds. It wouldn't matter. My suspicious is that his inventions would be things that relate to his own personal comfort (not other peoples) LOL.

That's all assuming a division of labor of course. But getting rid of the division of labor is full of obvious problems too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, the function of capitalism as it currently operates is to innovate, I.e., sit around and come up with ideas about things people might want or need. Communists obviously want to hand this role over workers. But really, unless we are going to abandon the division of labor, workers would be better off focusing on working, letting capitalists specialize in innovation.

How does worker control entail no division of labour? What is it that prevents a worker from being sufficiently familiar with their speciality to be able to conceive of improvements, and what is it that prevents them from cooperating with their fellows to realise those improvements?


I suppose there could be a job for 'inventor' in a communist society. But who's going to choose a job like ditch-digger when there are jobs like this floating around and no accountability?

Even under capitalism there's no such job title as "ditch digger". Digging ditches is a specific task that could be called for in a large number of lines of work. For example, if you're working in construction, then its pretty much inevitable that one will have to dig a ditch at some point as part of a project. So either ditches get dug or projects don't get finished, and if projects don't get finished people are going to be asking some very hard questions as to why.

As for accountability... If you design something and it turns out to have a fatal flaw, then you're accountable to whoever gets hurt by your crappy design. What, did you think people are just supposed to shrug and go "that's life"? Maybe under capitalism, but not in any kind of socio-economic system that gives a damn about anything beyond the bottom line.


A capitalist risks loss when he invests his money. So he's forced to think about the use value of what he (or she) innovates.

Because people like Bill Gates put in billions of hours more work in a day than your average sweatshop worker. Right.


A tradesmen inventor in a Communist society could sit around inventing space ships for birds.

Why would they do that, when they would have the opportunity to work with other like-minded folk on a real space program?


It wouldn't matter. My suspicious is that his inventions would be things that relate to his own personal comfort (not other peoples) LOL.

If "his own personal comfort" relates to improving their ability to do their occupation, then his inventions will have relevance to other workers in the same field.

Also, quite a lot of useful and convenient inventions are of a personal nature. So what? That doesn't mean that millions can't find a use for them.

[liberlict]

How does worker control entail no division of labour? What is it that prevents a worker from being sufficiently familiar with their speciality to be able to conceive of improvements, and what is it that prevents them from cooperating with their fellows to realise those improvements? Time and specialization. Capitalists specialize in inventing things. Ditch diggers specialize in ditch digging. If you spread you skills around multiple areas you sapp your own productivity.




Even under capitalism there's no such job title as "ditch digger".

Yeah the is. I've seen them advertised on Craigs List.


Digging ditches is a specific task that could be called for in a large number of lines of work. For example, if you're working in construction, then its pretty much inevitable that one will have to dig a ditch at some point as part of a project. So either ditches get dug or projects don't get finished, and if projects don't get finished people are going to be asking some very hard questions as to why.

OK. Janitor then.


As for accountability... If you design something and it turns out to have a fatal flaw, then you're accountable to whoever gets hurt by your crappy design.

This is missing the point. The point is you're not motivated to think of others in the first place.



Because people like Bill Gates put in billions of hours more work in a day than your average sweatshop worker. Right.

Bill Gates worked very hard to get where he is and if he wanted to I'd say he'd be entitled to sit around on his ass and enjoy his old age given all his useful innovations. It sends signals to poor people about the rewards you get for innovating. As it happens, though BG is not an idle man. He's currently spent over 1.5 billion dollars trying to elevate the standard of living in Africa.








If "his own personal comfort" relates to improving their ability to do their occupation, then his inventions will have relevance to other workers in the same field.

This worker has chosen the field of inventor. What if he just chose it as front for his passion to sit around and daydream all day? The point is you are not accountable for your usefulness in communism. As long as you purport to try to your abilities, society will service your needs.


Also, quite a lot of useful and convenient inventions are of a personal nature. So what? That doesn't mean that millions can't find a use for them.

That's a perfect argument for capitalism. Selfishness helps the community.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think we might still be on different wavelengths because I most assuredly do think that supply and demand is a good way to think about economic actions.

My point is just that it is, in-and-of-itself, not nearly "enough" to understand economics, even if it is useful as a simplification for explaining economics in the abstract (ie with perfect competition, etc.) for certain purposes.


I don't envision it to be different in the communist project either. The difference is that communists want workers to have direct control over making supply decisions rather than being exploited by capitalists. I actually think that supply and demand is a useful way to think about life in general. Take for example in 'sexual economics': when a gender shortage occurs there exits a 'crisis' due to supply exceeding demand. Or that there are more opportunities for females in the prostitution industry, presumably because the demand for sex is higher in males than females. But I digress.

See, I think your example is actually a good one in that it points precisely to what I'm getting at, and, further, serves as a jumping off point for differentiating communist life from capitalist production.
Sex doesn't have an essential "market" characteristic, since it is, in the abstract, available in super-abundance, even assuming a situation of total heterosexuality and wild gender imbalance. In the real world, of course, sex isn't a commodity like a tooth brush - its mediation by the commodity form is often (maybe even usually) indirect, and it appears as a relation directly between singular subjects (however many are involved ;)). It is neither supplied nor demanded, but a lived relation.
Of course, nothing in capital is unmediated, and, even when sex isn't presented a commodity (which, don't worry, I'll get to), it isn't "outside" of political economy. The "imbalance" in "supply and demand" of sex reflects not a simple tallying of individual preferences, but is the consequence of the dynamics of capitalist heteropatriarchy, which is decisive in securing the unpaid reproductive labour of women. In the Chinese example, this "imbalance" of supply and demand is caused precisely by these forces. Female infanticide in the context of the one child policy, for example, has to be understood in the context of capital's "naturalization" of women's labour (not to mention the relationship between population control, labour, and women generally).
When all this comes around to sex work, of course, we simply find the same relations laid bare (as with domestic labour in relation to housework, restaurants in relation to food, etc.) - we find a service sector that reflects the development of class struggle.


In regards to market anarchy. You mentioned a 'pejorative sense'. Why is there a pejorative sense? As your distinction betrays, anarchy reigns in communism as well. The argument is just that workers are going to be's better or more moral in controlling and allocated resources than capitalists.

On the contrary, this precisely misses the essence of the communist project - if this were "market socialism", or a "command economy" that would certainly be the case, and I think you critique both quite rightly (possibly in this thread - I don't remember for certain).
"The pejorative sense" here refers to the "chaos" (in the colloquial sense of chaos) of relations between things reigning supreme. I make the distinction between "chaos" and historical political anarchism here, since the word is often used without bothering to differentiate between the two (which, regardless of one's opinion on it, given the real existence of historical anarchism, seems dishonest).
Communism ceases to be "chaotic" in this sense in that relations cease to be mediated by the commodity form. "Workers" (who cease to exist) are not necessarily "better" (more efficient or "just" in the bourgeois sense) at "allocating goods", but, rather, goods are produced and consumed in common within direct relations unmediated by private property, commodities, or any "general equivalent".


I can't see any reason for this assumption. Why do you? That capitalism is anarchistic a simple truism. But I think the distinction between market anarchy social anarchy is spurious.

The thing is, capitalism isn't "anarchistic" except in the sense of chaotic. "Social Anarchy" on the contrary exists only in reference to the historical anarchist movement(s) - to refer to it as "chaotic" has an entirely different connotation, and, in any case, it has been both chaotic, and extremely organized at various points.


You asked if I think consumer behavior reflects aggregate demand. 'Aggregate' seems to imply some sort of averaging out of the worlds wants and contrasting it with resources available. There are many more people starving for basic things then there are people wanting fighter jets or yachts. This is because there are many more poor people than there are rich people.

OK, let's run with this: What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "supply and demand" has to be taken as a kind of "weighted" aggregate. The thing is, when you really break it down, what you mean in practice is that the significance of my million dollars is different than, in fact fundamentally more than, a million poor folks' one-dollar-a-piece. Well, exactly: which is why it comes back around to a fundamentally political question. The "appearance" of money as apolitical conceals its reality - as an expression of class interests.


But again, communism doesn't solve this. If we take 'anarchy', just to mean 'free'. Then people are free to accumulate. The only way out of this is to say you want a society where people are not free.

See, I don't take "anarchy" to mean "free" in the bourgeois sense, since such an understanding of "freedom" is implicitly premised on the aforementioned class relations which conceal an implicit unfreedom. Your "freedom" to accumulate is premised precisely on alienation of the means of re/production of social life, which necessarily constitute the basis of any positive freedom (in the sense of capacity to, rather than "freedom from").


Some common ground we might have is that I do think the way our institutions are formed, the laws that regulate how business is conducted etc, is not very democratic. We vote every 4 years or so and the whole affair is a tedious circus affair where most get bored and tune out. I advocate for a more participatory democracy, with constant referendums, like in Switzerland.

That's a very narrow conception of "our institutions", since I find myself far more often faced with the dictatorship of the market than of the state (and in this case, I am never permitted to so much as cast a ballot).

[liberlict]

My point is just that it is, in-and-of-itself, not nearly "enough" to understand economics, even if it is useful as a simplification for explaining economics in the abstract (ie with perfect competition, etc.) for certain purposes.

I agree with that. But I can't see anything that communism has brought to the table. Surplus value and commodity fetishism. Both are flawed and irrelevant.




See, I think your example is actually a good one in that it points precisely to what I'm getting at, and, further, serves as a jumping off point for differentiating communist life from capitalist production.
Sex doesn't have an essential "market" characteristic, since it is, in the abstract, available in super-abundance, even assuming a situation of total heterosexuality and wild gender imbalance. In the real world, of course, sex isn't a commodity like a tooth brush - its mediation by the commodity form is often (maybe even usually) indirect, and it appears as a relation directly between singular subjects (however many are involved ;)). It is neither supplied nor demanded, but a lived relation.

Interesting, but I don't think money has any causal affect on how we see the world. Even without it things still have an exchange value. You call money a 'mediator', as though it's it standing in the way of people and a more organic relationship to things. I can't see any reason to think this. People are free to have whatever kind of relationship to commodities they want to. I guess this would depend on their personality type, the context, and a dozen other variables.

It is true that capitalism encourages you to see things for their exchange value as well as what they actually are. But that's OK. People use the exchange value of things (what are 'commodities' called in communism when they're no longer fetishisized? I'm getting sick of calling them 'things') to profit so they can buy the things they really do want. For example, my uncle collects old tractors. Hardly any of them work, they have no exchange value, but he's hella sentimental about them. He buys and sells cars to fund his fascination with retro tractors. The relationship he has to the cars he upgrades is pretty superficial, other than he likes tinkering with mechanical stuff. But who cares? You're not locked into seeing things as exchangeable or usable. One is just a means to the other.




Of course, nothing in capital is unmediated, and, even when sex isn't presented a commodity (which, don't worry, I'll get to), it isn't "outside" of political economy. The "imbalance" in "supply and demand" of sex reflects not a simple tallying of individual preferences, but is the consequence of the dynamics of capitalist heteropatriarchy, which is decisive in securing the unpaid reproductive labour of women. In the Chinese example, this "imbalance" of supply and demand is caused precisely by these forces. Female infanticide in the context of the one child policy, for example, has to be understood in the context of capital's "naturalization" of women's labour (not to mention the relationship between population control, labour, and women generally).

A simpler explanation might just be that these are the kind of unforeseeable consequences of regulation. In any market.

I agree we live in a 'hetropatricrchal' world (cheers for teaching me a new word). But that's a different battleground.


When all this comes around to sex work, of course, we simply find the same relations laid bare (as with domestic labour in relation to housework, restaurants in relation to food, etc.) - we find a service sector that reflects the development of class struggle.

I realize that communists think that all social relationships are some kind of epiphenomenon riding the wave of class struggle. I don't. I don't claim to know what the 'motor' of history is. It's an impossibly complex question. I wouldn't waste my time stabbing in the dark. As for 'class' as a candidate, I think it's a pretty broken construct. The proletariat is shrinking by the day as more and more people own tools and machinery becomes cheaper. The distinction between worker and capitalist has become blurred to the point that it is useless.



On the contrary, this precisely misses the essence of the communist project - if this were "market socialism", or a "command economy" that would certainly be the case, and I think you critique both quite rightly (possibly in this thread - I don't remember for certain).
"The pejorative sense" here refers to the "chaos" (in the colloquial sense of chaos) of relations between things reigning supreme. I make the distinction between "chaos" and historical political anarchism here, since the word is often used without bothering to differentiate between the two (which, regardless of one's opinion on it, given the real existence of historical anarchism, seems dishonest).
Communism ceases to be "chaotic" in this sense in that relations cease to be mediated by the commodity form. "Workers" (who cease to exist) are not necessarily "better" (more efficient or "just" in the bourgeois sense) at "allocating goods", but, rather, goods are produced and consumed in common within direct relations unmediated by private property, commodities, or any "general equivalent".


The thing is, capitalism isn't "anarchistic" except in the sense of chaotic. "Social Anarchy" on the contrary exists only in reference to the historical anarchist movement(s) - to refer to it as "chaotic" has an entirely different connotation, and, in any case, it has been both chaotic, and extremely organized at various points.

I think you're just playing with words here. I don't particularly care how “anarchy” is defined. Chaotic doesn't have any interestingly different meaning than free, except that it highlights the 'uncontrolled' apect of anarchy. It has a bad connotation. 'Free' highlights the good ones, like 'being free', which has a nice pollyanna feel about it. One is “good anarchy”, the other is “bad anarchy”. But how do we disentangle them? To take the 'chaotic' ingredient out of anarchy one has to impose controls on it. But then it ceases to be anarchy.




