Capitalism

[Ali.Cat]

Educate me on what many of you see as the problems of capitalism. I don't need anyone to defend communism, because I get the reasons why people want it so bad - well for the most part. My thing is, I hate the fact that I have to work to live, but that's as far as my dislikes with capitalism go. In Canada we aren't taught about the negative effects of Capitalism, people are incredibly bias in the education system - which I guess I understand, but don't agree with. So if you guys could simplify the main concerns with capitalism for me I would be very grateful.

Thanks :)

[which doctor]

I will try to simplify a main idea to capitalism and why it will ultimately fail.

The end goal of capitalism to put most of the wealth in the hands of the very few. Income disparity will continue to rise as capitalism proceeds through history. We can see evidence of this in America as living costs rise, the middle class is shrinking and finding it harder to live, and the working class is rising. The bourgeois class is also getting paid more. When income disparity grows to a high enough level and the proletariat realizes they are getting screwed and they can't count on politicians to help them, they will revolt.

We can see what happens when America (a country really lacking a proletariat movement) progresses through history. Income inequality rises.

Gini Coefficient in America
* 1970: 0.394
* 1980: 0.403
* 1990: 0.428
* 2000: 0.462

The higher the number the worse it gets. America has the highest income disparity among old-capitalist nations.

In my opinion America is economically ready for a revolution, but they are not socially ready. European countries are ready socially, but not economically.

I went off on a tangent, oh well.

The fact is whether you like the system or not, it cannot work in the long-term.

[Ali.Cat]

I don't mind tangents :P


In my opinion America is economically ready for a revolution, but they are not socially ready. European countries are ready socially, but not economically.

Could you explain this a little more with examples... I'd really appreciate it, Thanks!

[elmo sez]

The Work Shop Talks by James Connoly - Explains alot in relativly simple terms , its on the site somewhere , but for some reason i always forget were it is :angry: If i find it ill post it , but im sure youll get it in a search engine

Basically Capitalism is a system were the workers produce the goods but dont own what they have worked to produce, because they do not own the tools or means of production which they have used to create the product, the will only recieve a percentage of the value in the form of a wage. While the capitalist ( the guy who owns the means of production ie tools factory machines ) who has done little or no work,keeps the vast majority of what the workers have slogged to create.

Example ( a very simple example )

There is a factory owned by one man , the capitalist . This factory cost him $100,000 to set up. He employs 5 workers to work and produce products in his factory. These workers are paid $10,000 a year.So thats $50,000 in costs for the workers wages. The company's gross profits are $100,000 a year, so with the costs of wages takin away at the end of the year. Compnay Net profit is $50,000 .

This goes to payin off the money invested, so at the end of 2 years the capitalist has made all of his money back. Now every year, he keeps getting $50,000 for nothing , he is profiting on what the workers produced.

So when you look at things like this you realise that in effect the workers make $100,000 a year and then give half of it away to the capitalist because he "owns" the factory, and who has contributed nothing to the production of the product, but the origional investment - Giving rise to the old saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

That is one basic element of capitalism

How ever there are far more which i have let out of the equation. Hopefully this small bit makes sense to you. let me know if it doesnt . ;) Cause sometimes it takes a while to get your head around this stuff.

EDIT: spelling mistakes i bet theres still aload in there lol

[Ali.Cat]

Hopefully this small bit makes sense to you

It makes complete sense, thanks.

But I guess I'm asking about a little more than that. For example, one of my concerns with the idea of communism is that many communists seem to think the bourgeois class do nothing for the money they make - at least this is what I have taken from the things I have read and people I have talked to. I really don't understand that - I happen to know many people who own businesses, or who manage large companies etc. and from what I have seen they are the hardest working people I know and deserve the money they make. Where does this 'generalization' that they don't work as hard as the 'workers' come from?

[Avtomatov]

You say the workers will eventually realize capitalism is aristocratic and that they are getting screwed. Well it took the serfs fucking forever to realize it was not gods will that they have so little opportunity. Now with the media today, sometimes i even find myself being convinced of capitalism for a moment when i watch tv. The reason is because i forget what is wrong with it while they are telling me what is good about it. Most people dont realize what is wrong with it. What happens if the media can keep this up forever?

[Messiah]

But I guess I'm asking about a little more than that. For example, one of my concerns with the idea of communism is that many communists seem to think the bourgeois class do nothing for the money they make - at least this is what I have taken from the things I have read and people I have talked to. I really don't understand that - I happen to know many people who own businesses, or who manage large companies etc. and from what I have seen they are the hardest working people I know and deserve the money they make. Where does this 'generalization' that they don't work as hard as the 'workers' come from?

It's not so much that we (revolutionary leftists as a whole) think they do nothing for the money they earn it's that we don't approve of how they earn the money. Sure, running your own company takes a lot of time and money, and it takes money to money, but in capitalist terms "hard work" usually means looking for every avilable opportunity to screw his/her workers out of the most money possible, so he can make the greatest profit possible.

