Are we capitalists mere reactionaries?

[Robert]

To my fellow rich capitalists: Draw near and 'splain me something.

The debates we have here with the left are so sharp and fundamental that I believe we capitalists are doing little more than amusing ourselves. We certainly aren't going to convince anybody on the embittered left to embrace our point of view or question theirs, so let's forget that for a minute and ask ourselves honestly: why aren't we socialists?

Are our values really that different from those on the left? They're utopian, yes, but, is the current system the best we capitalists can devise? Have we really reached the end of history and we won? Are the Sudanese and Guatemalans forever to live eating dirt, dying of AIDS and freezing in winter? Maybe we're as defeatist as they are utopian.

Is this as good as it gets?

[Connolly]

*Hufffff*, such a long winded question.

Can you not see that you will not get the answers you require by making a thread with so many aspects? - it will go off course all over the place.

Best to make a thread with something more specific.

[Connolly]

current system the best we capitalists can devise? Have we really reached the end of history and we won?

Maybe you could look into anarcho-capitalism if you still cant break with the idea of freemarkets and private property.

[Robert]

Fair enough: I've edited it.

Forgive my long wind. I have so many wonderful ideas that I just can't find a way to express them in few words.

"Anarcho-capitalism." I LIKE it!

[Dr Mindbender]

the attitude of most capitalists is, ''its their own fault they're poor, because they lack the financial and business savvy that we posess''.

[Robert]

Ulster, you seem to spend a lot of time on this OI forum, and here you are responding to a query directed at my fellow capitalists. Are you, maybe deep down, you know ....

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 05:21 pm
Ulster, you seem to spend a lot of time on this OI forum, and here you are responding to a query directed at my fellow capitalists. Are you, maybe deep down, you know ....
not really, i like the discourse that goes on here. a big portion of the rest of the forum is circle-jerking and petty sectarianism between the anarchists and leninists.
Chatting with capitalists improves my knowledge and provides me ammunition to counter their justifications.

[Robert]

Well, I like it here too for some strange reason. Reminds me of my college days when I used to debate the YSA (Young Socialist Alliance) some 30 years ago. We never got anywhere either.

It's like one guy wants to go to Germany and the other guy wants to go to Spain and they get in an
argument over which road map to use.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 05:29 pm
Well, I like it here too for some strange reason. Reminds me of my college days when I used to debate the YSA (Young Socialist Alliance) some 30 years ago. We never got anywhere either.

It's like one guy wants to go to Germany and the other guy wants to go to Spain and they get in an
argument over which road map to use.
what made you stray away from socialism? Was it the bickering? It was more for that reason I got bored with the activism side of things but i never stopped being a socialist per se. In fact, I'm still a staunch revolutionary, perhaps more than ever now that i've had my ass in the workplace for a while and i've seen the darker nature of the beast.

[Robert]

Oh, I wasn't a socialist ever. I grew up very comfortably, though not rich, and that no doubt shaped my attitude, as your environment shaped yours. My father was a self-made man who started with absolutely zero, nearly starved during the depression.

But my friends, or some of them, were well meaning socialists responding to real concerns of inequity as you are. I guess I never converted because the path to achieving the goal was totally undefined. And frankly, I've known an awful lot of poor people whom I considered just lazy, and so was never convinced that their problems were the result of capitalism. Finally, I'm not really very political. I don't thnk any of the capitalists are who post here. We just like to debate. I say let's have a beer and throw some bleedin' darts, or whatever it is you all do for entertainment over there.

Okay, no chit chat allowed. So I'll shut up now and wait for my fellow cappies to get in here and convert.

[spartan]

And frankly, I've known an awful lot of poor people whom I considered just lazy, and so was never convinced that their problems were the result of capitalism.
Under Capitalism there is not enough money to go around for everyone (As evidenced by the divide between the first and third world).

So what you consider "laziness" in poor people might just be those poor people realizing that doing some things doesnt really make that much of a difference as even if you do end up successful the only person to benefit from that success is you.

