"A rising tide lifts all"?

[Jacob Cliff]

This is a question often posed by defenders of capitalism – that yes, capitalism results in a concentration of wealth, but it is not merely a few who benefit – according to them, the whole standard of living increases to a huge degree. The poor of today are richer than the kings of centuries past, even if it is "unequal."

What is a Marxist argument against this? And also: how would a communist society continue, if not increase, the tempo and efficiency of production and innovation? Capitalism provides exponential growth and ever more products – how would communism, lacking in competition, be able to match this productivity?

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't think starving, homeless and powerless people live like kings did.
Kings had food, houses and power.

[RedKobra]

Firstly, it is predicated on a hugely suspect definition of poverty. They look at incomes not outcomes. If workers have a higher wage than they did twenty years ago then to the Conservative Capitalism is delivering. You have to ignore the increased cost of living (i.e - housing and food that these people can scarcely afford), you have to ignore the level of exploitation (the scandalous differential between the surplus they create and the compensation that they receive in pay), you have to ignore the miserable conditions in which most people still live (most of these "third world" workers are still living in shacks, dirt roads, poor hygiene, and often working in unsafe conditions), you have to ignore, in the case of the peoples of the former Communist countries, the loss of services free at the point of use like healthcare, education, sick pay, paid holiday, pension.etc Unable to afford them on the free market they simply do without.

There is also a refusal to consider the sudden swamping of the Capitalist labour market with millions of miserably paid workers from the former Communist countries and Africa. These people, in terms of income, could be given a pay rise without the Capitalists having to pay them a fraction of what the equivelant workers in the West used to get for the same labour. Couple that with the obvious technological development that swept through these countries and you can begin to see that all is not what it seems. Capitalism has used these new human resources but has not transformed them.

[BIXX]

A rising tide drowns those who don't have boats

[Zoop]

It's amazing how the pro-capitalist dregs think this argument serves as a sound justification for capitalism.

Yes, because we all know that if we have more possessions, then everything is fine!

It just demonstrates how myopic and philistinic pro-caps really are; they think that if we can afford a better car, then all is well. It doesn't matter apparently about despotic wage slavery, or the daily oppression workers face and the degradation and humiliation this entails. Those aren't viable concerns to the rabid capitalist cheerleaders.

[G4b3n]

The poor were richer under Stalin than they were under Nicholas II but I don't see anyone jumping to defend Stalinism on that basis.

Economic expansion in general does raise the standard of living, which is consistent with both capitalism and Stalinism. But bourgeois ideologues seem to forget about what their economists call "business cycles" which is a euphemism for the crisis inherent to capitalism and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Meaning that a rising tide has to crash down at some point. When it crashes, who does it land it? On the people at the bottom. Doesn't take a dialectical wizard to see that.

[Rafiq]

What is a Marxist argument against this? And also: how would a communist society continue, if not increase, the tempo and efficiency of production and innovation? Capitalism provides exponential growth and ever more products – how would communism, lacking in competition, be able to match this productivity?

First, we do not argue against it. It is true that people today live better than they ever have before. But our task is to locate why: And we have located the objective social processes which occurred under the backdrop of this, nothing about abstractions like "competition" which is meaningless.

The point is to introduce the dialectic into the question. Do the poor today care about history? They care just as much about the past as the ruling class does: They don't. The social antagonisms that exist in the present totality has no regard for previous totalities, for the social antagonism that exists in the here and now has no history, it is sufficient unto itself insofar as it encompasses the basis of human life as it exists now.

People live better today, in the sense that the living conditions of the 1950's would be deplorable by present standards. But the reason our living standards are not identical to those of the 1950's is owed to the fact that we live in a new historic totality, that which living standards which proceeded it would take an entirely different character than the one they assumed relative to their time period.

