Support capitalism?

[Dyst]

In the current situation, I think we have got two choises when it comes to "ideologies".

One is a system in which the market is allowed more or less freely to exploit, and the state is quite small.

The other is a system in which the market is regulated in a bigger degree, and therefore the state is larger.

The main question I was wondering was if we actually should support capitalism now. According to historical materialism it would be the most progressive thing to do, or so I it seems to me. Capitalism "inevitably" will lead to it's own destruction, and eventually communism.

Obviously I don't "want" capitalism, but read what Engels wrote in my signature.

This is actually quite paradoxical.

[Red Axis]

I think we need to give small doses of socialism until communism comes. That was Kruschev's theory about what to do with the USA.

[Everyday Anarchy]

I don't think it's really as black and white as you are seeing it. You can be against the heavily regulated market/larger state without supporting Capitalism and vice versa.

Think outside of the lines they've drawn and create your own side if you don't agree with theirs, otherwise you're just a pawn in their chess game.


We should certainly promote Capitalism in (semi-)feudal nations as that's progressive. But in the older Capitalist nations, I think it's our duty to actively fight it so that it can begin to collapse.

[Dyst]

Yeah, I get what you are saying Xero.

It is just that it can feel a little hopeless sometimes when you realize what we are up against.

And it seems to me that a rather large part of the "left" is actually promoting capitalism in a sense (not intentionally). That might be more the case where I live (Scandinavia) than f.ex. the US though.

When people think of leftism, communism or socialism they think of a strong, dominant state.

I don't want a strong state. I want a place in which no one is "above" others, put there through exploiting others. Capitalism does not allow this place to exist, neither does "a state".

[philosopher]

The only part of the current system that should be maintained is the free market. There is no better way to ensure that the highest quality goods are produced. Poor quality doesn’t sell or get produced for long.

The big problem with capitalism is the handicap it places on production. Because the manufacturing companies are privately owned they make decisions in their own interest. Take the example of the Dyson vacuum cleaner which was invented outside the industry, the established capitalists refused to make it even though they knew it was a better product because of their investment in their existing products in the form of factory tooling and established advertising.

Dyson managed finally to launch it himself using his own resources. People should not have to be rich to contribute in this way only clever.

Ownership of the production process should not be in private hands but owned by the community and available to all.

With a more adaptable production process including the involvement of more people the communist goal will be achieved much quicker.

http://www.dyson.com/nav/inpageframe.asp?i...N/HIST/NEWPLACE (http://www.dyson.com/nav/inpageframe.asp?id=DYSON/HIST/NEWPLACE)

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:20 PM
In the current situation, I think we have got two choises when it comes to "ideologies".

One is a system in which the market is allowed more or less freely to exploit, and the state is quite small.

The other is a system in which the market is regulated in a bigger degree, and therefore the state is larger.

The main question I was wondering was if we actually should support capitalism now. According to historical materialism it would be the most progressive thing to do, or so I it seems to me. Capitalism "inevitably" will lead to it's own destruction, and eventually communism.

Obviously I don't "want" capitalism, but read what Engels wrote in my signature.

This is actually quite paradoxical.
I don't quite understand the distinction you're making.

Both (a) the free market and (b) a state regulated market are both capitalist.

The key difference is that (a) leaves workers and other vulnerable groups at the mercy of the profit motive, whereas (b) tends to protect workers (& others) from naked exploitation by regulating (blunting) the activity of capitalism and providing partial redress through the allocation of state directed welfare.

The 1st World paradigms at our disposal are the USA (free market/minimal welfare) and, for sake of argument, France (quasi-regulated markets/generous welfare). To defend 'free market' capitalism against 'state regulated' capitalism will put you in some difficult positions.

For instance, the recent actions in France have been a defensive struggle against the State's desire to relinquish its employment protection in favour of capitalist interests. To support the French State against the interests of the French working class, as you seem to suggest, would be the opposite of progressive.