Socialism is for everyone whilst Capitalism is for those who desire at the expense of others (i.e. greedy).

[Robert]

Where have all the capitalists on this board gone to? Off making money, I suspect.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 01:42 pm
Oh, I wasn't a socialist ever. I grew up very comfortably, though not rich, and that no doubt shaped my attitude, as your environment shaped yours. My father was a self-made man who started with absolutely zero, nearly starved during the depression.
My mother was "self-made" too...Until she had enough money to hire others.

Nowadays, few people can get rich "by his own efforts" unless you are one of the few lucky actors, lawyers, etc. No employee-hiring person can really claim to be self-made, since all his money is earned by others.


I also grew up in a very comfortable environment, but still, I didn't have to be very observant to realize exploitation--Our society is built on it.

[Robert]

My mother was "self-made" too...Until she had enough money to hire others.


Was? Sounds to me like she remained self made. And then helped others by giving them jobs. Good for her. Lucky for them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 07:46 pm
Where have all the capitalists on this board gone to? Off making money, I suspect.
I made a killer trade today. My net earnings have been going through the roof lately, and my overall worth....it would make you weep. More than enough to fund my sweatshop in Guatemala, my two supermodels a day, and the mountains of cocaine I put through my nostrils.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go pick up my new BMW.

The bottom line: I rule. Capitalism, 1. Commies, 0. Game over.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 08:10 pm

My mother was "self-made" too...Until she had enough money to hire others.


Was? Sounds to me like she remained self made. And then helped others by giving them jobs. Good for her. Lucky for them.
at the time they probably had to choose between working for RSOC's mother or destitution.

Helping and Co-ercion are not the same thing.

[Robert]

I made a killer trade today.

Good deal, Lucille! May some of your crumbs fall from the table and into my un-deserving mouth.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 03:10 pm

My mother was "self-made" too...Until she had enough money to hire others.


Was? Sounds to me like she remained self made. And then helped others by giving them jobs. Good for her. Lucky for them.
Somehow, I feel that the definition of "self-made" must involve the idea of doing it yourself.

We have another word for the act of hiring others to do it for you.

But following your own impeccable logic, if I hire my friend to do my homework for me, the mark I get is my own "hard earned" result, right?

Well, if that doesn't work, I can still bribe the professor and in the end I'll always be "self-made".

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 08:17 pm

I made a killer trade today.

Good deal, Lucille! May some of your crumbs fall from the table and into my un-deserving mouth.
Lets not forget who built the table. ;)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 08:17 pm

I made a killer trade today.

Good deal, Lucille! May some of your crumbs fall from the table and into my un-deserving mouth.
I don't know, you're not a prole, are you? I got a memo from the board room that I was supposed to oppress you people.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Agora77+December 01, 2007 08:34 pm--> (Agora77 @ December 01, 2007 08:34 pm)
Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 08:17 pm

I made a killer trade today.

Good deal, Lucille! May some of your crumbs fall from the table and into my un-deserving mouth.
I don't know, you're not a prole, are you? I got a memo from the board room that I was supposed to oppress you people. [/b]
Lets not forget who built the board room, either. ;)

[Robert]

Red Star, you wrong me and your sainted mother, I fear. You said she was self-made. I believe you and I salute her. Her employment of others did not "unmake" her. Unless she sat idly on the porch with a bullwhip in one hand and a mint julep in the other, I daresay she continued to deserve the fruits of her and her employees' labor. Make that "labour." I love that snotty way the English have of spelling simple words.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Red Star, you wrong me and your sainted mother, I fear. You said she was self-made. I believe you and I salute her. Her employment of others did not "unmake" her. Unless she sat idly on the porch with a bullwhip in one hand and a mint julep in the other, I daresay she continued to deserve the fruits of her and her employees' labor. Make that "labour." I love that snotty way the English have of spelling simple words.