Trans-historic living standards rising sais nothing about any erosion of the willingness to fight, or the sufferings brought about by the present order. IT suggests that basing our fights on those, interpreting them based on those, that occurred in previous epochs is a grave mistake. Only the worst opportunist prattles of "living standards" to speak of capitalism juxtaposed to Communism. Yes, living standards have increased, but only incidentally, not as a matter of charity or testament of the "goodness" of capitalism vis a vis its super-session. There is no objective "efficiency of production and innovation". These are relative to the historic epoch from which they are wrought. Something can be more efficient in producing profit, and something can be more efficient in meeting the prerogatives of the common welfare of a self-conscious society.

Could Communism match such productivity? What is present productivity owed to? Ghosts, divine beings who will leave us if we abandon capitalism? No, present production is constituted by humans and humans alone. Of course we can "match" it, why wouldn't we be able to for any other reason than lacking the will to (as a new society)?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think starving, homeless and powerless people live like kings did.
Kings had food, houses and power.

^this and my response to the OP usually is yeah, chicken in Europe once was a dish only for royalty; does that mean if I eat a McChicken I'm a queen? No, my relation to the control over to the means of production and resources is still zilch. Further who gives a shit, that's the whole point of living in the future. It seems irrelevant ultimately. That's like saying serfs were better off under the kings because at least they weren't exposed to the harshness of nature.

[The Intransigent Faction]

A rising tide drowns those who don't have boats

It's good to have a grasp of the counterpoints made by other posters, but this post is the best in terms of an actual response when someone echoes that tired phrase.

Give reasoned arguments in response to reasoned arguments. Otherwise you're just going to exhaust yourself every time someone echoes a cliche, and whatever you say will just be "blahblahblah" to them. That's from my experience, anyway.

People saying that with any seriousness will at least try to support their position with something beyond a tired metaphor.

[Jacob Cliff]

First, we do not argue against it. It is true that people today live better than they ever have before. But our task is to locate why: And we have located the objective social processes which occurred under the backdrop of this, nothing about abstractions like "competition" which is meaningless.

The point is to introduce the dialectic into the question. Do the poor today care about history? They care just as much about the past as the ruling class does: They don't. The social antagonisms that exist in the present totality has no regard for previous totalities, for the social antagonism that exists in the here and now has no history, it is sufficient unto itself insofar as it encompasses the basis of human life as it exists now.

People live better today, in the sense that the living conditions of the 1950's would be deplorable by present standards. But the reason our living standards are not identical to those of the 1950's is owed to the fact that we live in a new historic totality, that which living standards which proceeded it would take an entirely different character than the one they assumed relative to their time period.

Trans-historic living standards rising sais nothing about any erosion of the willingness to fight, or the sufferings brought about by the present order. IT suggests that basing our fights on those, interpreting them based on those, that occurred in previous epochs is a grave mistake. Only the worst opportunist prattles of "living standards" to speak of capitalism juxtaposed to Communism. Yes, living standards have increased, but only incidentally, not as a matter of charity or testament of the "goodness" of capitalism vis a vis its super-session. There is no objective "efficiency of production and innovation". These are relative to the historic epoch from which they are wrought. Something can be more efficient in producing profit, and something can be more efficient in meeting the prerogatives of the common welfare of a self-conscious society.

Could Communism match such productivity? What is present productivity owed to? Ghosts, divine beings who will leave us if we abandon capitalism? No, present production is constituted by humans and humans alone. Of course we can "match" it, why wouldn't we be able to for any other reason than lacking the will to (as a new society)?
I'm not sure I understand, and I think saying that competition is meaningless is simply untrue.

Even if we must oppose economic competition in favor of the common administration of things, I think it'd be a disservice to our critique of capitalism if we simply said "competition is meaningless." Competition drives capitalism, and it seems to drive innovation. I suppose the end result (which is concentration, leading to the stifling of competition and therefore lack of growth..) could be a part of our critique, but from my understanding, we stand directly FOR the concentration of the productive forces/the monopolization of the means of subsistence and production.

