The succes of capitalism

[Ugge]

Leftists often holds the opinion, that capitalism is an unjust sytem that exploits the poor for the benefit of the few. Marxian analysis concluded that capitalism would continue to impoverish the working class, until a socialist revolution occurred, something that was a matter of historical certainty.

Interestingly enough, history tells us that the exact opposite has happened. Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

Isn't it a plain fact of history, that members of capitalist societies has endured reduced poverty and opression, while benefitted from increased living standards and political freedoms?

Why would anyone want to replace this great system with a politically controlled economy, which historically has caused poverty, entitlement and an all-controlloing state?

Respectfully submitted

[JazzRemington]

"Succes"? What the hell is a "succes"?

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:11 pm
"Succes"? What the hell is a "succes"?
succes = success = the opposite of failure

That was what I meant.

[SpikeyRed]

Ugge - I'm sure someone much more informed, experienced and articulate than I will come along to give you a much better and much longer rebuttal than I, However I do have these few points to offer.

When you say workers have been enriched and this counter poses to Marxist assertion that workers would get poorer, you have to think workers will get poorer on what standard? Because comparatively, Wealth has actually continued to travel 'up', the rich are rich and the poor are poorer. Stats related too the wealth gap are wide spread and easy to find. So in one sense, I.E. a Comparative stance, workers have actually got poorer.

Also I think it's interesting to note that you said the "Capitalist west" has gained increases in their standards of living. The standards of living of many groups, even nations, across the world, in places like Africa and Asia, have actually headed backwards as Capitalism has developed and come into contact with them.

It isn't true at all that ALL members of capitalist societies have benefited from increased living standards, less oppression and freedom, etc. General Pinochet was a rampant supporter of Capitalism, but his people definitely weren't free of oppression, especially politically :P

Ugge it's good to hear you ask questions, and so humbly and respectfully so I hope I haven't been condescending or patronizing. It sounds like you have a genuine interest in infomation and truth, so, I would encourage you to do some reading around area's you've asked questions on, because, I'll tell you, not all is what it seems :-P

Cheers

[Tower of Bebel]

My English is not as good as I want it to be, but I try to explain what I have in mind.

The workers always have been a very strong social group in Western countries and the combination with the Cold War created a very unique situation in many Western countries: the welfare state. The wealth common people enjoy in Western countries is there for two reasons:

1. The economic boom of the 50s and 60s. Which made it possible for capitalists to make some concessions.
2. The threat of Soviet Russia and the PRC. Which made, especially in Europe, the worker's movements a threat to capitalists.

The crisis of the 70s made it impossible to give in to concessions and the reforms in China + the implosion of soviet Russia gave capitalism more credit. Neoliberalism advanced during the 80s, yet the end of stalinism made it possible to bring capitalism to former soviet countries.

Today we see attacks from the State on welfare. Here in Europe poor people are blamed because they take too much money from our social services, yet we see that since the departure of neoliberalism more than half of the produced wealth does no go back to the workers. More than half of the produced wealth goes to capitalists (share holders, the State, ...).
I can use my own country as an example. Although the social-democrats stayed in the government for years, they were inable to turn the tide. In the 60s and 70s more than half of the wealth that was produced each year -in Belgium- was used for health care, services, buildings, etc. But during the 80s, when neoliberalism in Belgium finally took of, most of the wealth did not return to the people. Money that previously was used for health care and services was from then on used to pay the national debt. No debt makes the states attractive to investors. The state tried to meet the interests of investors by letting them pay less for the welfare of common people. And it goes on. Although the liberals and social-democrats succeeded in getting more investors, we can still see that more and more attacks are prepared. That's because it's not in the interest of the capitalists to restore the welfare state like it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Neoliberalism is caused by competition from Asia and the crisis of the 70s. Yet, the government says it's because of the poor. The poor spoil our welfare. However every inquiry suggests and proves that it's because of the competition from China and India, because of the crisis of the 70s.

[RGacky3]

Depends what you mean by success, if expanding the wealth of Society is success, then Bolshevism actually did it a lot faster.

If success means creating a fair equitable and free society, them both Bolshevism and Capitalism failed and had no intentino of being successfull in that sense.

[Red Rebel]

Ugge, read Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stge of Capitalism. Then look up the term, Labour Aristocracy.

[Ugge]

SpikeyRed >>

It is true, that workers has not seen the same spectacular rise in income in relative terms, as they have in real purchasing power. Nonetheless I have a hard time accepting, that when working people become richer, they are actually being exploited because almost everybody else is getting richer too.

I would not attempt to argue, that everybody is better off in a capitalist system. A baron would clearly be better off in a feudal system, as would a government bureaucrat in a nationalized economy. But history suggests, that the average working man is better off by many orders of magnitude in a deregulated capitalist economy, rather than in any of these two alternative systems.

And as for countries outside the capitalist west, many has liberalised their economies and reaped tremendous economic gains as a result. China, India, Thailand and South Korea and many others were extremely poor countries 40 years ago, but has grown much richer due to investment, capital accumulation and free trade.

It is true, that there still is a very unequal distrubution of wealth in this world, but I think that it can be argued, that this unequal distribution is largely caused by an unequal distribution of capitalism, with the more derugulated market-economies beeing a lot richer than their less capitalistic counterparts.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Raccoon

I'm not sure that I'm following you here. It's true that the wellfare states in Scandinavia (where I come from) is going through some sort of crisis, becuse they are very expensive, and costs are rising faster than tax-returns. Somthing which is made worse by a changing demographic.

But this is, I believe, is somthing of a luxury problem, as wellfare states generally only exist in rich capitalist countries. I know of no regulated, collectivized economic system, that could finance the kind of public spending you see in Denmark or Norway for instance.

So even if welfare spending drops a bit, the citizens of those countries would stille be enjoying all the advantages of living in a wealthy capitalist society.

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:32 pm
Depends what you mean by success, if expanding the wealth of Society is success, then Bolshevism actually did it a lot faster.

If success means creating a fair equitable and free society, them both Bolshevism and Capitalism failed and had no intentino of being successfull in that sense.
Well, by success I mean increasing, not the wealth of society, but rather the wealth of the citizens that constitutes society. Giving people an improved standard of living, without taking away their freedoms.

Increasing the economic output of society, while keeping the populace poor is very easy, and can be achieved through slavery, forced labour or various kind of serfdom. This is largely what happened under Bolshevism.

[RGacky3]

How is that not the case under capitalism, how is wage slavery any different?

[R_P_A_S]

Um... developing the means of production so that we can take it from them and provide a socialist future.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:22 am
Interestingly enough, history tells us that the exact opposite has happened. Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

Isn't it a plain fact of history, that members of capitalist societies has endured reduced poverty and opression, while benefitted from increased living standards and political freedoms?
The United States has a diminishing middle class, relies on foreign slave labor for it's products and its citizens have atrocious healthcare.

Sounds like a failure to me - unless you are concerned primarily with capital interests as opposed to human interests.

[Tatarin]

... while benefitted from increased living standards and political freedoms?

I wouldn't say that, in case of the US, that there is much freedom. What about the "red scare" of the 1950's? Why was it so dangerous for me to express my views as a communist?

If people are truly better off in a capitalist society, then why did they vote for Allende in Chile? Or the social democrats in Scandinavia?

Contrary to belief, a society in which every induvidual is off by her/himself, where how much money you have is what counts, such a society is worse off than a society who have many safety nets.


But history suggests, that the average working man is better off by many orders of magnitude in a deregulated capitalist economy, rather than in any of these two alternative systems.

But with unregulated capitalism we would get what happened in Bolivia: privatization of water. The idea may be attractive, until you realize that Bill Gates has the potential to copyright every cell in your body. "Deregulation", in this sence, actually becomes more control. Just take the example of the consolidation of media by big business in the US. Why wouldn't this happen with many other products?


And as for countries outside the capitalist west, many has liberalised their economies and reaped tremendous economic gains as a result.

Liberalized for whom? The people are moved out of communities into shanty towns, the environment destroyed for quick profit, and the real buildings are highways to and from mines and oil refineries. They are liberalized for those who already have money, while the majority suffers.


China, ...

While it's true that China seems rich today - many of it's industrialization happened during Mao's time. Capitalism is flourishing there because workers have no rights. Because you can't stop capitalism there - only the state can if it wants. But we don't hear so much about the peasants and workers who live outside Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. They live in absolute misery, while privatized industry is spewing tons of waste into the surrounding villages.

[Livesoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:22 am
Leftists often holds the opinion, that capitalism is an unjust sytem that exploits the poor for the benefit of the few. Marxian analysis concluded that capitalism would continue to impoverish the working class, until a socialist revolution occurred, something that was a matter of historical certainty.

Hello Ugge, this is my favorite section of this website. Opposing ideologies...your perspective is probably the majority perspective of most intelligent capitalists. You see these things and wonder how can it be wrong? Its how my parents think, and I don't blame them for it. Because who really knows anyways? But there is plenty of evidence to illustrate the opposite is happening internationally under capitalism. It may appear/seem that the long arm of capitalism only extends to the edges of its own borders. There are however externalities. The USA is 5% of the worlds population, yet they (we) consume more than 25% of the worlds resources. It's a small world nowadays...especially for the third world countries that are raped by the corporations running capitalist societies. A brethren here used the privization of water in Bolivia. Water in bolivia tripled in price for an already impovershed nation because a londan based company bought the rights. This took place because Bolivia (like most third world countries) was very much in debt to the World bank (another private institution). Under pressue from the WB Bolivia sold public held entities to international investors. Water was one of them! The new cost of water per month equaled nearly half of the average bolivians monthly income. The Bolivians rioted and had the contract canceled. This one example thankfully has a decent ending, however most often it doesn't. Just think about it, it doesn't make sense that 5% of the world should be able to consume 25% of the worlds resources. For one country to be able to do that it MUST mean that other countries are unable to counter that. They aren't willingly allowing us to do it. So capitalism on the level found here in the USA can only be realized via a method of oppression on those outside of its borders. And when the media conglomerates and government officials are working together (like so obviously happens here) to maintain the ignorance of its citizens you must suspect immoral methods. Its not fair that 11 million children die every year from malnutrition when there is more food in the world now than ever before. That number is also increasing, not decreasing. Its my thought that capitalism breeds greed. The more they have the more they want.

To put it into perspective, at least into the perspective I see...The USA trade deficet is huge, we import way more than we export. How is it logically possible that our economy is on the right track functioning in this manner with the insane debt we have? That question led to the rest. A couple videos i've felt have been very helpful are these...

The money masters
The corporation
V for Vendetta (an artistic warning to the people)

I also would recommend reading as many books as you possibly can! Especially books from the individuals you may know as radicals or revolutionaries or just bad people. For example everything i was taught here in the states said that Malcolm X was a violent revolutionist. I doubted it but not until reading his biography did I see the truth behind the lies, and also the REASON for the lies...

