Capitalism as a classless society

[enigma2517]

What do you mean by class? The term class refers to a legal classification of people, like in medieval times people were classified as serfs and weren't allowed to own property. Capitalism does not have any class system; all people are given the same individual rights before the law.




I think your missing that there are distinct classes.


I am not missing that, I am actively refusing to accept it. "Class" was a term that meant that you were FORCED to act or live a certain way. To use the term to mean "one does not have the means to live a certain way" is to pervert the meaning of the term "class" in EXACTLY the same way you perverted the meaning of the term "force."

So under Capitalism, no one is FORCED to live any given way (excepting that they respect the same right in others), and thus there ARE NO CLASSES IN CAPITALISM.

Taken from http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...hp?showtopic=39 (http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/index.php?showtopic=39)

Discuss.

[VonClausewitz]

There are economic classifications, but aside from that, people really aren't forced into a social role directly at all anyomore. No-one is expected to be a certain way and be a certain person from birth. That kind of thinking perhaps pervades in some of the older Aristocratic families of Europe, but not in the new world, or indeed much of third.

Under capitalism, you classify people, but I agree, there aren't any social classes anymore.

[bezdomni]

There is a class of people who OWN the means of production, and there is a class of people who WORK the means of production, thereby producing commodities.

This is our definiton of class - and it is inherent to capitalism.

Most capitalists accept the fact that there is class division, and they view it as a positive thing. The will and ability exist for a worker to come up with a better, more efficent way of doing something - or a completely new and "useful" product, gives incentive for people to work and innovate.

I fail to see how anybody can be so blind as to not recognize class division. How do they suppose capitalism functions if there is no specific group of people who own and another specific group of people who produce?

Social mobility exists, of course. Capitalism is not nearly as rigid as slavery or feudalism in it's class system - regardless, class still exists.

[KC]

There are economic classifications, but aside from that, people really aren't forced into a social role directly at all anyomore. No-one is expected to be a certain way and be a certain person from birth. That kind of thinking perhaps pervades in some of the older Aristocratic families of Europe, but not in the new world, or indeed much of third.

Under capitalism, you classify people, but I agree, there aren't any social classes anymore.

It sounds like you're thinking more of a caste system.

[FleasTheLemur]

Ah, but you forgot that a sizible proportion of the laws, intentional and unintentional, that passively suggest at a class system. Sure, the lord isn't forcing us at sword point into the fields but as I stated before, there is laws on the book.

A simple example is tickets. Ditch Digger Dan makes 5.15 a hour while Richy McFancypants has millions. If Rich speeds in his town and gets a ticket, it's barely the surface. If Dan speeds in his town and gets a ticket, it's a sizible chunk out of his paycheck, so much so it is crippling (to the point I'd call it cruel and unusual punishment but that's another debate.).

Another example involves my father. AEP installed a new electric meter on his old house. Problem was AEP didn't tighten the bolt down enough and it caused all wires to burn out and the fuse box to blow up. Of course, AEP is blaming the old wiring in his house. Because my Dad installs sat dishes for a living, he doesn't make enough to hire both a civil lawyer and sustain himself, my step-mom and my half-sister. Even if he managed to hire one (after all, a few lawyers don't want pay unless they win), AEP is the largest provider of electicity in West Virginia and could easily afford a gaggle of lawyers.

Of course, lest not forgot the lobbists; paid buy the largest of companies to "influence legistlature".

<coughcoughJackAbramoffcoughcough>

Ahem.

But yeah... If you think the law makes everyone equal, please review more closely.

[cyu]

But yeah... If you think the law makes everyone equal, please review more closely.

As Anatole France famously said:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:40 AM
... Sure, the lord isn&#39;t forcing us at sword point into the fields ...
I disagree. If I am unable/unwilling to sell my labour, the capitalist system banishes me from being able to consume. We are all forced by economic need to produce goods/services to be sold as commodities for a profit, for capitalists.

So no, they aren&#39;t literally forcing us &#39;at sword-point&#39; to participate in the economy and sell our labour, but we&#39;d certainly be fucked if we didn&#39;t.

