Question to Cappies

[Matty_UK]

Well, where the fuck ARE we going?

It seems to be that there is no hope in capitalism ever advancing society any further. We have such a great mastery of the world around us which increases everyday, yet the proletariat is not going to get any wealthier or get any more free time. If the proletariat manages to get wages increased, then prices increase in response. The bourgeois either don't produce what they can to ensure scarcity and therefore higher prices, or they destroy the surplus again preventing prices decreasing. As wages aren't going to change beyond the point we're now at, we are never going to get anymore free time. It's clear that capitalism has reached a historical dead-end, and things can only possibly get worse for the proletariat in the developed world.

Best quote by Marx: "when one talks of revolutionary change, one does but express that the seeds of a new society have been planted in the old." All popular new ideas of social change involve abolishing capitalism; socialism, anarchism, technocracy, and these ideas all thrive amongst the proletariat. Anything else is some third positionist compromise of capitalism and socialism; we're talking fascists, military dictators and social democrats, all of which are essentially intended to defend capitalist relations.

This alone is proof to me that the only possible change is socialist change. The ruling class will only try and make their profits grow more and more in a smaller and smaller world, eating into public services and making life increasingly unbearable, and reform completely impossible. You think the proletariat are gonna believe a load of economics post-grads telling them if they just lay still and let the bourgeois fuck them in the ass then everything will be fine? No they're going to rebel eventually, and if they rebel the only possible option is a type of socialism.

The proletariat will create abundance of food and essential goods, make anything that can be digitally stored free of cost to everyone, gradually reduce the length of the working day through gradual automation of jobs, create a ecologically sustainable society, abolish dependance on waged labour, abolish the state and national borders, abolish the centralised police force and perhaps even abolish money.

Meanwhile, bourgeois interests can only lead to a harder life for the proletariat and ecological destruction.

So why the fuck do you expect us to stick with bourgeois society, where exactly is it going?

[ZX3]

This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.

[Tungsten]

Matty_UK

Well, where the fuck ARE we going?
The people who are really in charge are more sympathetic to your politics than ours, why don't you tell us?

This alone is proof to me that the only possible change is socialist change.
All reasonable socialist changes have already been achieved.

You think the proletariat are gonna believe a load of economics post-grads telling them if they just lay still and let the bourgeois fuck them in the ass then everything will be fine?
You seem quite happy to let the public sector "fuck them in the ass" (and they do). What do you want? Higher taxes?

No they're going to rebel eventually, and if they rebel the only possible option is a type of socialism.
More of the same? I'll pass.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
Co-signed.

Reminds of the people throughout history who've said the rapture is just around the corner.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:10 pm
Matty_UK

Well, where the fuck ARE we going?
The people who are really in charge are more sympathetic to your politics than ours, why don't you tell us?
Really? I don't see an abanoonment of this silly 'state' thing or an abolishment of the market either.




This alone is proof to me that the only possible change is socialist change.
All reasonable socialist changes have already been achieved. Then why is it still a bunch of wankers that owns a companay rather than the workers? Why is it that the price system still stands.

Market regulation is NOT socialism, ****casket.



You think the proletariat are gonna believe a load of economics post-grads telling them if they just lay still and let the bourgeois fuck them in the ass then everything will be fine?
You seem quite happy to let the public sector "fuck them in the ass" (and they do). What do you want? Higher taxes? Higher taxes solve nothing. We want a complete overhaul of this shitty system made up of compromise.



No they're going to rebel eventually, and if they rebel the only possible option is a type of socialism.
More of the same? I'll pass. The same as what, exactly?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:55 pm
Then why is it still a bunch of wankers that owns a companay rather than the workers?
People are free to start their own worker-owned company at any time here in the States. Many are actually quite successful.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:10 pm
Matty_UK

Well, where the fuck ARE we going?
The people who are really in charge are more sympathetic to your politics than ours, why don't you tell us?

This alone is proof to me that the only possible change is socialist change.
All reasonable socialist changes have already been achieved.

You think the proletariat are gonna believe a load of economics post-grads telling them if they just lay still and let the bourgeois fuck them in the ass then everything will be fine?
You seem quite happy to let the public sector "fuck them in the ass" (and they do). What do you want? Higher taxes?

No they're going to rebel eventually, and if they rebel the only possible option is a type of socialism.
More of the same? I'll pass.
Tungsten, you don't really have a fucking clue what you're talking about do you? The people in power want to abolish themselves? Even for you, that is a retarded statement.

"Reasonable" socialist changes? Welfare and market regulation does not equal socialism. What you do not realise is the people in power, unlike you, are not absolute fucktards and do realise that no market regulation=economic disaster and no welfare=rioting and extremely high crime. They care about preserving the capitalist mode of production and some reform is necassary to preserve that, but it won't work forever. You're just some nobody idealist who thinks pure unregulated free market capitalism is feasible.

What do I want? Higher taxes? Ha! You've been here long enough to know what I want. I want the working class across the world to organise and kick the bosses out of every workplace and the cops out of every neighbourhood, which would create a more sensible society where things are produced for use rather than profit, where common people have more of a say in how their lives are run, and where we can be free from a dependance on capitalist wages. Where we can work less for more.

But of course, abolishing money, states, borders, automating most jobs so we have a massive increase in free time, producing massive surpluses without worrying about declining profit, stopping climate catostrophe, and creating a directly democratic society is "more of the same."

[BurnTheOliveTree]

People are free to start their own worker-owned company at any time here in the States. Many are actually quite successful.

Examples, perhaps?

-Alex

[BobKKKindle$]

I think it should be also be noted that, Increasingly, labour in developed capitalist countries is based around the production of meaningless and superfluous goods and services that do not actually fulfill economic wants and needs, but simply provide an infraustructure within which the existing system can operate. Advertising is useless as a commodity and is not demanded by ordinary people, but is necessary in the late stage of capitalism to create consumer demand such that the rate of profit does not fall to a level where capitalist production is non-sustainable. Meanwhile all the actually useful commodites are produced in the developing world which is subject to exploitation by the capitalist countries.

As others have pointed out, market intervention in the form of the welfare state is merely a form of class-struggle-mediation wherbey the state prevents workers from engaging in active class struggle by conceeding improvement in material conditions.

Fortunately people do not just rebel against the system as a result of material conditions sinking to an unacceptable level, but are also aware of the other undesirable elements of capitalist society such as Alienation. The uprising of may 1968 (at a time when France was undergoing rapid economic growth) shows this.

The future is bright comrades!
:star:

[ShakeZula06]

It's funny when socialists try to assert that any economy in any nation can be described as 'capitalist'. At best some nations could be described as mixed. There are markets but they are far from free, still being hampered by government monopolies and regulation.

So start complaining about the government intervention instead of capitalism. That's where you'll find the root of these problems you describe.

[ShakeZula06]

no market regulation=economic disaster and no welfare=rioting and extremely high crime.
Arguments and proof plz, not assertions, kthxbye.

Welfare and market regulation does not equal socialism.
It certainly doensn't equal capitalism, or a sound economic policy either.

You're just some nobody idealist who thinks pure unregulated free market capitalism is feasible.
Your just some nobody that believes the propaganda that unregulated free market capitalism leads to disaster without giving any valid reasons for it.

where things are produced for use rather than profit,
These two aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they have a possitive correlation.

[BobKKKindle$]

Capitalism is a form of economic organisation under which the means of production are owned and controlled by private individuals and organisations. The 'free market' and Capitalism share common characteristics; under both commodities are produced in the interests of profit, but they are not synonyms that can be used interchangeably. Compared to the era of keynesian economics, government intervention is minimal in most developed capitalist countries. The intervention that does occur - most notably the welfare state - is an implicit recognition that without the intervention of the state, the underlying class struggle that occurs under Capitalism would emerge into the open, such were the material conditions in which workers would have to live, and the system would collapse.

Matty UK recognized this. Evidently you did not. I will quote him:


Reasonable" socialist changes? Welfare and market regulation does not equal socialism. What you do not realise is the people in power, unlike you, are not absolute fucktards and do realise that no market regulation=economic disaster and no welfare=rioting and extremely high crime.

And many of the problems that Socialist recognise occur regardless of whether the government intervenes in the economy or not; Alienation is the most obvious example that comes to mind, no level of welfare of income re-distribution will change the fact that workers do not have ownership over the commodites that they produce and that labour is a commodity under capitalism.

Therefore what you said is wrong and you do not understand Socialism. Also, I rebutted your post in the other thread. Go see.

[BobKKKindle$]

These two aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they have a possitive correlation.

You obviously don't know much (bourgeois) economics so I will make this simple.