Right. The bourgeois do not labor. They sit around signing some stupid paperwork while their employees do the actual work and get scraps of what they should get while the employer/bourgeois gets most of the money. Yeah. The bourgeoisie have it real tough.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 03:52 pm
They're utopian
no we aren't! :D

[Robert]

They sit around signing some stupid paperwork

Yes. The trick is knowing exactly which words and numbers to write on the paper and knowing when where why and how to forward the "paperwork" so that the electricity stays on and the paychecks are cut and delivered on time. There are many who do not want this headache. There are many more who can't do it because they don't have the brains.

Besides, how do you know what Red Star's mom did after she made some money and created some jobs so that laborers would have something productive to do?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 03:52 pm
To my fellow rich capitalists: Draw near and 'splain me something.

The debates we have here with the left are so sharp and fundamental that I believe we capitalists are doing little more than amusing ourselves. We certainly aren't going to convince anybody on the embittered left to embrace our point of view or question theirs, so let's forget that for a minute and ask ourselves honestly: why aren't we socialists?

Are our values really that different from those on the left? They're utopian, yes, but, is the current system the best we capitalists can devise? Have we really reached the end of history and we won? Are the Sudanese and Guatemalans forever to live eating dirt, dying of AIDS and freezing in winter? Maybe we're as defeatist as they are utopian.

Is this as good as it gets?

Are our values really that different from those on the left? They're utopian, yes, but, is the current system the best we capitalists can devise?

Our values are not so different, but I think there are fundamental differences as to the value of individual autonomy - or, perhaps, a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of "liberty."

Capitalism is the best system we can devise that works.



Have we really reached the end of history and we won? Are the Sudanese and Guatemalans forever to live eating dirt, dying of AIDS and freezing in winter? Maybe we're as defeatist as they are utopian.

I don't think so. But our current economic system evolved over thousands of years. It will continue to evolve - slowly - over time. Technological developments and declining scarcity may eventually render it less relevant.


Is this as good as it gets?
Things are getting better all the time.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 12:31 am

Capitalism is the best system we can devise that works.
That may be true. However, I hardly think capitalism as we know it today is the end all economic model. Who knows what type of civilization will even be around in 1000 years (if any.)

I just don't buy the whole "end of history" argument, whether its put forth by capitalists or anti capitalists.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Agora77+December 02, 2007 12:56 am--> (Agora77 @ December 02, 2007 12:56 am)
pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 12:31 am

Capitalism is the best system we can devise that works.
That may be true. However, I hardly think capitalism as we know it today is the end all economic model. Who knows what type of civilization will even be around in 1000 years (if any.)

I just don't buy the whole "end of history" argument, whether its put forth by capitalists or anti capitalists. [/b]
No, I don't either.

The optimal economic system is highly dependent upon the nature of the individuals in the society. So long as the nature of people can change, so can the ideal economic system.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Technological developments and declining scarcity may eventually render it less relevant.
But scarcity can never decline under capitalism due to the supply-v-demand nature of the free market.

[Robert]

Eh?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I posted this in another thread:

In a free market economy the primary method of determination of selling price of goods is supply v demand. Were the producers to produce enough goods for everybody, the price of said goods would drop sharply, significantly harming the profits of the producers. So in order to sustain profits producers will not--indeed, can not--produce enough goods for all of society. Thus capitalism and the free market is an extremely inefficient form of resource distribution, as what is in the interests of the producers of goods goes directly against the interests of society as a whole.

[Robert]

Were the producers to produce enough goods for everybody, the price of said goods would drop sharply

I know I'm only partially quoting you, but this is the problematic part of your post. There's something wrong with it but I'm not sure what. Perhaps a cart in front of a horse.

If Ford limits its production of vehicles, I don't think it's because they are conspiring to keep prices high. They only limit production to what can be consumed in the market. If you mean "they could produce more than what they can sell if they really wanted to," I suppose that's correct. But then they wouldn't be able to pay the laborers or the suppliers. Or the creditors. I don't think you want them to go bankrupt. Maybe you do (?)

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 11:07 pm

They sit around signing some stupid paperwork

Yes. The trick is knowing exactly which words and numbers to write on the paper and knowing when where why and how to forward the "paperwork" so that the electricity stays on and the paychecks are cut and delivered on time. There are many who do not want this headache. There are many more who can't do it because they don't have the brains.