I suppose what I'm asking is this: in capitalism, it is, or so it seems to be the case, that the competition between different competitors leads to higher quality products; that the drive to not be driven into the ground forces business owners to innovate and brand products which are better quality and/or are cheaper, thereby gaining the upper hand. In a socialist society, as I understand it, this ceases altogether -- my question is how do we compensate for that drive to innovate, to create and to produce? Excuse this vulgar regurgitation of the common bourgeois-ideologue argument, but where is the incentive to produce more and better in a system of guaranteed livelihood and one where no competition is present to force one to think of revolutionary alternatives in production?
Thanks

[WideAwake]

I think that one important reason of why most americans who are poor are so conformists, and not aware of their own poverty because they are not intellectuals, they are not marxists, they are not well-read. And low levels of knowledge is an impediment for people to be aware of their own pain and is an impediment for people to have high levels of goals (when people are not well-informed, they think that Tom Cruise and George Clooney are a lot superior beings than they are, so they deserve more than poor americans).

So radical leftists, marxists, and intellectuals in general are more aware than people who are not well-informed of how bad poverty is, of how boring, depressing, empty life is for the great majority of people (middle classes and lower classes), than people who are not well-read, and informed. Because knowledge has the danger of elevating the prospects, goals, and possibility of a life, with self-realization, and an elevated life physically, mentally and economically.

And since it is impossible to reach a self-realized life, full happiness and to fulfill high dreams, high goals and high objectives that most people have in this system of The Democratic Party and The Republican Party. The people who are well-read, intellectuals and well-informed people just do not conform to the depressive, ugly and poor reality that most people in this world live in.

Even in America where the great majority of people live a poor third world life (a total different life of the United States shown in bourgeoise movies, which is a United States with people with great health, great physical shape and wealthier people, than the real United States of America, which is a United States where the american dream only happens when people are sleeping

But since the great majority of american citizens are not informed, are literally banned from joining universities, from joining high education institutions, and since the educational system is so low in quality, and since most americans have very low levels of reading habits, since there are many things in America (done on purpose by the whole USA system) like the commercial sports, movies, holidays, lots of stuff that derails the attention of people from economic and political matters. And somehow prevent americans from living in their own real world (which is a third world life), I think that most poor americans not only have very low expectations (no high goals, no need to be doctors, lawyers etc).

Another reason for the extreme conformism of most poor people in USA is that most americans do not have the knowledge of how a good life is, because I think that most cities of the USA are built like in a sort of South Africa Apartheid (but not based on race, but most american cities are cities built with an economic apartheid based on economic conditions, on social classes, in most cities of USA it is almost banned for poor people to drive around rich neighborhoods, to walk around wealthier neighborhoods and to observe with their own eyes how the rich live in a paradise of h appiness.

Most poor americans who are the majority have never been in Disney World, have never traveled, have never been in vacation cruises, have almost never been in parties, do not have a great need of physical perfection (because poor americans are banned and barred from social events). The poor of USA are one of the most alienated poor people of this world. This lack of visibility of what a good life is, in the poor classes who represent about 70% or more of the population of USA, is another polwerful cause of why poor americans who are the majority are so happy with their hell, of working, working, working and zero fun, zero parties, zero health, zero college, zero traveling, zero economic progress, zero physical and mental progress.

Another cause of why most people in the USA who are really poor (even if they drive new Hondas, new Toyotas) is that in America people are manipulated, educated and trained into comparing in USA with very poor nations. That's another revolution-destroyer. Feeling good being poor and living a painful life in USA because being poor in USA is better than being poor in Haiti.

All those things, along with many other things, (like being a communist in order to get out of poverty but communism is too risky, and most poor people do not have the necessary emotional, physical and spiritual strength (provided by book-reading) in order to defy the whole USA anti-marxism, anti-left, anti-communism mentality.