When economists speak of demand, they do not just mean people that desire a particular commodity. What they really mean is effective demand - those willing and able in financial terms to purchase a good or service. Under Capitalism, effective demand - purchasing power - is concentrated in the hands of a very small proportion of the population. This means that the rest have difficult accessing even the most basic goods and services (especially in the absence of government intervention) because they have such little financial wealth at their disposal. Also, firms will produce commodities that aim to meet the needs of those who have the purchasing power - because it is more profitable to do so. This is why under Capitalism, the rich have luxury goods far beyond their needs whilst other people dont even have the most basic commodities - for example, housing.

Therefore profitability and use do not have the strong relationship you suggest.


Arguments and proof plz, not assertions, kthxbye


http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.p...rticle_id=10366 (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10366)
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9928

This articles cover the movement to prevent the introduction of profit, and consequently cost for the consumer in the National health service (NHS) of the UK. Note that this is not the abolition of national health service, and that the national health service is a small part of all the forms of government intervention in the UK - the government also plays a role in redistributing income through taxation in the UK and provides a range of other welfare services including education and housing (although the labour government has introduced market elements into nearly all aspects of welfare, leaving many people without access to these important services).

But despite the small scale of this welfare reduction, there is already outrage amongst the working class and revolutionary leftist organisations.

Now imagine that this outrage was magnified a thousand-fold to reflect the reaction that would occur if the government chose to abolish all forms of welfare. It would be catashrophic!

Resistance at reductions in welfare are not limited to the UK - another case study that one can draw upon is the abolition of SOEs (State operated enterprises) in China and the associated iron-rice-bowl system.

http://www.amrc.org.hk/5901.htm
(Under 'Collective Challenge')

Therefore we do have basis for such opinions and free market capitalism would be self-destructive for the Capitalist class.

[ShakeZula06]

Capitalism is a form of economic organisation under which the means of production are owned and controlled by private individuals and organisations.
Yes, and we see that in America for example, the government makes some claim to the means of production in the form of taxes, regulations, territorial monoplies, and labor laws.

The 'free market' and Capitalism share common characteristics; under both commodities are produced in the interests of profit, but they are not synonyms that can be used interchangeably.
Good point.

government intervention is minimal in most developed capitalist countries.
Sure, compared to Keynes, but that means nothing. There still is a generally large amount of government intervention in America.

The intervention that does occur - most notably the welfare state - is an implicit recognition that without the intervention of the state....
No, without state intervention in the first place inequality would not be so high. They are ineffect (attempting, definitely not successfully) solving government intervention with government intervention.

Matty UK recognized this. Evidently you did not.
I don't accept things after hearing some assertions, sorry.

no market regulation=economic disaster and no welfare=rioting
Again, why?

no level of welfare of income re-distribution will change the fact that workers do not have ownership over the commodites that they produce and that labour is a commodity under capitalism.
Workers do have ownership to their labor, but they choose to sell it. In a free market system free of regulations (which are used to stifle competiton and favor businesses that pay off elected politicians) and burdensome taxes (that are burdensome because of the extend of the welfare state and for the capacity to enforce the ridiculous amount of regulation) it will be much easier for workers who would prefer to run a business much more possible.

Therefore what you said is wrong and you do not understand Socialism.
lol. Do all socialists use this strategy when debating? Just make a bunch of assertions without proof or argument then claim to be right?

Also, I rebutted your post in the other thread. Go see
if by 'rebutted' you mean assert then I agree.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, without state intervention in the first place inequality would not be so high. They are ineffect (attempting, definitely not successfully) solving government intervention with government intervention

IF what you are saying is true, then in countries or time periods in which there is a lower level of government intervention in the economy, then one would expect there to be a lower level of inquality in the distribution of wealth - a negative correlation. There is a way we can test this - we can compare the gini coefficient (the standard measure of wealth distribution) and the level of government expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gini_since_WWII.gif

Have a look at this and think about the statistics in relation to changes in government economy policy. You will see that in 1973, when western governemns began adopting neo-liberal (monetarism) instead of keynesianism, inequality increased. Therefore what you are saying is nonsense - again!

[ShakeZula06]

When economists speak of demand, they do not just mean people that desire a particular commodity. What they really mean is effective demand - those willing and able in financial terms to purchase a good or service.
Yes I know that.

Under Capitalism, effective demand - purchasing power - is concentrated in the hands of a very small proportion of the population. This means that the rest have difficult accessing even the most basic goods and services (especially in the absence of government intervention) because they have such little financial wealth at their disposal.
Garbage. My father has worked in a non-unionized tool and die shop for twenty five years to support a family of five and my family has always had plenty of purchasing power. While in college i have to work typical college kid jobs and pay for my college classes and for some reason I have purchasing power. And this occurs because of the (relatively) free market and in spite of state intervention, not the other way around. You guys just imagine this because it helps your argument.

Also, firms will produce commodities that aim to meet the needs of those who have the purchasing power - because it is more profitable to do so.
Who does WalMart and McDonalds cater to again?

This is why under Capitalism, the rich have luxury goods far beyond their needs whilst other people dont even have the most basic commodities - for example, housing.
huh? Many members of the working class have housing. Those that don't are usually young and/or only need a temporary living space. It's not hard at all to own a house in capitalism.

This articles cover the movement to prevent the introduction of profit, and consequently cost for the consumer in the National health service (NHS) of the UK.
And what again does this have to do with the assertion that a lack of government regulation leads to economic disaster? I agree that many support government regulation, doesn't mean anything though.

But despite the small scale of this welfare reduction, there is already outrage amongst the working class and revolutionary leftist organisations.

Now imagine that this outrage was magnified a thousand-fold to reflect the reaction that would occur if the government chose to abolish all forms of welfare. It would be catashrophic!
Meh, I don't really disagree that many workers support the welfare. I just think it's founded on emotion and collectivist propaganda rather then actual economics.

Therefore we do have basis for such opinions and free market capitalism would be self-destructive for the Capitalist class.
Appeal to majority fallacy. The fact that some percentage of workers that were educated in state run education systems think that state intervention is the answer doesn't mean anything.

IF what you are saying is true, then in countries or time periods in which there is a lower level of government intervention in the economy, then one would expect there to be a lower level of inquality in the distribution of wealth
False. Correlation=/=casuation. There are many variables that go into deciding inequality.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
Is that why 37 million Americans live in Poverty? And Every year, according to the US Goverment, More Americans are falling into poverty, more people becoming unemployed, and median household income plummeting?

Living conditions everywhere in the world are deteriorating, not rising.

Poke your head a bit around http://aflcio.org/issues/factsstats/

There are over 6,000,000 more people in Poverty now than in 2000, and Median House Income over the past 5 years has dropped $1,200, with even larger drops up to $7000 in larger more industrialized states in the US.

[Fawkes]

QUOTE
You're just some nobody idealist who thinks pure unregulated free market capitalism is feasible.


Your just some nobody that believes the propaganda that unregulated free market capitalism leads to disaster without giving any valid reasons for it.

Look at the Netherlands a couple of centuries back when tulip bulbs were worth thousands. IF you know history and you know economics, you know what ended up happening. The value of one tulip bulb dropped at such a high rate so quickly that people all of a sudden had nothing. Similar to what happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s. That's what happens in a totally free market.

[ItalianCommie]

think it should be also be noted that, Increasingly, labour in developed capitalist countries is based around the production of meaningless and superfluous goods and services that do not actually fulfill economic wants and needs, but simply provide an infraustructure within which the existing system can operate.

Capitalism creates false needs. Remember Herbert Marcuse!

[RGacky3]

The one argument my the Capitalists I think needs defending is the assertion that workers could just set up Co-Ops in the US (which he's right has happend, and is completely legal). There are a couple problems with that argument

1. Capitalism is driven by Profit not Social need, (Thats the devide between Socialism and Capitalism), and its a compedative market, meaning the most efficiant guy will survive, the guy who can put out the best product at a cheaper price. Co-Ops are run democratically rather than Despotically (like most firms are), and democratically means that all the opinions and needs of the workers must be mett, and when it comes to efficiancy, a Despotical firm is way more efficiant, it can worry only about Profits, running a Co-Op in a Capitalist system does'nt work.

2. Starting a company for someone with a lot of extra cash is really hard as it is, theres a lot of risk involved, theres a lot of money that needs to be put down, and a lot of time involved. Most workers don't have that kind of extra cash to risk nor do they have to time to waste, most of them will never be able to start their own business much less Co-oP.

3. most of the Capital in the world has been made by and is owned by the Capitalist class, most of the Land is owned by the Capitalist class, you can't just go to a factory and run it yourself, because some one else probably owns it, and like I said before Workers don't have the money to get Capital or land, and the way things are going (and have been going for centuries) they never will.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 10:02 am


Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.

That is simple not true.

From the Economist: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560)

Stop spewing lies!