Anyway, good luck to you and thanks for your sincere question. Peace and blessings.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:22 pm
Leftists often holds the opinion, that capitalism is an unjust sytem that exploits the poor for the benefit of the few. Marxian analysis concluded that capitalism would continue to impoverish the working class, until a socialist revolution occurred, something that was a matter of historical certainty.

Interestingly enough, history tells us that the exact opposite has happened. Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

Isn't it a plain fact of history, that members of capitalist societies has endured reduced poverty and opression, while benefitted from increased living standards and political freedoms?

Why would anyone want to replace this great system with a politically controlled economy, which historically has caused poverty, entitlement and an all-controlloing state?

Respectfully submitted
Hello Ugge.
Indeed, you're right, history has many interesting tails to tell us of capitalism and (failed) workers states. But history is not black and white.
You could look at the history of, say, Russia, and you could say "The Bolshevik system in Russia was a complete, and total failure. It proves to us that Communist ideology is a utopian dream, and is totally unachievable."
But that wouldn't be the truth, would it?
Of course not. There are reasons for the failures of socialism and workers states across the world, and they vary. Russia did not fail because communism is utopian. The USSR failed for a diverse set of reasons.
I wont go into why, for I will spare you the agony of reading another rant about Russia.
But I feel that you see what I'm getting at.

History, all history, is written from a perspective. All things must be taken into account.
Yes, it is true to say that, America (between 1900 - and now) has enjoyed more liberty, democracy, and freedom than socialist countries; it is true to say that they haven't been subjected to the same amount of oppression and poverty - or is it? African Americans, and migrants all live in poverty; infact, 1/3 of the American population lives in poverty - and it is true that the living standards have improved.
But there is a reason behind it.
You're simply looking at it, as if things just happen - like magic. They do not. There is a reason for all of these things.
There is a reason for the poverty in nations that attempted to go socialist or communist - such as blocking trade (eg. America to Cuba; The Iron curtain, etc); then there is the ditching of communist politics by the heads of state for more powerful ends (eg Stalin); then there is the invasions and disruptions of socialist nations by Capitalist ones (eg Bay of Pigs); then there is terrorist activity by outside nations in an attempt to over throw the government (America to Cuba); then there's False flagging...
The list goes on and on.

I don't wish to replace this system with a tyrannical one. No, I work toward the destruction of this system, with the replacement of a system of social, political, and economic equality. I work toward Anarchist Communism.

X.

Apoligies if I repeat myself, or whatever. I am exhausted.

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:55 pm
How is that not the case under capitalism, how is wage slavery any different?
Well, I would certainly say, that there's a vast difference between beeing employed in a capitalist society (as I am), and beeing subjected to forced labour in a command economy.

For one thing, the capitalist labour market is based on volunteer participation, meaning that you only sell your labour if you think it profitable to do so. Many does not, and chooses to become selfemployed. Farmers and craftsmen for instance, typically sell their produce rather than their labor. This competition for labour, has historically pressed the price of labour upwards, as productivity and capital acumulation has soared.

This was notoriously not the case under bolshevism or similar systems, where people largely remained impoverished and unfree.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:49 pm
Raccoon

I'm not sure that I'm following you here. It's true that the wellfare states in Scandinavia (where I come from) is going through some sort of crisis, becuse they are very expensive, and costs are rising faster than tax-returns. Somthing which is made worse by a changing demographic.

But this is, I believe, is somthing of a luxury problem, as wellfare states generally only exist in rich capitalist countries. I know of no regulated, collectivized economic system, that could finance the kind of public spending you see in Denmark or Norway for instance.

So even if welfare spending drops a bit, the citizens of those countries would stille be enjoying all the advantages of living in a wealthy capitalist society.
What I mean is that the welfare state is being attacked because material conditions today differ from the conditions of the 50s and 60s.

[Ugge]

Originally posted by Dean+July 30, 2007 02:19 am--> (Dean @ July 30, 2007 02:19 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 11:22 am
Interestingly enough, history tells us that the exact opposite has happened. Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

Isn't it a plain fact of history, that members of capitalist societies has endured reduced poverty and opression, while benefitted from increased living standards and political freedoms?
The United States has a diminishing middle class, relies on foreign slave labor for it's products and its citizens have atrocious healthcare.

Sounds like a failure to me - unless you are concerned primarily with capital interests as opposed to human interests. [/b]
The american middle class, is the largest and wealthiest on the planet. The purchasing power of an american median income, is bigger than the similar figure in Switzerland. And the swiss are routinely regarded as beeing filthy rich here in Europe.

And I do not believe that America is dependent on foreign slave labour. True, american consumers buy products manufactured in poor countries, where wages and working conditions are poor compared to the rich west. But surely it is a good thing, that the purchasing power of the wealthy working class of the west, helps to drive up wages in the emerging economies of asia.

As for the american healthcare system, you are perhaps right, I would not know. If this system is so atrocious, then abolish it. Use the fact that you live in a wealthy capitalist country, with abundant political freedoms, to make some changes.

Regards

[Ugge]

Tatarin >>

Well, one explanation of McCarthyism and the 'red scare' could be, that even people in free and open societies, are prone to scape-goatism and fear-mongering. I've never claimed that capitalist societies were perfect, far from it. Just that they are comparably more free and tolerant than pretty much all other kinds of society, and that the working man seems to be much better off, living in one.

And you must admit, that communists and dissidents are generally treated better in capitalist countries, than capitalists has been in communist ones.

As for privatisation of utilities, they have been a spectacular succes here in Denmark, yielding lower prices for everything from telecoms and waste mangement to postal services.

But it takes time for a private enterprise to turn around the inefficient business of a state monopoly. The alternative is to maintain status quo, as the Bolivian state has done, with the result that money better spend on education and healtcare, are used to finance the deficit of a badly run utility.

Respectfully submitted

[Marko]

If capitalism was so succesful why did the USSR defeat the Nazis in the Great Patriotic War? The Nazis had more raw materials and very skilled scientists and engineers.

The answer is that the economic system of Soviet Union was so much more efficient. The liberal democracies which were even more capitalist than the Nazis were easily defeated by Germany between 1939-1941. Only the heroism of the Soviet people stopped the Nazis.

[Ugge]

Livesoul >>

What I'm sure you mean is that, america consumes 25% af the natural resources consumed every year?

If that is so, I do not really see the problem, as america creates more than 25% af wealth created each year, and its logical than the first figure roughly correlates with the second. I'm sure that when more countries become capitalist, and thus enjoy bigger wealth, their economies will require higher input in the form of iron ore, uranium, fossil fuel etc.

You are very correct, that many people still live in poor parts of the world, and are subject to hunger and poverty. But this largely happens in the uncapitalist parts of the world, such as a Zimbabwe, Myanmar og North Korea. In developed capitalist societies these things are much less common.

[Ugge]

Tierra y Libertad

I'm sure that there are many good, and many not so good, reasons why socialist countries have failed, and I'm sure that these could be debated at length.

But what about explaining the apparent success of the capitalist model? How it has empowered and enriched the working class, and given its populace political and economic freedoms that only the elite enjoyed earlier on?

As for your ideas of anarchistic communism, I'm interested in knowing, whether such a society would preserve the freedoms people enjoy under capitalism.

Would they own their own labour, or could that be taken way from them? Would they own whatever they could produce, either on their own accord, or collectivley working together with others?

Would they be allowed to strike deals with other people, under conditions both parties voluntarily agreed upon? Or would that freedom be taken away from them?

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:29 am
If capitalism was so succesful why did the USSR defeat the Nazis in the Great Patriotic War? The Nazis had more raw materials and very skilled scientists and engineers.

The answer is that the economic system of Soviet Union was so much more efficient. The liberal democracies which were even more capitalist than the Nazis were easily defeated by Germany between 1939-1941. Only the heroism of the Soviet people stopped the Nazis.
I never claimed that capitalist society was ideal for waging war. I claimed that it apparently supplies better living conditions, and more personal freedoms to its citizentry.

It is indeed plausible, that a dictatorial, collectivized economy is better suited for mass mobilization and warfare.

Regards

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:56 am
What I mean is that the welfare state is being attacked because material conditions today differ from the conditions of the 50s and 60s.
I wouldn't know about that. Here in Denmark the wellfare state is ejoying widespread support, but is in many ways in distress, because certain parts of it appears to be unaffordable in the long run.

This is due more to demographic change, and structural changes in the labour market, than to changing material conditions.

[Bilan]

Ugge


I'm sure that there are many good, and many not so good, reasons why socialist countries have failed, and I'm sure that these could be debated at length.

We are in agreement :)


But what about explaining the apparent success of the capitalist model? How it has empowered and enriched the working class, and given its populace political and economic freedoms that only the elite enjoyed earlier on?

Much like the failure of socialism, the success of capitalism in "enriching" the working class has varied reasons. The main reason would be industrialism, and the majority of the wealth and power in the world being held in the hand of capitalists in the developed nations. The Industrial revolution and the technological advancements of capitalist nations have lead to the enriching of the working class in capitalist nations. However, most socialist nations have been third world pre-revolution, have they not? Russia was indeed a backward nation; Cuba the same; China the same. Most socialist nations have been 3rd world nations. So, the poverty of workers in socialist nations is due to the material conditions of those nations at that time, which don't just miraculously change when a revolution occurs - although Russia did progress rapidly (there's good a forum on here about that it's in politics or history, have a read).
As for empowering, the working class has always been treated like a dog in capitalist societies; Do well, and the rich will reward you with sweets (moderate material benefits), do bad - say, agitating, for social revolution - and they'll punish you.


As for your ideas of anarchistic communism, I'm interested in knowing, whether such a society would preserve the freedoms people enjoy under capitalism.

Of course.



Would they own their own labour, or could that be taken way from them?
It would be solely in the hands of the workers and the community. It could not be taken away from them by anyone, for it belongs to everyone collectively.

I suggest you have a read of something by this man (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/KropotkinCW.html), or this man. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/malatesta/MalatestaCW.html)
It will answer all questions you have about Anarchist Communism.

Thanks,
x.

[Ugge]

You are right, most socialist countris were indeed autoritarian and poor, and they largely remained so after their revolution.

Capitalist countries were also, at one point, poor and authoritarian, but the capitalist system propelled these countreis to greater wealth and more individual freedoms. Benefits which were also exstended to the working class.

I do not believe, that the working class has been treated like dogs in capitalist society. Quite the contrary in fact.

In my country, capitalism brought with it, incredible rises en real wages, universal voting rights, womens suffrage, healt care, education and many other things. The working class has been so dominating, that it has blurred out of existense and become af new all-powerful middle class, that all politicians, left or right, aspire to. That's hardly dog-like.



As for your system, I'm confused. Would labour be owned be each man or woman individually, or would it be owned collectively by the community? If the community decided upon buliding af factory, but some individual, or group of indivduals, would rather do something else or go their own way, would that be allowed?

If your anarchistic system gives people complete freedom to work, not work, sell, buy, do their own thing or collaborate with others, then isnt that the same as laissez faire capitalism?