Besides, how do you know what Red Star's mom did after she made some money and created some jobs so that laborers would have something productive to do?
There are also many who can. We do not need some stupid bourgeois doing that "work", while many proletarians labour. We can do that in common. All of us contributing in workers councils. We don't need you. YOU NEED US.

[Raúl Duke]

They only limit production to what can be consumed in the market.

I doubt that, but a [macro]economics book would say something along those lines.

Production is most likely limited to keep profits at a certain level, while probably also limited in what can be "consumed in the market" (yes, overproduction sometimes "doesn't work" at some levels...although they could always increase demand -for the surplus goods- by lowering the price.).

I even heard that they burn food (grain?) in Africa so to keep the price to a certain level (although if only I could find a net source, since I read it in a book.)

Capitalists can be "progressive" in certain instances according to Marx.
After all, they did organize the overthrow of feudalism and the system they have wrought burns "like acid" old institutions like religion, etc (at least according to Marx; although the bourgeoisie isn't really doing much about religion.)

However, as time passes they will/are suppose to become more reactionary....becoming an "obstacle" to progress. (i.e. the next stage of society, whatever it will be. To Marx that is socialism/communism.)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 12:31 am

Is this as good as it gets?
Things are getting better all the time.
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

[Dr Mindbender]

History shows us that the ruling establishment backs down to the forces of progressive thought. Look at the religious theocrats versus scientists like Galileo. The slave traders versus the abolitionists. 2 nil to social justice. The mysoginist parliamentarians versus the suffragette movement - I could go on-The capitalist system will follow in their wake.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 02, 2007 07:19 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 02, 2007 07:19 pm)
pusher [email protected] 02, 2007 12:31 am

Is this as good as it gets?
Things are getting better all the time.
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us? [/b]

Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

I'm on the planet that is concerned more with material gains than ideological ones. Pick any materialistic metric that you wish; the trends are all absolutely upwards.

[Robert]

Do you distrust or reject these stats, carelessly grabbed from the BNET Research Center?

"Real purchasing power of wages for the average American has been falling since 1973. Average hourly earnings are now lower than they were in 1965; weekly earnings are lower than they were in 1959. Median family income has fallen 7 percent in real terms since 1989."

My own response to this is that, if it's true, "capitalism" isn't to blame. It's inevitable in light of increases in wages leading to movement of jobs overseas and increased energy costs. Plus, I imagine the purchasing power of wages in China and Vietnam are as up, or more, as ours are down or stagnant. But I defer to those with a better grasp of economics.

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 02, 2007 05:26 pm
Do you distrust or reject these stats, carelessly grabbed from the BNET Research Center?

"Real purchasing power of wages for the average American has been falling since 1973. Average hourly earnings are now lower than they were in 1965; weekly earnings are lower than they were in 1959. Median family income has fallen 7 percent in real terms since 1989."

My own response to this is that, if it's true, "capitalism" isn't to blame. It's inevitable in light of increases in wages leading to movement of jobs overseas and increased energy costs. Plus, I imagine the purchasing power of wages in China and Vietnam are as up, or more, as ours are down or stagnant. But I defer to those with a better grasp of economics.
The "wage increases", "movement of jobs", "increased energy costs", etc are all economic terms used in relation to one system: capitalism. (wages don't exist in slavery and, I suppose, in feudalism; etc.)

Its a non-sequitar to say that "capitalism isn't to blame" when these things are features in capitalism.

Our maybe you want to assign a more specific blame...You can always blame the corporations, etc (the capitalists) that are always on the look out for cheaper labor and profit maximization; but that could also be considered part of the "nature of capitalism."

Or you can get technical (using the kind of lingo my economics text book uses): The labor market in the US/the West is to expensive (has a high price level) so the demand for labor here lowers while the demand for labor increases in Asia where the price level is lower in comparison to the US/the West. Either way, we are discussing wage labor which is an aspect of capitalism.