[EwokUtopia]

We all know that capitalism is feasible. We all know that it is a way to manage wealth that traditionally has worked efficiently. This is not a point of how easy it is to make work, the point of the matter is whether or not it is justified. Nazism is feasible, and it manages the economy far more efficiently than capitalism, it is also much easier to run the economy under a nazi state, however, this can never justify its costs. The cost of capitalism, while not being as direct, is even greater. Through neglect and unfair distribution, the modern globalized capitalism claims about 10 million deaths per annum from preventable starvation. add this up, and it dwarfs the holocaust in a matter of years.

over and over and over and over again.

true socialism will not be easy to achieve, nobody here will argue the reverse. In order for it to occur, we have to turn society flipside down, which will be quite the task, but the end result will be a society ran for all of its members, not just the ones with property. Most people, even in america, do not own any property. Your Ipods and cars do not count, those are trinkets granted to you through cheap labour, that is not property. Most people live in houses owned by banks, and are subject to their wrath if they do not pay. Only a few people in America control wealth, the rest just accept whatever the propertied few kick down to them. Of course, the scraps americans get are much much much bigger than the scraps of the producing proletariate, as the wealthy need people who have enough to buy their products. There is a difference, a HUGE difference between producing proletarians and consuming proletarians. House Negros and Feild Negros, essentially. However, in the end of the day, they are all workers, and all deserve a place in equality.

[Comrade-Z]

This is actually a really good question: where are we going?

For instance, can you imagine what a capitalist society would look like in 2107, or 2207, or 9207? Does it make any sense that capitalism would be the "end of history"? A society in which we have fusion power (and thus unlimited electricity), maglev trains all over the place, high-production crops growing all over the world, the capability to share research, books, music, videos, software, etc. from all around the world using the Internet, etc. Would it make any sense for society to still be capitalist, in an age when we would have housing for everyone, 5,000 calories of food per week for everyone, costless transportation for everyone (the maglev trains would be powered by fusion power, which is limitless), where copyright laws were only fetters on the fullest use of our technology, where there wouldn't be scarcity of hardly anything of use...etc. How are you going to get people to work for you if there's no scarcity, if they can get everything they need anyways from working 3 months out of the year? You're going to have to manufacture artificial scarcity, no? But when people figure out that that's what you are doing, they won't be happy, will they? It just won't make any sense. It'll seem ridiculous, just like trying to imagine the modern U.S. being feualistic seems ridiculous to us now. Heh, Americans having a king whom they think has the divine authority of god, individual serfs working by themselves in factories, earning individual incomes (how?!), and paying their lords a tax and time in their military service in exchange for the use of the factories...it just seems absurd.

So I ask you: how will capitalism "work" in 2107? I want detailed descriptions of how the economy will function and how decisions will be made. You know, just like you pro-capitalists always demand such detailed predictions for the future from us communists. Also realize that anyone who didn't take into account computers, automobiles, or the Internet in 1900 when making their predictions about capitalism, those predictions would look idiotic now. So, how can you ever say that capitalism will "work" in 2107?


Think about this too:

We all know that huge demographic shifts are coming to all of the advanced capitalist countries during the next 50 years. That's trillions of dollars in medical expenses and retirement funds that's going to have to come from somewhere...either the working class or business owners. Which do you think workers will prefer?

[RGacky3]

If you ask a Capitalist if Capitalism is working they will say yes of coarse it is. If you ask them how the economy is doing most of them will say good, when stocks are going up, the GDP is going up, investment is good, spending is high. The problem is success for a Capitalist is different from success for a Socialist.

For a Capitalist success is growth and the creation of wealth, for a Socialist success is a decent dignified life for everyone, for a Socialist how many people live in poverty is a much more important question than how high is the GDP.

So I guess Capitalism IS working, from a Capitalist point of view, but in the words of someone I don't remember, we don't want a bigger piece of the pie, we want a different pie.

As a socialist I'd rather a poor society without exploitation and without classes, than a rich society with exploitation and classes. Capitalism is way more efficiant and creates way more wealth than Socialism, but thats not whats important.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RevolutionaryMarxist+January 01, 2007 02:19 pm--> (RevolutionaryMarxist @ January 01, 2007 02:19 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
Is that why 37 million Americans live in Poverty? And Every year, according to the US Goverment, More Americans are falling into poverty, more people becoming unemployed, and median household income plummeting?

Living conditions everywhere in the world are deteriorating, not rising.

Poke your head a bit around http://aflcio.org/issues/factsstats/

There are over 6,000,000 more people in Poverty now than in 2000, and Median House Income over the past 5 years has dropped $1,200, with even larger drops up to $7000 in larger more industrialized states in the US. [/b]
to deny that people are wealthier today than 20 or 40 or 60 years ago is absurd.

The stats do not support your claims:

yes, there are people in poverty in the USA. Most people in poverty in the USA have a car, a couple of TV's, air conditoning computers, even own their own home or other property.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 07, 2007 02:19 pm
This is actually a really good question: where are we going?

For instance, can you imagine what a capitalist society would look like in 2107, or 2207, or 9207? Does it make any sense that capitalism would be the "end of history"? A society in which we have fusion power (and thus unlimited electricity), maglev trains all over the place, high-production crops growing all over the world, the capability to share research, books, music, videos, software, etc. from all around the world using the Internet, etc. Would it make any sense for society to still be capitalist, in an age when we would have housing for everyone, 5,000 calories of food per week for everyone, costless transportation for everyone (the maglev trains would be powered by fusion power, which is limitless), where copyright laws were only fetters on the fullest use of our technology, where there wouldn't be scarcity of hardly anything of use...etc. How are you going to get people to work for you if there's no scarcity, if they can get everything they need anyways from working 3 months out of the year? You're going to have to manufacture artificial scarcity, no? But when people figure out that that's what you are doing, they won't be happy, will they? It just won't make any sense. It'll seem ridiculous, just like trying to imagine the modern U.S. being feualistic seems ridiculous to us now. Heh, Americans having a king whom they think has the divine authority of god, individual serfs working by themselves in factories, earning individual incomes (how?!), and paying their lords a tax and time in their military service in exchange for the use of the factories...it just seems absurd.

So I ask you: how will capitalism "work" in 2107? I want detailed descriptions of how the economy will function and how decisions will be made. You know, just like you pro-capitalists always demand such detailed predictions for the future from us communists. Also realize that anyone who didn't take into account computers, automobiles, or the Internet in 1900 when making their predictions about capitalism, those predictions would look idiotic now. So, how can you ever say that capitalism will "work" in 2107?


Think about this too:

We all know that huge demographic shifts are coming to all of the advanced capitalist countries during the next 50 years. That's trillions of dollars in medical expenses and retirement funds that's going to have to come from somewhere...either the working class or business owners. Which do you think workers will prefer?
Given that the socialist analysis of capitalism is in error, I fail to see why capitalism would be functioning any different 2107 than today. Technology will be different certainly (what happened to all those whaling fleets and the capitalists who made the oil and lamps for illumination? What about the capitalists who built the trolley cars?), the people involved will of course be different, but the system will function the same.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:38 pm
The one argument my the Capitalists I think needs defending is the assertion that workers could just set up Co-Ops in the US (which he's right has happend, and is completely legal). There are a couple problems with that argument

1. Capitalism is driven by Profit not Social need, (Thats the devide between Socialism and Capitalism), and its a compedative market, meaning the most efficiant guy will survive, the guy who can put out the best product at a cheaper price. Co-Ops are run democratically rather than Despotically (like most firms are), and democratically means that all the opinions and needs of the workers must be mett, and when it comes to efficiancy, a Despotical firm is way more efficiant, it can worry only about Profits, running a Co-Op in a Capitalist system does'nt work.



Profits cannot be accrued unless a need is satisfied.

What exactly is your objective here? Is it to satisfy the needs of the workers producing items? Or the needs of the consumers who want the items?

You might say both, but you can't have it both ways.

If the concern is to satisfy the needs of the worker, then it means their interests will supercede the needs of the consumer wanting the item. It is difficult to see how that leads to satisfying social needs of consumers.

If instead you say the concern is to satisfy the needs of the consumer, then it means their needs will supercede the needs of the workers producing the item. It is difficult to see how this leads to satisfying the control of production needs of the workers.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:10 pm
If you ask a Capitalist if Capitalism is working they will say yes of coarse it is. If you ask them how the economy is doing most of them will say good, when stocks are going up, the GDP is going up, investment is good, spending is high. The problem is success for a Capitalist is different from success for a Socialist.

For a Capitalist success is growth and the creation of wealth, for a Socialist success is a decent dignified life for everyone, for a Socialist how many people live in poverty is a much more important question than how high is the GDP.

So I guess Capitalism IS working, from a Capitalist point of view, but in the words of someone I don't remember, we don't want a bigger piece of the pie, we want a different pie.