Hard work is the foundation of a just and equitable society, on everyone's part, be they teachers, doctors, firemen or steel workers. However, working hard to screw people out of their rightfully earned due, as was explained above, is nothing to be proud of. So yes, I know for a fact that businessmen and CEOs do work hard as well. It's what they are working hard at that is the problem. Being earnest about greed adds nothing to society but misery and injustice.

Also, Ali, may I ask what aprt of Canada you're from? I'm in Vancouver myself as you can see and am always looking for fellow radicals to get in touch with.


You say the workers will eventually realize capitalism is aristocratic and that they are getting screwed. Well it took the serfs fucking forever to realize it was not gods will that they have so little opportunity. Now with the media today, sometimes i even find myself being convinced of capitalism for a moment when i watch tv. The reason is because i forget what is wrong with it while they are telling me what is good about it. Most people dont realize what is wrong with it. What happens if the media can keep this up forever?

Propaganda of the deed. We, as a community, do something so bombastic it is impossible to ignore, even by the biased media. Think riots, revolutions, protests, boycotts, rallies etc.

[elmo sez]

communists seem to think the bourgeois class do nothing for the money they make

Well things are a little bit more compleicated than simply bourgeois and proletariate
The bourgeoise are actually now made up of the capitalist class and the petite bourgeoise (Doctors, Shop keepers, civil servants , office workers ) who are a reactionary class , they are reactionary becuase they turn against social anarchy and the workers because they believe that they will loose out in communsim / socialism / anarchy. So they side with the capitalist class. The only thing communists have against the petite bourgeoise is the fact that they are reactionary, and inturn become allies of the capitalist class.

I would like nothing better than to see our fellow petite bourgeoise men stand side by side with us in the fight against capitalism

[Ali.Cat]

Also, Ali, may I ask what aprt of Canada you're from? I'm in Vancouver myself as you can see and am always looking for fellow radicals to get in touch with.


I live in Southern Ontario <_<

I really appreciate the explinations, but I have another question. I was talking to someone yesterday that said "what is the point of management? Would we really need it in communism?"

I would say no because of the whole hierarchy thing, but I also think managers have a lot to do with work ACTUALLY getting done - so what are your thoughts on that?

[which doctor]

What exactly can managers do that normal workers can&#39;t do on their own?

Self-managed worker&#39;s collectives have been successful throughout history.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 26 2006, 10:18 PM
What exactly can managers do that normal workers can&#39;t do on their own?

Self-managed worker&#39;s collectives have been successful throughout history.
Upper management yes but what about positions like foreman and chief engineer?

[Ali.Cat]

What exactly can managers do that normal workers can&#39;t do on their own?


Again, another huge misconception people seem to have. Managers do sooo much&#33; They are managers , for the most part, in a well run company, because of the level of skill they bring to the job - skill that takes time to master - skill that many people who begin a new job would not have.

In my opinion, just from experience, managers get er&#39; done. Of course they &#39;manage&#39; to get that work done by delegating to workers, but if it were not for that delegation the workers would not know what to do. Of course this doesn&#39;t apply to every work situation.

My life as an example, where I work I would have no idea what to do on a daily basis if it were not for my managers. They deal with customer complaints, employee disagreements, time management and blah blah blah, all of which without, I feel companies would fail.

A good team is only as good as its captain - or so I&#39;ve heard. But I am beyond open to hearing everyones opinions and taking them into concideration - so hit me with your best shot&#33;&#33;

[kurt]

Again, another huge misconception people seem to have. Managers do sooo much&#33;

In my experience, managers don&#39;t do anything that couldn&#39;t be done by regular workers. They spend a lot of their time "motivating" (read: intimidating) workers to work hard.


They are managers , for the most part, in a well run company, because of the level of skill they bring to the job - skill that takes time to master - skill that many people who begin a new job would not have.
-Emphasis added

Of course new workers will have to be trained; no one is saying they do not require training&#33; This doesn&#39;t mean that regular workers cannot do managerial tasks once they "know the ropes".


In my opinion, just from experience, managers get er&#39; done. Of course they &#39;manage&#39; to get that work done by delegating to workers, but if it were not for that delegation the workers would not know what to do. Of course this doesn&#39;t apply to every work situation.

Well correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but your experience is considerably limited, even moreso than mine (I believe you just got a job, in fact&#33;). In most every work enviroment I&#39;ve worked in (and it has ranged from fast food to mechanics shops), the workers who have experience know exactly what to do. Yet the managers insist on breathing down their back, "squeezing" out as much productive labour as possible.


My life as an example, where I work I would have no idea what to do on a daily basis if it were not for my managers. They deal with customer complaints, employee disagreements, time management and blah blah blah, all of which without, I feel companies would fail.

So employees aren&#39;t capable of dealing with their own disagreements? It wouldn&#39;t be possible to simply have a regular worker help play "devils advocate" if a dispute arised?

Regular workers aren&#39;t capable of dealing with employees? What is "time management"? Don&#39;t give your managers so much credit, you could pick up these meaningless "skills" in a matter of months.