In the UK, where I'm from, we've suffered at least 25 years of pro-free market governments trying to roll back the State and pass control to "the market". In the process, the gap between rich and poor has widened. The workers have not benefited a jot.

In the real here and now, socialists (and that goes for other leftists) in the 1st World need to be defending and (where possible) extending state control over the free market whilst, at the same time, being clear that the abolition of capitalism is the only possible way of guaranteeing a truly equal society.

[Hit The North]

The only part of the current system that should be maintained is the free market. There is no better way to ensure that the highest quality goods are produced. Poor quality doesn�t sell or get produced for long.


The free market is the head of the serpent and needs cutting off. The free market only produces the "highest quality goods" for those who can afford them.

Which brings me to this:


The big problem with capitalism is the handicap it places on production.

Nope. Its major problem is the handicap it places on distribution.

[philosopher]

High quality goods can be as cheap as candy or can of beer. The free market ensures they are well produced. Leave it to state planning and some bureaucrat will decide that we don’t need them any more.

[Hit The North]

High quality goods can be as cheap as candy or can of beer.

And the difference between cheap candy and high quality candy is what?


The free market ensures they are well produced. Leave it to state planning and some bureaucrat will decide that we don’t need them any more.

True, a state bureaucrat might decide that SUV's are too costly for the environment and want to ban them. Meanwhile the "market" might decide that they are profitable and want to promote them.

Which would be the most progressive position?

[philosopher]

The difference is the taste. If it doesn’t matter if people buy it or not you may as well water the beer down.

You could load tax on the SUv

[Hit The North]

You could load tax on the SUv

I doubt the apostles of the free market would like that. They'd complain that the state was taxing their product out of existence.

The point is that the "market" is only interested in profitability - and if that was at the expense of the environment then so be it.

No one on the Left has any business defending the free market - it is Capitalism in its pure, unadulterated and most socially irresponsible form.

[philosopher]

Capitalism is the private ownership of businesses. The free market can still exist where worker enterprises sell products to earn their own money renting all equipment from the state and nobody owns any part of the business or benefits from any surplus value

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:06 AM
Capitalism is the private ownership of businesses. The free market can still exist where worker enterprises sell products to earn their own money renting all equipment from the state and nobody owns any part of the business or benefits from any surplus value
Interesting idea, but how I see it is that the free market can only function on the basis of competition between producers of goods and services both at the level of production (cost) and distribution (price).

Not sure how that would fit in with a non-owning, non profit-making workers paradise.

[philosopher]

Profit becomes wages. All money over production cost would be distributed to the workforce according to the company’s constitution. No accumulation of capital within the company should be allowed to occur. The state would provide all national reinvestment from rents received.

[Hit The North]

But where do the profits come from?

[philosopher]

The difference between production cost and sale price.

[Hit The North]

But surely in a competitive free market the gap between cost and price would tend towards zero.

Also, why are these "workers enterprises" ripping off the consumer by attempting to sell goods above their value?

[philosopher]

The workers are including their wages when they work out the sale price. Nobody expects the workers to receive nothing for their work.

Prices always tend toward zero but that will also apply to what you need to buy.

When prices reach zero you have no labour cost left and you have reached communism

[piet11111]

like marx said capitalism provides the foundation for revolution (advanced proletariat and means of production) and as such is an absolute requirement for succesfull revolution.

especially if you combine a bit of lenin "the capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with" meaning we can easily aquire the means of revolution in a capitalist nation.

but capitalism should only be "tolerated" (the word supported is implicating things i dont even want to say) where it is historically progressive.
and its obvious that it is no longer progressive in the first world country's

[philosopher]

Keep the market, kick out the capitalist.

[wet blanket]

In the current situation, I think we have got two choises when it comes to "ideologies".
Oh there's a lot more than just two.


One is a system in which the market is allowed more or less freely to exploit, and the state is quite small.
The other is a system in which the market is regulated in a bigger degree, and therefore the state is larger.