There are many many other causes that block poor americans from being communists. Another great powerful one is that life in USA is planned in a way so that people are super-busy all day from morning to night time. This crazy hectic super busy life also destroys the necessary physical mental and spiritual emotions so that people can have more emotional power, physical power, anger, rage which are all needed to get out of poverty and hate their own way of living.

And of course many other causes of why poor americans are so anti-change, so conformists, is that the social order we have in USA lets poor people drive brand new cars, live in air conditioned houses, own TVs computers etc (which is good) but from a scientific sociology marxism analysis, new cars, TVs, computers, nice clothes are importang and good but those things alone do not get anybody out of poverty. A person can own 5 new BMWs and if that person does not have full health care, dental health, and a bachelors college degree, and an ability which would lead to full self-realization, that same person with BMWs can still be considered a poor person

But poor americans are not aware of that. So what we have in USA are roads, avenues, interstates, highways, cities full of beautiful nice cars, with poor drivers inside of them, poor people, poor drivers who are poor because most of the dollars they earn do not belong to them. Those dollars created by US citizens end up in IRS, in The Pentagon, in the pockets of the high levels ministers of the US government, in Israel and in monthly payments (like mortgage, electricity and many other privatized over-valued basic needs)

So I think that it is time for the ultra-left of this forum and the whole ultra-left of the USA and other nations to create a sort of International Ultra-leftist Front composed of all the ultra-leftists of this world. Or at least begin by creating an Ultra-left Front here in USA and spreading to other nations. This is needed as soon as possible, because the ultra-leftists are really the supermen, the batman, the spidermen, the super-heroes of this world







This is a question often posed by defenders of capitalism – that yes, capitalism results in a concentration of wealth, but it is not merely a few who benefit – according to them, the whole standard of living increases to a huge degree. The poor of today are richer than the kings of centuries past, even if it is "unequal."

What is a Marxist argument against this? And also: how would a communist society continue, if not increase, the tempo and efficiency of production and innovation? Capitalism provides exponential growth and ever more products – how would communism, lacking in competition, be able to match this productivity?

[Aslan]

This ''tide'' is nothing more than the monetary dept bubble made of false money from loans. This ghost money has been at risk of disappearing before (2008) and now is under the constant vigil of the national reserve.

[Rafiq]

The argument that is bothering you is an ideological one - the notion of the objective betterment of "humanity" as a whole, and my point was to try and show you how this is an obfuscation of the fact that the totality exists in the here and now is "better" than the previous one simply by its own merits. I'll give you an example: Reverting back to the steam engine in 2015 would be quite different from adopting the steam engine in the late 18th century, the implications would be different for the respective totality. But there is no trans-historic capitalist totality that makes us care about the fact that the steam engine was adopted in the late 18th century, i.e. in the struggle for Communism, there is no demand for the abolition of the achievements of capitalism, or to revert to some pre-modern state. Likewise in 2015 there is no demand by Communists to revert to, say, pre-globalization India or China.


I think saying that competition is meaningless is simply untrue.

Even if we must oppose economic competition in favor of the common administration of things, I think it'd be a disservice to our critique of capitalism if we simply said "competition is meaningless." Competition drives capitalism, and it seems to drive innovation.

No, plainly put, as far as a scientific understanding of capitalism goes, then yes, distinguishing it by merit of 'competition' is absolutely meaningless, and that is for the simple reason that competition here is an abstraction. Of course, when people speak of "competition" in capitalism, we know what they are talking about - but the point of scientifically understanding capitalism is recognizing those particular historic processes in their entirety. They are irreducible to "competition". There should not be an emphasis on competition, but profit, for sometimes businesses are driven to non-existence totally indirectly or non-intentionally, as the result of newer ones. Capitalist competition is important as far as understanding, for example, crisis, but it is not any kind of underlying "spirit of competition" (which is incidental) but a spirit to maximize profit and fulfill the hunger of capital, which can only be done through making sure your competitors don't disallow you to. "Competition" (in the sense of different people/groups competing towards some ends) will probably exist in a future society, certainly it would. The difference is that production and the basis of life would be in common, such competition would not compromise people's livelihood.