A good team is only as good as its captain - or so I&#39;ve heard. But I am beyond open to hearing everyones opinions and taking them into concideration - so hit me with your best shot&#33;&#33;

There&#39;s nothing wrong with having an elected, recallable, "captain", so long as he doesn&#39;t receive any sort of "perks" (which won&#39;t happen under communism).

[STI]

Again, another huge misconception people seem to have. Managers do sooo much&#33; They are managers , for the most part, in a well run company, because of the level of skill they bring to the job - skill that takes time to master - skill that many people who begin a new job would not have.

So then couldn&#39;t we just have people who teach other people how to do the given task?


but if it were not for that delegation the workers would not know what to do

...Because workers can&#39;t figure that out on their own or decide it amongst themselves <_<



My life as an example, where I work I would have no idea what to do on a daily basis if it were not for my managers.

Regular workers could just as easily &#39;fill you in&#39; on what needs to be done until you get it all figured out for yourself.


They deal with customer complaints, employee disagreements, time management and blah blah blah, all of which without, I feel companies would fail.

All of these things could be done by the workers at a given jobsite collectively - is there an example of something that can&#39;t?

[Messiah]

Keep in mind that the reason for "managers" in the capitalist system is two fold as has been brought up: a) to keep the workers in line and b) to be hyper-aware of every possible way in which corners could be cut to increase profit. In a world wherein we are building towards what we need, not what someone else wants, that sort of mentality makes no sense.

Worker run collectives, where everyone is reponsible for the production have been just as successful, if not more so, than private enterprises. Obviously not in creating the huge profit margins of your everyday trans-national corporations but that wasn&#39;t their goal. Thus the task of the manger because entirely un-neccessary. There is no need to intimidate workers into working for themselves and their families and communities, they do it willingly.

[Ali.Cat]

Well correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but your experience is considerably limited, even moreso than mine (I believe you just got a job, in fact&#33;).

It may be my first week at A new job, but it&#39;s certainly NOT my FIRST job EVER. I wouldn&#39;t go as far as to say it is naiive to say management is pointless... but so far I haven&#39;t been given any good argument telling me that that is the case.


Of course new workers will have to be trained; no one is saying they do not require training&#33; This doesn&#39;t mean that regular workers cannot do managerial tasks once they "know the ropes".


I agree that people can be trained, I already said that is how managers become managers... however, it isn&#39;t only the fact that managers are skilled that contributes very positively to a work environment. I think of managers as coaches. If they weren&#39;t important why does every sports team have them? And, if I&#39;m going to say that then I might as well add.. why do many sports teams have captains? Captains don&#39;t have a huge say as to what happens as far as team politics go - but&#33; they do contribute greatly to team spirit - the excitement that goes in to being a team.


So employees aren&#39;t capable of dealing with their own disagreements? It wouldn&#39;t be possible to simply have a regular worker help play "devils advocate" if a dispute arised?


Of course employess can deal with their own disagreements, but who is to say that will be dealt with in appropriate time (you could be wastinga lot of time being mad and arguing - when a manager could just swoop in and say "hey - grow up") or dealt with in an appropriate way?


So then couldn&#39;t we just have people who teach other people how to do the given task?

It isn&#39;t just task mastering that managers do - or even training for that matter. I think good managers take a certain personality - and when they are good they contribute so much, and so positively to any business.


...Because workers can&#39;t figure that out on their own or decide it amongst themselves


Eventually maybe... but isn&#39;t that a lot of wasted time?


Regular workers could just as easily &#39;fill you in&#39; on what needs to be done until you get it all figured out for yourself.

many &#39;regular workers&#39; either don&#39;t have the time - or don&#39;t want to fill newcomers in to what needs to be done. Some people don&#39;t go to work in hopes of delegating or teaching, they just want to work on their own GIVEN tasks and be done with it. Again, some personalities just don&#39;t do well at delegating or teaching.


Worker run collectives, where everyone is reponsible for the production have been just as successful, if not more so, than private enterprises. Obviously not in creating the huge profit margins of your everyday trans-national corporations but that wasn&#39;t their goal. Thus the task of the manger because entirely un-neccessary. There is no need to intimidate workers into working for themselves and their families and communities, they do it willingly

That sounds really interesting. Could you give me some examples of it?

Again, this is just how I have grown up looking at the world, whether it be because of where I live, or how my parents raised me or blah blah blah - that&#39;s why I&#39;m here - to learn :D

[nickdlc]

you could be wastinga lot of time being mad and arguing - when a manager could just swoop in and say "hey - grow up" "grow up or get the fuck outta here and dont come back&#33;" would be more like it. And again why couldn&#39;t a regular worker just say "hey guys grow up"


Eventually maybe... but isn&#39;t that a lot of wasted time? The "wasted time" would be well worth it to bring democracy into the work setting.


many &#39;regular workers&#39; either don&#39;t have the time - or don&#39;t want to fill newcomers in to what needs to be done In all the jobs i&#39;ve had the managers have said "okay heres who&#39;ll you&#39;ll be working with and they will fill you in on how to do it" and then they walk away.

[which doctor]

Here&#39;s another problem with Capitalism.

It encourages consumerism which further dehumanizes people.

Communism not only makes sense economically, but also philosophically.