As a socialist I'd rather a poor society without exploitation and without classes, than a rich society with exploitation and classes. Capitalism is way more efficiant and creates way more wealth than Socialism, but thats not whats important.

If the objective is to lead a dignified life for all, how does this occur if a community is not growing wealthier? Are people less dignified lives today than say in 1907, or 1807 or 1707? It seems sort of silly to say they are.
How does making people poorer, or keeping them poorer, make them richer? I suppose if the world is conceived as static it might be true, but it is not the case (at least so long as we avoid socialism).

[RGacky3]

If the concern is to satisfy the needs of the worker, then it means their interests will supercede the needs of the consumer wanting the item. It is difficult to see how that leads to satisfying social needs of consumers.

If instead you say the concern is to satisfy the needs of the consumer, then it means their needs will supercede the needs of the workers producing the item. It is difficult to see how this leads to satisfying the control of production needs of the workers.

Its not a question of the consumer vrs the Workers, its a question of the Worker vrs the Capitalist. Either way things will be produced for society, based on Societies needs. But in a Capalist system where you have institutionalized theft, guess who's needs are going to be Satisfied? The Capitalists. The Consumer and the worker are most of the time the same person. Yes you can have it both ways. Because its not Consumer vrs worker its Society vrs Capitalist.


If the objective is to lead a dignified life for all, how does this occur if a community is not growing wealthier? Are people less dignified lives today than say in 1907, or 1807 or 1707? It seems sort of silly to say they are.
How does making people poorer, or keeping them poorer, make them richer? I suppose if the world is conceived as static it might be true, but it is not the case (at least so long as we avoid socialism).

When you say a community growing wealthier your making the silly assumption that under capitalism communities grow wealthier, which generally is'nt the case, Buisiness gets wealtheir, rich people get wealthier. Dignity isn't about wealth its about living a fullfilling life, doing work that contributes to society and living a comfortable dignifired life, you don't need a lot of wealth for that. Under a socialist system, people don't get poorer (maybe people with yacht owners), the wealth that exists is distributed socially, and society still produces, but it produces for the sake of society, not for the sake of the profit of a few Capitalists.

About hte question of if people are living less dignifired lives today? I would have to answer no, not by much though, and mainly because of the advent of unions and socialist and democratic movements, public pressure. If you've ever been to a third world country, or a poor place in a first world country, you'll see things hav'nt gotten that much better, and with global capitalism getting stronger things are getting worse.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:09 pm

If the concern is to satisfy the needs of the worker, then it means their interests will supercede the needs of the consumer wanting the item. It is difficult to see how that leads to satisfying social needs of consumers.

If instead you say the concern is to satisfy the needs of the consumer, then it means their needs will supercede the needs of the workers producing the item. It is difficult to see how this leads to satisfying the control of production needs of the workers.

Its not a question of the consumer vrs the Workers, its a question of the Worker vrs the Capitalist. Either way things will be produced for society, based on Societies needs. But in a Capalist system where you have institutionalized theft, guess who's needs are going to be Satisfied? The Capitalists. The Consumer and the worker are most of the time the same person. Yes you can have it both ways. Because its not Consumer vrs worker its Society vrs Capitalist.


If the objective is to lead a dignified life for all, how does this occur if a community is not growing wealthier? Are people less dignified lives today than say in 1907, or 1807 or 1707? It seems sort of silly to say they are.
How does making people poorer, or keeping them poorer, make them richer? I suppose if the world is conceived as static it might be true, but it is not the case (at least so long as we avoid socialism).

When you say a community growing wealthier your making the silly assumption that under capitalism communities grow wealthier, which generally is'nt the case, Buisiness gets wealtheir, rich people get wealthier. Dignity isn't about wealth its about living a fullfilling life, doing work that contributes to society and living a comfortable dignifired life, you don't need a lot of wealth for that. Under a socialist system, people don't get poorer (maybe people with yacht owners), the wealth that exists is distributed socially, and society still produces, but it produces for the sake of society, not for the sake of the profit of a few Capitalists.

About hte question of if people are living less dignifired lives today? I would have to answer no, not by much though, and mainly because of the advent of unions and socialist and democratic movements, public pressure. If you've ever been to a third world country, or a poor place in a first world country, you'll see things hav'nt gotten that much better, and with global capitalism getting stronger things are getting worse.

It would be apparent, I think, that in a socialist community the worker would not have to worry about the capitialist. But then what would the worker worry about? producing for his needs or for societies?

It should be apparent that a worker in an auto factory, or a pot and pan factory, or any factory, consumes statistically 0% of what he produces. There is no reason why that percentage should increase in a socialist community, it would be impossible to do so, and have a rational productive economy. The worker and the consumer are simply not the same person. Since the purpose of socialism is to provide for the needs of the worker in the auto factory,as well as the consumer who may be looking for a car and has never, and never will, step foot in an auto plant, something has to give. The needs of society to produce X numbers of cars may conflict with the needs of the workers producing those vehicles. Under capitalism, it is the needs of the consumer which take precedence. You have recognised this, and have criticised capitalism because of it. Since socialism places the needs of the producers ahead of the needs of the consumer, it is difficult to see how socialism will provide for societies needs. At best, you can hope that the worker will subsume his needs for the needs of the community. But socialism is not geared in that direction, and the workers of the factory cannot be faulted if they, democratically, decide to produce enough only to satisfy there own needs.

[RGacky3]

Under Capitalism the need and wants of the Capitalist are first, why? Because they have the power, they have the money.

Your looking at my argument from the standpoint of 1 factory, but you have to look at it from the standpoint of a community as a whole. He will do his part to contribute to the Society, why? Because everyone else is doing there part, why? Because thats the way democracy works. Its mutual dependance, they will produce as a SOCIETY (factories, farms, whatever), what is needed by the society, and what is chosen by the society democratically. So will workers still have to worry about consumers? Yes because the consumers are the Society, and they are part of it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:46 pm
Under Capitalism the need and wants of the Capitalist are first, why? Because they have the power, they have the money.

Your looking at my argument from the standpoint of 1 factory, but you have to look at it from the standpoint of a community as a whole. He will do his part to contribute to the Society, why? Because everyone else is doing there part, why? Because thats the way democracy works. Its mutual dependance, they will produce as a SOCIETY (factories, farms, whatever), what is needed by the society, and what is chosen by the society democratically. So will workers still have to worry about consumers? Yes because the consumers are the Society, and they are part of it.

Chosen democratically by whom in society? The workers who produce the items? Or the consumers who want items?


How does the worker in one factory know that a worker in another factory is doing his part? And this problem is merely a problem of figuring out if other workers are doing enough work. It has nothing to do with the issue if the work being done is of any value t the community.

There may very well be capitalists who produce only to satisfy his needs. But the only possible way for him to be to be succesful is by satisfying the needs and wants of others.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse in a communistic society its the worker that chooses what to produce, they choose collectively, based on whats best for Society, and the rest of the community (who are also workers), do likewise.

If you want to equate economics with politics I can explain in like this, in a Capitalist system people vote with money, and some people have a lot more money, than others, and in a Capitalist system there are bosses and workers. In a communistic system, there are no bosses, people are there own bosses, and its an egalatarian society, so peoples votes are the same, there is no longer profit, so people arn't producing things for profit, but rather for Society, if society needs something it will be produced. If no one wants to produce it perhaps Society as a whole can share the job of producing it. Its really not that difficult of a concept.

The only way a Capitalist is successfull is if he's making money, not satisfying needs, if people without money don't have needs satisfied the Capitalist does'nt care, the Capitalist wants to make money.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:09 am
Of coarse in a communistic society its the worker that chooses what to produce, they choose collectively, based on whats best for Society, and the rest of the community (who are also workers), do likewise.

If you want to equate economics with politics I can explain in like this, in a Capitalist system people vote with money, and some people have a lot more money, than others, and in a Capitalist system there are bosses and workers. In a communistic system, there are no bosses, people are there own bosses, and its an egalatarian society, so peoples votes are the same, there is no longer profit, so people arn't producing things for profit, but rather for Society, if society needs something it will be produced. If no one wants to produce it perhaps Society as a whole can share the job of producing it. Its really not that difficult of a concept.

The only way a Capitalist is successfull is if he's making money, not satisfying needs, if people without money don't have needs satisfied the Capitalist does'nt care, the Capitalist wants to make money.
Okay, so the workers in industry decide what is best for society. So if the workers of the auto factory decide to make say 1000 cars in a given period of time, then that is considered best for society, even if there is a need for 1300 cars (or even just 800). It seems a compeletely irrational way of organising the community.