In most societies proceeding capitalism, competition was very prevalent. In many ways, most especially after the second world war, one can say that capitalism is very 'cooperative' as well. Competition is meaningless insofar as it is understood as the essential basis of capitalism. Competition drives capitalism? Think about this statement. If competition drove capitalism, then the logical conclusion of competition would be its continuation to the greatest heights. Instead, what you find is that the logical conclusion of competition is monopoly, as you acknowledge. Now, of course inter-capitalist competition exists, but does it "drive innovation"? Of course, the widespread implementation technological advances in capitalist society is owed to the drive for profit above all, but again, these implementations are done by humans, not by some magical external being. So the question arises: Do humans have to be "tricked" into mastering nature and the forces around them which already exist to their benefit?

Such is the predominant attitude of a society that is trying to destroy the vestiges of the enlightenment, a society which is becoming more and more rabidly anti-democratic by the day (Look at any TV show today, and you will see such a shocking decline of democratic ethics - shows concerning supernatural forces that which only a small group of enlightened individuals, outside of legal control, etc. can deal with, and so on).

People are so superstitious about "technology". Technology is not some externality, in this sense, "technology" does not really even exist as people think it does, it's not some "thing" that "advances" in the right conditions, it merely refers to specialized means by which a practical prerogative is fulfilled. The propensity for a socially self-conscious society to do this is not even up for debate - the energy to "innovate" would be there, objectively, it was even there arguably for states like the Soviet Union. The only problem is that none of the scientific advances would be implemented on a practical level because of the particular conditions of the country: Primacy of putting resources into defense, the unstable and state-threatening nature of widespread innovation in that it would in many respects leave the nation vulnerable, and the list goes on.

There are literally people who think that "technology" is some divine being that separates us from animals. In fact technology simply refers to the practical implementation of pre-existing knowledge. The propensity for capitalist society to do this is indeed consistent with the drive for profit, but think: With present scientific knowledge of even just natural processes, has the practical application of it, or even the drive to, has this "caught up" with present technical knowledge? In fact no, it has not, there are technologies that have been developed that there is simply no good reason for people to implement on a society-wide scale, even if it could benefit the well being of capitalist society, simply for the reason that it is not profitable. I mean, we don't even have to go into this - look at the fossil fuel industry, and so on.


I suppose the end result (which is concentration, leading to the stifling of competition and therefore lack of growth..) could be a part of our critique, but from my understanding, we stand directly FOR the concentration of the productive forces/the monopolization of the means of subsistence and production.

Think about the language you're using here - "growth", what exactly does growth mean? Growth of what exactly? These are words which are ideological - they are designating a very real (and I know what you're talking about, by the way, so I'm not trying to be difficult) 'image', if you want to call it that, but they don't give us any insight into understanding the process which make that image in our head.

There is no reason to think that the common administration of the basis of our lives would lead to an eternally static society, if this is what you are referring to. In fact, once the social antagonism is superseded, all that remains - which would be eternal - is the antagonism between the human mind and the world around us, for the simple reason that the technical capacity of society would create new standards that would make said technical capacity unsatisfactory, and the list goes on. The only reason a society would have to remain static would be if the order of things was so fragile that it could not be risked, but a society that would hypothetically involve a democratically conscious, cohesive society bound together with solidarity and collective discipline, we have to consider the fact that man would be conscious of his own social being, and it is this consciousness that would make the social relations to production the only static nucleus surrounding a sea of possibilities.

Think about it: the argument the reactionaries in question are putting forth is essentially a superstitious one, that humans cannot be fully conscious of their social being for this would compromise "growth". But nevermind that, what such neoliberal mythology fails to take into account ist he fact that ever before has there been a greater concentration of production and the means of subsistence, never before has the role of the state bureaucracy been so central not only to the production of subsistence, but to the financial cartels, banks, etc. which COMPLETELY underlie our means of life, i.e. today industrial capital is completely subservient to finance capital.