[norwegian commie]

Under capitalism, you classify people, but I agree, there aren&#39;t any social classes anymore.

whell you are an ignorant person... What exactly do you put in the words social class? the class society exists and will do so as long as there is capitalism. i do hope you understand you where wrong on this one.

there are poor and rich.
there are people working hard for crappy pay-checks
there are people working nothng for million-dollar pay-checks
workers produse goods that another man takes from him and sells to a third party. then the worker recivs a meere presentage of the ware he produes sale value. the man in control of pruduction, reapin the gloory and money is the KApital
the worker is proletar

there are classes&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[theraven]

No society can be a truely classless society. there of coures can be societies with high social mobility or a small earnings gap, but those have hier own problems.

[JazzRemington]

No one said that it&#39;s impossible for a worker to work his way up to being a capitalist. It&#39;s just very, very difficult and there are many barriers that one must go through.

[Tungsten]

OkaCrisis

I disagree. If I am unable/unwilling to sell my labour, the capitalist system banishes me from being able to consume.
It must be a good system then. I wouldn&#39;t want someone to just ride off in my car without them paying me for it first, which, come to think of it, makes everyone unwilling to trade something for nothing part of the "the capitalist system". You wouldn&#39;t do it, so why should anyone else?

We are all forced by economic need to produce goods/services to be sold as commodities for a profit, for capitalists.
Will no one have to work in a communist society, then? The economic need will no longer be there, so I guess not.

[red team]

We are all forced by economic need to produce goods/services to be sold as commodities for a profit, for capitalists.

Will no one have to work in a communist society, then? The economic need will no longer be there, so I guess not.


You mean be corporate whores (sales personnel) for billionaire investors who has more wealth than half the world&#39;s population? I don&#39;t think we want to do that job.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 8 2006, 07:03 PM



We are all forced by economic need to produce goods/services to be sold as commodities for a profit, for capitalists.

Will no one have to work in a communist society, then? The economic need will no longer be there, so I guess not.


You mean be corporate whores (sales personnel) for billionaire investors who has more wealth than half the world&#39;s population? I don&#39;t think we want to do that job.
so because you don&#39;t want to do it means it will cease to exist?

[mikelepore]

Closely connected with the meaning of class is the fact that certain social changes would either increase or decrease one&#39;s family&#39;s material situation. For those whose major source of income is selling their labor time on the labor market (the working class), their material situation would be benefited by employees having higher wages, shorter workweeks, longer vacations, expanded benefits. For those whose major source of income is return on invested assets (the capitalist class), their material situation would be benefited by employees having lower wages, longer workweeks, shorter vacations, reduced benefits. The class struggle is the objective fact that the two classes are associated with the tendency to benefit materially from diametrically opposite directions in a spectrum of potential social changes. The division of labor&#39;s product into its paid portion (real wages) and its unpaid portion (profits and other forms of surplus value) is the focal point of the class struggle, although not the only manifestation of the class struggle.

Mike Lepore - lepore at bestweb dot net - deleonism.org

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:16 AM
Capitalism does not have any class system; all people are given the same individual rights before the law.
That doesn&#39;t matter. As long as there is economic inequality, the most negative effects of the class system will still exist.

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

That doesn&#39;t matter. As long as there is economic inequality, the most negative effects of the class system will still exist.
Economic equality is not only unworkable it would require coercion and intrusive monitoring to enforce.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:20 PM
Economic equality is not only unworkable it would require coercion and intrusive monitoring to enforce.
Perhaps. But equal opportunities in an economic sense would not be so difficult to work. Just stop people being able to be rich simply by having rich parents (get rid of inheritance) and stop people being able to get a better education simply by having rich parents (get rid of private schools).

At a stroke, a massive amount of injustice would be eradicated.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 12:15 PM
OkaCrisis

I disagree. If I am unable/unwilling to sell my labour, the capitalist system banishes me from being able to consume.
It must be a good system then. I wouldn&#39;t want someone to just ride off in my car without them paying me for it first, which, come to think of it, makes everyone unwilling to trade something for nothing part of the "the capitalist system". You wouldn&#39;t do it, so why should anyone else?

We are all forced by economic need to produce goods/services to be sold as commodities for a profit, for capitalists.
Will no one have to work in a communist society, then? The economic need will no longer be there, so I guess not.
What about the very young, the very old, and the mentally and physically disabled? These are people who are unable, not by their choice, to produce labour to be sold on the market. What&#39;s to be done about them? Should they freeze and starve to death on the streets?

Up to 70% of Toronto&#39;s homeless have a mental illness.