[Robert]

Well, I can't deny that they are inextricably bound up with the system, no. But if we are arguing, as we are, about whether "things are getting better," Pusher will presumably tell us that we can no more ignore the improvements in material gains in formerly communist countries (let's put aside the nomenclature for a sec) than I can ignore the that capitalism is painful for some. But we haven't heard from Pusher as to what he means exactly by "things are getting better."

Well, we know what he means -- "Pick any materialistic metric that you wish; the trends are all absolutely upwards" -- but we don't know what evidence he will point to in the light of our skepticism.

So Pusher, I've picked a materialistic metric I think (decreasing purchasing power of wages for avg. Americans). What's wrong with it?

[Raúl Duke]

Maybe some materialistic metrics are better than others. :P

[Robert]

I suppose too that the argument can be made that one must look at a reasonable time frame to judge. Things are "better" than they were 2000, 1500, 1000, 500, 100, and 50 years ago measured by purchasing power alone. And we don't have communism to thank for that, do we? We can't look at stagnation or regression of that one "metric" (is that a noun?) in one country only and draw any conclusion. And of course we've got a few of our members exchanging ideas for buying a cheap HD television right now, though Ulster wants the thread moved. Ha ha. Just a little humor there, matey.

But seriously, cell phones and color TV's were the stuff of science fiction 40 years ago, or maybe 50 with the TV's. Now they're so ubiquitous we're throwing away good ones to buy better ones. Cars are safer too, but more expensive. A trade off there.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:02 am
I posted this in another thread:

In a free market economy the primary method of determination of selling price of goods is supply v demand. Were the producers to produce enough goods for everybody, the price of said goods would drop sharply, significantly harming the profits of the producers. So in order to sustain profits producers will not--indeed, can not--produce enough goods for all of society. Thus capitalism and the free market is an extremely inefficient form of resource distribution, as what is in the interests of the producers of goods goes directly against the interests of society as a whole.
The problem of supply and demand is not a creation of capitalism, but of basic reality which even a socialist community will need to face.

There are only a certain amount of workers in the community, and they can only make a certain amount of goods in a certain amount of time (or for the technocrats hereabout, machines, which can only make a certain amount of goods in a certain amount of time).. There is only a certain amount of time in a day to make those goods. There is only a certain amount of land upon which to build factories or hospitals, and two cannot occupy the same spot.

The issue is one of scarcity, which the socialist community will have to deal with (sorry Technocrats, your views on that subject are in error) and which its corolary is supply and demand.

[Zurdito]

Green dragon: are you actually a capitalist, or just a supporter of the system? Your understanding of the system you support can't be very good if you don't know the difference between the two.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by MilitantVL+December 02, 2007 02:29 am--> (MilitantVL @ December 02, 2007 02:29 am)
Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 11:07 pm

They sit around signing some stupid paperwork

Yes. The trick is knowing exactly which words and numbers to write on the paper and knowing when where why and how to forward the "paperwork" so that the electricity stays on and the paychecks are cut and delivered on time. There are many who do not want this headache. There are many more who can't do it because they don't have the brains.

Besides, how do you know what Red Star's mom did after she made some money and created some jobs so that laborers would have something productive to do?
There are also many who can. We do not need some stupid bourgeois doing that "work", while many proletarians labour. We can do that in common. All of us contributing in workers councils. We don't need you. YOU NEED US. [/b]
Those who "can" beocme irrelevent, since that knowledge is based upon capitalist economic ideas. There is of course nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned company.

Of course, this is not what you mean. So then the sociialist has to be prepared to say what kind of knowledge the proleteriat will be using to make these types of decisions wehich will need to be made.

To their credit, only the technocrats seem willing to try to do so (even though they get their clocks cleaned in the effort). The other socialists seem to simply laugh and say it is impossible to say, and then go off on the restricted boards to figure why they don't have the level of support they think they ought.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:56 am
Green dragon: are you actually a capitalist, or just a supporter of the system? Your understanding of the system you support can't be very good if you don't know the difference between the two.
The two of what?