I suppose what I'm asking is this: in capitalism, it is, or so it seems to be the case, that the competition between different competitors leads to higher quality products; that the drive to not be driven into the ground forces business owners to innovate and brand products which are better quality and/or are cheaper, thereby gaining the upper hand. In a socialist society, as I understand it, this ceases altogether -- my question is how do we compensate for that drive to innovate, to create and to produce? Excuse this vulgar regurgitation of the common bourgeois-ideologue argument, but where is the incentive to produce more and better in a system of guaranteed livelihood and one where no competition is present to force one to think of revolutionary alternatives in production?
Thanks

Simple: If the masses of people living in that society have no demand for what you call "better quality goods", then there will be none. Of course it is unlikely that they will not demand this - nay, impossible, but the point is that production would be a political manner - I am not naively even saying that production would be under the direct control of the masses in a 'direct' democratic fashion, I am simply saying that how things are produced, the goods that are produced, and so on, this would be a matter of controversy that would encompass society at a wide-scale level. If there are deficiencies in the computers being produced, this might piss off the whole population, so the organs of power in such a society, whatever that might be, would have to compensate for this fact. This was not possible in Communist states for the simple reason that what was of political primacy was securing the defense of the countries against the pressures of an undoubtedly more advanced west - and the reason for the west being more historically advanced is for obvious reasons (but I can go into them, if you like). My point: even if there is, in the beginning, all of the worst deficiencies possible, merely recognizing and calling out such deficiencies would already surpass them - if there are problems that people face, then society's energy would be directed at solving them. This is what it means to be a socially self-conscious society - there are no "big others", society's mode of life is self-consciously under the control of men and women.

The growth of scientific knowledge, and therefore the practical implementation of technical skills, is again not something external to humans that has to be forced upon them. Social self-consciousness also implies consciousness of the relationship between one's social totality, means of life, and nature, the non-social world around him free from mysticism and superstition. Even in present day society, most children are very curious and need their curiosity to be stiffened by nonsense. Even in the very early Soviet Union this was basically the predominant ideology of society - even Trotsky became sympathetic towards Cosmism, an emphasis on mechanized movement, dynamic technological growth, total conquest of the unknown, exploration of space and so on - all of this occurred way before they even had the technical capacity to reach any of these 'fantasies', but the drive towards it was there. Of course, there were certain problems with Cosmism, and perversions like god-building, but the implications of a proletarian revolution as far as how we understand the world and our place in it would drastically change, and this much has been shown.

In present day society, the drive to "innovate, to create and to produce" again is a pretense to an abstraction - there is nothing mystical or magical about this "drive", it can be completely understood in a rational and scientific manner. Does competition force people to think of revolutionary alternatives in production? Perhaps, but most often competition forces people to implement pre-existing technical knowledge for the sake of maximizing profit - but the capacity and ability to do this was already there. Actually, to put it shortly, at the onset of the computer revolution, it wasn't pre-existing capitliast competition which kick-started this, but objective social processes in capitalsim, and the same goes for every other technological revolution: Most often what happens is that old firms are either subsumed or completely swept aside by new ones. Technological revolutions in capitalism are usually not the result of competition, but create a new substrate that which capitalist competition occurs, getting rid of the older industries and players (unless they are quick to catch on). So when people think of "revolutionary alternatives to production", in capitalist society this is usually the result of chance - under the backdrop of very real social processes society is not conscious of (i.e. for example, the rise of information technology at the onset of neoliberalism and the explosive rise of finance capital, international concentration of it, globalization, ETC.).

For the record, your question is not a stupid one, and I myself struggled with this around a year ago.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The poor of today are richer than the kings of centuries past, even if it is "unequal."

I very much doubt that the poor today are richer than, say, the Valois dukes of Burgundy, by any reasonable standard. Even someone like count Raymond, the lord of all Galicia, probably had more material possessions at their disposal than the poor today. And Raymond lived in the eleventh century.