A large proportion of the rest are street youth, who usually come from broken homes characterized by poverty, abuse, and drug problems. These kids never even have a chance to grow into &#39;productive adults&#39;. They are trapped in cycles of destruction, poverty, and destitution, and right-wingers like you would see them without shelters, without rehab, without education, and without vocational training, because that is a &#39;drain on the system&#39; and these people are just &#39;free riders&#39;.

Really, they are products of a society that forces competition onto them for jobs and necessary resources, and a society that demands that a certain percentage of the population be excluded from participation to encourage &#39;competitiveness&#39; among the working population.

I always use the example when arguing about the homeless: When they are children, people want to be doctors, lawyers, firemen/women. Nobody wants to grow up to be a crack addict, a prostitute, or a guy on a corner who drinks Listerine for kicks.

If, by nature and definition, social exclusion is a necessary part of any society (i.e. capitalism), then I want no part of it. I&#39;d rather live in a society where people are free and able to produce what they need to survive on their own, without being forced to rely on &#39;the market&#39; and its &#39;conditions&#39; for their survival.

In an alternative society, there will be no such thing as economic need to drive production. It will be material need, and anyone materially interested in the production of anything will have to work to reap the benefits of the produce of the society. It&#39;s not a tough concept to grasp.

If I was interested in the production of a road that went West, and others in my society also were interested, then we could combine our efforts and build the road. Meanwhile, other people in the society interested in, say, eating food, would be involved in the production of it. But since both things are necessary to the smooth functioning of society, the people involved in road building could depend on the society to produce enough food to feed them too, since everyone in the society would also be able to use the road. It&#39;s reciprocal. What needs doing will be done.

Meanwhile, in these capitalist societies, only things that will bring a profit will be produced. Not things that are necessarily needed. A road that is not directly in the interests of rich capitalists will never be built, no matter if a community demands it indefinitely. They are restricted from producing things that will benefit themselves, meanwhile, only people with the power to decide (&#036;) will ever actually get things done.

Production of common goods should not be dictated by economic interests and profit. Production ought to be guided by material need, to be developed by &#39;coalitions&#39; of &#39;interested parties&#39; for the benefit of the community.

[Tungsten]

OkaCrisis

What about the very young, the very old, and the mentally and physically disabled? These are people who are unable, not by their choice, to produce labour to be sold on the market. What&#39;s to be done about them? Should they freeze and starve to death on the streets?
Barring the young and old, the majority of whom are looked after by their families, and the physically disabled, who can still work anyway, how many mentally disabled people are there? How difficult is it going to be to cater for that many people?

A large proportion of the rest are street youth, who usually come from broken homes characterized by poverty, abuse, and drug problems. These kids never even have a chance to grow into &#39;productive adults&#39;. They are trapped in cycles of destruction, poverty, and destitution, and right-wingers like you would see them without shelters, without rehab, without education, and without vocational training, because that is a &#39;drain on the system&#39; and these people are just &#39;free riders&#39;.
Other people&#39;s money isn&#39;t mine to give in favour of any &#39;pet&#39; group. I have no intention of sowing the seeds of pork barrel politics.

Really, they are products of a society that forces competition onto them for jobs and necessary resources, and a society that demands that a certain percentage of the population be excluded from participation to encourage &#39;competitiveness&#39; among the working population.

I always use the example when arguing about the homeless: When they are children, people want to be doctors, lawyers, firemen/women. Nobody wants to grow up to be a crack addict, a prostitute, or a guy on a corner who drinks Listerine for kicks.
I don&#39;t agree- They&#39;re the easy options. Suffering and getting into that situation is easy; it&#39;s sucess and getting out of it that requires effort. I remember reading in a news article about beggars holding "Will work for food" signs. Most of them, when given the opportunity to work, declined.

If, by nature and definition, social exclusion is a necessary part of any society (i.e. capitalism), then I want no part of it. I&#39;d rather live in a society where people are free and able to produce what they need to survive on their own, without being forced to rely on &#39;the market&#39; and its &#39;conditions&#39; for their survival.
There isn&#39;t anything stopping them.

In an alternative society, there will be no such thing as economic need to drive production. It will be material need, and anyone materially interested in the production of anything will have to work to reap the benefits of the produce of the society. It&#39;s not a tough concept to grasp.
So how is it any different in practice?