Respectully submitted

[Tower of Bebel]

Ugge, if by demogrpahic change you mean that more and more people live from social services like elderly who live from a pension, then I think we have the same "problem" in Belgium.
Indeed, social services are under presure because of this demographic change, yet we must concider that since the 1980s the so called capitalists or companies pay much less to support the wellfare state than before. More and more money flows back to the companies which makes the countries who support this policy very attractive. This is needed because sectors like automobile are in crisis and many relocate to Asia.
This means that the workers have to pay more for wellfare, yet more and more wealth produced by them goes to "capitalists". That's why find this system propagated by liberals and shortly also by social democrats disgusting.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:58 am
And I do not believe that America is dependent on foreign slave labour. True, american consumers buy products manufactured in poor countries, where wages and working conditions are poor compared to the rich west. But surely it is a good thing, that the purchasing power of the wealthy working class of the west, helps to drive up wages in the emerging economies of asia.

As for the american healthcare system, you are perhaps right, I would not know. If this system is so atrocious, then abolish it. Use the fact that you live in a wealthy capitalist country, with abundant political freedoms, to make some changes.

Regards
Actually, when U.S. companies are utilizing an external market for your required services they are almost always doing it because the best way to draw a profit margin is by relying on labor practices which are illegal under our labor laws. The imperialist nature of our country, exacerbated since vietnam, is also an economic interest which indeed does benefit some, but it does terrible things to people in foreign countries.

Capitalism requires antagonistim; its root is in competition and disassociation. Therefore, it is always going to result in an anti-humanistic, competitive society rather than a humanistic one.


And the point on political freedoms is laughable; the U.S. political freedoms - that is, how much control we have over our government - are pretty much nonexistant in any meaningful way on the federal level, and the state level doesn't have enough power when referendums are thrown at us. Besides, the issue is the healthcare system, and you are basically implying that socializing it is the answer. doesn't sound like faith in capitalism to me.

[amazed]

In a capitalist society, you have choices at least. Some people are so stupid that they are going to be poor no matter how much welfare they are given. Just take a walk through a HUD housing project in America on a hot summer day and see how many of these non-working bums have 57" tv's in their hovels. These people aren't poor because of greedy executives, or mult-national corporations or George Bush; they are poor because either they don't work, or if they do they blow it on frivolous bullshit.

At least in America you have a chance to better yourself if you have the motivation, and the poor in America don't have it all that bad compared to alot of places.

I'm not responding to any particular post, I'm just shooting off my mouth.

[RGacky3]

Amazed take a small moment to read something about Anarchism and Socialism before you "shoot off your mouth" because I can tell you this much, right now its clear you have no idea what your talking about.

[Livesoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:38 am
Livesoul >>

What I'm sure you mean is that, america consumes 25% af the natural resources consumed every year?

If that is so, I do not really see the problem, as america creates more than 25% af wealth created each year, and its logical than the first figure roughly correlates with the second. I'm sure that when more countries become capitalist, and thus enjoy bigger wealth, their economies will require higher input in the form of iron ore, uranium, fossil fuel etc.

You are very correct, that many people still live in poor parts of the world, and are subject to hunger and poverty. But this largely happens in the uncapitalist parts of the world, such as a Zimbabwe, Myanmar og North Korea. In developed capitalist societies these things are much less common.
Thats exactly the point. They won't allow other countries to increase their wealth and take a piece of their pie. They control these countries through various methods. The most obvious is via the world bank and IMF. These private institutions lend money to these countries to temporarely alleviate suffering, but it only worsens that situation because the citizens now are forced to pay an enourmous interest amount on these loans which only keeps them more in debt. And now that they are indebted to these corporations the countries must heed their influence. Just like what happens in any typical economic system, if a bank loans me money and i don't pay they can take the house. They do the same thing, they force countries to sell off public sectors of the industry to private international investors. One example great example is what happen in Bolivia related to their water. So now these countries are oppressed, their resources are sold off to corporate investors in countries like the USA and Europe where they have their headquarters and the oppression is maintained. The politicians don't stand up for the people because they are bought off or installed into those position. Just like what they are doing right now in Iraq & Afganistan, like how they have done in Chile, Brasil, Colombia, Cuba, Israel, Mexico, and sooooo many other countries and provinces. Hopefully that explains why it has nothing to do with the systems of the countries. Is Cuba poor because they are socialist communists? Or is it because of a half century old trade embargo that doesn't allow any trade with the nation by the United States, or companies operating in foreign countries with relations to the USA, or with countries that get lobbied and have signed old agreements to not trade with Cuba? The same methods of oppression exist and result from greedy corporations that operate under a blanket of deregulated guidelines and exemptions provided for the interest of stockholders in capitalistic societies.

[Bilan]

Ugge


You are right, most socialist countris were indeed autoritarian and poor, and they largely remained so after their revolution.

They remained authoritarian, no doubt. But industrially, they dramatically approved - Russia is a great example of this.
I answer this more later.


Capitalist countries were also, at one point, poor and authoritarian, but the capitalist system propelled these countreis to greater wealth and more individual freedoms. Benefits which were also exstended to the working class.

It's not the same, which is what I've been trying to get at.
Economically speaking, Capitalist nations - or Imperialist nations, if you will - were on top of the food chain (eg America, Great Britain, etc). Though they were poor at one point, they had the technology the ability to exploit their resources to be able to improve their living conditions - but much of this was not down in a top down manor as you're suggesting; it had to be struggled for -- always has.
For example, let's look at the U.S.
Now, America was never really a poor country. It was, but it had significant technological advancements; it had wealth; it had cheap labour (slavery); essentially, it had all the necessary requirements to industrialize their continent. This wasn't because their economic system was capitalist; indeed, if it were socialist and all the same factors had been contributed (except the Slavery,of course) the result would've been much the same - except for the fact that the British, as well as all other Capitalist nations would've attacked it, and blocked all trade and so forth would it.
Which brings in another factor. All socialist nations - or, attempted socialist nations - have been subjected to economic sactions from capitalist nations - indeed, capitalist nations have tried to starve them, and force them into poverty. These are the lengths capitalists would go to ensure their world order.
Cuba is a perfect example of this.



I do not believe, that the working class has been treated like dogs in capitalist society. Quite the contrary in fact.

In my country, capitalism brought with it, incredible rises en real wages, universal voting rights, womens suffrage, healt care, education and many other things. The working class has been so dominating, that it has blurred out of existense and become af new all-powerful middle class, that all politicians, left or right, aspire to. That's hardly dog-like.

I think you misunderstood what I meant.
What I was saying was that, capitalist nations treat the working class like dogs.
They do this by rewarding them when they behave - giving them sweets (ie, suffrage, better health care, education, etc) - when they misbehave, they'll be punished.
The amount of examples of this throughout modern history are overwhelming.
Look at America and the treatment of dissident citizens there. Perfect example.



As for your system, I'm confused. Would labor be owned be each man or woman individually, or would it be owned collectively by the community? If the community decided upon buliding af factory, but some individual, or group of indivduals, would rather do something else or go their own way, would that be allowed?

Collectivley owned. The fruits of the labor belong to those who make it.
I don't know what you mean by "go their own way", but if you mean they don't have to do it, then yes.
I offer you those links once more. They're a great insight into anarchist communism.
This one (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/malatesta/MalatestaATAC.html) should answer alot for you

Thanks,
X.

[Djehuti]

Leftists often holds the opinion, that capitalism is an unjust sytem that exploits the poor for the benefit of the few. Marxian analysis concluded that capitalism would continue to impoverish the working class, until a socialist revolution occurred, something that was a matter of historical certainty.

Marx never developed any theory on absolute impoverishing (he did however, talk about the tedency towards relative impoverishing).



nterestingly enough, history tells us that the exact opposite has happened. Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

I do not doubt that capitalism is able to produce great wealth, the communist critique of capitalism is not about capitalism being ineffective.

Ofcource capitalists societies are wealthier than non-capitalist societies (how many are there? Primitive tribes and mayhaps Nepal?); capitalism saw its rise with industrialism 250 years ago, and have since then improved its capability to produce.

However, the working class did not get any part of the wealth produced for free. Here in Sweden, our nobility and our bourgeoisie were in 1917 threatened by a revolution similar to that in Russia. So in agreement with the social democrats and labour unions they granted us democracy and a greater portion of the wealth, and the revolution did not happen. In the thirtees the working class was even stronger and more organized and the bourgeoisie were getting scared once again. Another agreement was made in Saltsjöbaden, the working class shoud get a lot of welfare but in exchange they should not strike illegally and accept that the workplaces belong to the bourgeoisie. And in this fashion it continued, a fair bit into the 70-ties. The working class demanded more wellfare, and more rights and it was granted us because the bourgeoisie were afraid of us. But then something changed... Suddenly the bourgeoise was not afraid of the people anymore, instead we were teached to be afraid of them (we, the godlike entrepreneurs are the ones who built this country, you should please us or we will fire you, or perhaps move to another country with all our capital!). As we speak our reforms are being removed and Sweden is getting poorer and poorer (the solution according to bourgeoisie apologetics is even more cutting and slashing in our rights and welfare, fucking bastards!). So nothing comes for free. The working class can only achieve major welfare if the bourgeoisie are afraid of us.



Why would anyone want to replace this great system with a politically controlled economy, which historically has caused poverty, entitlement and an all-controlloing state?

We do not want to replace private capitalism with state run capitalism such as in the former east. Stalin's Soviet Union was just as capitalist as the United States, just far more brutal and effective. It does not matter if the capital is being administrated by a class of capitalists or a class of beaurocrats as long as there is capital being administrated. What we want is communism, and that is not the same thing. Communism is a class- and stateless society in which what we produce take the form of free use-values rather than commodities. Communism solves alienation and the major antagonisms of the class society. Communism is needed to take human society out of pre-history into a time were we are in control of our lives and our personal and collective future. When we are not ruled by need nor by others (or any impersonal forces such as the market).

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:22 am
Leftists often holds the opinion, that capitalism is an unjust sytem that exploits the poor for the benefit of the few. Marxian analysis concluded that capitalism would continue to impoverish the working class, until a socialist revolution occurred, something that was a matter of historical certainty.

Interestingly enough, history tells us that the exact opposite has happened. Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

Isn't it a plain fact of history, that members of capitalist societies has endured reduced poverty and opression, while benefitted from increased living standards and political freedoms?

Why would anyone want to replace this great system with a politically controlled economy, which historically has caused poverty, entitlement and an all-controlloing state?

Respectfully submitted
Noam Chomsky destroys the 'things are getting better' argument by arguing that the slaves in the plantations also 'enjoyed an increase in living standards' over time. Therefore is this a justification for the continuation of capitalism any more than it is a justification for the re-establishment of slavery?

By in large capitalist countries per se dont always elevate themselves out of poverty. I can think of umpteen countries off my head across the southern hemisphere that have embraced the wests free market strategy yet they are getting worse off as opposed to better.

[Ugge]

Dean >>

You claim that capitalist societies will invariably be anti-humanistic, due to their roots in competition an disassociation. This is not an argument, it is a dogma.