I'd hardly call these two entirely different systems, but rather different phases of capitalism, the intervention of the state with social security and 'new deal' type reforms are simply self-preservation measures taken by the capitalist state to avoid some of the nasty side-effects of unregulated capitalism.


The main question I was wondering was if we actually should support capitalism now. According to historical materialism it would be the most progressive thing to do, or so I it seems to me. Capitalism "inevitably" will lead to it's own destruction, and eventually communism.
Depends on what you mean by 'support'. In the case of 3rd world economies, I think it would be most economically beneficial for the countries to go through a sort of protectionist stage of development with a progressive emphasis on infrastructure rather than a deregulated market free-for-all or Leninist/Maoist despotism. However I wouldn't support capitalism and would prefer the working class be as class-conscious and organized as possible until the means of production have reached a stage of development where a desirable form of socialism is materially feasible.

[anomaly]

We think communism is inevitable, yes. That, of course, cannot be proven.

But it certainly will not come if we don't put our message out there. So should we support capitalism? Certainly not.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by philosopher
The only part of the current system that should be maintained is the free market. There is no better way to ensure that the highest quality goods are produced. Poor quality doesn’t sell or get produced for long.

It always frustrates me when these kinds of bourgeois claims are mindlessly repeated on the "left".

Shoddy overpriced goods are a constant in the "free market"...as ubiquitous as shit in a barnyard!

Buying damn near anything in a "free market" is a gamble...you hope it will do what it says and not break down.

"Customer service" serves the customer the way a bull serves a cow. :angry:

Has anyone here ever actually received a "mail-in rebate"? :lol:

There is much that may be argued about how a post-capitalist economy might be structured.

I'm against free markets across the board!

No exceptions.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Brownfist]

Well extending a completely Marxist analysis to the current historical-economic situation we could argue that it is important for Marxists to support capitalism currently. The arguement that would follow is that capitalism will create the very conditions by which their can be a shift to socialism. I mean within Marx's own writings there is a tension between the revolutionary and social democratic narratives, however, Marx consistently emphasized capitalism as a necessary evil. I mean it could be arguing that we have not yet reached the highest stage of capitalism which could lead to socialism. However, simultaneously, I would argue that capitalism can incorporate any critique/challenge to its current mode of production and effectively is always evolving, thus there is never a stage of crisis, but rather smaller moments of crisis.

[philosopher]

Overpriced poor quality is the result of hype. Privately owned companies overspend on advertising creating well known brand names which people buy for the name and not necessarily for what’s in the tin. These trade names which are the accumulation of surplus value and become the property of private owners under capitalism would not hold an attraction to non-accumulating worker enterprises who would; as a result have a “use rental” added for their use and where the revenue raised would reduce assent rental cost for everyone else

[Black Dagger]

Profit becomes wages. All money over production cost would be distributed to the workforce according to the company’s constitution. No accumulation of capital within the company should be allowed to occur. The state would provide all national reinvestment from rents received.

Who determines the actual wage levels? If workers receive wages based on the 'profits' that the company they work make, what of workers who toil for less profitable companies? You're allowing wealth inequality to fester.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:45 AM
Keep the market, kick out the capitalist.
Bourgeois proponents of the virtues of the market insist that it is competition which delivers quality as companies vie to seize chunks of the available market and magically respond to the demands of the consumer.

Unless your ideal society incorprates competition between these "workers enterprises" then it is difficult to see how your proposed market mechanisms will deliver the quality goods which seem so important to you.

Under capitalism, competition is on the basis of profitability as each capitalist attempts to dominate over competitors by delivering "quality" at lower unit prices. This necessitates either technological innovation in order to increase worker productivity and the rate of exploitation or attacks on workers wages. Alternatively it can be achieved through the utilisation of cheap labour in the 3rd world, i.e. where the rate of exploitation is already high.

