How communism can counteract capitalism

[slim]

Hullo,

Im doing economics at school (know thine enemy type thing) and we were learning about the "Price System" or free market basically. The three main strengths of it were:

1. Signalling function: - this is where the consumer, investors and compaines can tell if a particular industry is doing well by how much the product costs. In general the higher the price, the higher the demand, the healthier the industry and the more to be invested and resources allocated.

2. Incentive function: - this is where price increases provide incentive for people to invest and allocate more resources in an industry.

3. Rationing function: - As resources run low, prices rise and less is bought, prolonging the longlivity of that resource.

So... What do we make of these three arguments and how would you respond to this as a leftist? How do i convince my cappie teacher to come to the light? lol

[Fidelbrand]

My 2 cents:

1. Signalling function: Think about "felt needs",,,, Its only in capitalism that we are portrayed and made to be CONSUMERS. Also think about the voice of a democratic government in allocating and signalling what's in lack and in abundunce.

2. Incentive function: Resources are ample without capitalism&#39;s wastefulness. Its a white horror created by capitalism that resources are in lack, and everything is so fucking "scare"&#33; Moreover, societal incentive does not play a major role in captialism (unless there&#39;s a crisis or some big fat rich man decides to do charity "for his corporate&#39;s fame"). <Consider societal incentive as a major component in economics as a possibility>

3. Rationing function: A democratic socialist/communist society and/or nation will figure that out. Moreover, the longevity of a resource is not safely guaranteed under capitalism as it says it can. Tell your teacher about global waste and pollution....... the longevity of our planet is at stake and on a verge of destruction. Upon hyper-pollution under the capitalist mode of production, we then can talk shit about longevity about resources&#33; :D

[slim]

Aye, I presented a similar argument. He had no answer for them either lol. Thank you comrade.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:01 AM
Aye, I presented a similar argument. He had no answer for them either lol. Thank you comrade.
Cool. Your cappie teacher should just give in and rethink his "career path". :blush:

[ComradeRed]

Further you should also note that price (value, whatever) is a mechanism based on the inputs of a commodity. Basically, you can&#39;t sell a product for less than it costs to make.

Now, using fun math, you can prove that inputs can be reduced to labor. Capitalist economists argue this is "exactly" why the labor theory of value is wrong...there will "always" be a residual.

However, if you note that the epochs of history have prepared for its succesor (e.g. feudalism prepared capitalism with capital, etc.) you can note that the structure of capital has increased nearl logarithmically in each epoch.

Thus if we were to reduce it to dated labor, we could translate the capital used today in terms of labor inputs and thus justify the labor theory of value.

On the other hand, the vulgar "Neoclassical" economists (et al.) have "scientific models" of "supply" and "demand". This is of course bullshit that indicates the price of a commodity can (and oftentimes does when "in equilibrium") fall below the cost of its production...which makes no sense. Money falls from the sky to make up the deficit.

If you have the chance, read some of Piero Sraffa&#39;s works and anything on analytical Marxist economics. Be sure you know linear algebra and matrices well enough first&#33;