OK, let's run with this: What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "supply and demand" has to be taken as a kind of "weighted" aggregate. The thing is, when you really break it down, what you mean in practice is that the significance of my million dollars is different than, in fact fundamentally more than, a million poor folks' one-dollar-a-piece. Well, exactly: which is why it comes back around to a fundamentally political question. The "appearance" of money as apolitical conceals its reality - as an expression of class interests.

I don't think money conceals anything. It's simply a medium of exchange. We use it as an alternative to dumb barter. It's allocations reflect success or lack-thereof at being productive, innovative, thrifty, whatever. And it's quite blatant in sending these signals.




See, I don't take "anarchy" to mean "free" in the bourgeois sense, since such an understanding of "freedom" is implicitly premised on the aforementioned class relations which conceal an implicit unfreedom. Your "freedom" to accumulate is premised precisely on alienation of the means of re/production of social life, which necessarily constitute the basis of any positive freedom (in the sense of capacity to, rather than "freedom from").

What does anarchy mean in the proletarian sense?

I think this is a good point to the extent that it highlights the problematic nature of 'freedom'. We don't believe that people should be free to steal and BBQ other people's children. We believe that people should have certain kind of freedoms, and denied others.

As for whether everybody should have equal access to the mean of production, no I don't think so. There's many reasons. One is that me not having access to a MOP typically signifies I did nothing to work on in. The purchasing power I have from things that I have worked on is fair enough. Another is that people being alienated is a good thing because it sends signals to innovate better/cheaper modes of production than what's currently on the market. Another is that I do have access the means of production, because they are the product of the human mind. I have a mind, I am free to invent.




That's a very narrow conception of "our institutions", since I find myself far more often faced with the dictatorship of the market than of the state (and in this case, I am never permitted to so much as cast a ballot).

How do you feel oppressed by the market in your life, may I ask? You are obviously a smart guy, and willing or not, you're already bourgeois! The computer you're typing on is the fastest growing mode of production in history. Go to the Android store and write an app! If you feel bad about charging people about the $3 for all the work you put in, donate it to your local communist org. People seem to have this conception of the MOP being only private land with huge factories or towering buildings full of offices. These are just the wildly successful ones. The market is open to you and the the opportunity costs are getting in are cheaper all the time. Take an example from my own life; When I need some cash, I post an ad on craigslist offering to cut peoples trees down. I can make 1k (AU) in 3 hours doing this, and all I need to get into this market is a chainsaw and an idiotic okayness with heights.

[tallguy]

...That's a perfect argument for capitalism. Selfishness helps the community.

You seem to be harbouring under a number of misapprehensions.

Firstly that the mythical "free market" of capitalism has ever existed in the first place. It hasn't. It is no less real than any other human idea. It's just an idea, that's all and the people running the show will be just as happy to bring the swords back out if the latest fairy-story stops working for them.

However, let just, for the sake of argument, assume that the capitalist free market, red in selfish tooth and claw, does and can exist, it still is not capable of the wonders you ascribe to it.

What it is capable of, is the efficient exploitation of resources (humans included). I wouldn't argue with that. Indeed, so efficient is it that I doubt any other system of human organisation could have taken us to the brink of global resource depletion and environmental catastrophe quite so rapidly as capitalism has done

Take, for example, the rhino. Rhinos are now an endangered species. Rhino horn is also highly prized in many Asiatic countries around the world because of it's supposed aphrodisiac properties. Never mind the complete hogwash such beliefs are based on, they exist nonetheless. A free market in rhino horn would dictate that as the supply of a given resource falls, the price for that resource will rapidly rise in the face of continued demand. This will further incentivise the killers of rhinos to work ever harder to harvest their deadly crop. All the way to the point of supply destruction (extinction of the rhino), which will, in turn, precipitate an inevitable and total demand destruction.

Capitalism and the free market has only "worked" for some on the way up because the resources it voraciously and blindly consumed were seemingly everlastingly replaceable. Even then though, it has failed many. However, on the way down it will be a complete and utter disaster for both humans and the rest of life. It will take us to the edge of the cliff and then straight over into the abyss. That edge is coming into view right now.

Socialism is the only show left in town capable of holding out even a glimmer of hope for our species in the Crisis to come. Even then, I don't have much hope. But it's all we have. In the absence of socialism, there is only barbarism and destruction awaiting us.

[liberlict]

You seem to be harbouring under a number of misapprehensions.

Firstly that the mythical "free market" of capitalism has ever existed in the first place. It hasn't. It is no less real than any other human idea. It's just an idea, that's all and the people running the show will be just as happy to bring the swords back out if the latest fairy-story stops working for them.

However, let just, for the sake of argument, assume that the capitalist free market, red in selfish tooth and claw, does and can exist, it still is not capable of the wonders you ascribe to it.

What it is capable of, is the efficient exploitation of resources (humans included). I wouldn't argue with that. Indeed, so efficient is it that I doubt any other system of human organisation could have taken us to the brink of global resource depletion and environmental catastrophe quite so rapidly as capitalism has done

Take, for example, the rhino. Rhinos are now an endangered species. Rhino horn is also highly prized in many Asiatic countries around the world because of it's supposed aphrodisiac properties. Never mind the complete hogwash such beliefs are based on, they exist nonetheless. A free market in rhino horn would dictate that as the supply of a given resource falls, the price for that resource will rapidly rise in the face of continued demand. This will further incentivise the killers of rhinos to work ever harder to harvest their deadly crop. All the way to the point of supply destruction (extinction of the rhino), which will, in turn, precipitate an inevitable and total demand destruction.

Capitalism and the free market has only "worked" for some on the way up because the resources it voraciously and blindly consumed were seemingly everlastingly replaceable. Even then though, it has failed many. However, on the way down it will be a complete and utter disaster for both humans and the rest of life. It will take us to the edge of the cliff and then straight over into the abyss. That edge is coming into view right now.

Socialism is the only show left in town capable of holding out even a glimmer of hope for our species in the Crisis to come. Even then, I don't have much hope. But it's all we have. In the absence of socialism, there is only barbarism and destruction awaiting us.

Haha. I agree that 'capitalism", in the right libertarian sense, has never existed. But most people round here believe that the whole world at the moment is capitalist, or at least 'state capitalist', so I try to work within their definitions.

I also share your cynicism about resource depletion but communism is not the answer. Chernobyl?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Time and specialization. Capitalists specialize in inventing things. Ditch diggers specialize in ditch digging. If you spread you skills around multiple areas you sapp your own productivity.

Nonsense. Humans are smart enough to attain a mastery of multiple skills, if their potential is not being wasted.


Yeah the is. I've seen them advertised on Craigs List.

They're called "labourers" over here, and they do more than just dig ditches. Believe me, I've been one.


OK. Janitor then.

What's wrong with being a janitor? I'd be happy to do that kind of work (in fact I would apply for such jobs now if anyone would take me). I'd also be happy to clean out sewers or mine bauxite because I know that a modern society needs those kind of jobs to be done.


This is missing the point. The point is you're not motivated to think of others in the first place.

Of course you are. I don't like living in a shit-tip, I don't like crappy products that do their function badly and that might injure or kill me, and I appreciate well-maintained infrastructure. Many others feel the same way (I suspect you do too), and in a society where people have the means to give a damn (rather than being economically disenfranchised) I'm willing to bet that will make a significant difference.


Bill Gates worked very hard to get where he is and if he wanted to I'd say he'd be entitled to sit around on his ass and enjoy his old age given all his useful innovations.

You mean the innovations that other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29) people (http://buzzmachine.com/2006/06/16/the-meaning-of-bill/) came up with?


It sends signals to poor people about the rewards you get for innovating.

Yeah, you could have your innovations appropriated by others, who then go on to become billionaires. Brilliant lesson.


As it happens, though BG is not an idle man. He's currently spent over 1.5 billion dollars trying to elevate the standard of living in Africa.

I'm not disputing that he has worked hard. I'm disputing that his hard work is millions to billions of times greater than the vast majority of people on this planet.


This worker has chosen the field of inventor. What if he just chose it as front for his passion to sit around and daydream all day? The point is you are not accountable for your usefulness in communism. As long as you purport to try to your abilities, society will service your needs.

This is just a rehash of the old "free-rider" canard. Needless to say if it really were a problem, any and all welfare systems would have collapsed under the weight of people seeking free money. When in fact more money goes unclaimed than is lost to fraud! (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-benefit-fraud-perspective/15796)


That's a perfect argument for capitalism. Selfishness helps the community.

No, it's an argument in favour of inventions of a personal nature.

There are degrees of selfishness. My reasons for being a communist are ultimately selfish; what can be more selfish than wanting more control over one's economic destiny? But then there's the short-sighted kind of selfishness, the sort that gets distracted by the spectacle of millionaires and billionaires, while at the same time failing to realise that the odds are against them; billions work hard and work smart, but only a tiny minority of those billions get the megabucks and the concomitant personal autonomy and political clout.

[Positivist]

Due to the disparity in wealth across society, a firm can profit, and thus continue operations, without the approval implied by purchases by any more than a small wealthy contingent of the population. As a result, in a disciplined market economy, the needs and concerns of the masses go neglected.

[liberlict]

Nonsense. Humans are smart enough to attain a mastery of multiple skills, if their potential is not being wasted.

Missing the point.




What's wrong with being a janitor? I'd be happy to do that kind of work (in fact I would apply for such jobs now if anyone would take me). I'd also be happy to clean out sewers or mine bauxite because I know that a modern society needs those kind of jobs to be done.

Well good luck to you. But I suggest that in a society where we all choose our own jobs your might be unique in your easiness around shit.




Of course you are. I don't like living in a shit-tip, I don't like crappy products that do their function badly and that might injure or kill me, and I appreciate well-maintained infrastructure. Many others feel the same way (I suspect you do too), and in a society where people have the means to give a damn (rather than being economically disenfranchised) I'm willing to bet that will make a significant difference.

People have a bigger motive to give a damn in capitalism because you are only rewarded if your work is useful to others.




You mean the innovations that other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_%28company%29) people (http://buzzmachine.com/2006/06/16/the-meaning-of-bill/) came up with?



Yeah, you could have your innovations appropriated by others, who then go on to become billionaires. Brilliant lesson.

I don't agree with patents.




I'm not disputing that he has worked hard. I'm disputing that his hard work is millions to billions of times greater than the vast majority of people on this planet.

It's not about work. It's about socially useful work.




This is just a rehash of the old "free-rider" canard. Needless to say if it really were a problem, any and all welfare systems would have collapsed under the weight of people seeking free money.

No they wouldn't because welfare bludegers are incentivised to enter the market because of greater opportunities.

[liberlict]

Due to the disparity in wealth across society, a firm can profit, and thus continue operations, without the approval implied by purchases by any more than a small wealthy contingent of the population. As a result, in a disciplined market economy, the needs and concerns of the masses go neglected.

This is a good point. But due to the concentration of wealth, the market for average consumers is still bigger. Look at the largest companies in the world and their markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

No Jewelers or yacht builders there.

Largest company is Walmart! Compare their revenue ($469B)with the biggest luxury department store in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Bon_Marche ($339M)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I agree with that. But I can't see anything that communism has brought to the table. Surplus value and commodity fetishism. Both are flawed and irrelevant.
OK, since you're just kind of skipping over this, I want to spend a minute on commodity fetishism. It's possible that you "get" it, but, since many folk don't, I'm going to take this opportunity to elaborate a bit on it.
Commodity fetishism is often misunderstood in the context of the colloquial use of fetishism to describe desire. In day-to-day usage, fetishism is generally taken to mean an excess of (typically sexualized, subconscious) desire - but this isn't the term's origin. Rather, fetishism properly describes the attribution of mystical powers to an object, so that, for example, if I fetishize boots, it is not that I experience an excessive desire for boots, but that I experience the boots as having the power to incite desire in me. I know that sounds like a strange distinction in practice, but keep with me for a minute.
Commodity fetishism often gets misunderstood to mean a desire for commodities - as something like a pretentious way of describing consumerism. It's not - and, in fact, it doesn't deal with consumption except insofar as dealing with production necessarily implies as much. Commodity fetishism is bound up with Marx's notion of alienation, and the way that, through the mediation of capital, labour confronts dead labour as a living force. So, while my concrete activity is particular and has particular consequences (a rack of clean dishes, a trench where pipe can be put down, etc. - you name it, I've done it), I am abstracted from it by the wage (neither the trench, nor the "cleanliness" are "mine"), and face its power in the context of the market. This is not only experienced individually, but collectively: so that my washing dishes ultimately confronts me in gentrification and displacement when understood as part of labour collectively enriching capital.
Since it's thematically appropriate, I'm also going to rip an aside from latter in your post and address it here:

[W]hat are 'commodities' called in communism when they're no longer fetishisized? I'm getting sick of calling them 'things'.
I'm also partial to "stuff" because of its funny character as both singular and particular grammatically, but abstract and plural in what it signifies. ;)
In any case, "in communism" stuff is reinvested with its singularity. This cuts to the core of alienation and fetishism - one's labours have as their consequences their consequences, and not the abstraction from their consequences.
Anyway, moving on to the "meat" of your post:

Interesting, but I don't think money has any causal affect on how we see the world. Even without it things still have an exchange value.
I think you're starting here from a confusing notion of exchange value. Exchanging objects that have "use value" does not imply, in the absence of a general equivalent (and/or a particular juridico-political formation serving to mediate exchange), exchange value. If you have potatoes, I have corn, and we exchange whatever quantities of the two outside the context of a market, what we are exchanging can't be understood as "values" since the only "value" against which they can measured are our own subjective needs/desires. So, it's only partially accurate when you approach the idea this way:

You call money a 'mediator', as though it's it standing in the way of people and a more organic relationship to things.
But, indeed, it's not "money" alone, but a whole constellation of juridical and political relationships which give money its particular character.