What mechanisms of competition do you propose will exist between your workers enterprises and how will you ensure that this competition does not result in an increase in inequality?

It seems that by saying "Keep the market, kick out the capitalist" you're merely advocating capitalism in the absence of capitalists. A sort of State Capitalism.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:20 PM
The main question I was wondering was if we actually should support capitalism now. According to historical materialism it would be the most progressive thing to do, or so I it seems to me. Capitalism "inevitably" will lead to it's own destruction, and eventually communism.
That's what the Mensheviks argued.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 07:45 AM
Well extending a completely Marxist analysis to the current historical-economic situation we could argue that it is important for Marxists to support capitalism currently. The arguement that would follow is that capitalism will create the very conditions by which their can be a shift to socialism. I mean within Marx's own writings there is a tension between the revolutionary and social democratic narratives, however, Marx consistently emphasized capitalism as a necessary evil. I mean it could be arguing that we have not yet reached the highest stage of capitalism which could lead to socialism. However, simultaneously, I would argue that capitalism can incorporate any critique/challenge to its current mode of production and effectively is always evolving, thus there is never a stage of crisis, but rather smaller moments of crisis.
Capitalism doesn't need to reach some "higher stage", it merely needs to set the material conditions upon which socialism can be built. This has already been achieved. What is required now is that workers recognise their objective interests in overthrowing capitalism.

This won't happen if the revolutionary left lapse into some abstract defence of capitalism as "historically necessary". Of course, Marx, writing in the 19th Century, where capitalism existed in only a handful of countries, could make such an argument. Remember, at least half of European nations were still fighting against despotic, monarchical regimes. But, today, in the face of a globalised capitalist economy, the argument that it is still "historically necessary" is absurd.

[philosopher]

The market decides wage levels as a result of quantity of products sold and price achieved.

Only use of more labour saving machines, use of established trade names and increased effort of the workforce will increase profitability, the first two the state charges rent for their use and income from increased effort of the workforce they are entitled to.

Obviously there is competition between workforces but without the facility to accumulate surplus value in the form of assets within the enterprises there is only the possibility of earning extra money through more effort day by day and no way to gain any kind of domination

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 5 2006, 01:45 PM


Under capitalism, competition is on the basis of profitability as each capitalist attempts to dominate over competitors by delivering "quality" at lower unit prices. This necessitates either technological innovation in order to increase worker productivity and the rate of exploitation or attacks on workers wages. Alternatively it can be achieved through the utilisation of cheap labour in the 3rd world, i.e. where the rate of exploitation is already high.


As you say under capitalism.

The idea that all competition only exists to bring about domination was never put forward by Marx, merely that private ownership of the means of production leads to this through the accumulation of surplus value

[philosopher]

It seems to me that many people believe the propaganda of the capitalist that the market is responsible for all the worlds’ inequality and not their ownership and management of it.

Bear in mind “a bad workman always blames his tools”.

[Brownfist]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+May 5 2006, 10:04 AM--> (Citizen Zero @ May 5 2006, 10:04 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 07:45 AM
Well extending a completely Marxist analysis to the current historical-economic situation we could argue that it is important for Marxists to support capitalism currently. The arguement that would follow is that capitalism will create the very conditions by which their can be a shift to socialism. I mean within Marx's own writings there is a tension between the revolutionary and social democratic narratives, however, Marx consistently emphasized capitalism as a necessary evil. I mean it could be arguing that we have not yet reached the highest stage of capitalism which could lead to socialism. However, simultaneously, I would argue that capitalism can incorporate any critique/challenge to its current mode of production and effectively is always evolving, thus there is never a stage of crisis, but rather smaller moments of crisis.
Capitalism doesn't need to reach some "higher stage", it merely needs to set the material conditions upon which socialism can be built. This has already been achieved. What is required now is that workers recognise their objective interests in overthrowing capitalism.