[RGacky3]

If there is a need for more they'll make more, if theres a need for less they'll make less, what makes you think that a centralized decision maker is better than a horizontal one? Now its a question of despotism or democracy.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:48 pm
If there is a need for more they'll make more, if theres a need for less they'll make less, what makes you think that a centralized decision maker is better than a horizontal one? Now its a question of despotism or democracy.

Why? How do you know this? You have already stated that the interests of the workers of the auto factory are of greater importance than the interests of car buyers.

By saying that the decision will under socialism be made horizontally rather than vertically, you are suggesting that the same sort of economic indicators, and same sort of economic knowledge which capitalists use in production will be used by the socialist. But do you really want to examine whether that is true?

[ShakeZula06]

Similar to what happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s. That's what happens in a totally free market.
Educate yourself instead of accepting statist propaganda. The Great depression was not caused by a free market. It was caused by the government's manipulation of the money supply. Do you also believe it when they tell you US entry into WW2 ended the depression?

[RGacky3]

ZX3 raises some good questions. I'm looking for my fellow Anarchists help here :P.

Indicators about what to produce that there are under capitalism ie. the Market. The Market basically works in this way, your dollar is a vote, and your vote chooses what is to be produced, and the Boss the Capitalist is the one that looks at these votes and then decides what to produce to make the best profit. Of coarse its an over simplification but thats the basic theory.

What I'm saying is make the votes equal, ie, instead of the 'Market' its democratic. And get rid off the Bosses ie make the workplace democratic. Obviously organization is needed, but at least its democratic. I'll elaborate later, and I hope my fellow Anarchists and Communists will help me out :P.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:02 pm
ZX3 raises some good questions. I'm looking for my fellow Anarchists help here :P.

Indicators about what to produce that there are under capitalism ie. the Market. The Market basically works in this way, your dollar is a vote, and your vote chooses what is to be produced, and the Boss the Capitalist is the one that looks at these votes and then decides what to produce to make the best profit. Of coarse its an over simplification but thats the basic theory.

What I'm saying is make the votes equal, ie, instead of the 'Market' its democratic. And get rid off the Bosses ie make the workplace democratic. Obviously organization is needed, but at least its democratic. I'll elaborate later, and I hope my fellow Anarchists and Communists will help me out :P.
Its not neccessarilly an oversimplification.

However, if you concede that the capitalist merely reacts to what the market demands, then you understand that the capitalist is not in control of production. The consumer is.

The market is, as you agree, "democratic." if the objective is to place democracy in the realm of production, and eliminate the capitalist "bosses" how exactly would anything be different? It wouldn't be, UNLESS you insist that the producers should be in control of production. Then one has a situation where the producers, democratically perhaps, make what THEY feel like making, regardless whether it is what the consumer wants. And that makes no sense; certainly it cannot be considered a better system.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:26 pm
However, if you concede that the capitalist merely reacts to what the market demands, then you understand that the capitalist is not in control of production. The consumer is.

The market is, as you agree, "democratic." if the objective is to place democracy in the realm of production, and eliminate the capitalist "bosses" how exactly would anything be different? It wouldn't be, UNLESS you insist that the producers should be in control of production. Then one has a situation where the producers, democratically perhaps, make what THEY feel like making, regardless whether it is what the consumer wants. And that makes no sense; certainly it cannot be considered a better system.
The Capitalist reacts to Market demands, BUT, because the Market has to do with the dollar, those who control the market are those with the dollar, meaning those with money have a HUGE advanage to those who do, so really they are reacting to money, not 'the consumer.' Which is why Capitalism is still struggeling with the idea of affordable housing, affordable health care, and things like that, even food production, because Capitalism reacts to money, not social needs, (the consumer is worth only as much as his wallet).

Capitalists also make what they FEEL like making, (or hire other people to make it), but if it does'nt serve the market it will go out of business. The same with a Communist society, only its the workers democratically in control, but instead of the market choosing its society, and it will be based on what the consumer wants, every consumer being equal, basically radical democracy.

The difference is boss-worker, or boss/worker. You have collectives and co-ops in a capitalism system who have to follow the market, the fact that its horrizontal does'nt change that, but imagen a world there its all horrizontal and its not the highly unfair market, but a radical democracy that controls the economy.

I feel this is a complicated issue, and I can't give you the exact blueprints of how it would work exactly, but that does'nt mean we should just give in to an unjust/tyrranical system, rather than fight for a more just/equal system.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+January 12, 2007 11:04 pm--> (RGacky3 @ January 12, 2007 11:04 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:26 pm
However, if you concede that the capitalist merely reacts to what the market demands, then you understand that the capitalist is not in control of production. The consumer is.

The market is, as you agree, "democratic." if the objective is to place democracy in the realm of production, and eliminate the capitalist "bosses" how exactly would anything be different? It wouldn't be, UNLESS you insist that the producers should be in control of production. Then one has a situation where the producers, democratically perhaps, make what THEY feel like making, regardless whether it is what the consumer wants. And that makes no sense; certainly it cannot be considered a better system.
The Capitalist reacts to Market demands, BUT, because the Market has to do with the dollar, those who control the market are those with the dollar, meaning those with money have a HUGE advanage to those who do, so really they are reacting to money, not 'the consumer.' Which is why Capitalism is still struggeling with the idea of affordable housing, affordable health care, and things like that, even food production, because Capitalism reacts to money, not social needs, (the consumer is worth only as much as his wallet).

Capitalists also make what they FEEL like making, (or hire other people to make it), but if it does'nt serve the market it will go out of business. The same with a Communist society, only its the workers democratically in control, but instead of the market choosing its society, and it will be based on what the consumer wants, every consumer being equal, basically radical democracy.

The difference is boss-worker, or boss/worker. You have collectives and co-ops in a capitalism system who have to follow the market, the fact that its horrizontal does'nt change that, but imagen a world there its all horrizontal and its not the highly unfair market, but a radical democracy that controls the economy.

I feel this is a complicated issue, and I can't give you the exact blueprints of how it would work exactly, but that does'nt mean we should just give in to an unjust/tyrranical system, rather than fight for a more just/equal system. [/b]

It is indeed complicated, but if the starting point is that socialism is the more "just" system, that would have to be proved.

i don't think it can be.

It is tyrue that there are capitalists who sell to high income earners. That is who they target. But it is also true there are capitalists who target lower income and poorer folk. Distribution is not a problem in a capitalist economy.

The problem is that socilaists have to deal with the same economic issues as do the capitalist. Simply saying the workers will be making the decisions changes nothing. The workers will still have to make decisions and choices; everything cannot be done at once. That requires a base of knowledge, of information which is used in making these decisions. Capitalism has information and knowledge, which will (presumably) be unavailable to the socialist.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:56 pm
It is tyrue that there are capitalists who sell to high income earners. That is who they target. But it is also true there are capitalists who target lower income and poorer folk. Distribution is not a problem in a capitalist economy.

The problem is that socilaists have to deal with the same economic issues as do the capitalist. Simply saying the workers will be making the decisions changes nothing. The workers will still have to make decisions and choices; everything cannot be done at once. That requires a base of knowledge, of information which is used in making these decisions. Capitalism has information and knowledge, which will (presumably) be unavailable to the socialist.
Distrubution IS a huge problem in a Capitalist economy, and many millions will attest to that. Capitalists target what will make them money, if they can get money from poor people they will target them, if they can get money fomr rich people they will target them, whatever makes them money.

Saying the workers will be making the decisions changes the situation morally, in the same way democracy changes the situation morally, a dictatorship can be run very efficiantly, but its morally wrong, same with Capitalism.

In a Socialist society the information and knowledge will be there, what changes is the hiarchy and the beneficiaries, most of the knowledge that a Capitalist has is knowledge in marketing and manegment. The knowledge needed in a Socialist system is how to meet everyones needs the best way, and some will be smarter than others and have better knowledge, but NO ONE will have innate authority based on ownership, because there will be no ownership (of Capital and Land).

Of coarse as a Socialist I look at economic issues as Social ones and thus I look at them from a Moral viewpoint.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:56 pm
[QUOTE=ZX3,January 13, 2007 06:56 pm]Distrubution IS a huge problem in a Capitalist economy, and many millions will attest to that. Capitalists target what will make them money, if they can get money from poor people they will target them, if they can get money fomr rich people they will target them, whatever makes them money.

Saying the workers will be making the decisions changes the situation morally, in the same way democracy changes the situation morally, a dictatorship can be run very efficiantly, but its morally wrong, same with Capitalism.

In a Socialist society the information and knowledge will be there, what changes is the hiarchy and the beneficiaries, most of the knowledge that a Capitalist has is knowledge in marketing and manegment. The knowledge needed in a Socialist system is how to meet everyones needs the best way, and some will be smarter than others and have better knowledge, but NO ONE will have innate authority based on ownership, because there will be no ownership (of Capital and Land).