I can't see any reason to think this. People are free to have whatever kind of relationship to commodities they want to. I guess this would depend on their personality type, the context, and a dozen other variables.
So, while, in an abstract, ahistorical, context, an individual might be able to have a certain detached view of particular commodities, the reality is quite different. After all, capital has certain practical realities which prohibit one from simply existing outside of its dictates (including historically unprecedented armed force), meaning that one's relation to commodities is anything but free taken on the whole: despite ostensible freedom, on the level of biopower, one is compelled to dance to the beat of their drum.

It is true that capitalism encourages you to see things for their exchange value as well as what they actually are. But that's OK. People use the exchange value of things [. . .] to profit so they can buy the things they really do want.
I just want to contest this: most people distinctly don't do what you're describing, and it is, in fact, the province, primarily, of capitalists (though, certainly, every now and then, one might have a garage sale). What you're implying here is that life itself is a thing to be exchanged - that wage labour is simply a particular but equivalent exchange of commodities (three hours labour being absolutely indistinct from $30 with of coal). Not only is this objectionable from an economic point of view (the commodity labour has a unique character in its embodied reproductive labour, even if you dispute its unique relation to the creation of value), but from an ethical point of view, that time and the essence of life itself can be viewed as a commodity has striking and horrific consequences. This is particularly true taken in its real historical context where the value of particular labour contains within it the devalued reproductive labour of others whose lives themselves are thereby implicitly devalued.

For example, my uncle collects old tractors. Hardly any of them work, they have no exchange value, but he's hella sentimental about them. He buys and sells cars to fund his fascination with retro tractors. The relationship he has to the cars he upgrades is pretty superficial, other than he likes tinkering with mechanical stuff. But who cares? You're not locked into seeing things as exchangeable or usable. One is just a means to the other.
I'm sorry, I don't entirely see what you're getting at here. While it's a nice "human interest story" (sincerely, your uncle sounds like a cool quirky guy), I don't really see what you're trying to say about the nature of commodities or the way - coming back to the point - that "demand" is shaped. Unless your uncle's entire social being is in retro tractors and he somehow draws sustenance from his pleasure in them.

A simpler explanation might just be that these are the kind of unforeseeable consequences of regulation. In any market.

I agree we live in a 'hetropatricrchal' world (cheers for teaching me a new word). But that's a different battleground.
See, I don't think it is a different battleground, since its historical interrelationship with capital is one of being mutually constituting. In this sense I feel the same about "regulation" - capitalism has never existed without a relationship to juridical and political power. The regulation of women in relation to the reproduction of labour power (the "women's work" that capital enjoys for free on account of its "natural" character), the regulation of race and citizenship for purposes of both slave labour and manipulation of labour markets, etc. are not "exceptions" to the rule, but the "obscene supplement" on which its functioning is dependent.

I realize that communists think that all social relationships are some kind of epiphenomenon riding the wave of class struggle. I don't. I don't claim to know what the 'motor' of history is. It's an impossibly complex question. I wouldn't waste my time stabbing in the dark. As for 'class' as a candidate, I think it's a pretty broken construct. The proletariat is shrinking by the day as more and more people own tools and machinery becomes cheaper. The distinction between worker and capitalist has become blurred to the point that it is useless.
I think that this is, to a certain degree, an important critique of many Marxisms, and, in particular, Marx's "Hegelian hangover" (a term used by different thinkers to highlight, admittedly, different things). I will say, however, that, particular to capitalism, and with an understanding that "stretches" (to borrow from Caffentzis borrowing from Fannon) Marx's notion of class, that the idea remains important in context. So, while an "old left" notion of the working class which sees the European(ized) factory worker as the proletarian revolutionary subject is clearly insufficient, I think this says less about "class" and more about Marx's liberalism.
In any case, the proletariat isn't shrinking (witness the new wave of proletarianization accompanying the African land-grab, the continuing global industrialization of food production, urbanization in China, etc.), but it is "shifting" - it is increasingly feminized and racialized. At the imperial centre, of course, the lines are blurring - we're seeing what Lenin described in Imperialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm) as the development of a "bourgeois proletariat" whose "bourgeoisification" is premised on proletarianization and super-exploitation elsewhere. Though, that said, on the other hand, we're also seeing increased precarity, and reproletarianization as a consequence of financial crises and attendant "austerity" - youth and people of colour being disproportionately effected.

I think you're just playing with words here. I don't particularly care how “anarchy” is defined. Chaotic doesn't have any interestingly different meaning than free, except that it highlights the 'uncontrolled' apect of anarchy. It has a bad connotation. 'Free' highlights the good ones, like 'being free', which has a nice pollyanna feel about it. One is “good anarchy”, the other is “bad anarchy”. But how do we disentangle them? To take the 'chaotic' ingredient out of anarchy one has to impose controls on it. But then it ceases to be anarchy.
OK, this is really not a case of playing with words, but two very distinct uses - "anarchy" as concerning explicit anarchists, their historical movements and organizations, their cultural production, writing, etc. on one hand and "anarchy" meaning chaos (regardless of its connotations) on the other. I think that this is actually quite important, and not at all difficult to untangle since the former has a specific historical character, and the latter is a loose concept.

I don't think money conceals anything. It's simply a medium of exchange. We use it as an alternative to dumb barter.
That's actually something of a fairy-tale. "Barter systems", when they really exist to the extent that it is a primary means of exchange, tend to emerge in situations where monetary systems collapse - so, really, it's the other way around, and we (people, in a broad historical view) use barter as an alternative to dumb money. Which, really, I think, demonstrates some of what it is that money conceals.

It's allocations reflect success or lack-thereof at being productive, innovative, thrifty, whatever. And it's quite blatant in sending these signals.
Of course, it doesn't really do this at all, which is, again, precisely part of how it serves to conceal underlying relations. What its allocations reflect is one's relation to the systems that allocate money. If those systems allocated money on the basis of particular values as you described, that might be true, but, of course, it's not (which is why CEOs get Golden Parachutes, kids sewing sneakers get a few bucks a month, and capitalist moralizing looks utterly stupid when confronted with capitalist reality).

What does anarchy mean in the proletarian sense?
OK, to be fair I was asking for that.
My point in referring to "freedom in the bourgeois sense" was to emphasize that "negative freedom" is relatively narrow. I don't think every word has a bourgeois and proletarian definition, but it's probably fair for you to point out my bad habit of employing lingo uncritically.

I think this is a good point to the extent that it highlights the problematic nature of 'freedom'. We don't believe that people should be free to steal and BBQ other people's children. We believe that people should have certain kind of freedoms, and denied others.
Which also, I think, highlights nicely the limits of liberal discourses of freedom. It's also complicated, I think, by the difficulties of breaking out of the liberal mindset which posits law as mediated by the sovereign power of the state. That's another thread though, right?

Speaking of which, while there are some ideas that warrant discussion in the next chunk of your post, I feel like they're a little overdone, and "What is a means of production?" seems like a recipe for further derailment, so Ima skip to the end where you bring things back to "the point" as it were:


[D]ue to the concentration of wealth, the market for average consumers is still bigger. Look at the largest companies in the world and their markets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

No Jewelers or yacht builders there.

Largest company is Walmart! Compare their revenue ($469B)with the biggest luxury department store in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Bon_Marche ($339M)

Ok, let's run with this and break it down:
1. Terrifyingly, this one Luxury department store, with one location in the whole world, serving only a small clique of elites, still manages to pull in 0.07% of WALMART's profits. Sure, that doesn't sound like a lot, but, in WALMART's case, we're talking about an international superstore at which millions of people across sixteen countries buy the necessities of life. Think about what that means for a minute.

2. Does WALMART (or Royal Dutch Shell?) actually reflect the needs and desires of consumers? There's more than one way to approach that. First, I think it's important to approach it in social terms, since WALMART doesn't just sell t-shirts, or carrots, or whatever - it also shapes the lives of its employees, and the communities in which it operates. Do consumers really say, "Hey, cheap Chinese labour and shitty minimum wage cashier jobs? Fuck yes!" when they buy a t-shirt? I mean, implicitly, of course, but not subjectively. Are you saying that the market protects us from our ignorance - that it "chooses for us" all of the necessary "auxiliary" conditions necessary to support our final choice (ie the t-shirt)? Secondly, even assuming, "OK, well, the market makes all of the 'big' choices, but you still get your t-shirt" - did we want the t-shirt to begin with? Or is it a "necessity"? That's not to say we'd keel over and die for lack of said shirt, but, if the "big" decisions about living and working conditions are made by the "the market", we don't actually have much more say in deciding what's "necessary" either (I "needed" a pair of black pants for work).
Anyway, I keep saying, "the market, the market, the market" but let's be real: "the market" doesn't make decisions, people do. Someone is making decisions about labour conditions, etc. and you know what? Well, all of a sudden, buying a t-shirt at WALMART brings class back into the equation.

[Baseball]

How does worker control entail no division of labour? What is it that prevents a worker from being sufficiently familiar with their speciality to be able to conceive of improvements, and what is it that prevents them from cooperating with their fellows to realise those improvements?

Nothing. However, what this means is that socialism will require somebody, or a group of somebodies, to perform the role that a capitalist, or a group of capitalist, performs in the capitalist communities.
Thus, the "pasasitical" nature of the capitalist in production, as conceived by the socialist, is shown to be wrong.
At this point, one would then have to examine how these "socialist capitalists" might go about doing their job, and analysing whether the results would be what socialists claim is the results of socialist production ie. goods for all or upon demand, more equitable distribution ect.

[Remus Bleys]

Nothing. However, what this means is that socialism will require somebody, or a group of somebodies, to perform the role that a capitalist, or a group of capitalist, performs in the capitalist communities.
Someone owns the means of production and pays everyone else wage labor? What?

[Baseball]

Someone owns the means of production and pays everyone else wage labor? What?

Directs production.

[Remus Bleys]

Directs production.
thats not the exploiting job of the bourgeois lol

[Schumpeter]

Shut the fuck up. Are you a fan of Thatcher? Shove this idiotic reductionist utlitarianism up your arse. Apart from the fact that people are not rational and that "happiness" is nothing measurable or even considerable in any significant way, it's just utterly preposterous. There won't be any unprofitable enterprises in a socialist world, because there won't be any monetary profits and no monetary values on which to gauge this. An 'unprofitable' company in this world would be a place where the human toll (whatever this would be) of regular operations would not outweigh the societal benefits (widely defined) and this could not be made safe and useful.

You're not doing yourself or your political ideology any favours by referring to me in such a manner, as a moderator of the site I wouldn't expect such vitriol.
Moving swiftly onwards, define significant way. Surveys such as the 'Revised Oxford happiness scale' devised by psychologists Michael Argyle and Peter Hill at Oxford university are used to poll people for welfare indicators. This method has been used to compile a table of the worlds happiest countries and is widely used to measure happiness amongst academia.
You talk of a socialist world, yet we do not live in a socialist world and you must deal with the constraints of reality, else your argument quickly becomes farcical.
Then you refer to the human toll, invoking the labour theory of value, which I personally find to be unconvincing, this is a separate debate however.

Thank you for your response, however please be less uncouth in your reply next time, as an ambassador Rev Left it does not bode well for the rest of the site.

[Schumpeter]

How about you shut the hell up. Obviously you don't belong here considering your beliefs. My opinion is that you should read some Marx starting with the Communist Manifesto, and after that read The Principles of Communism, and after that start the first volume of Capital and expand from there.

I tend to not subscribe to any 'beliefs' however I tend towards Utilitarianism, JS Mill's 'On Liberty' seems intriguing, so perhaps I shall sway towards a more individualistic liberal strain of utilitarianism when I finish reading it.

[Schumpeter]

Not that I disagree, but this is the Opposing Ideologies forum.



If we're going by utilitarianism, there should be no profit, because profit can only occur when a workers' labor is undervalued, while the goods and services produced from therein are overpriced. By undervalued I mean that workers gain less pleasure than suffering from their work because the amount of compensation they receive for is not equivalent to the amount of labor they give (labor theory of value), and by overpriced I mean that the amount of labor needed to procure certain goods and services is always more than the cost of producing them. A utilitarian economy would have cost (as) the limit of price, and the means of production controlled by the proletariat, with no capitalist exploiters of labor.

We come back to the labour theory of value, which almost no economists subscribe to. You make the assumption that workers merely derive 'compensation' as you phrase it via their pay packet, as opposed to actually enjoying their job or the consequences that come about as a result of it.

[Sabot Cat]

We come back to the labour theory of value, which almost no economists subscribe to. You make the assumption that workers merely derive 'compensation' as you phrase it via their pay packet, as opposed to actually enjoying their job or the consequences that come about as a result of it.

Even if you don't believe the labor theory of value is accurate (for whatever reason), how does this societal structure benefit people? Capitalists are authorities who aren't accountable to those that they have power over. The entire system of capitalism distorts public opinion and corrodes democratic institutions in a like manner. The argument against capitalism is almost the same as the argument against autocracy and oligarchy: it's better for everyone if powerful people can have their authority taken away if they start acting against the interest of others. At minimum, we need all business and financial entities to be democratically managed by the aggregate of its workers.

[Schumpeter]

I'm just going to spend a minute picking this apart, should be fun:

OK, let's see where this takes us...



Do people not demand energy? I'd have thought that's probably the primary good we demand.

Do people not demand jobs?

Do people not demand wages? Wages that are spent in order to stimulate economic growth. Really, destroying jobs and industry to fund tax cuts is the epitomy of false economy; it doesn't benefit ordinary people since their wages are so low that the percentage tax cut they get is, in real terms, going to be low, whereas having a job and a decent wage will benefit not only them, but the local, regional and national economy as they spend said money on consumer goods.

People demand energy but we have to ask ourselves what the level of that demand is, in relation to quantity of energy that should optimally be supplied. Now we are talking about coal here, so I'll refer to coal as the good in question. Coal firms being unprofitable is a signal to the producers of coal via the price mechanism to either improve the quality or relative cost of their product or to produce less via the price mechanism. As people do not want (demand) the coal in its current state they have chosen refrain from consuming, that or costs have risen too high to justify the output.