This won't happen if the revolutionary left lapse into some abstract defence of capitalism as "historically necessary". Of course, Marx, writing in the 19th Century, where capitalism existed in only a handful of countries, could make such an argument. Remember, at least half of European nations were still fighting against despotic, monarchical regimes. But, today, in the face of a globalised capitalist economy, the argument that it is still "historically necessary" is absurd. [/b]

Capitalism doesn't need to reach some "higher stage", it merely needs to set the material conditions upon which socialism can be built. This has already been achieved. What is required now is that workers recognise their objective interests in overthrowing capitalism.

Well I think the question of stages of capitalism does influence our analysis whether such material conditions upon which socialism can be built is still a question. There are a number of Marxist political economists who are spending innumerable hours and pages of books attempting to deal with the very question that you have already foreclosed. All have come out with different suggestions which need to be grappled with. Some suggest looking at the different capitalist flows (Mcnally, Panitch, Woods) others have argued that we have come to a pt. of empire and not imperialism (Hardt and Negri).

The second part of your statement is interesting. This is because I think that majority of the Left have completely avoided the question of worker subjectivity, and the work of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. He would argue that due to the ideology that is developed by the hegemonic bourgeois state the working class is inculcated with bourgeois ideology itself, and has become complacent. He, thus, suggests that the role of the party is also to create counter-hegemonic culture, which is something that is sorely lacking in the current Left. I mean something simple is the terrible posters we put up. I mean if we look at the aesthetics of posters during the Russian Revolution and now, or Spanish civil war and now, we realize that our current posters are ugly as hell.


But, today, in the face of a globalised capitalist economy, the argument that it is still "historically necessary" is absurd.

This sounds a bit like economic determinism. Perhaps you could please explain how a globalized capitalist economy makes it absurd? I mean you have yourself argued that workers do not recognize their objective interests, perhaps this is because the necessary material conditions have been laid. I am just trying to understand why "globalization" is what will cause the crises that leads to revolution. I mean globalization is not a completed project, and to me it seems that workers are still rooted within a national identity which inhibits them from empatizing with workers in different countries, especially hostile countries. Hypothetically, with the development of globalization we can see a withering away of the nation-state and the rise of a nationless proletariat.

By the way, just before someone says that I am a capitalist, I am not. I am just theorizing the question at hand.

[philosopher]

In answer to the many concerns about equality; the rental system of labour saving devices under the trusteeship of the state wouldl allow for constant adjustments to maintain balance.

Fortunately this would form part of a Democratic free choice society and does not require finite structure from the start but would allow all to contribute and make adjustments as lessons are learnt.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero
Capitalism doesn't need to reach some "higher stage", it merely needs to set the material conditions upon which socialism can be built. This has already been achieved.

In western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the greater Shanghai metropolitan area, Singapore...you know, the really well-developed places.

Otherwise no.

And besides, is "socialism" what we really want?

Being ruled by a gaggle of pip-squeak Leninists strikes me as hopelessly anachronistic...regardless of their "benevolent intentions".

Why should modern workers regard that as "in their class interests"?

The whole purpose of the "lower stage of communism" was to develop the material basis for the abundance required for the "higher stage" of communism...and the capitalists seem to be doing that.

To what end, then, should we take the trouble to install a "revolutionary" elite to do what is already being done?

Because the Leninists are "better looking" than our current despots? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hit The North]

In western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, the greater Shanghai metropolitan area, Singapore...you know, the really well-developed places.

Otherwise no.

So what? It's not required for, say, Nepal, to become a mature capitalist economy before we launch the revolution in the 1st World. If it was, we'd be waiting a long time, given that global capitalism imposes economic dependency on the 3rd World.

The idea in a 21st century globalised capitalist economy that capitalism has any progressive role to play in the 3rd World is an anachronism which can only apply if one ignores the imperialist nature of the beast itself.


And besides, is "socialism" what we really want?