I should like to claim the opposite. That capitalism does not require competition. It allows it. Just as it allows cooporation. This, I think, shows the humane nature of capitalism, that it relies on voluntary participation rahter than control.

You can be a communist in a capitalist society. You can found communist societies under a capitalist system, as long as they are not based on force or coercion, but on voluntary agreement. This human tolerance stems form the fact that capitalism has its roots in individual freedom, rather than in a specific model of the 'good' society.


You further claim, that when american companies use external markets to suply services, it does terrible things to people in foreign countries.

Well, in the last 30 years the world has seen chronic hunger and child labour cut in half, and more than 200 million poeple has left abject poverty in the last 20 years alone. This development has ben led by countries, which has opened up for foreign investment, business and trade.

When rich countries buy goods and services in poorer countries, it makes the poor countries richer, not poorer. This is what you'd expect, and this is what has actually happened.

One more moral victory for free trade and capitalism it seems

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Livesoul >>

There is no pie. Wealth is created, it is not taken from a common pool.

When Brittain was the only wealthy country, it was also the major consumer of coal and steel. This is what you would expect.

But this did not stop other from emulating the capitaist freedoms and advances, thus building up their own free and market friendly societies.

And this happy development continues to this day, in the places where politicians are wise enought to allow it.

Fifty years ago North and South Korea were both poor autoritarian states. Today the average South Korean has a living standard thirty times that of the average North Korean. And people in South Korea are living in a much, much freer society.

Doesn't that make you happy?

Regards

[Ugge]

Tierra y Libertad

It is true that Russia industrialized fast, but at a terrible human cost, and it was done using guns and opression.

The economic development experienced by capitalist nations happened largely voluntarily, because it benefitted of those involved, namely workers, consumers and others. This is a great moral difference.



Admittedly I did not read your links, as I do not find the discussion of hypothetical what-if societies all that interesting. Proponents of such orders invariably portray them in a very seductive light, as did the bolsheviks, fascist and others.

My point was, that if your anarchistic communism does not rely on force or coercion, then there should be nothing stopping you from starting your own anarchistic communist society right now. You would not need to destroy capitalism, and thus force your values upon others, who might see things differently.

In a truly free and anarchistic society, it should be possible to form communist, capitalist or other forms of communities without fear of retribution.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:56 am
I do not doubt that capitalism is able to produce great wealth, the communist critique of capitalism is not about capitalism being ineffective.
As for Karl Marx he said alot of weird things about capitalism, few of which proved to be even remotely true.

But the main contemporary allegation towards capitalism is, that it exploits the working class, the poor, or both.

I maintain that neither charge is true. I in fact claim that the exact opposite is true, that capitalism empowers, enriches and gives freedom of choice to both groups. And it does so to an extent not seen in any other extant form of society.

Regards

[Ugge]

Ulster Socialist >>


If Noam Chomsky really said that, then he is a sore fool.

I personally earn my wages by working for my employer and I easily earn hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of times more than a slave did 150 years ago. And I am employed because I choose to be so, and I could quit if I wanted to. And I never get whipped. And so on...

If Noam Chomsky cannot see the difference, then there's little hope of reasoning with said person.

Regards

[SpikeyRed]

Ugge - You made some reference (And I'm too lazy to go and get it) too how 3rd world countries liberalizing to today's capitalism, and therefore allowing unfettered access by rich western capitalists, they are doing great things for their country. However, in Burkina Faso, cotton farmers are producing 2-4 times as much cotton than they did several years ago and are actually making LESS profit, because of the huge American subsidizing of their own cotton farmers, something that Burkina Faso is told not to do by the groups like the IMF and the WB. And I think this is very important in countering the point that opening your country to "Free-Trade" and adopting Neo-Liberal policies is not always good for your people, and in fact I would say it is on the whole actually worse.
You yourself sighted the example of India opening up to foreign capital as supporting evidence that this is a positive thing for working people. But the reality is that in the poor parts of India, the population is actually going ba

At one point Ugge, you were pointing out that before countries were capitalist they were alot poorer. I think it is usefull to note that before countries were capitalist, they were, on the whole, Feudal or perhaps even tribal in some cases (Australia, parts of Asia, Africa), so too use this as an argument for capitalism seems too be a moot point, as Capitalism is clearly a 'superior system' to Feudalism, and it is important to remember that Marx actually notes this. Capitalism in this sense is simply historical development of human society, and that, as Capitalism was the next step in development on from Feudalism, it dose not mean that Capitalism is a superior system too Socialism, Communism, Anarchist-Communism or some other such 'left' idea off Society and Economics. And as Ulster Socialist said, Noam Chomsky effectivly rebuts the argument that we have seen a progressive rise in living standards under capitalism, by saying that Slaves saw a progressive rise in living standards under slavery, as I'm sure Serfs did under serfdom. This is not an argument for capitalism because it is not exclusive to Capitalism that living standards have risen.

Ugge, you keep pointing out the 'freedom' that exists under capitalism in an economic sense and pointing out how people can choose to do this or that, and how Capitalism is great because it allows people to do good things. But, the sole motivator for a capitalist, and there ultimate goal is increasing Profit. And too do this, costs (Like wages, money spent on protecting the environment, tax's that go to 'services') must be minimized by any means available. This is one of the fundamental idea's of leftists, and gives rise to the idea of class struggle. I.E. That the capitalist classes interests are inherently opposed to that of the workers, because they want to increase profit by driving down costs (Wages and such) and we want to maintain our wages, and even get rises if we can!

I think what I'm tryna say is with that, that, you have a rather idealized view of what those with Money want to do, will do etc, and that, the working class people are NOT the same as the Capitalists, so, while we may have increased in wealth compared to our positiong 100, 200, 300 years ago, we are still vulnerable to Capitalist attacks on our living conditions, simply because they're interests fundamentally oppose the working majority

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Ugge+July 31, 2007 02:37 pm--> (Ugge @ July 31, 2007 02:37 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 09:56 am
I do not doubt that capitalism is able to produce great wealth, the communist critique of capitalism is not about capitalism being ineffective.
As for Karl Marx he said alot of weird things about capitalism, few of which proved to be even remotely true.

But the main contemporary allegation towards capitalism is, that it exploits the working class, the poor, or both.

I maintain that neither charge is true. I in fact claim that the exact opposite is true, that capitalism empowers, enriches and gives freedom of choice to both groups. And it does so to an extent not seen in any other extant form of society.

Regards [/b]
How does capitalism enrich the working class? Do you mean that the working class gets more than the value of what they produce? When I worked producing washmachines and dishmachines I produced far more value than I got back in the form of wage. But perhaps you meant that I can afford a higher standard of living now than I would have in a pre-capitalist, say feodal society? Yes, that is true but that is simply because we produce far greater values today, and that we have struggled to gain that much back from our labour.

If I produce a value of 1000$ each day and get back 100$ in wage, I am still exploited even if these 100$ are far more money than the three coppers a worker would earn 200 years ago.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:43 pm
I am employed because I choose to be so, and I could quit if I wanted to.

But you cannot quit forever, sooner or later you will run out of money and will be forced back to wage labour, or mayhaps take a loan (if you can) and start a small business (which in most cases will be owned by the bank and just administrated by you).

[Random Precision]

Capitalism could have all the success in the world, and I would still not support it. The fact is that capitalism lives on assigning the value of labor to those who have not done the labor. To me, any system that does that is fundamentally wrong and in need of replacement.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:31 pm
Capitalism could have all the success in the world, and I would still not support it. The fact is that capitalism lives on assigning the value of labor to those who have not done the labor. To me, any system that does that is fundamentally wrong and in need of replacement.
Why is it wrong? Is this a religious belief?

[Iron]

Originally posted by pusher robot+July 31, 2007 10:02 pm--> (pusher robot @ July 31, 2007 10:02 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 06:31 pm
Capitalism could have all the success in the world, and I would still not support it. The fact is that capitalism lives on assigning the value of labor to those who have not done the labor. To me, any system that does that is fundamentally wrong and in need of replacement.
Why is it wrong? Is this a religious belief? [/b]
Hating Capitalism isn't a religion :blink: I believe what he is saying that any successes in capitalist society are coincidental, and the actual model of capitalism doesn’t not promote these successes.

[RNK]

I love the "look at all of the advancements capitalism has wrought!" arguement. Most uneducated capitalists use this line as if it were any indication of the "success" of capitalism. Look how well people are! Their cars and televisions and cellphones, all possible thanks to capitalism...

Wrong! History has already shown that socialist industrialization is capable of leaps and bounds that would befuttle the most experienced capitalist. Ontop of that, all of the "gains" that you now enjoy -- higher wages, benefits, pensions, vacations, hazardous work bonuses, etc -- were fought for, grimly, by so-called "evil" Communists like us, who bled themselves dry to carve a life for themselves in this capitalist system by organizing workers and demanding more from their employers. So please, spare us the uneducated "capitalism gives you money" bullshit. If it weren't for people like us, you'd probably be living in a box, unable to read or write (unless necessary for your designated job), and wishing to whatever archaic deity you believe in for someone to come save you.

[Ugge]

SpikeyRed >>

There should be no doubt, that the trade restrictions and industry subsidies, that rich countries use to keep out commerce from foreign producers are immoral and harmful. These policies should be abolished, so that third-world producers and first-world consumers can prosper together. As is often the case, the answer to the problem of poverty, is more capitalism and free trade, not less.

It is true, that most capitalist countries were once feudal societies, as were pretty much all non-capitalist ones. My point is, that capitalism, politcal freedoms and market economy has enabled many societies to progress a lot further very rapidly. Societies who has enabled other policies progressed less, or even went backwards.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:38 pm
How does capitalism enrich the working class? Do you mean that the working class gets more than the value of what they produce? When I worked producing washmachines and dishmachines I produced far more value than I got back in the form of wage. But perhaps you meant that I can afford a higher standard of living now than I would have in a pre-capitalist, say feodal society? Yes, that is true but that is simply because we produce far greater values today, and that we have struggled to gain that much back from our labour.

If I produce a value of 1000$ each day and get back 100$ in wage, I am still exploited even if these 100$ are far more money than the three coppers a worker would earn 200 years ago.
Capitalism enriches the working class, by raising the price of their labour. If you, or anyone else, think that you are able to produce more values that you are getting paid, then you are completely free do so. An many in fact does so, and become self-employed or free-lance.

Often, though, it is more profitable and convenient to sell yout labour outright, because then you can take advantage of the capital accumulated by others.

As for your definition of "exploitation" I have to say, that i makes litle sense to me. By your standards highly paid managers and specialist are the ones most ruthessly exploited, while beggars, homeless perople and substinence farmers are not.

Regards

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:43 pm
Ulster Socialist >>


If Noam Chomsky really said that, then he is a sore fool.

I personally earn my wages by working for my employer and I easily earn hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of times more than a slave did 150 years ago. And I am employed because I choose to be so, and I could quit if I wanted to. And I never get whipped. And so on...

If Noam Chomsky cannot see the difference, then there's little hope of reasoning with said person.