Of coarse as a Socialist I look at economic issues as Social ones and thus I look at them from a Moral viewpoint.

Then millions of people are wrong. If a capitalist produces items which nobody wants, he goes out of business. Production in a capitalist economy already means the goods are distributed.

What is the knowledge which will be available? What will the socialist workers in say, a paper factory, use to determine how much of their good, what type of the good is needed, and where it needs to go? Obviously, capitalist knowledge cannot be utilised. What replaces it?

And if your starting point is to praise the inefficiency of socilaism in comparison to capitalism, how does that lead to meeting everyone's needs the best way? You are already conceding that won't be the case. Perhaps you refer to the best way under socialism. but that would still require an explanation, a proof as it were.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse the Capitalist needs to produce something that will sell, but remember he's SELLING, for money, meaning he's selling to money, wherever the money is, thats where the Capitalist goes. The good are distributed according to what will make a profit, where the money is, not to societal needs.

The difference between the Socialist and Capitalist knowledge, is the Socialist knowledge will be based on a democratic framework, based on Societal needs, not on profit and money. The Capitalist knowledge is based on where the money is, and how to make a profit for himself. What replaces Capitalist knowledge is Social Knowledge, i.e. democracy.


And if your starting point is to praise the inefficiency of socilaism in comparison to capitalism, how does that lead to meeting everyone's needs the best way? You are already conceding that won't be the case. Perhaps you refer to the best way under socialism. but that would still require an explanation, a proof as it were.

I'm know prasing inefficiency, inface I"m not even saying Socialism is more inefficient (The Spanish Factories under the CNT during the revolution were actually more efficient). What I am saying is that for a Socialist efficiency is not the first goal, the first goal is satisfying the needs of the community, efficiency comes secondary. Socialism will meet everyones needs better because that will be the reason for production rather than profit in a Capitalist system. Its quite simple, people will do things for their own benefit, when you have Capital concentrated in a small number of hands, they will use it to their own benefit, and when you have it communally, they will use it for the communal benefit. When I talk about efficiency, I talk about Capitalist efficiency, meaning theres a lot of production, a lot of trade and a lot of wealth being made, the problem is the wealth is being made by a small amount of people, so its efficient, in that sense, but for the majority of mankind its not helping them at all.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:07 pm
Of coarse the Capitalist needs to produce something that will sell, but remember he's SELLING, for money, meaning he's selling to money, wherever the money is, thats where the Capitalist goes. The good are distributed according to what will make a profit, where the money is, not to societal needs.

The difference between the Socialist and Capitalist knowledge, is the Socialist knowledge will be based on a democratic framework, based on Societal needs, not on profit and money. The Capitalist knowledge is based on where the money is, and how to make a profit for himself. What replaces Capitalist knowledge is Social Knowledge, i.e. democracy.


And if your starting point is to praise the inefficiency of socilaism in comparison to capitalism, how does that lead to meeting everyone's needs the best way? You are already conceding that won't be the case. Perhaps you refer to the best way under socialism. but that would still require an explanation, a proof as it were.

I'm know prasing inefficiency, inface I"m not even saying Socialism is more inefficient (The Spanish Factories under the CNT during the revolution were actually more efficient). What I am saying is that for a Socialist efficiency is not the first goal, the first goal is satisfying the needs of the community, efficiency comes secondary. Socialism will meet everyones needs better because that will be the reason for production rather than profit in a Capitalist system. Its quite simple, people will do things for their own benefit, when you have Capital concentrated in a small number of hands, they will use it to their own benefit, and when you have it communally, they will use it for the communal benefit. When I talk about efficiency, I talk about Capitalist efficiency, meaning theres a lot of production, a lot of trade and a lot of wealth being made, the problem is the wealth is being made by a small amount of people, so its efficient, in that sense, but for the majority of mankind its not helping them at all.


yes, a capitalist strives to make profit. But every economy, even a socialist economy, needs to do this. A profit is simply that the value of a finished good is worth more than its component parts. In other words, it says that the product that is produced is valued by the community. What mechanism tells the socialist community this? You say "democracy" but that's after the fact- presumably people making democratic decisions need to have a source of knowledge to make the decsions they are making.

[RGacky3]

The people making the desicions KNOW what they need, and the ones that make them (the workers) KNOW how to make them. Profit is a Capitalist concept, the Value to a Capitalist is how much money he can get for it, Value for a Communist is how will this benefit Society. The whole concepts of Value are changed under Communism.

[BobKKKindle$]

yes, a capitalist strives to make profit. But every economy, even a socialist economy, needs to do this. A profit is simply that the value of a finished good is worth more than its component parts. In other words, it says that the product that is produced is valued by the community.

Yes, I agree, every enterprise needs to produce profit, because over time it will become necessary to restore depreciated fixed capital and to expand production and develop more advanced commodities. But under Socialism, the workers (ie those that physically produce the commodity in question) have full ownership of the means of production and so will not recive a wage as such from a capitalist, because they are not selling their labour as a commodity to anyone. Rather they will simply recieve a share of the revenue from the sale of the goods they have produced. The exact rate of profit, expenditure of revenue will be determined by the workers themselves.

You are speaking as if Capitalism has a monopoly on the market. The opration Market forces is not the defining characteristic of Capitalism. I am sure you know that. The existence of a market for labour as a commodity - in other words, the ownership of the means of production by a minority group - is the fundamental characteristic of Capitalism. Socialism and market forces are not mutually exclusive - indeed, it may appear that in a society where there is an egalitarian distribution of income and the means of production are subject to the control of society as a whole, market forces become much more effective mechanisms of resource distribution.

Under Capitalism, the market does not produce the goods that are desired by ordinary people. Here's why (taken from another thread)


When economists speak of demand, they do not just mean people that desire a particular commodity. What they really mean is effective demand - those willing and able in financial terms to purchase a good or service. Under Capitalism, effective demand - purchasing power - is concentrated in the hands of a very small proportion of the population. This means that the rest have difficult accessing even the most basic goods and services (especially in the absence of government intervention) because they have such little financial wealth at their disposal. Also, firms will produce commodities that aim to meet the needs of those who have the purchasing power - because it is more profitable to do so. This is why under Capitalism, the rich have luxury goods far beyond their needs whilst other people dont even have the most basic commodities - for example, housing.

I think it should be recognized, though, that historically the exact forms of economic organisation that have been formed during periods of revolutionary activity have always depended on the material and historical conditions in these countries; so it is somewhat unfair to expect us to come up with a technical blueprint for socialist production and distribution in advance.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:31 am
The people making the desicions KNOW what they need, and the ones that make them (the workers) KNOW how to make them. Profit is a Capitalist concept, the Value to a Capitalist is how much money he can get for it, Value for a Communist is how will this benefit Society. The whole concepts of Value are changed under Communism.
HOW does the communist know what he produces is of value to the community? HOW does he know it is of benefit to society?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:48 am

yes, a capitalist strives to make profit. But every economy, even a socialist economy, needs to do this. A profit is simply that the value of a finished good is worth more than its component parts. In other words, it says that the product that is produced is valued by the community.

Yes, I agree, every enterprise needs to produce profit, because over time it will become necessary to restore depreciated fixed capital and to expand production and develop more advanced commodities. But under Socialism, the workers (ie those that physically produce the commodity in question) have full ownership of the means of production and so will not recive a wage as such from a capitalist, because they are not selling their labour as a commodity to anyone. Rather they will simply recieve a share of the revenue from the sale of the goods they have produced. The exact rate of profit, expenditure of revenue will be determined by the workers themselves.

You are speaking as if Capitalism has a monopoly on the market. The opration Market forces is not the defining characteristic of Capitalism. I am sure you know that. The existence of a market for labour as a commodity - in other words, the ownership of the means of production by a minority group - is the fundamental characteristic of Capitalism. Socialism and market forces are not mutually exclusive - indeed, it may appear that in a society where there is an egalitarian distribution of income and the means of production are subject to the control of society as a whole, market forces become much more effective mechanisms of resource distribution.

Under Capitalism, the market does not produce the goods that are desired by ordinary people. Here's why (taken from another thread)


When economists speak of demand, they do not just mean people that desire a particular commodity. What they really mean is effective demand - those willing and able in financial terms to purchase a good or service. Under Capitalism, effective demand - purchasing power - is concentrated in the hands of a very small proportion of the population. This means that the rest have difficult accessing even the most basic goods and services (especially in the absence of government intervention) because they have such little financial wealth at their disposal. Also, firms will produce commodities that aim to meet the needs of those who have the purchasing power - because it is more profitable to do so. This is why under Capitalism, the rich have luxury goods far beyond their needs whilst other people dont even have the most basic commodities - for example, housing.