My understanding (based on Marx and Engels) is that socialism is what you get after the overthrow of capitalism. Communism comes much later when the class antagonisms have finally been eliminated. Of course, it would be nice to make the leap straight to a stateless, self-regulating society of producers, but given that the Left is not in possession of a time machine, it's not likely.


The whole purpose of the "lower stage of communism" was to develop the material basis for the abundance required for the "higher stage" of communism...and the capitalists seem to be doing that.

To what end, then, should we take the trouble to install a "revolutionary" elite to do what is already being done?

The "lower stage of communism" is not a concept I'm familiar with. Is this some kind of Stalinist or Maoist formulation?


Because the Leninists are "better looking" than our current despots?

Who mentioned Lenin? The revolution can only be the act of the working class itself. Accept no substitution.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:45 PM
Obviously there is competition between workforces but without the facility to accumulate surplus value in the form of assets within the enterprises there is only the possibility of earning extra money through more effort day by day and no way to gain any kind of domination
Why is there competition between workforces? What would drive one "workers enterprise" manufacturing lampshades to compete with another "workers enterprise" producing lampshades? What would be the incentive?


It seems to me that many people believe the propaganda of the capitalist that the market is responsible for all the worlds’ inequality and not their ownership and management of it.

You cannot divorce the market from the development and operation of capital. The market isn't some ahistorical phenomenon which transcends the relations of production.

[Brownfist]

Citizen Zero, the concept of lower and higher stages of capitalism is a Leninist idea. Lenin discusses this in his book Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism. In your discussion of the third world and its relationship to globalization, am I to assume that you do agree with national liberation movements?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:27 PM
Citizen Zero, the concept of lower and higher stages of capitalism is a Leninist idea. Lenin discusses this in his book Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism. In your discussion of the third world and its relationship to globalization, am I to assume that you do agree with national liberation movements?
I support all struggles against imperialism.

So, returning to the question at hand, Leftists should not support 'free market capitalism' over 'state regulated capitalism' because to do so only strengthens the hand of imperialism. Why else would the World Bank and the IMF be imposing such naked free market policies on the third world?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade Zero
My understanding (based on Marx and Engels) is that socialism is what you get after the overthrow of capitalism. Communism comes much later when the class antagonisms have finally been eliminated.

Yes, this is what they thought, based on the objective material conditions of 19th century capitalism.

Still valid?

Nah.


The "lower stage of communism" is not a concept I'm familiar with.

Marx did not particularly like the word "socialism"...as in

capitalism -> socialism -> communism.

He preferred...

capitalism -> lower stage of communism -> higher stage of communism.

Means the same thing.

That whole "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" thing is the "higher stage of communism"...what we actually want.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[angus_mor]

The development of Capitalism is directly related to the achievement of socialism; for this reason it is necessary, or atleast until each nation has become industrialized. Although state-capitalism may allow 3rd world nations to develope more efficiently, if the market became united with the state aparatus, such consolidation of economic power would be hard to decentralize. For other nations that have developed into a more socialist format, market socialism seems to be a necessary organ of modern socialism in order to maintain the national economy. China's experiences have shown that modification was necessary in order to grow, though its hard to observe where market socialism ends, and state-capitalism begins (China: market socialist, or state-capitalist?).

It appears that the future of capitalism, and the world, is in the USA, it is slowly being overtaken by China, in which case China could end up being the decisive factor. If socialism were to be introduced to the US, then it would change everything, how the world would end up is anybody's guess. Though it seems that capitalism in a number of vulgar forms will be necessary in the grotesque transition to an egalitarian society.

[Fistful of Steel]

If the majority of first world countries adhere to a genuinely socialist tendency, then I don't think it's necessary for developing nations to become capitalist, as with major support they might be able to bypass the traditional route. We're already in a stage of capitalism succumbing to its own vices, we merely have to work towards the people getting wind of their own worth.

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 5 2006, 05:16 PM

Why is there competition between workforces? What would drive one "workers enterprise" manufacturing lampshades to compete with another "workers enterprise" producing lampshades? What would be the incentive?