Regards
Ugge , this is the interview i was referring to. The man himself can explain better than I can. :)
Listen particulary to his analogy near the end of the interview in regards to the southern slaveowner's justification.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM

[Bilan]

Ugge,


It is true that Russia industrialized fast, but at a terrible human cost, and it was done using guns and opression.

The economic development experienced by capitalist nations happened largely voluntarily, because it benefitted of those involved, namely workers, consumers and others. This is a great moral difference.

This is not true. Though, it has some truth in it, much of it isn't factual.
The evidence for this is one simple thins: Slavery.
Slavery has existed since the dawn of capitalism (and of course, before), and many economies have been built on the foundations of slavery (E.g. America, Mexico and Australia). Much of, for example, America's wealth was derived from the cheap labor.
It wasn't voluntary at all. Wage slavery isn't voluntary, either.


Admittedly I did not read your links, as I do not find the discussion of hypothetical what-if societies all that interesting. Proponents of such orders invariably portray them in a very seductive light, as did the bolsheviks, fascist and others.

I can understand that, and do respect that.
But I think it's worth telling you that I was not trying to persuade you to become an anarcho-communist. Rather, I was just trying to clarify what the ideology was, and the structure of post-revolutionary societies.


My point was, that if your anarchistic communism does not rely on force or coercion, then there should be nothing stopping you from starting your own anarchistic communist society right now.

This is not the case.
You can not just occupy land for your leisure, it costs money, and has to be regularly paid for (unless you're rich and can afford to just buy one). To occupy it (or squat it) is illegal. And don't forget the numerous other laws that would force you from doing it.
It's simply impossible.
It's also a completely selfish thing to do. Shall we turn our backs on our co-workers, who do not have the wealth (neither do I, but hypothetically) to own this land?
We're all in it together, and we can only over come it by coming together.



In a truly free and anarchistic society, it should be possible to form communist, capitalist or other forms of communities without fear of retribution.

Perhaps, so long as it does not violate the freedom of others to live as they please; so long as it does not rob the people of the fruits of their labour; so long as it protects the liberty of the people, then sure.
Capitalism obviously lacks this ability.

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:40 pm
But you cannot quit forever, sooner or later you will run out of money and will be forced back to wage labour, or mayhaps take a loan (if you can) and start a small business (which in most cases will be owned by the bank and just administrated by you).

This is all true. Unde capitalism you have all these options, you can work for yourself or work for somebody else. You can spend the proceeds, invest them or give them away. All these freedoms give people dignity, but also a rising income for the working class, as employers will have to compete for their labour, which workers will only sell if they think it profitable.

But i concede, that if you do absolutely nothing, then you will run out of wealth eventually. That is how life works.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:31 pm
Capitalism could have all the success in the world, and I would still not support it. The fact is that capitalism lives on assigning the value of labor to those who have not done the labor. To me, any system that does that is fundamentally wrong and in need of replacement.
What you are really saying is, that you do not care for the working people at all. Because what is good for the worker, is what you think is good for him.

What about giving people a choice between communism or capitalism? Or would you be you against that, secretly fearing that every worker in the world would prefer the freedom and prosperity of capitalism?

Regards

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:52 am
I love the "look at all of the advancements capitalism has wrought!" arguement. Most uneducated capitalists use this line as if it were any indication of the "success" of capitalism. Look how well people are! Their cars and televisions and cellphones, all possible thanks to capitalism...

Wrong! History has already shown that socialist industrialization is capable of leaps and bounds that would befuttle the most experienced capitalist. Ontop of that, all of the "gains" that you now enjoy -- higher wages, benefits, pensions, vacations, hazardous work bonuses, etc -- were fought for, grimly, by so-called "evil" Communists like us, who bled themselves dry to carve a life for themselves in this capitalist system by organizing workers and demanding more from their employers. So please, spare us the uneducated "capitalism gives you money" bullshit. If it weren't for people like us, you'd probably be living in a box, unable to read or write (unless necessary for your designated job), and wishing to whatever archaic deity you believe in for someone to come save you.
So your theory is, that capitalism brought freedom and vast enrichment to the people, because a group of communists enabled capitalism to do so?

I find that to be a humorous theory to say the least. And a theory that poses more questions than it answers.

What about korea for instance. Are south koreans 30 times richer the north koreans, due the action of communists? And if so, why did the korean communists choose to work their magic in the capitalist south, rather than the staunchly communist north?

And even if it was true, that the success of capitalism is the responibility of anti-capitalist, it doesn't really refute my argument, does it? It just provides some very creative thinking to back it up.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 01, 2007 09:16 am
Ugge , this is the interview i was referring to. The man himself can explain better than I can. :)
Listen particulary to his analogy near the end of the interview in regards to the southern slaveowner's justification.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM
I cannot get your link to work, I'm afraid. It might be the computer I'm using at the moment. I will investigate later.

So as for now, I can only reprat what I said before. That there's a great difference between choosing to work, and being forced to work. If it was really true that slavery benefitted the slaves, which I don't belive for a nanosecond, then there would have been no need to use whips and chains. Slaveowners used violence and coercion, because the living conditions were extremely poor and dehumanizing.

Workers in developed capitalist nations, are amongst the richest people on the planet. That is why so many people choose to work in those countries, even when not forced to do so.

Regards

[Ugge]

Tierra y Libertad >>

You talk alot about slavery, but capitalism has worked well in countries with no slavery. Even in the states, slavery existed in the rural south, not in the industrialized north.

In fact, it would be perfectly fair to say, that slavery fell out of fashion, as capitalism fell in. An that the countries were capitalism first took root, was the countries were slavery was abolished first. And that the countries that didn't introduce capitalism, often retained slavery or serfdom in one way or another.

And you are right that wage slavery is not voluntary. Slavery is by definition not voluntary.

But employment is voluntary under capitalism. I know so, because I myself am employed in a capitalist country, and I could quit if I wanted to.

Regards

[Bilan]

Ugge,


You talk alot about slavery, but capitalism has worked well in countries with no slavery. Even in the states, slavery existed in the rural south, not in the industrialized north.

You'll find it hard to find a nation that's economy wasn't built on slavery. Especially ones that are "first world", or "developed" if you will. Great Britain, Australia, and America were all built on these foundations.
Now, slavery does not exist in America anymore - well, at least as far as I know, but it did exist for a very long time, and is what gave it's economy the ability to become as powerful as it did. This you cannot deny.



In fact, it would be perfectly fair to say, that slavery fell out of fashion, as capitalism fell in. An that the countries were capitalism first took root, was the countries were slavery was abolished first. And that the countries that didn't introduce capitalism, often retained slavery or serfdom in one way or another.

This comes back to the previous point I raised about the differing factors. It's not because capitalism "fell in" that these nations abolished slavery. This is a fictional arguement as it is.
Slavery has been abolished in nations due to many things - one of the most important being collective action by the slaves and workers; Strikes, direct action, etc.

You're over simplifying such a complex situation


And you are right that wage slavery is not voluntary. Slavery is by definition not voluntary.

But employment is voluntary under capitalism. I know so, because I myself am employed in a capitalist country, and I could quit if I wanted to.

Oh yes, and if you quit, where would you go? Back when you ran out of money? To a new job to be cheated the same way? To a new job to be cheated a different way?
Do you think it's this easy for all people?
How about people of colour? Muslims trying to seek employment? non-white immigrants? Indigenous peoples? People with a criminal record?

Capitalism isn't a voluntary system. You're either on top, or below. Some make it up, but most stay down. This is due to the hierarchical structure of the capitalist system, which ensures the dominance of the wealthy over the poor.

[pusher robot]

Much of, for example, America's wealth was derived from the cheap labor.

I call BS on that. If you'll recall your history, the industrial revolution and attendant GDP explosion was centered almost entirely in the North, where slavery was already prohibited.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 01, 2007 01:30 pm

Much of, for example, America's wealth was derived from the cheap labor.

I call BS on that. If you'll recall your history, the industrial revolution and attendant GDP explosion was centered almost entirely in the North, where slavery was already prohibited.
there would have been an influx of poor recently freed black workers fleeing the slave trade who would have been desperate for work at any wage. Also, dont forget about the Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine.

[Smeel]

well all this talk about the freedom under captialism. it sounds like some of you think it came for free? Well, at least here in sweden, my grandparents and their parents had to fight for every rights you have as a worker today.
Higher wages, health protection, parental vacation(sorry, bad english) the regulations that prohibit corporations from exploit you as they like.

When the swedish socialdemocrats and the swedish communistparty came to power, this is some of the reforms the purely capitalistic right wing have been voting against through the years.

1. 8h working day, 1919
2. abolishment of death penalty 1921
3. Womens rigth to vote 1921
4. Public schools for everyone 1927
5. Unemployment compensation 1934
6. public pension 1935
7. The right to have vacation 1938
8. free school lunch 1946
9. free healthcare 1953
10. 40h working week 1970
11. the law of employment safety 1973
12. free healthcare for children and young up to 20 years. 1998

[Edit] Sorry, forgot the point of all this.
The increase of walth oand freedoms as a worker today is not becaouse of capitalism, it's purely by the hard work of socialistic and socialdemocratic resistance.
that's my point. Or at least what I think.



Ugge, DO you think it would be nice to be a worker today, if the right capitalistic parties hade been ruling for 66 out of 75 years, like the socialdemocrats?

Sorry for ranting, this is my first post, maybe little of topic but yeah.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:54 pm
You claim that capitalist societies will invariably be anti-humanistic, due to their roots in competition an disassociation. This is not an argument, it is a dogma.

I should like to claim the opposite. That capitalism does not require competition. It allows it. Just as it allows cooporation. This, I think, shows the humane nature of capitalism, that it relies on voluntary participation rahter than control.

You can be a communist in a capitalist society. You can found communist societies under a capitalist system, as long as they are not based on force or coercion, but on voluntary agreement. This human tolerance stems form the fact that capitalism has its roots in individual freedom, rather than in a specific model of the 'good' society.
It is not dogma; it is psychological and sociological theory that has been in the mainstream of science for hundreds of years. Your capitalism is instead a claim of anarchy, so that people may choose to be communist. Really, communism exists in a state of anarchy, so you're right - but the interest of capitalism is directly to take advantage of those who exist below you and those who are yet to be born. It is to create a system which self-perpetuates and has interests in cold, material gain and a disinterest in humanity.

Capitalism is not just anarchy - it is a hierarchal economic system interested in capital gain.



You further claim, that when american companies use external markets to suply services, it does terrible things to people in foreign countries.

Well, in the last 30 years the world has seen chronic hunger and child labour cut in half, and more than 200 million poeple has left abject poverty in the last 20 years alone. This development has ben led by countries, which has opened up for foreign investment, business and trade.

When rich countries buy goods and services in poorer countries, it makes the poor countries richer, not poorer. This is what you'd expect, and this is what has actually happened.

One more moral victory for free trade and capitalism it seems

Don't forget the Gilded Age, so named for its capital success but human toll. You ever seen pictures of sweatshops, starving workign families in the farm - rich U.S.? only under capitalism could such disgusting acts be accepted.