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Green Dragon+December 03, 2007 02:02 am--> (Green Dragon @ December 03, 2007 02:02 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 01:56 am
Green dragon: are you actually a capitalist, or just a supporter of the system? Your understanding of the system you support can't be very good if you don't know the difference between the two.
The two of what? [/b]
a capitalist and someone who just ideologically supports capitalism.

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 02, 2007 07:40 pm
I suppose too that the argument can be made that one must look at a reasonable time frame to judge. Things are "better" than they were 2000, 1500, 1000, 500, 100, and 50 years ago measured by purchasing power alone. And we don't have communism to thank for that, do we? We can't look at stagnation or regression of that one "metric" (is that a noun?) in one country only and draw any conclusion. And of course we've got a few of our members exchanging ideas for buying a cheap HD television right now, though Ulster wants the thread moved. Ha ha. Just a little humor there, matey.

But seriously, cell phones and color TV's were the stuff of science fiction 40 years ago, or maybe 50 with the TV's. Now they're so ubiquitous we're throwing away good ones to buy better ones. Cars are safer too, but more expensive. A trade off there.
Things were of course better than the feudal age and things before that. Things are also better than the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.

But today's "standards of living" (wages, prices of stuff, etc; more precisely the purchasing power you mention.) are probably not better than 1950s-60s, actually from around the 70s-80s "standard of living" has been on decline (i.e. such as you mentioned from your post of BNET Stats).

Of course, you don't have to "thank communism" for that (we never had communism; only failed Leninist attempt to get there.), you can thank the reformists of many stripes (most of them claiming to do it for socialism or communism) for that.

But now we have been on a decline since the 70s and I don't think there is going to be any more long-term reforms to better the system.(Actually things point out towards the dismantling of reforms); which might lead to a situation that could forment major change.

If we are to depend on historical materialism, there might be a new economic system in the future...whether it be communism or something else (technocracy?) usually these new system will gradually become better than their predecessors.

About the metrics, yes we need to look at more of them to get a picture:
I heard of other metrics that point downward (I even heard of someone speculating and providing some stats to show that the rate of profit is declining)...although some metrics are going up but most of these are not those that have beneficial effects for the 1st world working class.

[Lynx]

I only see idealists and pragmatists.

[Robert]

There is of course nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned company.

Well, maybe you're onto something there. Any workers who want to buy the company they work for can put their capital together and buy it, though obviously that's a little difficult when you're talking about Microsoft. (Come on, man chip in a couple of bucks ... soon as we get to 97 billion, this baby is ours.)

If you want to live communally, get together with your neighbors and do so. The capitalists won't stop you. Leave the rest of us alone to make private contracts.

Seriously, there are many laborers who would rather be laborers than owners. With ownership goes responsibility (owners can't just "get tired" of their jobs and move to another one or go back to school if they get bored or frustrated with it or want a simple change of scenery. "Let's move to the mountains, dear." "Did you forget to take your pill dear? You're the boss.") Are you guys sure you want that?



I only see idealists and pragmatists.

Are you complaining? What would you like to see?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher robot+December 02, 2007 11:19 pm--> (pusher robot @ December 02, 2007 11:19 pm) I'm on the planet that is concerned more with material gains than ideological ones. Pick any materialistic metric that you wish; the trends are all absolutely upwards. [/b]
And they have been since records began. I see that as evidence for the benefits of technological progress, not those of a particular economic system. Indeed, as far as I am aware, no economic system has ever failed to improve those metrics for any extended period of time since records began.

You just want capitalism to take the credit for something that happens naturally in every industrial society.

Besides, as Robert pointed out:


Robert the Great
I suppose too that the argument can be made that one must look at a reasonable time frame to judge. Things are "better" than they were 2000, 1500, 1000, 500, 100, and 50 years ago measured by purchasing power alone.
If an economic system can be justified merely because it makes living standards better than they were at some arbitrary time in the past, then you can justify any economic system if you look far enough back in time. Anything that happened in the 20th century is still clearly better than, say, life in the Dark Ages.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 03, 2007 08:15 am
Are you complaining? What would you like to see?
If I see a pragmatist I know I need to show them how communism will work. With an idealist, I need to show how capitalism is not working or is unfair. Pragmatists want to know the nuts and bolts of a system, to be convinced that it could work; idealists want to know the overall plan and its synthesis.