OK, but this assumption (if it even holds, which is questionable) has no bearing on people's actions if there are effects caused from external actions, such as the closing down of industries, or tax cuts. Back to the 1st year economics textbook for you...

External actions such as tax cuts do have macroeconomic implications, allowing people to keep more of what they earn, allows them to allocate their resources to areas in which they gain more utility via the investment of their resources. I also mentioned shifting spending away from subsidy and instead to the health service etc, where a utility gain is likely.



How can you talk about utility maximisation in one sentence, and ethics in the very next sentence? This makes no sense. Either you are making an economics argument, or a woolly 'ethics' argument. Make your mind up. And which areas do people channel more resources into? Resources are generally owned by a tiny amount of wealthy people, who channel resources into whatever enterprises are most profitable. Ethical indeed. :rolleyes:

For sake of argument I'm a utilitarian, economics and ethics cannot be separated, most economics are utilitarian however you will come across Libertarians and Marxists as you do in any other social science. Substituent utility for happiness if it is causing confusion.

Wealth inequality is a separate issue and demand related tax cuts, which I was implicitly referring to generally are focused on lower income individuals.


What? Why are producers incentivised to increase production? Tax cuts would lead to less incentives to increase production, since they can make the same amount of total post-tax profit by producing somewhere below the profit-maximising level of output. So, in actual fact, production would decrease, as would jobs.

You have misunderstood, the producers I refer to are the producers of the goods in demand which have demand boosted via allowing individuals to allocate their resources to goods they think will lead to personal utility maximization. For example, imagine if I spent your money on blue shoes, yet you personally wanted red shoes. By allowing you to make your own decision, allowing you to buy red shoes, you become happier and by buying red shoes, you generate a profit for the red shoe maker, creating incentives of the red shoe maker to create more red shoes for you to enjoy. The red shoe maker by increasing production will also hire more workers, helping offset any workers lost by the blue shoe maker.

As for utility maximisation, that is a micro-economic theory that operates based on assumptions about atomised behaviour of individuals. It has little to do with macro-economic factors such as the overall level of production, or employment levels.

The analogy I used to demonstrate my point was the coal market of the 1980s, so this is indeed a microeconomic debate.


I think you're confused, very confused, about basic capitalist economic theory.

I haven't figured out how to multi-quote, can you help me out? Also, I have not personally attacked you, so afford me the same courtesy in the future.

[Schumpeter]

Even if you don't believe the labor theory of value is accurate (for whatever reason), how does this societal structure benefit people? Capitalists are authorities who aren't accountable to those that they have power over. The entire system of capitalism distorts public opinion and corrodes democratic institutions in a like manner. The argument against capitalism is almost the same as the argument against autocracy and oligarchy: it's better for everyone if powerful people can have their authority taken away if they start acting against the interest of others. At minimum, we need all business and financial entities to be democratically managed by the aggregate of its workers.


You assume that businesses cannot act in a manner which creates a greater good without being managed via democratic democracy via the aggregate of its workers. Which I would hold to be a false assumption as without managers businesses would be relatively disorganized as opposed to business with managers, this would lower efficiency and likely lead to an increase in prices, which would negatively impact upon consumers. This could lead to decreased profits, which could translate into less investment and decreased employment in the long term as people who would have been hired, are not hired. However I am not opposed to the idea of worker managed businesses, as long as they are not put in place by force and they can compete with other businesses in providing what consumers what.

[Schumpeter]

Even if you don't believe the labor theory of value is accurate (for whatever reason), how does this societal structure benefit people? Capitalists are authorities who aren't accountable to those that they have power over. The entire system of capitalism distorts public opinion and corrodes democratic institutions in a like manner. The argument against capitalism is almost the same as the argument against autocracy and oligarchy: it's better for everyone if powerful people can have their authority taken away if they start acting against the interest of others. At minimum, we need all business and financial entities to be democratically managed by the aggregate of its workers.

I would pose this question to you, who controls apple?

The CEO?
The Shareholder?

NO consumers control apple, consumers are vital for apple's survival as without consumers buying apple's products it would not be able to survive so apple is at the whim of consumers who can choose to allocate their resources with apple (if they think the product will utility maximize relative to the competition).

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

to be fair i'd view economists not subscribing to something as a mark of merit since by and large they seem quite happy to cling to discredited neoliberal models of economics to the exclusion of almost anything else.

[Schumpeter]

to be fair i'd view economists not subscribing to something as a mark of merit since by and large they seem quite happy to cling to discredited neoliberal models of economics to the exclusion of almost anything else.

Most economists are not 'neo-liberals'. Where I live, Britain, government spending is equal to 45% of GDP, shame it doesn't account for that much output. Its mad to say that economists 'cling' to neo liberal economics, when most Western countries have embraced a mixture between Keynesianism and monetarist (neo-liberal). None have accepted marxism, Keynesianism and monetarist being center left and center right.

[Sabot Cat]

I would pose this question to you, who controls apple?

The CEO?
The Shareholder?

NO consumers control apple, consumers are vital for apple's survival as without consumers buying apple's products it would not be able to survive so apple is at the whim of consumers who can choose to allocate their resources with apple (if they think the product will utility maximize relative to the competition).

Actually, no, the investors control Apple. That's what stock is, and the super-wealthy are consumers who can "outvote" anyone with their dollars. Capitalism is not democratic principally because of this inherently disproportionate distribution. The opinion of most workers are shaped by what products and services are already available and advertised, which is again, determined by people who have more money than they ever will see.

[Sabot Cat]

You assume that businesses cannot act in a manner which creates a greater good without being managed via democratic democracy via the aggregate of its workers. Which I would hold to be a false assumption as without managers businesses would be relatively disorganized as opposed to business with managers,

No, you would have better managers because people "from below" can determine those "above them" and avert Peter Principle. So your chain of consequences won't materialize. Furthermore, wouldn't be better if people could request what they want directly, and instead of it being determined indirectly by the often distorted allocations of the market? A planned economy also enables the possibility of prioritization of needs over wants: such as preventing people from starving to death or dying from curable ailments.

[Schumpeter]

Actually, no, the investors control Apple. That's what stock is, and the super-wealthy are consumers who can "outvote" anyone with their dollars. Capitalism is not democratic principally because of this inherently disproportionate distribution. The opinion of most workers are shaped by what products and services are already available and advertised, which is again, determined by people who have more money than they ever will see.

Nope, consumers are ultimately in control as the investors wouldn't have any incentive to invest without consumers buying the companies products, making the company profitable and thus attractive to invest in. If consumers spend their money elsewhere there is nothing the company can do.

[Schumpeter]

No, you would have better managers because people "from below" can determine those "above them" and avert Peter Principle. So your chain of consequences won't materialize. Furthermore, wouldn't be better if people could request what they want directly, and instead of it being determined indirectly by the often distorted allocations of the market? A planned economy also enables the possibility of prioritization of needs over wants: such as preventing people from starving to death or dying from curable ailments.

If the management system you propose is so much more efficient why haven't private companies already enacted your reforms? Are you proposing that government tells private companies how to be profitable :rolleyes:

People have direct control, direct democracy over private institutions via consumer power.

What are you talking about? Nationalizing retail firms like say Debenhams will not stop anyone from starving to death or dying from curable aliments. The reason why we have a nationalized health service is because we cannot accept that some people may die from curable aliments (to an extent), we also have the welfare state to provide for those driven to death. So we don't need a planned economy to deal with needs, we need a strong market economy, with a small but efficient welfare state to cover people's needs, which is funded by the market economy.

[tooAlive]

Nope, consumers are ultimately in control as the investors wouldn't have any incentive to invest without consumers buying the companies products, making the company profitable and thus attractive to invest in. If consumers spend their money elsewhere there is nothing the company can do.

Correct.

The people want blue widgets.

Company A decides to meet this demand and produces blue widgets.

Company B decides it will produce red widgets instead.

What happens?

Company A is successful, as they provided consumers with what they wanted.

Company B went out of business, as they didn't sell any of the widgets the people didn't want, and lost money spend on labor and production.

Unless...

This was a centrally planned economy in which the government passed a law forcing people to buy the red widgets they didn't want (for their "own good" or to simply benefit the company owners) or if the government bailed out Company B with taxpayer money to synthetically keep it afloat.

In free markets, the consumer ultimately control what is produced.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Most economists are not 'neo-liberals'. Where I live, Britain, government spending is equal to 45% of GDP, shame it doesn't account for that much output. Its mad to say that economists 'cling' to neo liberal economics, when most Western countries have embraced a mixture between Keynesianism and monetarist (neo-liberal). None have accepted marxism, Keynesianism and monetarist being center left and center right.

So they don't cling to neoliberal models - they "embrace a mixture" which includes... neoliberal models of economics. I suppose you are right, it's not fair to single that particular doctrine out when there are indeed prominent Keynsians and proponents of the "neoclassical synthesis" so I apologise for generalising about economists.

Unfortunately it still doesn't seem to help them come up with a system that doesn't dramatically shit its pants a few times a decade. Then again, since they label everything that disagrees with them as "heterodox" maybe it's not such a surprise - and to be fair, they label a lot of right-libertarian schools as "heterodox" as well so it's hardly as if marxist economists are the only ones being cut out of mainstream economic discussion.

[Sabot Cat]

If the management system you propose is so much more efficient why haven't private companies already enacted your reforms? Are you proposing that government tells private companies how to be profitable :rolleyes:

Many aren't willing to do so because they would have to give up power, pretty much.


People have direct control, direct democracy over private institutions via consumer power.


Consumer power is disproportionate because wealth is disproportionate.


What are you talking about? Nationalizing retail firms like say Debenhams will not stop anyone from starving to death or dying from curable aliments. The reason why we have a nationalized health service is because we cannot accept that some people may die from curable aliments (to an extent), we also have the welfare state to provide for those driven to death. So we don't need a planned economy to deal with needs, we need a strong market economy, with a small but efficient welfare state to cover people's needs, which is funded by the market economy.

Um, there are more people in the world than in industrialized nations.

[Schumpeter]

So they don't cling to neoliberal models - they "embrace a mixture" which includes... neoliberal models of economics. I suppose you are right, it's not fair to single that particular doctrine out when there are indeed prominent Keynsians and proponents of the "neoclassical synthesis" so I apologise for generalising about economists.

Unfortunately it still doesn't seem to help them come up with a system that doesn't dramatically shit its pants a few times a decade. Then again, since they label everything that disagrees with them as "heterodox" maybe it's not such a surprise - and to be fair, they label a lot of right-libertarian schools as "heterodox" as well so it's hardly as if marxist economists are the only ones being cut out of mainstream economic discussion.

Perhaps in the USA, but heterodox is not necessarily a good thing is it? It can be arguably insulting, say I said you had a traditional view on homosexuality, heterodox isn't a badge of honour that the cato institute or chicago school can wear proudly. I'm a bit of Keynesian, but Keynesian are still capitalists,I personally admire the Nordic model of a strong private sector funding a small efficient public sector. But then again, who doesn't?

[Schumpeter]

Many aren't willing to do so because they would have to give up power, pretty much.



Consumer power is disproportionate because wealth is disproportionate.



Um, there are more people in the world than in industrialized nations.

Your first statement makes me think that you don't know how the basics of how the majority of the private sector is run. Most firms are PLCs, they have shares free to buy to anyone, shareholders buy these shares in order to profit off them via A) dividends or B) Buy low sell high, thus the CEOs have to answer to the share holders, the shareholders operate under a divorce of ownership they employ the CEO to work for them, they sack the CEO if they feel that they are doing a bad job, e.g low profits or sales.
Thus, if the system you espouse was so efficient, shareholders have every incentive to usher out the CEO and the hierarchical structure and to put in place the worker control that you speak of. But they haven't, why? Because you are not working within the realms of reality, your utopian system is based on pie in the sky economics.

Those with wealth are buying more products thus are affected more if the products change.

"Um, there are more people in the world than in industrialized nations"
This is rather disturbing.
What countries have been able to successfully industrialize without capitalism? The USSR and Mao's China, that is all. Look at the hardship, 7 million dead in the Ukraine during the collectivization of agriculture,the 'proletariat' suffered in these nations, centralized industrialisation does not work and not even Marx himself advocated it.

Marx said that before the workers dictatorship, there should be a period of capitalism after feudalism to industrialize the economy. Marx's writings were in reference to countries such as Britain, who had already industrialized.

[Sabot Cat]

I meant that there are people who are dying from curable ailments and from starvation in nations outside of the United Kingdom and the United States. I also don't believe you've effectively countered my argument that it would be better from the standpoint of democracy to not have disproportionately allocated resources and instead have workers' control.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Perhaps in the USA, but heterodox is not necessarily a good thing is it? It can be arguably insulting, say I said you had a traditional view on homosexuality, heterodox isn't a badge of honour that the cato institute or chicago school can wear proudly. I'm a bit of Keynesian, but Keynesian are still capitalists,I personally admire the Nordic model of a strong private sector funding a small efficient public sector. But then again, who doesn't?

(not that this has much to do with the argument, but I'm from the UK too :P There's only one city of culture! (apart from the seven Hulls in the USA , the City of Culture in Galicia and the European, Arab and American Capitals of Culture but fuck them.))

I know that heterodox doesn't always been good and right-on but as i said, labelling things as "heterodox" does seem to be the weapon of choice among economists if you want something excluded from debate - rather like the cry of "revisionist" is sometimes used in leftist circle's I'll grant you.

[Schumpeter]

I meant that there are people who are dying from curable ailments and from starvation in nations outside of the United Kingdom and the United States. I also don't believe you've effectively countered my argument that it would be better from the standpoint of democracy to not have disproportionately allocated resources and instead have workers' control.