I expect you would point to the U.S. history of imprialism as a victory?

Tell that to the people in Sierra Leone, who are killed for their diamonds. Tell that to the Palestinians, who are killed nearly every day by weapons and military technology the U.S. gives to Israel in an attempt to maintain control over the region. Panama, Chile, Argentina, Graneda... What moral victories these capitalist enterprises have given us.

Tell them of your moral victory, and they'll not laugh in your face, they'll try to kill you.

[Ugge]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+August 01, 2007 09:16 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ August 01, 2007 09:16 am) Ugge , this is the interview i was referring to. The man himself can explain better than I can. :)
Listen particulary to his analogy near the end of the interview in regards to the southern slaveowner's justification.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM [/b]
I listened to the interview two times, and while he made many interestiong points, I really do not see the relevance. There might have been people, who defended slavery as beeing beneficial to the slaves. But as the slaves clearly thought otehrwise, I find such arguments to be wrong, plain and simple.


Ulster [email protected] 01, 2007 09:16 am
Ugge , this is the interview i was
there would have been an influx of poor recently freed black workers fleeing the slave trade who would have been desperate for work at any wage. Also, dont forget about the Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine.


Probably. And after a generation or three, these poor people would have been ten-twenty times richer. What is so wrong with that?

[Ugge]

You'll find it hard to find a nation that's economy wasn't built on slavery. Especially ones that are "first world", or "developed" if you will. Great Britain, Australia, and America were all built on these foundations.
Now, slavery does not exist in America anymore - well, at least as far as I know, but it did exist for a very long time, and is what gave it's economy the ability to become as powerful as it did. This you cannot deny.


I deny it completely. Slavery was abolished before the tremendous economic growth that made american workers so well-off. And even when slavery was present, it was present in the rural south, not in the industrialized north.

I would not claim that capitalism were the cause of the abolition of slavery. I would rather say, that both capitalism and abolition had a common cause, namely the rise of economic and personal liberties, that happened in the west at the dawn of the 19th century.

So it is no coincidence, that abolition and the birth of capitalism coincided. And what happy events they were for humanity.




Oh yes, and if you quit, where would you go? Back when you ran out of money? To a new job to be cheated the same way? To a new job to be cheated a different way?

There are many alternatives. In my country only about half the workforce is employed by private sector capitalists. Many otheres are independent in the service sector, primary produceres, craftsmen, self employed, farmers or many other things.

You do not need to sell your labour to a capitalist, but many, like me, chooses to do so, because they want to. And because they realise that this voluntary cooporation between worker and capitalist is of mutual advantage.

This may annoy you, but it is a fact.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:58 pm
Ugge, DO you think it would be nice to be a worker today, if the right capitalistic parties hade been ruling for 66 out of 75 years, like the socialdemocrats?
Definately. Here in Denmark the Socialdemocrats has not been much more in power than de borgelige. And workers in Denmark earn roughly 20% more than their swedish counterparts, work slightly shorter hours, and consumer prices are a bit lower here. But admittedly there's not a great deal of difference between Denmark and Sweden, apart from us having the cooler looking flag :P

Venlig hilsen

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Ugge+--> (Ugge)I listened to the interview two times, and while he made many interestiong points, I really do not see the relevance. There might have been people, who defended slavery as beeing beneficial to the slaves. But as the slaves clearly thought otehrwise, I find such arguments to be wrong, plain and simple.
[/b]
Its relevant because as Chomsky rightly says, the arguments used by the reactionaries that defend capitalism today are more or less the same used by the pro-slavery brigade before the American union. Both social ideas should not have impunity to challenge, and both are barriers to social justice and progression.


Ugge

Probably. And after a generation or three, these poor people would have been ten-twenty times richer. What is so wrong with that?
Its wrong because in order to become twenty times richer, it is required that the workforce is seperated from the value of its own labour. That status quo cannot thrive without the misery and poverty of those who grease the wheels of the system with their toiling.
All capital is the product of labour, and the wealthy land/factory owners provide none.

[Ol' Dirty]

Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

How are you defining capitalism?

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:12 pm
Capitalism is not just anarchy - it is a hierarchal economic system interested in capital gain.
Yeah you claim so, but I happen to claim otherwise. And I sincerely doubt, that your view of capitalism just happened to be the "scientific mainstream" for hundreds of years. Especially considreing, that in most parts of the world, capitalism itself is in fact much younger.

But to be honest, I'm much less interested in the "true nature" of the capitalist system, if such a thing even exist. It is much easier to examine the actual living-conditions, freedoms and standards of living, for actual people living in actual capitalist countries.



Don't forget the Gilded Age, so named for its capital success but human toll. You ever seen pictures of sweatshops, starving workign families in the farm - rich U.S.? only under capitalism could such disgusting acts be accepted.


Hardly, as such practices has surely been common much earlier than capitalism. Probably throughout human history.

Incidentally we also had sweatshops in Denmark in the late 19th century. They're pretty much gone. Forty years ago people complained about sweatshops in Japan, and they are gone too. Twenty years ago i was the sweatshops in Thailand, and they're almost gone. And now we have sweatshops in places like Vietnam. And they'll be gone soon enough too.

All because of that global champion of justice, Capitalism.

Respectfully submitted

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Ugge

But to be honest, I'm much less interested in the "true nature" of the capitalist system, if such a thing even exist. It is much easier to examine the actual living-conditions, freedoms and standards of living, for actual people living in actual capitalist countries.
The establishment classes of the 'developed' capitalist nations co-operate with each other towards mutual interests (for example the US/UK invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq) however by in large those interests seldomly, if ever coincide with working classes in those same countries. Usually the beneficiaries of capitalism are actively working against those who are least well off.
It isnt the sons of Esso or the BP MD's that are coming home in zippable bags.

[Ugge]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 01, 2007 07:38 pm
Its relevant because as Chomsky rightly says, the arguments used by the reactionaries that defend capitalism today are more or less the same used by the pro-slavery brigade before the American union. Both social ideas should not have impunity to challenge, and both are barriers to social justice and progression.


It's not the same arguments. I have claimed that capitalism benefits the working man a great deal, and that it does so through a process of voluntary participation. And I maintain that.

If anyone claims that the same was true of slavery, they need to go easy on the drink very fast.



Its wrong because in order to become twenty times richer, it is required that the workforce is seperated from the value of its own labour. That status quo cannot thrive without the misery and poverty of those who grease the wheels of the system with their toiling.
All capital is the product of labour, and the wealthy land/factory owners provide none.


This is also wrong. It's perfectly possible for Irish immigrants, and others to, become wealthy through paid work and capitalist enterprise. In fact this has allready happened.

Wealth is not solely the product of labour. If it was, then they'd be really rich in Ethiopia because they work really hard. To create wealth you typically need a mix of labour, investment, knowledge, demand, risk-acceptance and the rule of law. And perhaps a few other things too. Some societies supply these thing better than others.

Regards

[Ugge]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:41 pm

Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.

How are you defining capitalism?

I really would rather not. It would probably just lead to a 500-page, essentially religious, argument. And I don't have anywhere near the patience for that. Any speciic reasons that you might ask?

Regards

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:38 am
If that is so, I do not really see the problem, as america creates more than 25% af wealth created each year, and its logical than the first figure roughly correlates with the second.
[QUOTE]Actually I heard it was something like 35% of the world's resources. Not to mention in capitalism people are encouraged to squander as opposed to save their money, with the exception of the rich. Most wealth DOES NOT enhance the quality of life of common people, whereas in a communist society such as the USSR people were at least guaranteed to have somewhere to live.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Ugge+--> (Ugge)
It's not the same arguments. I have claimed that capitalism benefits the working man a great deal, and that it does so through a process of voluntary participation. And I maintain that.[/b]
There is nothing 'voluntary' about it. Under capitalism the working man requires currency so he can obtain shelter, clothing and food. The only way he can do this is by selling his labour to the capitalist in exchange for a sum many times less his value because he has nothing else to sell.
The idea that he somehow has an alternative is misleading. The reality is, his only 2 options are destitution or wage slavery.

Originally posted by Ugge+--> (Ugge)
If anyone claims that the same was true of slavery, they need to go easy on the drink very fast.[/b]
The only meaningful seperation between slavery and wage slavery is the exchange of capital, and absence of physical chastisement. The capital is then quickly removed from him in the form of rent, utility bills, and other amenities which have been produced from the labour of his fellow proletarian.
The modern capitalist is able to use the threat of redundancy, therefore destitution particularly in areas where there is a 'job monopoly'. This can be an equally devastating weapon, if not more so than the brunt end of a whip.


[email protected]

This is also wrong. It's perfectly possible for Irish immigrants, and others to, become wealthy through paid work and capitalist enterprise. In fact this has allready happened.
My point is though, it is impossible to become wealthy in a meaningful sense purely through labour, because the establishment class continually pushes up the cost of living disproportionately to any rise in wages. In fact, as the cost of living increases the rising hardships mean that workers become willing to work for less, and this creates a negative precedence.
As for private enterprise, it is impossible for an individual to become significantly wealthy by divorcing his or her workforce of their labour value as i argued earlier.

Ugge

Wealth is not solely the product of labour. If it was, then they'd be really rich in Ethiopia because they work really hard. To create wealth you typically need a mix of labour, investment, knowledge, demand, risk-acceptance and the rule of law. And perhaps a few other things too. Some societies supply these thing better than others. firstly, it depends what you mean by 'wealth'. I said capital which is a different concept. You can be wealthy in the sense that you own land, machinery, factories etc. but these are liquid assets, not capital. It is the purchasing power or capital that comes from labour.
Secondly, the reason Ethiopians are not wealthy is because there is an absense of locally available raw materials (a legacy of colonialism)and the desperation in that area has meant that capitalists can afford to keep down the cost of wages because there is a pool of workers available but not enough jobs to go round.

[Ugge]

Ulster Socialist >>

1) You claim that there is no alternative to selling you labour to a capitalist. Yet million, in my little country alone, earn their living by other means. This is a fact.

2) You claim that there is no meaningful separation between "wage-slavery" or actual slavery, besides the fact that the so-called "wage-slaves" earn lots of money, and are not forced to work. Being a happy wage-slave myself, I would say that this is a pretty damn meaningful separation.

3) You claim that it is not possible to become wealthy through labour, because the establishment drives up the cost of living. Wrong. In my country, at least, wages has risen faster than inflation every single year for decades. Average purchasing power has more than doubled since the seventies. As for the establishment supposedly working to drive up the cost of living, the only goal of monetary policy in the euro-area is to hold back inflation. Same for the danish national bank. This is a fact.

4) Ethiopia is poor because of low productivity, not because of lack of raw materials, which Ethiopia has a-plenty, or because of colonialism, as Ethiopia was in fact never properly colonized.

Summary: It is clear that you and I live in parallel universes, with this homepage beeing the only connecting point.