Ideology is less important to me than what can be made to work.

What are the fundamental differences between capitalists and communists? From my POV it begins with assumptions about human nature:

- That individual effort is contingent on individual reward.
- That if reward is not proportional to effort, a minimal effort will be made.

From those two axioms you can derive many disagreements as to how people will behave in a proposed system. And by extension, why such a system would or would not work.

[Demogorgon]

As it happens not every material measurement is upwards anyway. Median disposable income has been declining for some time in many Western Countries as of late. For a majority of people, economic growth is not reaching them.

[Robert]

That if reward is not proportional to effort, a minimal effort will be made.

That's an important principle to debate, but I admit that an individual may make Herculean efforts under capitalism and go bankrupt in the process, sometime for reasons beyond his control (the People lose interest in hula hoops, pet rocks, and CB radios, or his factory is bombed) and sometimes not (it was his idea to invest in hula hoops in the first place; he paid out too much in bonuses in the first year).

I think where I come out now is that communism seems unworkable to me without loss of the personal freedoms that I personally treasure. Plus I'm afraid I'll get shot for saying something counter-revolutionary, like:

"I hate farming, and I ain't too crazy about Great Leader either."

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by JohnnyDarko+December 03, 2007 03:00 am--> (JohnnyDarko @ December 03, 2007 03:00 am)
Robert the [email protected] 02, 2007 07:40 pm
I suppose too that the argument can be made that one must look at a reasonable time frame to judge. Things are "better" than they were 2000, 1500, 1000, 500, 100, and 50 years ago measured by purchasing power alone. And we don't have communism to thank for that, do we? We can't look at stagnation or regression of that one "metric" (is that a noun?) in one country only and draw any conclusion. And of course we've got a few of our members exchanging ideas for buying a cheap HD television right now, though Ulster wants the thread moved. Ha ha. Just a little humor there, matey.

But seriously, cell phones and color TV's were the stuff of science fiction 40 years ago, or maybe 50 with the TV's. Now they're so ubiquitous we're throwing away good ones to buy better ones. Cars are safer too, but more expensive. A trade off there.
Things were of course better than the feudal age and things before that. Things are also better than the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.

But today's "standards of living" (wages, prices of stuff, etc; more precisely the purchasing power you mention.) are probably not better than 1950s-60s, actually from around the 70s-80s "standard of living" has been on decline (i.e. such as you mentioned from your post of BNET Stats).

Of course, you don't have to "thank communism" for that (we never had communism; only failed Leninist attempt to get there.), you can thank the reformists of many stripes (most of them claiming to do it for socialism or communism) for that.

But now we have been on a decline since the 70s and I don't think there is going to be any more long-term reforms to better the system.(Actually things point out towards the dismantling of reforms); which might lead to a situation that could forment major change.

If we are to depend on historical materialism, there might be a new economic system in the future...whether it be communism or something else (technocracy?) usually these new system will gradually become better than their predecessors.

About the metrics, yes we need to look at more of them to get a picture:
I heard of other metrics that point downward (I even heard of someone speculating and providing some stats to show that the rate of profit is declining)...although some metrics are going up but most of these are not those that have beneficial effects for the 1st world working class. [/b]
correct.

most of the much vaunted, supernaturally powerful "controls" which were put in place after the Wall St. crash for example, have been being dismantled since the 1970's to open up the road for finance capital. capitalism wnet through a self-moderating phase after WW2 and gave the reformists a lot of free rein to buy off the working class, but for the past 30 years the trend has been back to pre-depression economics and politics. Margaret Thatcher saw the 1930's as her model of an ideal society. That's where we're headed under those politics.