To earn more money by making better lampshades than other workers; after deducting the expenses for any of the labour saving devices etc that may give them an advantage in production cost.

How else are you going to ensure good quality if you insist on shying away from competition.

During the cultural revolution where no incentives were allowed in the production process Chinese workers made pencils with no lead to meet production targets.
No sale required. No quality required. Not the workers problem.

People are not interested in crazy egalitarian equality rules some people want to work under pressure for a greater reward others want more free time and are prepared to earn less. You cant tell them what to do.

[philosopher]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 5 2006, 05:16 PM


You cannot divorce the market from the development and operation of capital. The market isn't some ahistorical phenomenon which transcends the relations of production.
In you’re not very well informed or developed opinion.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think we need to give small doses of socialism until communism comes. That was Kruschev's theory about what to do with the USA.

I think this is a good idea. However, in order to do this, we'd need to participate in bourgeouis politics and form 1 strong unified Communist/Socialist party. We'd need to raise money and run adds. Many Commnists disagree with such an agenda.

[piet11111]

philosopher if you had to label yourself something then what description would best fit you ?

as in are you a capitalist-socialist-leninist-anarchist-marxist-maoist-stalinist-libertarian etc etc.

[philosopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:00 PM
philosopher if you had to label yourself something then what description would best fit you ?

as in are you a capitalist-socialist-leninist-anarchist-marxist-maoist-stalinist-libertarian etc etc.
Marxist / Communist

[angus_mor]

In Soviet Russia, being a degenerated workers' state, there was a huge lack of incentive, and production quality was also quite poor as a result. This is one of the greatest challenges facing Socialism; the need for competition in the market. But why is this? What is the cause of this? How do we change this?

It is, in my own humble opinion, the result of development in capitalist culture; we are raised to believe that it's every man for himself, dog eat dog, working only in petty self interest. The class character of society has caused a demand for such ideas as Workers' Democracy, and Workers' Councils, but the consequences observed in molding a Workers' State are staggering odds against Socialism. It is not the market itself which is the problem, it is the free, unrestrained, laissez faire market. In all forms of economic organization, society must answer the three fundamental questions of what to produce, how to produce, and for whom to produce. Socialist Dictatorships have resorted to party coordinatorism to answer them, and as has been pointed out by myself and others in this thread, the workers' incentive was sacrificed in the process. It seems to me that the major problem reflected in this case and in other modes of Socialism is a disregard for the consumer. I think the solution to this problem is a balance of Workers' and Consumers' Councils, a kind of Participatory Economics. If the idea behind communist society is to work in the interest of the community at large, then shouldn't they, the consumer, have a say in production? Such an idea makes the question of what to produce much easier to answer.

In conclusion, the market is and always will be part of society, how it is controlled will not. Now the question of supply can be answered by Workers' Councils, and demand can be handled likewise by Consumers' Councils.

BTW, Participatory Economics is not my idea, not taking credit, but if you'd like to read more on the subject, wikisearch Parecon.

[Herman]

In conclusion, the market is and always will be part of society

This is untrue. It's the same as saying that greed is part of 'human nature', which is a myth. You cannot say that a market has always been part of society.
However, what we can say is that human conditions in a Socialist society might require a market based economy based on worker's councils and cooperatives (By the way, I'm a strong supporter of state-based economy, just so you don't get the wrong idea).

[angus_mor]

Ya gotta point there,

There couldn't possibly have been a market in early, nomadic, hunter-gatherer, primitive communist societies. With the achievement of a higher form of communism, there won't be a market, I am not denying this, however in transitional Socialist periods, a market will be necessary in a state apparatus that must account for its citizens.

Sorry for misleading you, I should've made that a little more clear. :blush:

[KC]

Citizen Zero, the concept of lower and higher stages of capitalism is a Leninist idea.

Actually, Marx was the first to discuss these stages in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.