If I was interested in the production of a road that went West, and others in my society also were interested, then we could combine our efforts and build the road. Meanwhile, other people in the society interested in, say, eating food, would be involved in the production of it. But since both things are necessary to the smooth functioning of society, the people involved in road building could depend on the society to produce enough food to feed them too, since everyone in the society would also be able to use the road. It&#39;s reciprocal. What needs doing will be done.
That&#39;s what happens in this society, last time I checked.

Meanwhile, in these capitalist societies, only things that will bring a profit will be produced.
Nothing will bring a profit unless people have a &#39;material interest&#39; in it and want to buy it. You&#39;re talking nonsense.

Not things that are necessarily needed. A road that is not directly in the interests of rich capitalists will never be built, no matter if a community demands it indefinitely.
There&#39;s nothing stopping the community doing that today. Your only potential obstacle would be the government or the local council, which in my opinion, have too much power anyway.

[red team]

A large proportion of the rest are street youth, who usually come from broken homes characterized by poverty, abuse, and drug problems. These kids never even have a chance to grow into &#39;productive adults&#39;. They are trapped in cycles of destruction, poverty, and destitution, and right-wingers like you would see them without shelters, without rehab, without education, and without vocational training, because that is a &#39;drain on the system&#39; and these people are just &#39;free riders&#39;.

Other people&#39;s money isn&#39;t mine to give in favour of any &#39;pet&#39; group. I have no intention of sowing the seeds of pork barrel politics.

If I was interested in the production of a road that went West, and others in my society also were interested, then we could combine our efforts and build the road. Meanwhile, other people in the society interested in, say, eating food, would be involved in the production of it. But since both things are necessary to the smooth functioning of society, the people involved in road building could depend on the society to produce enough food to feed them too, since everyone in the society would also be able to use the road. It&#39;s reciprocal. What needs doing will be done.

That&#39;s what happens in this society, last time I checked.

Meanwhile, in these capitalist societies, only things that will bring a profit will be produced.

Nothing will bring a profit unless people have a &#39;material interest&#39; in it and want to buy it. You&#39;re talking nonsense.


One of the justification of the Capitalist system is that profit will be reinvested back into production thus making it even more productive by having people working in the newly invested means of production.

Fine, then how would you justify luxury items like mansions, half-million dollar sports cars and super yachts as being profits reinvested into production? It&#39;s more like you&#39;re expropriating the labour of others for your own selfish decadence. If profit is to be justified by reason of it being able to expand production and therefore increase wealth for those participating in production then there should be a law limiting profits to investment for production purposes only. And if you don&#39;t invest it into production then the state will simply "borrow" it to be invested into production. If you take out profits for consumption purposes then that&#39;s simply theft of labour. We know how to deal with theft.

[Tungsten]

red team

One of the justification of the Capitalist system
Not mine.

is that profit will be reinvested back into production thus making it even more productive by having people working in the newly invested means of production.
Reinvestment isn&#39;t optional.

Fine, then how would you justify luxury items like mansions, half-million dollar sports cars and super yachts as being profits reinvested into production?
They&#39;re not reinvestments and it isn&#39;t relevent to the issue being discussed. People wouldn&#39;t provide these things if there wasn&#39;t a demand for them.

It&#39;s more like you&#39;re expropriating the labour of others for your own selfish decadence.
What are you talking about? Who cares if some people are expropriating the labour of others anyway? As a famous person once said:


Justice is relative. Morality is irrelevant.


If profit is to be justified by reason of it being able to expand production and therefore increase wealth for those participating in production then there should be a law limiting profits to investment for production purposes only.
When did I suggest that and why should they anyway? Should they limit the worker&#39;s wages to "investment for production purposes only"? Have fun working for nothing but subsistence...or are you calling for special pleading?

And if you don&#39;t invest it into production then the state will simply "borrow" it to be invested into production.
The state "produces" very little and shouldn&#39;t be involved in the role of production.

If you take out profits for consumption purposes then that&#39;s simply theft of labour. We know how to deal with theft.
But then you&#39;d have to "deal" with all the workers for demanding something other than subsistence (i.e. for their selfish decadence) and not simply working for the sake of it.

[red team]

But then you&#39;d have to "deal" with all the workers for demanding something other than subsistence (i.e. for their selfish decadence) and not simply working for the sake of it.

First of all, their not workers if they take out profits. Workers earn a wage, they don&#39;t extract profits. As for "dealing" with people who take out profits for consumption, use your imagination.