I think it should be recognized, though, that historically the exact forms of economic organisation that have been formed during periods of revolutionary activity have always depended on the material and historical conditions in these countries; so it is somewhat unfair to expect us to come up with a technical blueprint for socialist production and distribution in advance.

I recognise that it is impossible for a socialist to give out a blueprint for an economy, given the disparate economies and standards about the world (which makes the whole concept of a worldwide socialist revolt even more the realm of fantasy). However, speculation is certainly called for.

I understand the workers will make the decisions (or at least attempt to) pertaining to profit, expenditures ect. But in order to make these decisions, there needs to be a rationale for doing so.

I would dissagree with your cited passage. There are certainly capitalists who sell to high end m,arkets. But there are capitalists who sell to low end markets. The fallacy which exists is that the existence of high end markets is the cause of a shortage in the low end. It isn't.

[BobKKKindle$]

The market failure that occurs under Capitalism is clear for all to see; in that in societies of great net wealth substantial numbers of people live in conditions of dire poverty and desperation because of the unequal distribution of wealth. Let us take the United States as an example; In a Nation with a nominal GDP/Capita of 40,000 in Parity Purchasing Power, as many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week (reference below). By homeless, one means they do not have access to the service that is a home. That may seem obvious, but what should be stressed is how this relates to the fact that under Capitalism, one only has access to a good or service if one is able to pay for it. When a Family or individual is faced with the problem of having inadequate financial resources with which to cover their basic needs, it is necessary to make an economic choice about where scarce resources can be conserved. Often, this is housing, given that many are able to rely on a friend or relative for temporar accomodation.

I choose homelessness as an example on which to draw because it also supports the other point I mentioned; how under Capitalism the commodities that are produced represent the economic wants of those who command purchasing power. Although, as you said, this is not an absolute statement - it is of course true that commodities are produced that target those with low income (low per capita purchasing power still offers oppurtunity for profit, after all), there is still evidence to suggest that what I said was true.

The gap between the number of affordable housing units and the number of people needing themhas created a housing crisis for poor people. Between 1973 and 1993, 2.2 million low-rent unitsdisappeared from the market. These units were either abandoned, converted into condominiums or expensive apartments, or became unaffordable because of cost increases.

National Coalition for the Homeless. Emphasis mine. This Passage demonstrates my point; note that housing is being converted such that is satisfies the economic wants of those in whom purchasing power is concentrated, as consequently there is inadequate housing to satisfy of those who do not command purchasing power. I am sure you can see how this relates to my earlier point.

[Ele'ill]

All popular new ideas of social change involve abolishing capitalism; socialism, anarchism, technocracy, and these ideas all thrive amongst the proletariat

Oh yeah, these are REAL popular ideas that I hear being talked about on the street EVERY day.



No they're going to rebel eventually, and if they rebel the only possible option is a type of socialism.


When is eventually? That sounds fairly pussified to me. I dont' want inciters or leaders to say 'yeah things are bad and we'll act, you know, eventually.' This leads to another point, i'd rather get fucked in the ass by capitalism on a daily basis because it's the only thing that's happening. I see no moves towards the future and there has been no planning of any kind from any group. Way to go and give us prols the only choice we ever had.


The proletariat will create abundance of food and essential goods, make anything that can be digitally stored free of cost to everyone, gradually reduce the length of the working day through gradual automation of jobs, create a ecologically sustainable society, abolish dependance on waged labour, abolish the state and national borders, abolish the centralised police force and perhaps even abolish money.

What about all the undeveloped countries that depend on US aid? Yeah, having a big circle jerk in the United States would be a blast but unfortunatley those that are suffering would suffer more. There is just no way to do all of that. Too complicated way to extensive too many people would die.


Also I thought I could say 'it feels good to be back on this forum' but I just can't make myself believe it. :D

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
yep, you keep saying that, even as the polar ice water keeps rising round your neck! :lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 20, 2007 12:49 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 20, 2007 12:49 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
yep, you keep saying that, even as the polar ice water keeps rising round your neck! :lol: [/b]
Which is going to happen eventually anyway.

Assuming there is no God, we people are in command of the world. We decide what lives and what dies and basically so long as it meets our interests, nothing we do to the world is "wrong". As Jazzrat explained in another thread, morality does not exist.

Historical evidence shows that the world will likely bring us another debilitating ice age without us. This would certainly be disastrous for mankind, so it not in our interests to prevent it through global warming? Certainly the loss of a few species and a few miles of coastline might be worth preventing a catastrophic ice age where every place north of St. Louis is covered by massive glaciers, is it not?

Of course, historical evidence also shows that the world is going to warm whether we drive SUVs or not. Historical evidence also shows that in an instant, thanks to plate techtonics, the coastline of a given area can shift a few miles without warning.

Consider as well that in a few billion years, the sun is going to explode into a Red Supergiant, zapping the entire planet into dust in an oven where the temperatures will meet your overheated rhetoric.

Discuss.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 02:42 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 02:42 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 20, 2007 12:49 pm

[email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
yep, you keep saying that, even as the polar ice water keeps rising round your neck! :lol:
Which is going to happen eventually anyway.

[/b]
Thanks to capitalism and free market industrialisation!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 22, 2007 04:17 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 22, 2007 04:17 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 02:42 pm

Which is going to happen eventually anyway.


Thanks to capitalism and free market industrialisation! [/b]
You obviously don't understand what the word "anyway" means.

Perhaps you understand its synonym, "regardless"?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:49 am
The market failure that occurs under Capitalism is clear for all to see; in that in societies of great net wealth substantial numbers of people live in conditions of dire poverty and desperation because of the unequal distribution of wealth. Let us take the United States as an example; In a Nation with a nominal GDP/Capita of 40,000 in Parity Purchasing Power, as many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week (reference below). By homeless, one means they do not have access to the service that is a home. That may seem obvious, but what should be stressed is how this relates to the fact that under Capitalism, one only has access to a good or service if one is able to pay for it. When a Family or individual is faced with the problem of having inadequate financial resources with which to cover their basic needs, it is necessary to make an economic choice about where scarce resources can be conserved. Often, this is housing, given that many are able to rely on a friend or relative for temporar accomodation.

I choose homelessness as an example on which to draw because it also supports the other point I mentioned; how under Capitalism the commodities that are produced represent the economic wants of those who command purchasing power. Although, as you said, this is not an absolute statement - it is of course true that commodities are produced that target those with low income (low per capita purchasing power still offers oppurtunity for profit, after all), there is still evidence to suggest that what I said was true.

The gap between the number of affordable housing units and the number of people needing themhas created a housing crisis for poor people. Between 1973 and 1993, 2.2 million low-rent unitsdisappeared from the market. These units were either abandoned, converted into condominiums or expensive apartments, or became unaffordable because of cost increases.

National Coalition for the Homeless. Emphasis mine. This Passage demonstrates my point; note that housing is being converted such that is satisfies the economic wants of those in whom purchasing power is concentrated, as consequently there is inadequate housing to satisfy of those who do not command purchasing power. I am sure you can see how this relates to my earlier point.

The claims of the NCH are not an absolute; the US census Bureau places the numbers far smaller, and other others have placed it even smaller.
But what is agreed, the large number of homeless are mentally ill, or have some sort of drug addiction which makes it difficult for them to maintain housing. In other words, it is not an issue of capitalism failing to supply housing, it an issue of those people, for whatever reason, being unable to access it.

That being, even if you wished to cite this a problem unique to capitalism, it says nothing about the ability of socialism to provide housing. Housing is extremely complicated, it requires the allocation of a lot of resources. Hence, it also needs a system to determine when housing is needed, to be upgraded ect ect ect. My earlier question still stands: how does socialism know? how does it allocate those resources?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 04:22 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 04:22 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 04:17 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 02:42 pm

Which is going to happen eventually anyway.


Thanks to capitalism and free market industrialisation!
You obviously don't understand what the word "anyway" means.

Perhaps you understand its synonym, "regardless"? [/b]
Past tense; had it not been for capitalism, we'd probably have been okay.

Hopefully the Revolution will post pone a real life recreation of Kevin Kostner's 'Waterworld' by about 50 years or so.

God I hated that movie.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 22, 2007 04:59 pm
Past tense; had it not been for capitalism, we'd probably have been okay.

Doubtful. Communism would need to rapidly industrialize along the same lines; and the environmental degradation would probably have been worse considering:

A. It would promise to provide abundance for all of the earth's inhabitants.
B. Centrally-planned economies have abhorrent environmental records for all the reasons that central planning usually fails.

Your statement above is the precise problem with the whole environmental movement: it couples economic policy with environmentalism in a way that suggests to everyone that the only way to preserve the environment is through communism. People like to protect the environment but we're not interested in communism due to its apalling lack of individual freedom. It turns out the market will inevitably do more to protect the environment than communists ever will. Consider for instance that while Hugo Chavez subsidizes gasoline in his home country which has led to rapid increase in the sale of SUVs, in the United States high gas prices pushed people to buy more hybrids.