Globalization (a neo-liberal doctrine) has lifted millions of Chinese, Indians and Africans out of poverty, these people are no longer merely surviving, or failing to survive in some cases, they are now able to live due to the flow of investment from the uncompetitive industrialised countries of the west to the de industrialised countries of the west. Socialism has the blood of tens of millions on its hands when it comes to industrialisation, capitalism has millions of full rice bowls.

[Schumpeter]

(not that this has much to do with the argument, but I'm from the UK too :P There's only one city of culture! (apart from the seven Hulls in the USA , the City of Culture in Galicia and the European, Arab and American Capitals of Culture but fuck them.))

I know that heterodox doesn't always been good and right-on but as i said, labelling things as "heterodox" does seem to be the weapon of choice among economists if you want something excluded from debate - rather like the cry of "revisionist" is sometimes used in leftist circle's I'll grant you.

I've never seen it, I attend IEA talks ( free market think tank ) and am part of my local socialist party, I've never seen it used as an insult. Marxist economics is often insulted yes, but the theory of labour value is fallacious.

[Schumpeter]

I meant that there are people who are dying from curable ailments and from starvation in nations outside of the United Kingdom and the United States. I also don't believe you've effectively countered my argument that it would be better from the standpoint of democracy to not have disproportionately allocated resources and instead have workers' control.



Workers controlled firms would still charge the same price for rich and poor people, so consumers would still have disproportionate power assuming that the workers co-ops persue profit and use the price mechanism to supply what people demand.

Also giving a small group of say 80 employees control to make decisions vs 10,000s of consumers?

Infact consumers still dictate what is produced in your workers control scenario.

[Sabot Cat]

Globalization (a neo-liberal doctrine) has lifted millions of Chinese, Indians and Africans out of poverty, these people are no longer merely surviving, or failing to survive in some cases, they are now able to live due to the flow of investment from the uncompetitive industrialised countries of the west to the de industrialised countries of the west. Socialism has the blood of tens of millions on its hands when it comes to industrialisation, capitalism has millions of full rice bowls.

They would have never been in poverty if not for capitalist exploitation during the age of colonization. Furthermore, I realize you won't accept this, but that was state capitalism and not socialism because the workers didn't own the means of production. This is not revisionism in the face of failure, because proletarian control has been the definition of socialism since it was coined or incorporated into Marxist thought.

[IBleedRed]

Workers controlled firms would still charge the same price for rich and poor people, so consumers would still have disproportionate power assuming that the workers co-ops persue profit and use the price mechanism to supply what people demand.

Also giving a small group of say 80 employees control to make decisions vs 10,000s of consumers?

Infact consumers still dictate what is produced in your workers control scenario.

There are alternative employment models besides profit maximization. One of them is output targeting with soft budget constraints. This model allowed for fuller employment and rapid economic progress in the former Soviet Union after the NEP period (source: Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen). In output targeting, your goal is to increase productivity so that you can meet output objectives (e.g. 10,000 pounds of X per month within six months, when you previously produced 5,000 pounds).

Besides this, it is important to realize that the points you are making apply only to the capitalist mode of production which is not timeless. It did not always exist and it is unlikely that it will exist forever. Capitalism is a very irrational system, and it must be understood historically. You are trying to make sense of it ideologically, that is, with principles and hard-and-fast rules when none have ever existed. Capitalism was not consciously devised and implemented: it evolved gradually as feudalism withered away. Capitalists are an economic class, not a political faction.

[Schumpeter]

There are alternative employment models besides profit maximization. One of them is output targeting with soft budget constraints. This model allowed for fuller employment and rapid economic progress in the former Soviet Union after the NEP period (source: Farm to Factory by Robert C. Allen). In output targeting, your goal is to increase productivity so that you can meet output objectives (e.g. 10,000 pounds of X per month within six months, when you previously produced 5,000 pounds).

Besides this, it is important to realize that the points you are making apply only to the capitalist mode of production which is not timeless. It did not always exist and it is unlikely that it will exist forever. Capitalism is a very irrational system, and it must be understood historically. You are trying to make sense of it ideologically, that is, with principles and hard-and-fast rules when none have ever existed. Capitalism was not consciously devised and implemented: it evolved gradually as feudalism withered away. Capitalists are an economic class, not a political faction.


I never alluded to their not being alternative models, businesses do not always pursue profit maximization for a number of reasons, sales maximization/profit maximization make up the bulk of business objectives.Firms like say 'The body shop' in the UK peruse corporate social responsibility as an objective, at the expense of profit. They do lots of work on preserving the Amazon rainforest.

What incentive is there to meet these targets? There is a massive incentive to lie is there not? How does the government know what the correct level of output is?

The points I am making can be used to justify nationalization, in fact I support a nationalized healthcare and railway system on utilitarian grounds. Utilitarianism bares no alligence to capitalism or socialism.

[IBleedRed]

I never alluded to their not being alternative models, businesses do not always pursue profit maximization for a number of reasons, sales maximization/profit maximization make up the bulk of business objectives.Firms like say 'The body shop' in the UK peruse corporate social responsibility as an objective, at the expense of profit. They do lots of work on preserving the Amazon rainforest.

What incentive is there to meet these targets? There is a massive incentive to lie is there not? How does the government know what the correct level of output is?

The points I am making can be used to justify nationalization, in fact I support a nationalized healthcare and railway system on utilitarian grounds. Utilitarianism bares no alligence to capitalism or socialism.

In the case of the output-targeting model which was instituted in the Soviet Union, there were clear material incentives to maximize output and even to surpass it. Firms which increased their productivity received additional funding which was allocated to hiring more people (most of whom had been peasants and were only able to get industrial jobs because the model was not the capitalist employment model). They also received bonuses.You might be interested in the Stakhanovite movement:

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

Economic growth is organic: growth in one sector of the economy often spurs growth in other sectors. Workers have an interest in increasing their own living standards, so they have an incentive to work. It is unlikely that workers would want to stall production and lie when their standard of living is directly tied to national productivity. Most industrial workers in the early Soviet Union were former peasants, and they eagerly sought industrial jobs for the boost in wages and consumption that would follow.


All of this is in the context of the early Soviet Union. Of course, most socialists would disagree with the notion that the Soviet Union was ever a socialist society (it was not). I am only providing you with a historical example in order to give you an idea of the sorts of incentives that have been put into practice. What is clear is that there will be and must be material incentives in place. Socialists are not soft-hearted altruists: we don't expect nor do we want for everybody to be a Mother Teresa. The entire point of socialism is to improve the material conditions of working people.

On the other hand, it is capitalism that does not give workers material incentives to work harder and be more productive. When you are paid a fix wage or salary no matter what, or even minimum wage, why in the world would you care to be the best that you can be? Productivity bonuses are almost always seized by upper level management and corporate executives.

[Schumpeter]

In the case of the output-targeting model which was instituted in the Soviet Union, there were clear material incentives to maximize output and even to surpass it. Firms which increased their productivity received additional funding which was allocated to hiring more people (most of whom had been peasants and were only able to get industrial jobs because the model was not the capitalist employment model). They also received bonuses.You might be interested in the Stakhanovite movement:

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

Economic growth is organic: growth in one sector of the economy often spurs growth in other sectors. Workers have an interest in increasing their own living standards, so they have an incentive to work. It is unlikely that workers would want to stall production and lie when their standard of living is directly tied to national productivity. Most industrial workers in the early Soviet Union were former peasants, and they eagerly sought industrial jobs for the boost in wages and consumption that would follow.


All of this is in the context of the early Soviet Union. Of course, most socialists would disagree with the notion that the Soviet Union was ever a socialist society (it was not). I am only providing you with a historical example in order to give you an idea of the sorts of incentives that have been put into practice. What is clear is that there will be and must be material incentives in place. Socialists are not soft-hearted altruists: we don't expect nor do we want for everybody to be a Mother Teresa. The entire point of socialism is to improve the material conditions of working people.

On the other hand, it is capitalism that does not give workers material incentives to work harder and be more productive. When you are paid a fix wage or salary no matter what, or even minimum wage, why in the world would you care to be the best that you can be? Productivity bonuses are almost always seized by upper level management and corporate executives.

A bunch of bureaucrats cannot simply sit around a desk and determine the optimum level of output, the market mechanism has proven to be much more efficient, where flaws lie such as external costs, government should intervene, but in a fully planned economy you end up produced stuff people don't want.

Thats bordering on offensive to those who were forced into gulags to build the infrastructure or supply the raw materials for the industrialization. What of
:) :grin: :lol:
:laugh: :( :crying:
;) :mad: :glare:
:rolleyes: :confused: :unsure:
:ohmy: :o :wub:
Magnitogorsk, the icon of soviet industrialization, thousands of workers died there after being promised new opportunities by the government and shipped off to the Siberian wastes, that was not for the greater good. That was evil, the soviet union is a horrific example, peasants were subjected to horrible living conditions in the cities and life was better for many back in the countryside, how many people died industrialising America? The horrors of the Soviet Union render them pale in comparison. Peasants were not so eager about forced collectivisation to feed these new workers however were they?

Capitalism definitely provides incentives to ensure efficiency, I've worked 10 hour shifts in retail in the summer holidays, schemes such as worker of the month and promotions with bonuses for staff with positive feedback were all in place. But back to theory, there is a massive incentive to make your workforce more productive as that = more profit and if there is one thing we can agree on, its that capitalists like profit.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Correct.

The people want blue widgets.

Company A decides to meet this demand and produces blue widgets.

Company B decides it will produce red widgets instead.

What happens [in a theoretical perfect market which never has existed, and never will]?

Company A is successful, as they provided consumers with what they wanted.

Company B went out of business, as they didn't sell any of the widgets the people didn't want, and lost money spend on labor and production.

Unless [like in real life] ...

Company B hires the AUC to murder labour organizers and intimidate workers into working for pittances. Thus, red widgets come to cost a fraction of the price of blue widgets. Since cheap widgets are available, companies are able to depress wages generally, since, now, even at $7.25 an hour, your employees won't be widgetless. Blue widgets become a generally unattainable luxury good, to be enjoyed by the privileged few, and held up as a symbol of moral and social superiority. Everyone else buys red widgets, because they don't really have a choice.

[Schumpeter]

Company B hires the AUC to murder labour organizers and intimidate workers into working for pittances. Thus, red widgets come to cost a fraction of the price of blue widgets. Since cheap widgets are available, companies are able to depress wages generally, since, now, even at $7.25 an hour, your employees won't be widgetless. Blue widgets become an generally unattainable luxury good, to be enjoyed by the privileged few, and held up as a symbol of moral and social superiority. Everyone else buys red widgets, because they don't really have a choice.

Which is why we advocated a mixed economy, with a minimum wage and laws to protect workers who wish to unionise. Not Marxist communism. Also very few markets have two sellers and if they did the kinked demand curve would dis incentivize competition of price, so prices would not fall.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Which is why we advocated a mixed economy, with a minimum wage and laws to protect workers who wish to unionise. Not Marxist communism. Also very few markets have two sellers and if they did the kinked demand curve would dis incentivize competition of price, so prices would not fall.

The thing is, that is precisely what happens under these conditions - I'm not just making shit up. For one, we have to look at the real activity of states, like, to run with my example, the relationship between the (US backed) Colombian state and the AUC, or even the activity of the state in the case of the Canada Post strike a few years ago (if you want to pick an example from a "Democratic" state with a "mixed economy" par excellence).

I get it, you took some 100-level PHIL and ECON courses, and you want to live in a magic fantasy land where your abstract models reflect real life. Unfortunately, uh . . . no.

[Schumpeter]

The thing is, that is precisely what happens under these conditions - I'm not just making shit up. For one, we have to look at the real activity of states, like, to run with my example, the relationship between the (US backed) Colombian state and the AUC, or between even the activity of the state in the case of the Canada Post strike a few years ago (if you want to run with an example from a "Democratic" state with a "mixed economy" par excellence).

I get it, you took some 100-level PHIL and ECON courses, and you want to live in a magic fantasy land where your abstract models reflect real life. Unfortunately, uh . . . no.

Just me and every G7 country then.

[liberlict]

OK, since you're just kind of skipping over this, I want to spend a minute on commodity fetishism. It's possible that you "get" it, but, since many folk don't, I'm going to take this opportunity to elaborate a bit on it.
Commodity fetishism is often misunderstood in the context of the colloquial use of fetishism to describe desire. In day-to-day usage, fetishism is generally taken to mean an excess of (typically sexualized, subconscious) desire - but this isn't the term's origin. Rather, fetishism properly describes the attribution of mystical powers to an object, so that, for example, if I fetishize boots, it is not that I experience an excessive desire for boots, but that I experience the boots as having the power to incite desire in me. I know that sounds like a strange distinction in practice, but keep with me for a minute.
Commodity fetishism often gets misunderstood to mean a desire for commodities - as something like a pretentious way of describing consumerism. It's not - and, in fact, it doesn't deal with consumption except insofar as dealing with production necessarily implies as much. Commodity fetishism is bound up with Marx's notion of alienation, and the way that, through the mediation of capital, labour confronts dead labour as a living force. So, while my concrete activity is particular and has particular consequences (a rack of clean dishes, a trench where pipe can be put down, etc. - you name it, I've done it), I am abstracted from it by the wage (neither the trench, nor the "cleanliness" are "mine"), and face its power in the context of the market.

This is not only experienced individually, but collectively: so that my washing dishes ultimately confronts me in gentrification and displacement when understood as part of labour collectively enriching capital.
Since it's thematically appropriate, I'm also going to rip an aside from latter in your post and address it here:



I think I understand this distinction. It's about how one invests his/her productivity, and the 'attachment' he has to that producing. Like I could spend my time doing this or that, but my choice to do this or that is not really a choice made motivated by what I really want to do, but what I want to do in the environment of capitalist production, which is kind of an artificial choice, and most likely different than the one I would have made if I wasn't living in the context of what you call capitalist relations. Am I getting it?