Respectfully submitted

[Bilan]

Ugge,


I deny it completely. Slavery was abolished before the tremendous economic growth that made american workers so well-off. And even when slavery was present, it was present in the rural south, not in the industrialized north.

I dont think you're following me. The foundations of America's economy are built on slavery. When slavery was abolished, it's not like wages sky-rocketed and every worker was paid well. They weren't.
All improvements in living conditions in America have come through struggle. All. The ruling class rarely will give up any of it's wealth without a fight - this is of course, unless there is an election coming up :P



I would not claim that capitalism were the cause of the abolition of slavery. I would rather say, that both capitalism and abolition had a common cause, namely the rise of economic and personal liberties, that happened in the west at the dawn of the 19th century.

That would be more of an assumption than a historical accuracy. Some countries which are capitalist now still have slavery. All others have wage slavery. It's personal liberty...if you can afford it.

And Capitalism has been around since like, the 1500's.


You do not need to sell your labour to a capitalist, but many, like me, chooses to do so, because they want to. And because they realise that this voluntary cooporation between worker and capitalist is of mutual advantage.

There's nothing mutually beneficial about it.
And I don't think you understood my question. I was more pointing out the priviliged position you were speaking from.


I think you're definition of capitalism is a bit off. May I ask what it is

1.

[Ugge]

Tierra y Libertad,

There is no such thing as wage-slavery. Slaves are generally not paid wages, as they are forced to do labour. They do not have the freedom to dispose of, or sell their own labour, because their labour has effectively been expropriated by the slaveowner. Thus slaves are generally living under poor, unfree and dehumanizing conditions.

When people has the freedom to own and dispose of their own labour, many, but not all, chooses to sell it to an employer. As do I. People who has enjoyed such freedoms, historically, have become prosporous and free. People who does not have the freedom to sell their own labour, often go to great extremes to get to places where they have the opportunity to do so. Slavery, on the other hand, is not something that you want to be subjected to beacuse it betters your life. Slavery is the exact opposite. Therefore wage-slavery is a meaningless term.



Liberal democracy and the rise of the west, has been characterized by efforts to remove spheres of society from the influence of those who wield coercive power. The free press, religious freedom, the free market, freedom of speech, the sphere of privacy etc. In these spheres citizens can entertain their desired activitites, alone or in the collaboration with others, on whatever terms can be mutually and voluntarily agreed upon.

Capitalism is simply the state of affairs, where these individual freedoms are extended to the sphere of economics. Where those in political powers, cedes to extend direct control of peoples economic matters, and let people choose for themselves through voluntary participation and mutual agreement. Where people are given the right to buy and sell goods under terms they decide for themselves, and where people have the freedom to dispose of their own labour, including selling it if they want to.

I realize fully, that few states give full protection to the freedoms outlined above. Some give more, and some gives much less. My point with this thread was to underline, that places were extensive individual and economic freedoms are granted and enforced, are invariably wealthier, freer and more pleasant societies to live in.

Respectfully submitted

[Ugge]

Tierra y Libertad

By the way, the reason I enquired into your anarchism is that I believe, that theres a close ideological affinity between anarchism and the ideas that lead to capitalism and liberal democracy. The idea of reducing the direct controllig power of government, in order to let people live their own lives, according to their own subjective wishes and desires, is very much in tune with the more utopian ideals of anarchism.

Regards

[RNK]

There is no such thing as wage-slavery.

ORLY?


Slaves are generally not paid wages, as they are forced to do labour. They do not have the freedom to dispose of, or sell their own labour, because their labour has effectively been expropriated by the slaveowner.

I do not have the freedom to dispose of or sell my labour, unless I'm willing to let my family go hungry. Otherwise, I'm pretty much resolved to working as much as I possibly can, hoping that I can save up enough money over the span of 40 years of labour so that when I'm too old for it, I can still survive. Not to mention save up money for my kids' education, or have a little "rainy-day" funds incase something bad happens (which would, unavoidably, put me in tens of thousands of dollars of debt). If I'm lucky... really lucky... I might be able to invest in some sort of self-employment, and just get by. More than likely, though, attempting to do so will bomb completely and I'll be left with a bankrupt home business, tens of thousands in debt (again), and absolutely nothing to show for it except a welfare application.

But yeah, right, that's completely up to me. My life, and what I can accomplish, are limitless!


Thus slaves are generally living under poor, unfree and dehumanizing conditions.

I'd call that paragraph I just wrote fairly poor, unfree and dehumanizing. Of course there are no slaveowners whipping me from the back -- but a slave and a wage-slave are two quite different things. A slave owns nothing, not even himself, and is resolved to a life of guaranteed servitude; a wage-slave owns only his labour, and must whore it to others, on the conditions of the other, in order to survive.

[Bilan]

Dear Ugge,


There is no such thing as wage-slavery. Slaves are generally not paid wages, as they are forced to do labour. They do not have the freedom to dispose of, or sell their own labour, because their labour has effectively been expropriated by the slaveowner. Thus slaves are generally living under poor, unfree and dehumanizing conditions.

Wage slavery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)


Liberal democracy and the rise of the west, has been characterized by efforts to remove spheres of society from the influence of those who wield coercive power. The free press, religious freedom, the free market, freedom of speech, the sphere of privacy etc. In these spheres citizens can entertain their desired activitites, alone or in the collaboration with others, on whatever terms can be mutually and voluntarily agreed upon.


Capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand. They can not. Democracy requires each and every person to have a voice, a voice of equal power. Capitalism deny's this possibility.
Capitalism is an economic system that relies on exploitation; it can not subsist without the existence of a "ruler" and a "ruled". It is a necessity of capitalism. In a capitalist society, wealth is power, and power is wealth. The two co-exist. A poor person can not rule a rich person, for the rich person wields the economic power to be able to over rule (in one way or another) the poor persons' power.
A poor person would be lucky to get voted in, because the rich person wields much more social power than that of a poor person too; the rich are respected and idolized, the poor are dehumanized and marginalized.

Now, political, social and economic relations must all be equal for a system of democracy and equality to be able to function properly. The absence of it one relation will ultimately create the absence of it in all relations (as I explained above).



Capitalism is simply the state of affairs, where these individual freedoms are extended to the sphere of economics. Where those in political powers, cedes to extend direct control of peoples economic matters, and let people choose for themselves through voluntary participation and mutual agreement. Where people are given the right to buy and sell goods under terms they decide for themselves, and where people have the freedom to dispose of their own labour, including selling it if they want to.

hehe
Nay, there's no mutually beneficial agreements between an exploiting class and an exploited class. That's like saying there is a mutually beneficial agreement between a hostage, and the person who's holding them hostage.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Ugge+--> (Ugge)
You claim that there is no alternative to selling you labour to a capitalist. Yet million, in my little country alone, earn their living by other means. This is a fact.[/b]
If my personal circumstance is a reliable mircrocosm of other working class people my age, then any alternative is merely an illusion. Without knowing how your fellow countrypeople apply 'other means', Outside career criminality I do not have the disposable income required to purchase stock which i can profit from, nor am i likely to for any reasonable amount of time.

Originally posted by Ugge+--> (Ugge)
You claim that there is no meaningful separation between "wage-slavery" or actual slavery, besides the fact that the so-called "wage-slaves" earn lots of money, and are not forced to work..[/b]
This is at once false, I am forced to work, because if i dont, i lose my job, i go hungry, my landlord evicts me, my wife leaves me, etc and so forth...
Secondly, the wage slaves do not earn 'lots of money' the ruling class makes a point of paying the bare minimum that the government will allow them to which is regarded as the amount needed to pay only for the basic needs i require to stay alive.
Take a look at my bank account and tell me i get paid 'lots of money' and before you use the old 'get another job' chestnut this is nigh on impossible because my employer essentially runs a job monopoly in my town.

Originally posted by Ugge

Being a happy wage-slave myself, I would say that this is a pretty damn meaningful separation. .
Prove to me there werent any 'happy slaves'. Going back to Chomsky's point your argument could easily have been turned round to defend the slave trade.

Originally posted by Ugge

You claim that it is not possible to become wealthy through labour, because the establishment drives up the cost of living. Wrong. In my country, at least, wages has risen faster than inflation every single year for decades.
Well unfortunatly in the UK, and particulary Northern Ireland where I am now the cost of living and property prices have skyrocketed while the minimum wage has remained static. In fact, now the Government want to slash the minimum wage because they think we're paid 'too much'.

Originally posted by Ugge

Average purchasing power has more than doubled since the seventies. As for the establishment supposedly working to drive up the cost of living, the only goal of monetary policy in the euro-area is to hold back inflation. Same for the danish national bank. This is a fact.
Firstly, I dont know which region since the seventies you are referring to, and secondly, I live outside the Euro region.

Originally posted by Ugge

Ethiopia is poor because of low productivity, not because of lack of raw materials, which Ethiopia has a-plenty,
Examples please?
What mining areas or whatever they have, are probably bought up by private companies who then ration the jobs out as they see fit.

[email protected]

or because of colonialism, as Ethiopia was in fact never properly colonized.
It was an Italian colony.
Hence the use of the italian language there today.

Ugge

Summary: It is clear that you and I live in parallel universes, with this homepage beeing the only connecting point.
Not parellel universes, differing attitudes.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:44 pm

Don't forget the Gilded Age, so named for its capital success but human toll. You ever seen pictures of sweatshops, starving workign families in the farm - rich U.S.? only under capitalism could such disgusting acts be accepted.


Hardly, as such practices has surely been common much earlier than capitalism. Probably throughout human history.

Incidentally we also had sweatshops in Denmark in the late 19th century. They're pretty much gone. Forty years ago people complained about sweatshops in Japan, and they are gone too. Twenty years ago i was the sweatshops in Thailand, and they're almost gone. And now we have sweatshops in places like Vietnam. And they'll be gone soon enough too.

All because of that global champion of justice, Capitalism.
You're right that similar conditions are possible under other systems, but the argument as to whether or not they can reach that degree under other systems remains unanswerable. You might cite N.Korea and China as an example of such conditions, but I would say those are capitalist countries, and others would say they are state-capitalist (if only in reference to N.Korea).

My point is still not covered, however. How do you account for the mentioned imperialism? How do you account for ~200 years of capitalism in the U.S. continuing to fail to provide adequately for so many?

Since the failures of capitalism that remain more or less in the past are argued by you to have been victories, what do you have to say about the current, excessive and horrific failings of capitalism that I referenced?

EDIT: How do you defend the capitalist arms deals that were just promised to Saudi-Arabia and Israel? These weapons will inevitably be used to further inflame the conflict - is that a victory of capitalism? You seem to think measures of sweatshop conditions are the only relevant concern to judgement of an economic model, but most of capitalism's victims are military. See: Military-Industrial Complex and Dwight Eisenhower.

[DeadDisco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:33 am
Tierra y Libertad

By the way, the reason I enquired into your anarchism is that I believe, that theres a close ideological affinity between anarchism and the ideas that lead to capitalism and liberal democracy. The idea of reducing the direct controllig power of government, in order to let people live their own lives, according to their own subjective wishes and desires, is very much in tune with the more utopian ideals of anarchism.