Hopefully the Revolution will post pone a real life recreation of Kevin Kostner's 'Waterworld' by about 50 years or so.

Doubt it.


God I hated that movie.

Well at least I can agree with you on that.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:42 pm
[Hence, it also needs a system to determine when housing is needed, to be upgraded ect ect ect. My earlier question still stands: how does socialism know? how does it allocate those resources?
Excellent response.

The answer to your question is simple: Because socialists decide that people don't need big houses, they build lots of ugly, crappy, cheap cement-block high rise apartment complexes that nobody really wants to live in. And they build enough (wasting resources) to make sure there are about 2 apartments for every 1 person in the area.

Then when people complain, they shoot them.

[wtfm8lol]

We decide what lives and what dies and basically so long as it meets our interests, nothing we do to the world is "wrong".

Next big problem for t_wolves to tackle after proving nihilism: learning how to operate a screw driver.


As Jazzrat explained in another thread, morality does not exist.

While there may be no direct authority on the matter, it is not useless to discuss morality. Humanist morals can serve to improve our lives.


This would certainly be disastrous for mankind, so it not in our interests to prevent it through global warming?

Global warming does not evenly warm the entire world by a degree or two. It disrupts normal ocean current patterns, which would (most likely) bring an ice age to europe and turn africa into more of a desert than it already is.


Consider as well that in a few billion years, the sun is going to explode into a Red Supergiant, zapping the entire planet into dust in an oven where the temperatures will meet your overheated rhetoric.

:lol: This may be true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the best of our meaningless and ultimately finite existence.

[t_wolves_fan]

Next big problem for t_wolves to tackle after proving nihilism: learning how to operate a screw driver.

:lol:

The large shelving project in my basement is a testament to my screwdriver skillz.


While there may be no direct authority on the matter, it is not useless to discuss morality. Humanist morals can serve to improve our lives.

I'm not the one who said there's no morality; I agree with you.



This would certainly be disastrous for mankind, so it not in our interests to prevent it through global warming?

Global warming does not evenly warm the entire world by a degree or two. It disrupts normal ocean current patterns, which would (most likely) bring an ice age to europe and turn africa into more of a desert than it already is.

How do we know this won't happen eventually anyways?



Consider as well that in a few billion years, the sun is going to explode into a Red Supergiant, zapping the entire planet into dust in an oven where the temperatures will meet your overheated rhetoric.

:lol: This may be true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the best of our meaningless and ultimately finite existence.

Reminds me of Bart Simpson's comeback when Lisa was pushing the family to buy recycled products: "You're just trying to ensure that we use inferior products".

I'm a mild skeptic of global warming in that I'm not sure our effect on the weather is that dramatic. I'd rather we pursued environmentally-sound policies for a bette reason: human health. It's easier to sell and more easily proveable. But it doesn't require command-and-control policies, just common sense.

[wtfm8lol]

I'm not the one who said there's no morality; I agree with you.

Wise decision. :P


How do we know this won't happen eventually anyways?

Only because it looks to the people who have analyzed the data that we are well above any expected trend, even taking into account ice ages and warm periods of the past. The fluctuation is apparently larger and more rapid than any fluctuation we've seen in the past few thousand years.


Reminds me of Bart Simpson's comeback when Lisa was pushing the family to buy recycled products: "You're just trying to ensure that we use inferior products".

I'm a mild skeptic of global warming in that I'm not sure our effect on the weather is that dramatic. I'd rather we pursued environmentally-sound policies for a bette reason: human health. It's easier to sell and more easily proveable. But it doesn't require command-and-control policies, just common sense.

I don't know why the alternative products would have to be inferior. For one thing, they would largely replace our reliance on foreign oil. I think it would probably be an opportunity for something better to come and replace the system we have now.

I'm less skeptical that we have a significant impact on the weather, simply because the atmosphere really isn't as thick as you might think and because we've put a very good amount of carbon back into the carbon cycle that otherwise wouldn't be there and which hasn't been there since long before humans came around. I do agree though; it is probably best to pursue environmentally sound policies to improve human health because as long as people don't see global warming effects, they're not going to buy into preventing it and so the only way to implement preventions would be to force it on them, which I don't think either of us would consider to be acceptable policy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:19 pm
Only because it looks to the people who have analyzed the data that we are well above any expected trend, even taking into account ice ages and warm periods of the past. The fluctuation is apparently larger and more rapid than any fluctuation we've seen in the past few thousand years.

But there is widespread disagreement (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html) and almost no certainty over how much of an effect we're actually having.



I don't know why the alternative products would have to be inferior. For one thing, they would largely replace our reliance on foreign oil. I think it would probably be an opportunity for something better to come and replace the system we have now.

It was a smart-ass remark. Do you watch The Simpsons?


I do agree though; it is probably best to pursue environmentally sound policies to improve human health because as long as people don't see global warming effects, they're not going to buy into preventing it and so the only way to implement preventions would be to force it on them, which I don't think either of us would consider to be acceptable policy.

Bingo. Figuring out the effects of a 1 degree increase in global temperature is too complex and long-term for most people; getting them to worry about asthma and lung cancer for them and their children is not.

That is why I favor pigovian taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). Make people pay for the true cost of their economic choice, and you'll see intelligent choices made real fast.

[wtfm8lol]

But there is widespread disagreement and almost no certainty over how much of an effect we're actually having.

That's to be expected from such a controversial topic.


It was a smart-ass remark. Do you watch The Simpsons?

I do, and I think I even know which episode you might be talking about, but (shamefully) I don't remember the context of that quote.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 12:27 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 12:27 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 04:42 pm
[Hence, it also needs a system to determine when housing is needed, to be upgraded ect ect ect. My earlier question still stands: how does socialism know? how does it allocate those resources?
Excellent response.

The answer to your question is simple: Because socialists decide that people don't need big houses, they build lots of ugly, crappy, cheap cement-block high rise apartment complexes that nobody really wants to live in. And they build enough (wasting resources) to make sure there are about 2 apartments for every 1 person in the area.

Then when people complain, they shoot them. [/b]
They will build less than what is needed, because they don't know what is needed, and thus will look to "conserve" resources. And they will probably blow those "conserved" resources on something else.

[anti-theist]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+January 20, 2007 12:49 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ January 20, 2007 12:49 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 03:02 pm
This sort of analysis could have been written by a socialist in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000.

Meanwhile, the world grows wealthier, the proleteriat grow wealthier, and the socialists continue to pretend the world began today.
yep, you keep saying that, even as the polar ice water keeps rising round your neck! :lol: [/b]
When you have a glass of ice water, if you leave it to sit there and adjust to room temperature, your ice melts, no?

Does this make your glass overflow?

Why not?

[wtfm8lol]

When you have a glass of ice water, if you leave it to sit there and adjust to room temperature, your ice melts, no?

Does this make your glass overflow?

Why not?

It is not the ice from the frozen arctic that would raise ocean levels; it is the water from the antarctic that would raise ocean levels since much of the ice there sits on top of land.

[Question everything]

Where the fuck are [the cappies] going?


Fast reply... sraight to Hell if you believe in it :unsure: , the way things are going, human kind won't be around much longer, 100 years tops :( , probably more like 30 :huh: ... and as Jesus said "the rich man has the same chance of going to heaven as a camel on walking through the eye of a needle" :P so see you there!!! ;)

[Roy Batty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 02:34 pm

So why the fuck do you expect us to stick with bourgeois society, where exactly is it going?




It's going those far away places where some still dream of drinking Coca Cola, eating McDonalds, wearing Levi's and listening to rock n' roll.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Roy [email protected] 04, 2007 03:48 am
It's going those far away places where some still dream of drinking Coca Cola, eating McDonalds, wearing Levi's and listening to rock n' roll.
Why do you need to attatch brand names to carbonated sweet drinks, hamburgers and jeans, exactly? Also Rock 'n' Roll is by no stretch of the imagination purely capitalist.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Roy Batty+February 04, 2007 03:48 am--> (Roy Batty @ February 04, 2007 03:48 am)
[email protected] 20, 2006 02:34 pm

So why the fuck do you expect us to stick with bourgeois society, where exactly is it going?




It's going those far away places where some still dream of drinking Coca Cola, eating McDonalds, wearing Levi's and listening to rock n' roll. [/b]
Have you ever been to these far away places where they have those dreams? I'll tell you what their dreams are, working their own land for themselves rather than working for big angribuisiness and being exploited, also they dream of their children having a decent life, not having to slave for a meager wage. Most of those people in those fare away places have slightly more noble dreams than cocacola and Mcdonalds.

Bourgiousie society IS in those places, very very much so.