I'm also partial to "stuff" because of its funny character as both singular and particular grammatically, but abstract and plural in what it signifies. ;)
In any case, "in communism" stuff is reinvested with its singularity. This cuts to the core of alienation and fetishism - one's labours have as their consequences their consequences, and not the abstraction from their consequences.

I understand.



I think you're starting here from a confusing notion of exchange value. Exchanging objects that have "use value" does not imply, in the absence of a general equivalent (and/or a particular juridico-political formation serving to mediate exchange), exchange value. If you have potatoes, I have corn, and we exchange whatever quantities of the two outside the context of a market, what we are exchanging can't be understood as "values" since the only "value" against which they can measured are our own subjective needs/desires. So, it's only partially accurate when you approach the idea this way:

Well, the subjectivity of 'values' is anathema to communist economics, isn't it? I don't want to get into value theory with you, because as you said, that's another thread, but if value of 'stuff' is subjective, this seems to me to undermine the whole premise. If we can't define value, it's pointless to look for values, since they are just personal preferences.


But, indeed, it's not "money" alone, but a whole constellation of juridical and political relationships which give money its particular character.

I suppose this is true, as it for everything around us. We relate to 'things' in the context of the society that history has delivered to us and our personal circumstances. For example, if I encountered a woolly mammoth, I wouldn't have the same attitude to it as an ice age man would have. He would probably have wanted to spear it and feast on it with his tribe. My attitude would be, well, why is a woolly mammoth walking around here, I thought they were extinct, and I certainly wouldn't approach it as a meal, I'd rather eat pizza.


So, while, in an abstract, ahistorical, context, an individual might be able to have a certain detached view of particular commodities, the reality is quite different. After all, capital has certain practical realities which prohibit one from simply existing outside of its dictates (including historically unprecedented armed force), meaning that one's relation to commodities is anything but free taken on the whole: despite ostensible freedom, on the level of biopower, one is compelled to dance to the beat of their drum.

I agree.


I just want to contest this: most people distinctly don't do what you're describing, and it is, in fact, the province, primarily, of capitalists (though, certainly, every now and then, one might have a garage sale). What you're implying here is that life itself is a thing to be exchanged - that wage labour is simply a particular but equivalent exchange of commodities (three hours labour being absolutely indistinct from $30 with of coal). Not only is this objectionable from an economic point of view (the commodity labour has a unique character in its embodied reproductive labour, even if you dispute its unique relation to the creation of value), but from an ethical point of view, that time and the essence of life itself can be viewed as a commodity has striking and horrific consequences. This is particularly true taken in its real historical context where the value of particular labour contains within it the devalued reproductive labour of others whose lives themselves are thereby implicitly devalued.

I don't think I'm implying that 'life itself is a thing to be exchanged', but productive life sure. I don't agree that labor is particularly unique in the economy.
What you describe as 'horrifying' is, i think, a fairly accurate view of how the economy works. Most people are exchange-value motivated, and that includes labour.

How would you prefer labour to be treated?


I'm sorry, I don't entirely see what you're getting at here. While it's a nice "human interest story" (sincerely, your uncle sounds like a cool quirky guy), I don't really see what you're trying to say about the nature of commodities or the way - coming back to the point - that "demand" is shaped. Unless your uncle's entire social being is in retro tractors and he somehow draws sustenance from his pleasure in them.

I was trying to say that people approaching commodities, produce, 'stuff', whatever, as 'exotic', fetishised things is OK, because it's a means to get what they want. Usual objectives are things like improving their families life and opportunities, increasing leisure time and such. Relating to you point above, people not only treat other peoples labour as a thing to be exchanged,, but indeed their own as well.


See, I don't think it is a different battleground, since its historical interrelationship with capital is one of being mutually constituting. In this sense I feel the same about "regulation" - capitalism has never existed without a relationship to juridical and political power. The regulation of women in relation to the reproduction of labour power (the "women's work" that capital enjoys for free on account of its "natural" character), the regulation then of race and citizenship for purposes of both slave labour and manipulation of labour markets, etc. are not "exceptions" to the rule, but the "obscene supplement" on which its functioning is dependent.

You don't think that misogyny existed prior to capitalist relations?


I think that this is, to a certain degree, an important critique of many Marxisms, and, in particular, Marx's "Hegelian hangover" (a term used by different thinkers to highlight, admittedly, different things). I will say, however, that, particular to capitalism, and with an understanding that "stretches" (to borrow from Caffentzis borrowing from Fannon) Marx's notion of class, that the idea remains important in context. So, while an "old left" notion of the working class which sees the European(ized) factory worker as the proletarian revolutionary subject is clearly insufficient, I think this says less about "class" and more about Marx's liberalism.

I find this interesting because I've been compelled to think that Marx is much closer to a 'radical Liberal', that what his reputation now suggests. I was led to believe this by a book called "Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life" by Jonathan Sperber, which is a great book, if you haven't read it.


In any case, the proletariat isn't shrinking (witness the new wave of proletarianization accompanying the African land-grab, the continuing global industrialization of food production, urbanization in China, etc.), but it is "shifting" - it is increasingly feminized and racialized. At the imperial centre, of course, the lines are blurring - we're seeing what Lenin described in Imperialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm) as the development of a "bourgeois proletariat" whose "bourgeoisification" is premised on proletarianization and super-exploitation elsewhere. Though, that said, on the other hand, we're also seeing increased precarity, and reproletarianization as a consequence of financial crises and attendant "austerity" - youth and people of colour being disproportionately effected.

It's shrinking in the developed world. In the developing world it's not increasing, it's just staying the same. But these nations will catch up. Then how will you defend 'proletarian' as a useful category?


OK, this is really not a case of playing with words, but two very distinct uses - "anarchy" as concerning explicit anarchists, their historical movements and organizations, their cultural production, writing, etc. on one hand and "anarchy" meaning chaos (regardless of its connotations) on the other. I think that this is actually quite important, and not at all difficult to untangle since the former has a specific historical character, and the latter is a loose concept.

OK, that is an easy distinction. Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.


That's actually something of a fairy-tale. "Barter systems", when they really exist to the extent that it is a primary means of exchange, tend to emerge in situations where monetary systems collapse - so, really, it's the other way around, and we (people, in a broad historical view) use barter as an alternative to dumb money. Which, really, I think, demonstrates some of what it is that money conceals.

Well this just reinforces the vitality of money exchange. Money is not some mysterious ghost lording over us, it's just 'the path of least resistance', which allows us to economize in the easiest way.


Of course, it doesn't really do this at all, which is, again, precisely part of how it serves to conceal underlying relations. What its allocations reflect is one's relation to the systems that allocate money. If those systems allocated money on the basis of particular values as you described, that might be true, but, of course, it's not (which is why CEOs get Golden Parachutes, kids sewing sneakers get a few bucks a month, and capitalist moralizing looks utterly stupid when confronted with capitalist reality).

All these weasel-words like 'conceals' really give me the shits because they obfuscate objective facts so it's hard to talk about them.

Money allocations do I'm sure reflect ones personal relationship with money. I don't really know what this means, though.

CEO's get golden parachutes and charter jets because they have the highest value in the capitalist mode of production. This is probably just restating what you just said. But I don't really know how to reason about what is ethically OK when everything is just relative to a mode of production.


OK, to be fair I was asking for that.
My point in referring to "freedom in the bourgeois sense" was to emphasize that "negative freedom" is relatively narrow. I don't think every word has a bourgeois and proletarian definition, but it's probably fair for you to point out my bad habit of employing lingo uncritically.

OK. To be fair to you, I understand what you mean and I can see now where I used the word out of (your) context.






Ok, let's run with this and break it down:
1. Terrifyingly, this one Luxury department store, with one location in the whole world, serving only a small clique of elites, still manages to pull in 0.07% of WALMART's profits. Sure, that doesn't sound like a lot, but, in WALMART's case, we're talking about an international superstore at which millions of people across sixteen countries buy the necessities of life. Think about what that means for a minute.

Well you have to take into account that this luxury dept. store has prestige and probably has an array of international clients as well. You know, rich Emirati and such. 0.07 % doesn't sound like much at all to me.




2. Does WALMART (or Royal Dutch Shell?) actually reflect the needs and desires of consumers?

I would say so ..


Do consumers really say, "Hey, cheap Chinese labour and shitty minimum wage cashier jobs? Fuck yes!" when they buy a t-shirt?

No ..


I mean, implicitly, of course, but not subjectively. Are you saying that the market protects us from our ignorance - that it "chooses for us" all of the necessary "auxiliary" conditions necessary to support our final choice (ie the t-shirt)?

The retail market doesn't, of course, but there are other markets competing with retail. Newspapers, blogs, publishing companies. These industries compete for your dollar as well. There's a market place of idea in operation as well. A while ago, I remember that Target discontinued plastic bags. There was such consumer outrage that they were actually losing market share. Oh well.



Secondly, even assuming, "OK, well, the market makes all of the 'big' choices, but you still get your t-shirt" - did we want the t-shirt to begin with? Or is it a "necessity"? That's not to say we'd keel over and die for lack of said shirt, but, if the "big" decisions about living and working conditions are made by the "the market", we don't actually have much more say in deciding what's "necessary" either (I "needed" a pair of black pants for work).

The market just operates according to the sum total of consumer preferences. We don't as individuals have control over market actions, nor should we. We just have a single 'vote' posted by our purchasing choices.



Anyway, I keep saying, "the market, the market, the market" but let's be real: "the market" doesn't make decisions, people do.

Indeed .. I think the difference of opinion here might be that you believe that markets control people whereas I think it's the other way around.


Someone is making decisions about labour conditions, etc. and you know what? Well, all of a sudden, buying a t-shirt at WALMART brings class back into the equation.

You are free to sell your objections to class oppression in the marketplace of ideas, as you are doing on this forum. Giving it away for free even gives you a starting advantage over priced ones. Best of luck .. for what it's worth I think your ideals are admirable.

[argeiphontes]

^



Do consumers really say, "Hey, cheap Chinese labour and shitty minimum wage cashier jobs? Fuck yes!" when they buy a t-shirt?


Capitalism favors people making the cheapest choice, certainly. But credit where credit is due. Plenty of people could be making more ethical buying choices but aren't doing it.

[Baseball]

^



Capitalism favors people making the cheapest choice.

Why would socialism wish people to make the most expensive choice?

[argeiphontes]

Why would socialism wish people to make the most expensive choice?

That wasn't clear, I didn't mean that (market) socialism would be less efficient in this way or markets would work differently. I meant that there are wide income disparities so the people at the bottom have little choice than to shop at Walmart or other low-price outlets that exploit their workers more, and workers do not have a say in their marketing/pricing strategy or other aspects of management. They are seen as a cost to be reduced to bare minimum.

This wouldn't be true in market socialism, since there are no profits or employees and owner-workers seek to make as much as possible. For example, even if Walmart did nothing else except become a socialist enterprise, every worker would get an extra $13,000/yr. (The amount of Walmart's earnings per employee.)

[Baseball]

That wasn't clear, I didn't mean that (market) socialism would be less efficient in this way or markets would work differently. I meant that there are wide income disparities so the people at the bottom have little choice than to shop at Walmart or other low-price outlets that exploit their workers more, and workers do not have a say in their marketing/pricing strategy or other aspects of management. They are seen as a cost to be reduced to bare minimum.

It still isn't clear, because you still saying this in the final two sentences.




This wouldn't be true in market socialism, since there are no profits

So the socialist market makes no changes except that there are no profits?


or employees and owner-workers seek to make as much as possible.

Now they seek to make profits, but it won't be in the market?


For example, even if Walmart did nothing else except become a socialist enterprise, every worker would get an extra $13,000/yr.

From where? There are no profits.

[argeiphontes]

It still isn't clear, because you still saying this in the final two sentences.

So the socialist market makes no changes except that there are no profits?

Now they seek to make profits, but it won't be in the market?

From where? There are no profits.

What I meant was, they make profits in the market, but those aren't kept by capitalists seeking to pay workers as little as possible and keep as much for themselves, profits are distributed to the worker-owners. Worker-owners who make more money are able to afford to make more ethical choices in the market, e.g buying from other worker cooperatives instead of firms that exploit their workers.

Right now, people who make subsistence wages aren't in as good a position to make ethical buying decisions. The price differences are important to them. Although, there are many people who are able to make ethical choices but choose not to. And shame on them.

(Before you ask: Yes, there are profits. Profit exists in market socialism. The workers own the firm in common and manage it in a democratic way. It is a worker cooperative. Yes, IMO this is socialism. No, I don't care that nobody else on the board thinks this is true. I am not a Marxist; wherever there are socialist relations, there is socialism.)

[liberlict]

^



Capitalism favors people making the cheapest choice, certainly. But credit where credit is due. Plenty of people could be making more ethical buying choices but aren't doing it.

This is true, and some people do. I know a lot of people who buy free -range eggs, even though they are twice the price. There's a lot of people who like to buy 'home-grown' stuff as well, to help save local jobs. I don't do this myself, because I think it's stupid economics. But yeah, it all relates to the marketplace of ideas at work.

[Baseball]

What I meant was, they make profits in the market, but those aren't kept by capitalists seeking to pay workers as little as possible and keep as much for themselves, profits are distributed to the worker-owners.

The "worker-owners" would need to do the same thing-- give themselves as little of the profit as possible. If they choose not to, they would need to cut costs elsewhere ie. buying from firms that might "exploit" their workers because they are cheaper.




Right now, people who make subsistence wages aren't in as good a position to make ethical buying decisions. The price differences are important to them.

In "market socialism" the price difference would be important to everyone, including the worker cooperative as a whole, yes?