Regards
Meh. This is why I sometimes don't like using terms that have taken on new meanings for many people.

Anarchism is closer to Communism than most "Liberals" believe. Although it is often associated with Laissez Faire Capitalism, Anarchism, as we use it, actually holds the goal of a society with no non-consensual social hierarchies, ergo a classless stateless society, which is also the ultimate goal of Communism. The main difference between the two classifications is the means to this end, and even among themselves, Anarchists and Communists disagree on this.

Anarchism with Laissez Faire Capitalism is not true Anarchism because there will be non-consensual social hierarchies as long as there is class, which is a direct result of Capitalism.

[La Comédie Noire]

But history suggests, that the average working man is better off by many orders of magnitude in a deregulated capitalist economy, rather than in any of these two alternative systems.

It's not the system, it's the technology that allows us to live better. Socialism is just a way to manage this technology more fair and efficentley. Unless you care to argue Capitalism alone creates human innovation?

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:07 am
where people have the freedom to dispose of their own labour, including selling it if they want to.
Or, alternatively, the freedom to go without food and shelter, if they would prefer not to sell themselves on the labour market.

[Ol' Dirty]

Workers in the capitalist west has enjoyed an exceptional rise in living-standards, and more people in capitalist societies has access to basic amenities, and higher income, than in their non-capitalist counter-parts.


How are you defining capitalism?


Any speci[f]ic reasons that you might ask?

I want to clarify what you're talking about so I can understand how you're thinking.


I really would rather not. It would probably just lead to a 500-page, essentially religious, argument. And I don't have anywhere near the patience for that.

I won't argue your definition. I just want to know what you're trying to get across.


Regards

Why are you sending me your regards?

[OcelotAdaska]

Ugge.
Some of what your saying is true.
But thise 'Comforts' and all, only exist if you are an High class White-American, Who surports the current govorment, Doesnt mind their children being brainwashed, And is OK for people to do absolutely nothing, and be born Stupid Billionaires when the next einstein is murderd at the age of three by the KKK, for being black.

ALSO, The majority of the world is capitalist.
But isnt it funny, that if you have spare-change in your pocket, that you are instantly richer than 60% of the world?
and isnt 70% of the world capitalist? Mmh? China takes up around 20% of it, And look at china! Before the revolution, it was a Few empty holes, and some piles of crap for people to live in.
Nowdays, it has the fastest growing economy in the world!
And, NK! Its economy is growing very fast too..
Were Capitalism relies on war for money.
Without war, No Oil, No Uranium, Etc..
Without them, America would lose its superpowerdom, and fall into a pile of shit, were even the high-class white-americans would die in a few years.
So you see, Every Doaller produced in a capitalist country, was paid for with blood.
So hows that for comfort? The comfort of knowing that your eating, drinking, and wearing blood.
Hmm?

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:15 pm
Ugge.
Some of what your saying is true.
But thise 'Comforts' and all, only exist if you are an High class White-American, Who surports the current govorment, Doesnt mind their children being brainwashed, And is OK for people to do absolutely nothing, and be born Stupid Billionaires when the next einstein is murderd at the age of three by the KKK, for being black.

ALSO, The majority of the world is capitalist.
But isnt it funny, that if you have spare-change in your pocket, that you are instantly richer than 60% of the world?
and isnt 70% of the world capitalist? Mmh? China takes up around 20% of it, And look at china! Before the revolution, it was a Few empty holes, and some piles of crap for people to live in.
Nowdays, it has the fastest growing economy in the world!
And, NK! Its economy is growing very fast too..
Were Capitalism relies on war for money.
Without war, No Oil, No Uranium, Etc..
Without them, America would lose its superpowerdom, and fall into a pile of shit, were even the high-class white-americans would die in a few years.
So you see, Every Doaller produced in a capitalist country, was paid for with blood.
So hows that for comfort? The comfort of knowing that your eating, drinking, and wearing blood.
Hmm?
Well damn said.

As for the merits of Capitalism, I'm gonna need to think.

Green Ketchup and Blue Apple Sauce!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OOoOoooohhh AaaaAAaaaAhhhhhHh

Nothing better? Nope.

[Ugge]

But yeah, right, that's completely up to me. My life, and what I can accomplish, are limitless!

I did not claim that they were. I just pointed out that fact, that you have alternatives to beeing a wage slave, and that many people in capitalist countries indeed utilize these alternatives.

I would fully concede that selling your labour as a so-called wage-slave is propably a lot more profitable to you, and I, and millions of other labourers. This is why they choose to become labourers. And this is exactly my point: Capitalism raises the earnings of selling your labour drastically, so much in fact that it becomes rather attractive.

[Ugge]

Nay, there's no mutually beneficial agreements between an exploiting class and an exploited class. That's like saying there is a mutually beneficial agreement between a hostage, and the person who's holding them hostage.

Then imagine a situation where the hostage could leave the hostage-taker at will, and where the hostage taker would have to pay the hostage a lot of money in order to persuade the hostage to stay. Would you be willing to admit, that in such a fanciful situation, there could be basis for a mutual beneficial agreement between hostage and hostage-taker?

[chimx]

Capitalism has been quite successful at changing the economic foundations of prior historical epochs and has been an incredibly progressive force. All anybody here is going to argue is that the progresses made under capitalism, such as technological advances, will eventually lead to the irrelevance of a capitalist economic framework. Some here think that this shift will be abrupt and violent, while others may think it will be a slower more calm process. But I would hope at the very least that you can agree that we as humans will continue to progress.

[Ugge]

My point is still not covered, however. How do you account for the mentioned imperialism? How do you account for ~200 years of capitalism in the U.S. continuing to fail to provide adequately for so many?

Since the failures of capitalism that remain more or less in the past are argued by you to have been victories, what do you have to say about the current, excessive and horrific failings of capitalism that I referenced?

EDIT: How do you defend the capitalist arms deals that were just promised to Saudi-Arabia and Israel? These weapons will inevitably be used to further inflame the conflict - is that a victory of capitalism? You seem to think measures of sweatshop conditions are the only relevant concern to judgement of an economic model, but most of capitalism's victims are military. See: Military-Industrial Complex and Dwight Eisenhower.


I would never defend imperialism, or various dubious arms-deals. These are the acts of governments, and I have no illusion about the nature of governments of capitalist countries beeing better or worse than their adversaries.

I merely point out, that the society that allows its citizens to own and trade their produce and labour freely and under voluntary contract, are much richer and much more humane than all of the proposed or existing alternatives. And I consider this to be the great capitalist triumph of mankind.

As for the last 200-years of capitalism failing to provide adequately for so many, I would claim that the vast majority of those many has benefitted from capitalism. Most by an order of magnitude.

Working conditions and earnings has soared magnificently, even for low-paid workers. And the average US worker has acces to material-conditions, information, and modes of communication and transport, that only the very rich had access to a hundred years ago.

I don't think that capitalism is a system, that solves all problems for everyone. But it certainly benefits the vast majority a very great deal.

[Ugge]

Or, alternatively, the freedom to go without food and shelter, if they would prefer not to sell themselves on the labour market.


If you do not wish to sell your labour, then you'd be forced to sell your produce or services directly, becoming an entrepreneur or freelancer. Essentialy this is what the craftsman, peasant or consultant often do. More an more people chooses this route, as the economy becomes more specialised and less dependent on heavy manufacturing.

If you chose to do neither, then you would be dependent on society to pity you, and suply you with a living, without demanding anything in return.

Food and shelter is created by the labour of someone, somewhere.
And if you do not wish to part with either labour or produce, then you have no right commanding the labour or produce of others.

This has nothing to do with capitalism as such. It is just a plain fact of life, that if people does not work, the product of labour does not come about.

[Ugge]

I want to clarify what you're talking about so I can understand how you're thinking.

I won't argue your definition. I just want to know what you're trying to get across.

Allright, fair enough.

I consider capitalism as a system where everyone has the right to dispose of his own labour, including the right to sell it, on any terms he deems agreeable. It is a system where people has the right to own, rent or trade both labour and the product of labour freely and voluntarily, and to engage in such endavours under mutually agreeable contract.

[Dean]

I would never defend imperialism, or various dubious arms-deals. These are the acts of governments, and I have no illusion about the nature of governments of capitalist countries beeing better or worse than their adversaries.
What do you have to say about Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and I.B.M.? Are their arms deals limited to the fact that the state asks them to do it, or are they motivated by money? If you think capitalism without state interferance would somehow be devoid of arms deals, you're severely deluded.


I merely point out, that the society that allows its citizens to own and trade their produce and labour freely and under voluntary contract, are much richer and much more humane than all of the proposed or existing alternatives. And I consider this to be the great capitalist triumph of mankind.
You don't point out, since you don't give reasonable examples. Russia is a great example of a state where free markets and the profit motive failed to provide even the most basic necessities, and the people openly revolted. Now they have gotten rid of the big oligarchs, but are facing a fascist organization of government with a very controlled capitalist - oriented economy. It works better, but it's still shitty.


As for the last 200-years of capitalism failing to provide adequately for so many, I would claim that the vast majority of those many has benefitted from capitalism. Most by an order of magnitude.
If capitalism is so great, why has america still failed to establish a stable economy, meritocratic economic mobility, rational healthcare, sustainable environmental conditions or efficient economic organization? The U.S. has been augmenting and tweaking its economic system, often saving it from the brink of self - compelled disaster, and yet it still struggles to be anything but an inefficient juggernaut stumbling across the world stage.


Working conditions and earnings has soared magnificently, even for low-paid workers. And the average US worker has acces to material-conditions, information, and modes of communication and transport, that only the very rich had access to a hundred years ago.
Since when? for the past fifty years, real wages have gone down significantly, job security is atrocious, transportation is increasingly expensive, energy continues to strain to crisis - levels, and we have more toys and trinkets than useful things like healthcare and food. We are facing soaring food prices and a possible wide-scale famine. Our economy has proven itself capable of playing with marketting, military, electronics and entertainment but it can't provide decent healthcare. Great win.


I don't think that capitalism is a system, that solves all problems for everyone. But it certainly benefits the vast majority a very great deal.
The vast majority who participate in the economy don't even get to see any of its advancements, because they are Pakistani, SriLankin, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Indian slaves working for U.S. capitalist companies to create shitty toys for a shitty class of generation Xs and Ys. That barely benefits the people who get these products, and it directly wastes local labor and strangles the entire economy.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I did not claim that they were. I just pointed out that fact, that you have alternatives to beeing a wage slave, and that many people in capitalist countries indeed utilize these alternatives.

I would fully concede that selling your labour as a so-called wage-slave is propably a lot more profitable to you, and I, and millions of other labourers. This is why they choose to become labourers. And this is exactly my point: Capitalism raises the earnings of selling your labour drastically, so much in fact that it becomes rather attractive.

It is only relatively attractive; any kind of slavery is going to seem beneficial when the only alternative is starvation and death. Objectively however, being paid less than the value of what you create is not very attractive.