But even if this were true - and probably, many people today have more possessions than the kings of Kofun-period Japan, so hey, we've beaten a civilisation from 1800 years ago, go us - it completely obscures the fact that the standards for what constitutes a pleasant life have also expanded. King Nintoku might have been satisfied with a bronze mirror and a bell without a clapper, but today we would barely notice these things.


I'm not sure I understand, and I think saying that competition is meaningless is simply untrue.

Even if we must oppose economic competition in favor of the common administration of things, I think it'd be a disservice to our critique of capitalism if we simply said "competition is meaningless." Competition drives capitalism, and it seems to drive innovation. I suppose the end result (which is concentration, leading to the stifling of competition and therefore lack of growth..) could be a part of our critique, but from my understanding, we stand directly FOR the concentration of the productive forces/the monopolization of the means of subsistence and production.

I suppose what I'm asking is this: in capitalism, it is, or so it seems to be the case, that the competition between different competitors leads to higher quality products; that the drive to not be driven into the ground forces business owners to innovate and brand products which are better quality and/or are cheaper, thereby gaining the upper hand. In a socialist society, as I understand it, this ceases altogether -- my question is how do we compensate for that drive to innovate, to create and to produce? Excuse this vulgar regurgitation of the common bourgeois-ideologue argument, but where is the incentive to produce more and better in a system of guaranteed livelihood and one where no competition is present to force one to think of revolutionary alternatives in production?
Thanks

Is it really the case that competition leads to higher quality? What competition - i.e., the drive to maintain a high rate of profit - leads to is cutting costs, principally the costs of labour. But when it comes to consumer goods, quality often doesn't pay. That's why we have disposable razor cartridges, shoddy light bulbs, batteries that can't hold a charge etc. Whatever improvements in quality come from capitalist production are incidental at best.

In socialism, the incentive to produce is because we need stuff. There is no distinction between consumers and producers in socialism; we (collectively) produce so that we can consume. Perhaps we've produced all we need - then we won't have the drive to produce more, and that's probably for the best. As for quality, again, we're the ones who are going to be using these products. A socialist society has every reason to hold consumer goods up to a high standard. And this standard would be explicitly maintained, by technical organs etc., not left to the blind workings of the so-called Invisible Hand.

[Luís Henrique]

This is a question often posed by defenders of capitalism – that yes, capitalism results in a concentration of wealth, but it is not merely a few who benefit – according to them, the whole standard of living increases to a huge degree. The poor of today are richer than the kings of centuries past, even if it is "unequal."

What is a Marxist argument against this?
I think that this pro-capitalist argument is based in a conundrum.

Cappies will gladly agree that "wealth is relative". But then they want us to accept the idea that poverty is absolute.

Yes, a poor man nowadays has access to things that a feudal lord in the 12th Century had not. For instance, tapped water for daily baths, or bus rides.

But lack of daily baths or bus rides were not tantamount to poverty in the Middle Ages; they are now.

So yes, the standard of life increases for all; but if wealth is more concentrated, then there is more poverty, even if such poverty means something less dearth than in the past.


And also: how would a communist society continue, if not increase, the tempo and efficiency of production and innovation? Capitalism provides exponential growth and ever more products – how would communism, lacking in competition, be able to match this productivity?


This is a more complicated problem. But why would it not? Competition is vital to innovation in capitalism, where it is intended to improve the competitive position of a given company against others. But even in capitalism, most innovation is made in the academy or other public institutions, not in private firms. People invent things because, a) they like inventing things; and b) because those inventions free people from repetitive, dull labour. It is only in capitalism that inventions enslave people instead of freeing them, and that people dislike doing things, even scientific research, "because it is labour", and labour should be avoided whenever possible, which is, whenever it isn't necessary for earning a livelilhood.

Luís Henrique

[Jacob Cliff]

Helped to clear a great deal of my confusion up as usual, so thanks.