(Before you ask: Yes, there are profits. Profit exists in market socialism. The workers own the firm in common and manage it in a democratic way. It is a worker cooperative. Yes, IMO this is socialism

This is fine. But then one needs to examine whether the such worker cooperatives can be a managed in a way that achieves your objectives.

[Blake's Baby]

The state should never prop up unprofitable firms which are not turning a profit, public or private. Money used to prop up unprofitable firms could be used elsewhere, for example money used to prop up unprofitable mining operations in the north of England in the 80s could have been used to fund tax cuts allowing people to allocate their resources to areas of the economy which produced goods which they demand, this would lead to a net welfare gain as we can assume people act as rational utility maximizers on aggregate. Thus this would be ethical as it would lead to 'the greatest good for the greatest number', as people channel more resources into these areas, producers are incentivized to increase production, creating more employment and restructuring the economy into one which moves society closer to utility (or happiness) maximization.

Opinions?

Why does everything, or indeed anything, have to 'show a profit'? I don't understand.

On the other hand, the government can fuck itself with a hand grenade, I don't care.

On the third hand, why are you even bothering to ask the opinion s of people who want to destroy capitalism and the state, about how to better mange capitalism and the state? Seems a really futile endeavour, can't see where you're getting any 'profit' out of it, you should go and do something more 'profitable', is my opinion.

[Baseball]

Why does everything, or indeed anything, have to 'show a profit'? I don't understand.


There needs to be a way to determine whether production which has occurred is truly of value; that the benefits accrued are greater than the costs.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah. Some people (group A) say they want something, some people (group B, possibly including some of the same individuals from group A) makes it for them, group A has it, everyone's happy.

Not hard. No 'profit' necessary.

[Baseball]

Yeah. Some people (group A) say they want something, some people (group B, possibly including some of the same individuals from group A) makes it for them, group A has it, everyone's happy.

Not hard. No 'profit' necessary.

That isn't enough. How many people are needed from Group B to satisfy Group A? What are the resources being used to make that something? How does one know whether they are being use din the best way possible? How about the component parts of that something? Why are those builders shipping it to Group B?

[Blake's Baby]

Do people in group A want it?

YES - make it.

NO - do not make it.

Not hard.

[Baseball]

Do people in group A want it?

YES - make it.

NO - do not make it.

Not hard.

People want lots of "its." People want different "its." People judge that they want one "it" more than another "it" while still wanting both "its."
A rational way is needed to sort this out.

Of course, a possible solution could be as you suggest-- people in group b could be ordered to make "it" by the local administrative unit. However, economically and politically that solution leaves much to be desired.

[Blake's Baby]

'Ordered'?

If I want a park in my neighbourhood, I say 'I want a park'. Some other people say 'yes that would be a good idea, but some of us are too old/unwell/small to help though we would like to use it'. Those of us who are fit enough start work on the park.

What's the problem?

[Baseball]

'Ordered'?

If I want a park in my neighbourhood, I say 'I want a park'. Some other people say 'yes that would be a good idea, but some of us are too old/unwell/small to help though we would like to use it'. Those of us who are fit enough start work on the park.

What's the problem?


If you wish a park, you need suitable labor to compete the park. But you also need other products.
In any sort of production, you need mechanisms to determine that sufficient labor and resources are made available. All you're doing is hoping that sufficient labor and resources are available to supply that need.
It doesn't really work well when applied to satisfying needs and wants from across millions of people and millions of miles.

[argeiphontes]

The "worker-owners" would need to do the same thing-- give themselves as little of the profit as possible. If they choose not to, they would need to cut costs elsewhere ie. buying from firms that might "exploit" their workers because they are cheaper.


Huh? Profits are left over after all costs have been paid. How would they give themselves as little as possible? There is nobody else to pay, so they would have to burn it or bury it in the ground!

Since they own the place, they are trying to maximize profits just like owners do today. Do owners pay themselves as little as possible?

A worker cooperative is just like actually-existing worker cooperatives today as long as there is democratic management. It's just like a capitalist business except all workers are co-owners of the place, there is no outside stock ownership, and there is democratic management.

In a market socialist economy full of these firms, there is no exploitation since there is no wage labor, and workers themselves are determining how intensively they will work. Therefore, exploitation is only a concern when importing things or buying from leftover capitalist firms.

[argeiphontes]

There needs to be a way to determine whether production which has occurred is truly of value; that the benefits accrued are greater than the costs.

In capitalism, the costs of employing people are costs of production. A firm has paid people before it earns a profit, hence the existence of the firm could only be to pay its people (maintain employment), or provide its services, and it doesn't actually have to have a profit to be worthwhile. The owners might be dissatisfied however.

[Ele'ill]

If you wish a park, you need suitable labor to compete the park. But you also need other products.
In any sort of production, you need mechanisms to determine that sufficient labor and resources are made available. All you're doing is hoping that sufficient labor and resources are available to supply that need.
It doesn't really work well when applied to satisfying needs and wants from across millions of people and millions of miles.

Whether something is currently feasible or not is always an issue we're not dealing with magic and we won't have an army of wizards with wands. What is possible is the planning of it (including how to get the materials, whether or not it would be useful to have a production center within the community, etc...) I don't mean to dumb down a process to this extent but this is about as common sense as breathing or blinking. It's also not going to be centers producing things for millions and millions of people. There won't be starships orbiting the earth with vast factories on the moon throwing shit down to earth. I'd imagine all kinds of societal functions and geographical restructuring will open up immensely without capital mediating (restricting) it. Will there be problems yes obviously probably lots and lots of endless headaches and complete failures. That's life.

[Baseball]

Whether something is currently feasible or not is always an issue we're not dealing with magic and we won't have an army of wizards with wands. What is possible is the planning of it (including how to get the materials, whether or not it would be useful to have a production center within the community, etc...) I don't mean to dumb down a process to this extent but this is about as common sense as breathing or blinking. It's also not going to be centers producing things for millions and millions of people. There won't be starships orbiting the earth with vast factories on the moon throwing shit down to earth. I'd imagine all kinds of societal functions and geographical restructuring will open up immensely without capital mediating (restricting) it. Will there be problems yes obviously probably lots and lots of endless headaches and complete failures. That's life.

There is no doubt that there will be lots of headaches and failures in the socialist community. Nothing is perfect and indeed that is life (the other way to look at this is that excuses galore are being prepped for socialism, yet "that's life" is not a courtesy which socialists extend to capitalism). Is it "common sense" to have a production center at a particular place, at particular size, built a particular way, housing particular goods? Maybe, maybe not. In any event, it would need to be explained why actions along these lines are "common sense."

[Baseball]

Huh? Profits are left over after all costs have been paid. How would they give themselves as little as possible? There is nobody else to pay, so they would have to burn it or bury it in the ground!

Or sink it back into the firm.
They could increase their profits by decreasing their costs.


Since they own the place, they are trying to maximize profits just like owners do today. Do owners pay themselves as little as possible?




A worker cooperative is just like actually-existing worker cooperatives today as long as there is democratic management.

Ok- so now we need to examine whether this is a better way of production.


It's just like a capitalist business except all workers are co-owners of the place,

Here's a weakness-- it freezes labor.


there is no outside stock ownership,

meaning there is no outside source of revenue. Another weakness.




In a market socialist economy full of these firms, there is no exploitation since there is no wage labor,

Which means that labor, and the community bears the full brunt of the risk of production. It also means it its more dificult to move labor about when adjusting to change.


and workers themselves are determining how intensively they will work.

Not really. Since the objective of the firms is also to turn a profit, or go under, they must react to market pressures.
They could ignore it, but that is not beneficial for themselves or the community.

[argeiphontes]

Here's a weakness-- it freezes labor.


Less labor elasticity is actually a feature of this mode of production.



meaning there is no outside source of revenue. Another weakness.
You mean investment, not revenue. Investment is handled by cooperatively-owned banks, just like when a non-corporation wants to borrow money today. There is no equities market in market socialism. The lack of equities markets is a feature of this mode of production.



Which means that labor, and the community bears the full brunt of the risk of production. It also means it its more dificult to move labor about when adjusting to change.
Again, less labor mobility is a feature of this mode of production. "The community" does not own the means of production and does not bear the risk, unless you mean the basic subsistence or "welfare" that social democracy provides anyway. It bears the risk in the aggregate, just like society does today. In some abstract sense, any society bears the risk of its economic system.



Not really. Since the objective of the firms is also to turn a profit, or go under, they must react to market pressures.
They could ignore it, but that is not beneficial for themselves or the community.That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that business owners don't decide how intensely they will work today? What would be the point of being a business owner? The Walmart owners could decide to make less money by giving their workers or themselves paid vacation time without going under. A self-employed person can take fewer contracts or sell less stuff and benefit from it, without going under. It's not a black-and-white system where you either maximize profit or go under--provided that you are the owner of course. In capitalism, workers must work as hard as owners want them to. In market socialism, the workers are the owners so they decide. Just like capitalists do today.

[Ele'ill]

(the other way to look at this is that excuses galore are being prepped for socialism, yet "that's life" is not a courtesy which socialists extend to capitalism).

No what I'm saying is that being obtuse and demanding explanations for every single action of every single task of every single person doing any given thing all day long in a future society is a pretty dumb critique/demand since we're obviously capable of problem solving and failing and correcting and failing and learning etc.. If you're actually alive you'll know what it's like to problem solve, all that shit you do all day long as issues come up. Some days are free of it although they're rare but this is like 'how will we be able to think if we abolish capitalism' when you ask how a park could be built. Kids who are 5 years old build tree forts by themselves in the woods I think we can all handle it together. Hey, we got a 'warehouse or whatever' how-ever-do-we-get-those-apples-that-we-want GIVEUPFALLONGROUNDANDIMMEDATELYDIE (or figure it out)

Or we won't and there won't be any parks and when capitalism is put to ashes we'll all simultaneously fall onto the ground and die frothing from our mouths from a full autonomic nervous system collapse.






Is it "common sense" to have a production center at a particular place, at particular size, built a particular way, housing particular goods? Maybe, maybe not.

No neither maybe maybe not, yes, and the only thing keeping us from figuring out that answer is the absence of the rest of your hypothetical, the actual details that matter.



In any event, it would need to be explained why actions along these lines are "common sense."

The solutions may take some time, maybe 2 weeks, maybe 5 hours, maybe a month, maybe a year, maybe longer, but the solutions are not the common sense aspect of this, people figuring it out and problem solving is.

[Baseball]

Less labor elasticity is actually a feature of this mode of production.

And a weakness.




"The community" does not own the means of production and does not bear the risk,

It does. The risk pool is spread out to include everyone in the community.




That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that business owners don't decide how intensely they will work today?

Its based upon the work.

In capitalism, workers must work as hard as owners want them to. In market socialism, the workers are the owners so they decide. Just like capitalists do today.

Work is supposed to provide needed goods and wants to other people. That's why capitalists want their employees to work hard-- to meet those needs.
You are suggesting that socialism will not seek to achieve this objective-- which cannot result in a positive development for the society.

[argeiphontes]

And a weakness.


How is it a weakness? It's only a weakness for certain outcomes that are no longer important if there is only one class.



It does. The risk pool is spread out to include everyone in the community.
I'm pretty sure I know what market socialism is. The individual workers own the firm, not society or the community.




Work is supposed to provide needed goods and wants to other people. That's why capitalists want their employees to work hard-- to meet those needs.
I was under the impression that capitalists want increased output so they can increase their profits, not that they are altruists, LOL.

You're misunderstanding something--if an individual firm produces less, and there is still market need, then another firm will arise or step in to meet that need. That's how markets work, supply and demand. That does not mean that there is less efficient production overall. Leisure is also an economic good, with its own supply and demand, not just physical objects.

Unfortunately, in capitalism, despite what economists say, usually only capitalists are free to choose a different mix of work or leisure. This is a problem with capitalist relations of production that market socialism solves. What appears to be inefficiency is actually a greater production of leisure. No economist would say that capitalists who choose leisure are somehow making the system less efficient in the way you're claiming. In a highly developed society, leisure becomes more important, but nobody is free to choose it. In market socialism, they are. Where's that 3-day workweek that the Jetsons promised me, eh?

http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/leisure

[Baseball]

No what I'm saying is that being obtuse and demanding explanations for every single action of every single task of every single person doing any given thing all day long in a future society is a pretty dumb critique/demand

I have not asked this.


since we're obviously capable of problem solving and failing and correcting and failing and learning etc.

THIS is what I am asking.

Look-- capitalism is how that type of community solves problems. It has a method, a rationale, a logic in its problem solving.
The socialists object to it. They say its inferior, unjust, maybe even causes problems. Whatever. The basic line is that the socialists seek to abolish it.
Well-- since that is the approach, it is certainly reasonable to for socialists to explain ITS logic, its method and why it is superior, and why people do what they do in a socialist system.


Kids who are 5 years old build tree forts by themselves in the woods I think we can all handle it together.

Yep-- those kids will need wood, nails and hammers.
So let me ask you-- why is the socialist system distributing these goods to these kids? I mean, wood nails and hammers can be used to build or repair REAL houses, these things that happen everyday. Why would the the system prioritize some mindless recreation ahead of the very real needs of shelter?



No neither maybe maybe not, yes, and the only thing keeping us from figuring out that answer is the absence of the rest of your hypothetical, the actual details that matter.

The details were already mentioned; its a socialist community.




The solutions may take some time, maybe 2 weeks, maybe 5 hours, maybe a month, maybe a year, maybe longer, but the solutions are not the common sense aspect of this, people figuring it out and problem solving is.

OK-- so there is no pressing need for food, clothes, dress, leisure ect ect ect. The important thing is that is that people talk about solving that need, not actually fullfiling that need.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look-- capitalism is how that type of community solves problems. It has a method, a rationale, a logic in its problem solving.