[Tungsten]

red team

First of all, their not workers if they take out profits. Workers earn a wage, they don&#39;t extract profits.
Wages are profits, surplus to production costs. You&#39;re calling for special pleading.

[cyu]

Wages are profits, surplus to production costs. You&#39;re calling for special pleading.

Actually if you believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit, wages are counted as part of the cost of production, not profit:

"In the accounting sense of the term, net profit (before tax) is the sales of the firm less costs like as wages, rent, fuel, raw materials, interest on loans and depreciation. Within US business, the preferred term for profit tends to be the more ambiguous income."

[RedSkvnk]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 09:02 PM

There are economic classifications, but aside from that, people really aren&#39;t forced into a social role directly at all anyomore. No-one is expected to be a certain way and be a certain person from birth. That kind of thinking perhaps pervades in some of the older Aristocratic families of Europe, but not in the new world, or indeed much of third.

Under capitalism, you classify people, but I agree, there aren&#39;t any social classes anymore.

It sounds like you&#39;re thinking more of a caste system.
Yes, exactly. Serfs in the Middle Ages were under a caste system. Slavery in the southern United States was a caste system.

The United States today is a class system. A class system springs up whenever you have economic disparity. Class is mobile, in flux. Caste is static.

And economic disparity crops up whenever you have specialization of the labor force. That is what I don&#39;t understand about communists and socialists. Hunter-gatherer societies were classless and casteless. They were small bands of people. It was communism, anarchism, and everything else that everyone on here parades around about. But as soon as specialization of labor began, this was thrown out the window. Instead of &#39;everyone collects the food,&#39; now you have some people who grow food, and some people who perform brain surgery. Under a properly functioning class system, you&#39;d get what you put in. And this seems entirely fair.

[cyu]

Under a properly functioning class system, you&#39;d get what you put in. And this seems entirely fair.

The objection to capitalism comes from the fact that shareholders aren&#39;t doing any real work, and yet the reap the largest rewards. It&#39;s not a "you get what you put in" as far as hard work is concerned. You could say they are fairly awarded because they put in a lot of capital. Anti-capitalists would respond that they shouldn&#39;t have the right to own the means of production in the first place.

[overlord]

The objection to capitalism comes from the fact that shareholders aren&#39;t doing any real work, and yet the reap the largest rewards. It&#39;s not a "you get what you put in" as far as hard work is concerned. You could say they are fairly awarded because they put in a lot of capital. Anti-capitalists would respond that they shouldn&#39;t have the right to own the means of production in the first place.

:huh: Those shareholders worked hard for the capital to buy those shares. So it is a &#39;you get what you put in&#39;. And why shouldn&#39;t they be rewarded?

[KC]

And economic disparity crops up whenever you have specialization of the labor force. That is what I don&#39;t understand about communists and socialists. Hunter-gatherer societies were classless and casteless. They were small bands of people. It was communism, anarchism, and everything else that everyone on here parades around about. But as soon as specialization of labor began, this was thrown out the window. Instead of &#39;everyone collects the food,&#39; now you have some people who grow food, and some people who perform brain surgery. Under a properly functioning class system, you&#39;d get what you put in. And this seems entirely fair.

This isn&#39;t specialization of labour; it is division of labour.


Under a properly functioning class system, you&#39;d get what you put in. And this seems entirely fair.

If I work my ass off to rob someone&#39;s house, am I entitled to what I stole?

[amanondeathrow]

huh.gif Those shareholders worked hard for the capital to buy those shares. So it is a &#39;you get what you put in&#39;. And why shouldn&#39;t they be rewarded?

There is no guarantee that every share holder "worked hard" for the money to buy stock.

Regardless, an economy should not revolve around the needs of those wealthy enough to buy large amounts of stock and overlook those who actually work and are responsible for the increase in the share&#39;s value.

The act of owning shares does not entitle someone to a "reward".

But actually being physically responsible for the creation of a product defiantly entitles the creator to their fair share of the profits and that is what is prevented by solely rewarding shareholders.

[cyu]

Those shareholders worked hard for the capital to buy those shares. So it is a &#39;you get what you put in&#39;. And why shouldn&#39;t they be rewarded?

I&#39;m sure slaveholders "worked hard" for the money to buy those slaves as well, but why shouldn&#39;t they be rewarded? It&#39;s a basic question of fairness and freedom. Anti-capitalists want to end the exploitive relationship between owner and slave as well as the exploitive relationship between owner and wage slave.