One that only "works" for a privileged minority. Otherwise we wouldn't have the ridiculous situation we actually have now where there is enough food to feed people and enough roofs to cover them, and yet people go without sufficient food and are homeless.

[Baseball]

One that only "works" for a privileged minority. Otherwise we wouldn't have the ridiculous situation we actually have now where there is enough food to feed people and enough roofs to cover them, and yet people go without sufficient food and are homeless.


Yet again-- explain the socialist 'logic' - how it 'fixes' these problems in a SOCIALIST manner.

[Baseball]

How is it a weakness? It's only a weakness for certain outcomes that are no longer important if there is only one class.

Why is it a weakness why labor is inflexible?
It means its not as readily available when demands change, which require production adjustments.


I'm pretty sure I know what market socialism is. The individual workers own the firm, not society or the community.

I understand this. Since all the workers own all of their firms, the risk is spread around far more.



I was under the impression that capitalists want increased output so they can increase their profits, not that they are altruists, LOL.

One leads to the other.


You're misunderstanding something--if an individual firm produces less, and there is still market need, then another firm will arise or step in to meet that need. That's how markets work, supply and demand.

From where? There is no labor available. Its all tied up in the "inelastic" system.


That does not mean that there is less efficient production overall.

Yes, it does. It means the "socialism" part of "market socialism" makes successfully utilizing the "market" aspects of "market socialism" that much more difficult.


What appears to be inefficiency is actually a greater production of leisure.

No. This is a consumption of resources. Not production.


No economist would say that capitalists who choose leisure are somehow making the system less efficient in the way you're claiming.

Created wealth is being consumed.


In a highly developed society, leisure becomes more important, but nobody is free to choose it. In market socialism, they are.

Its highly developed because high levels of production allow it. High levels created by capitalism and capitalist production. Not created by socialism, market socialism and their production.

[argeiphontes]

Why is it a weakness why labor is inflexible?
It means its not as readily available when demands change, which require production adjustments.


In the absence of planning, we have to let the market take care of allocation of production.



From where? There is no labor available. Its all tied up in the "inelastic" system.
Market forces will take care of this.



Yes, it does. It means the "socialism" part of "market socialism" makes successfully utilizing the "market" aspects of "market socialism" that much more difficult.
All systems have a trade-off. Nothing is perfect. It depends on what goals somebody has for society.



No. This is a consumption of resources. Not production.

Created wealth is being consumed.
You should stick to a capitalist understanding of leisure as I provided in the link above. Leisure can have positive economic effects like spending money on travel and activities. That feeds back into the economy. You should also consider what the purpose of an economy really is. It is not working people to death at all costs.



Its highly developed because high levels of production allow it. High levels created by capitalism and capitalist production. Not created by socialism, market socialism and their production.That's just conjecture. There's no reason to think that a market society with different ownership rules would generate less output, or that this output would significantly affect the standard of living. The ability of more people to choose leisure is a desired economic outcome. The purpose of an economic system is not maximum production, it is meeting of needs and desires. Sometimes, the desire can be for leisure. If you like to work yourself to death, that's your right but other people have different ideas of how to spend their lives.

If your goal is just maximum production at all times, you should look into fascism or perhaps planned economic systems. One of the premises of markets is choice. One choice is not to buy or not to produce.

[Baseball]

In the absence of planning, we have to let the market take care of allocation of production.

Market forces will take care of this.

All systems have a trade-off. Nothing is perfect. It depends on what goals somebody has for society.

However, the proposals made hamstring the market- or are not market oriented. A democratic vote is required to terminate labor when production needs to be changed and adjusted? How is that a "market force"?
The benefits of the market that you are relying upon are not going to be there.


You should stick to a capitalist understanding of leisure as I provided in the link above. Leisure can have positive economic effects like spending money on travel and activities. That feeds back into the economy. You should also consider what the purpose of an economy really is. It is not working people to death at all costs.

Nobody is making that claim.


That's just conjecture. There's no reason to think that a market society with different ownership rules would generate less output,

Yes there is. I just mentioned one-- its more difficult to adjust labor to changes in demand.


or that this output would significantly affect the standard of living.

Reduction of output can certainly reduce the standard of living.


The ability of more people to choose leisure is a desired economic outcome.

Yep. As long as it is understood that it is the consumption of wealth.


The purpose of an economic system is not maximum production, it is meeting of needs and desires

Yep. That's why sometimes a market system requires reductions in productions, layoffs ect Socialism often finds something illicit when this occurs in capitalism.


Sometimes, the desire can be for leisure. If you like to work yourself to death, that's your right but other people have different ideas of how to spend their lives.

I has nothing to do with it. You are trying to claim that consumption of wealth is the same as production of wealth.


One of the premises of markets is choice. One choice is not to buy or not to produce.

Market socialism allows a situation when people can freely choose not to produce ie not to work? What if everyone took the market socialists up on that offer?

[argeiphontes]

However, the proposals made hamstring the market- or are not market oriented. A democratic vote is required to terminate labor when production needs to be changed and adjusted? How is that a "market force"?
The benefits of the market that you are relying upon are not going to be there.


The same can be said of current hiring and firing decisions. They are totalitarian. How is that a market force?



Yes there is. I just mentioned one-- its more difficult to adjust labor to changes in demand.
Yes, this is a benefit of market socialism. Firms can choose to retain members at the expense of lower profits until the market improves. There is no reason for lack of demand to be absorbed by increased unemployment, it can be spread across firms if they so desire. Less unemployment is an overt benefit of market socialism and part of its goals. It's not unemployment itself that's necessary, it's ability to absorb lack of demand, which can just as easily happen by lowering profits. Unfortunately, capitalists never make this choice and instead decide to fire "unneeded" people rather than reduce their take.



Reduction of output can certainly reduce the standard of living.
Then there will be demand, causing increased profitability, and somebody will step in to profit from it, just like today. What market socialism does is *spread* the benefits of ownerships of the means of production to everybody in the economy, not just the wealthy.



I has nothing to do with it. You are trying to claim that consumption of wealth is the same as production of wealth.
Consumption creates demand. Demand raises prices, increases profits, and hence encourages supply. Again, basic Supply and Demand.



Market socialism allows a situation when people can freely choose not to produce ie not to work? What if everyone took the market socialists up on that offer?What would happen if every capitalist decided to close shop and retire to the Caribbean? Are you saying that workers should be forced to work but capitalists should enjoy a choice of work or leisure, or what? That is your right, but it is an elitist position that few people will hold.

Maybe I don't really understand the question here. People who don't work won't make any money, and will eventually be forced back to work.

[Baseball]

The same can be said of current hiring and firing decisions. They are totalitarian. How is that a market force?

Should the market dictate that 50 workers are not needed at a particular site, rather only thirty are needed... market forces indicate 20 should be let go. However, you would propose a democratic vote which may or may not (the odds are on "not") result in following through on the market.


Yes, this is a benefit of market socialism. Firms can choose to retain members at the expense of lower profits until the market improves.

Yes they can.
But sometimes that is also the problem.
And you are not offering this as an option-- you are declaring this is how it will be done.


There is no reason for lack of demand to be absorbed by increased unemployment,

Sure there is- it allows labor to migrate to areas where there is not such a lack demand. Or perhaps even there is great demand.
Or into another firm that proposes to produce the same good, but in a more effective and efficient manner.


it can be spread across firms if they so desire.

Oh.. now we are talking about cartels and syndicates.



Then there will be demand, causing increased profitability, and somebody will step in to profit from it, just like today. What market socialism does is *spread* the benefits of ownerships of the means of production to everybody in the economy, not just the wealthy.

The mysterious "somebody" which socialists of all stripes seem to depend upon to step in to solve all their problems.
But to your credit, you have at least tried to explain why "somebody" will step in.
However, my objections remain the same-- by weakening "market forces" you have removed rationales for this "somebody" fellow to step in, and made things harder should he do so.



What would happen if every capitalist decided to close shop and retire to the Caribbean?

A lot of wannabe capitalists will step in to fill the void.


Are you saying that workers should be forced to work but capitalists should enjoy a choice of work or leisure, or what? That is your right, but it is an elitist position that few people will hold.

I am certainly not against leisure. However, you are claiming both are equal choices in production. I am saying they are not.


Maybe I don't really understand the question here. People who don't work won't make any money, and will eventually be forced back to work.

"One choice is... not to produce" To this I am responding.

[argeiphontes]

Should the market dictate that 50 workers are not needed at a particular site, rather only thirty are needed... market forces indicate 20 should be let go. However, you would propose a democratic vote which may or may not (the odds are on "not") result in following through on the market.


I don't understand. Capitalist firms and market firms will receive the same market signals and suffer the same market effects. What they do internally is their business and doesn't change anything about the market. In one case, capitalists make a totalitarian decision to fire some people. In the other, the firm decides to continue operating at a lower profit because the benefits outweigh the costs. No market laws are broken. Nothing about the external economy changes except that somebody doesn't lose their job. It's just like reducing salaries in a capitalist workplace. Why is it so difficult to understand that a firm can choose how to respond to market signals?

The market doesn't "dictate" that 20 people be fired--capitalist social relations prefer that result. In market socialism, hopefully a different result is encouraged. The market just reduces the firm's income. It doesn't fire people or cause unemployment. It's just an impersonal force. No individual decision will somehow abolish the market or its effects. If the market socialist firm isn't flexible enough, it can eventually go out of business just like anything else.

[Ele'ill]

Look-- capitalism is how that type of community solves problems. It has a method, a rationale, a logic in its problem solving.


the only problems capitalism solves are solved for capital.



Yep-- those kids will need wood, nails and hammers.
So let me ask you-- why is the socialist system distributing these goods to these kids? I mean, wood nails and hammers can be used to build or repair REAL houses, these things that happen everyday. Why would the the system prioritize some mindless recreation ahead of the very real needs of shelter?

lol because probably in this case especially there would be very little need or reason to prioritize this stuff





The details were already mentioned; its a socialist community.

Yes, it's common sense.





OK-- so there is no pressing need for food, clothes, dress, leisure ect ect ect. The important thing is that is that people talk about solving that need, not actually fullfiling that need.

*yawn*

[Baseball]

I don't understand. Capitalist firms and market firms will receive the same market signals and suffer the same market effects. What they do internally is their business and doesn't change anything about the market. In one case, capitalists make a totalitarian decision to fire some people. In the other, the firm decides to continue operating at a lower profit because the benefits outweigh the costs. No market laws are broken. Nothing about the external economy changes except that somebody doesn't lose their job. It's just like reducing salaries in a capitalist workplace. Why is it so difficult to understand that a firm can choose how to respond to market signals?

The market doesn't "dictate" that 20 people be fired--capitalist social relations prefer that result. In market socialism, hopefully a different result is encouraged. The market just reduces the firm's income. It doesn't fire people or cause unemployment. It's just an impersonal force. No individual decision will somehow abolish the market or its effects. If the market socialist firm isn't flexible enough, it can eventually go out of business just like anything else.

i think the issue here is that you accept the socialist mischaracterization of the capitalist in production. He or she is not some aloof figure who sweeps in and takes an unearned cut, who browbeats labor for their own advantage.

The capitalist role in production is that he or she directs assets, resources ect to areas that, that in his or her estimation, returns the greatest yield.
Its a role, a job, which any modern economy requires performed, including a socialist community. And especially a "market" socialist one which claims to rely upon the market to make and adjust its production. The role cannot really be replicated by a committee of some sort, any more so than replacing the judgement of a skilled pipefitter in a shipbuilding co-op with its own committee.
The "problem" of "capitalist social relations" isn't really fixed, but rather production is made much more difficult.

[argeiphontes]

And especially a "market" socialist one which claims to rely upon the market to make and adjust its production. The role cannot really be replicated by a committee of some sort

The role of a single capitalist can't be replicated by a committee of some sort? Then what are corporate boards and shareholder elections for? Why is one individual smarter than several?

These are interesting and separate questions. I would encourage you to read Schweickart's book, "Beyond Capital." It seems that you enjoy totalitarianism. That's your right, but I think most people have a different opinion.

[Baseball]

The role of a single capitalist can't be replicated by a committee of some sort? Then what are corporate boards and shareholder elections for? Why is one individual smarter than several?

If the structural conception of a "market socialism" is of one of a board of directors themselves electing a chairman, who in turn is responsible for making the decisions and who is subject to answer only to that board, well so be it.
But thus far this is not how you have presented "market socialism"

[argeiphontes]

If the structural conception of a "market socialism" is of one of a board of directors themselves electing a chairman, who in turn is responsible for making the decisions and who is subject to answer only to that board, well so be it.
But thus far this is not how you have presented "market socialism"

You're right. Market socialism is democratic control over the enterprise. They can decide to structure the firm however they want, with a single manager or whatever. Officers are accountable to the everyone in the enterprise. In modern worker cooperatives, it is the workers who hire and fire the management. If a market socialist firm wanted to have a similar structure, it would be free to do so.

The problem is, is that you can't show that democratic control over an enterprise is somehow worse than autocracy. It's just your prejudice for totalitarian systems. The reason you can't prove this is that it's empirically not true. Obviously you've heard of some of these projects and I've posted about it before.

[Baseball]

You're right. Market socialism is democratic control over the enterprise. They can decide to structure the firm however they want, with a single manager or whatever. Officers are accountable to the everyone in the enterprise. In modern worker cooperatives, it is the workers who hire and fire the management. If a market socialist firm wanted to have a similar structure, it would be free to do so.

The problem is, is that you can't show that democratic control over an enterprise is somehow worse than autocracy. It's just your prejudice for totalitarian systems. The reason you can't prove this is that it's empirically not true. Obviously you've heard of some of these projects and I've posted about it before.

One can certainly point out that likelihood of the difficulties of fully responding to "market forces" when "market forces" dictate certain actions which the worker owners determine not to be in their interest.