And yes, to answer the "pragmatist" who posted after the quoted post: technological progress is one of the main arguments for communism: before capitalism we did not have means to feed huge cities, to interlinkt he hwole world, to sustain populations growth and feed everyone. Now we do have the means to do so, yet the need to orient progress towards the benefit of an elite prevents us from doing so. But one day, we will. I just hope to live to see the day. :)

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 02, 2007 10:26 pm
Do you distrust or reject these stats, carelessly grabbed from the BNET Research Center?

"Real purchasing power of wages for the average American has been falling since 1973. Average hourly earnings are now lower than they were in 1965; weekly earnings are lower than they were in 1959. Median family income has fallen 7 percent in real terms since 1989."

My own response to this is that, if it's true, "capitalism" isn't to blame. It's inevitable in light of increases in wages leading to movement of jobs overseas and increased energy costs. Plus, I imagine the purchasing power of wages in China and Vietnam are as up, or more, as ours are down or stagnant. But I defer to those with a better grasp of economics.

"Real purchasing power of wages for the average American has been falling since 1973. Average hourly earnings are now lower than they were in 1965; weekly earnings are lower than they were in 1959. Median family income has fallen 7 percent in real terms since 1989."

No, but I would dispute (a) relevance, as I was speaking globally, not just about the U.S., (b) relevance, as most of those time frames are far too short to be considered counter-trends and © definition, as I don't consider these true materialist metrics. They are rather secondary metrics.

For example, looking only at MIPS, the number of MIPS per dollar is easily more than a ten million times what it was in the late sixties, and is continuing to increase at an exponential rate. These MIPS are actual work done that directly benefits the people who use them, and the same dollar (inflation adjusted) buys you millions of times more than it did several decades ago. How are these kinds of material gains factored into your above statistics? They aren't, really, and that's why they're secondary in nature. They only have material meaning assuming all else being equal, and of course, that's a highly suspect assumption.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 03:52 pm
To my fellow rich capitalists: Draw near and 'splain me something.

The debates we have here with the left are so sharp and fundamental that I believe we capitalists are doing little more than amusing ourselves. We certainly aren't going to convince anybody on the embittered left to embrace our point of view or question theirs, so let's forget that for a minute and ask ourselves honestly: why aren't we socialists?

Are our values really that different from those on the left? They're utopian, yes, but, is the current system the best we capitalists can devise? Have we really reached the end of history and we won? Are the Sudanese and Guatemalans forever to live eating dirt, dying of AIDS and freezing in winter? Maybe we're as defeatist as they are utopian.

Is this as good as it gets?
I think some conservatives often have good intentions at heart - it just seems that they are more paranoid, afraid of change, or whatever may be the difference.

The concept that conservativism, in the real sense of the term, is good at all is terrible for reasons you just mentioned. SHOULD we really resign ourselves to a life of drudgery and war, and keep things exactly as they are?

But the issue of utopianism is silly. I have never ben a utopianist and I don't think most here are either. We simply see how things can and have been done better before, and want to have the same prosperity, freedom and humanity.

You seem to think that the ideologies are absolutist - conservatives don't want to help Darfur, and Communists, since they believe in absolutes, don't care if things get better, but if they become perfect.

But as a communist, I think in absolutes when it comes to morality, and I shoot for that, but I am not averse to supporting gradual change. This is what the communist movement has traditionally been about - gradually changing things for the better, hence the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and other theories to the end of communism. Conservatives tend to support stability, primarily for themselves, in the here and now. I think that's short sighted, but more importantly - don't you think that gradual change for the better is good? It baffles me to see people imply or outright state that their own money is more important than foreign relief efforts, with lives on the line. Is the dollar so important that we should undermine our efforts to help others for it?

[pusher robot]

don't you think that gradual change for the better is good?

But things are gradually changing for the better, they have been since humanity first civilized. In fact, things have been gradually changing for the better at an increasing rate, and continue to do so under the status quo.

That's why many "conservatives" believe that the best course of action is to continue doing what we have been doing, which is gradual improvement, rather than a violent, destructive revolution that has a historically demonstrated ability to completely fuck up all that improvement.

[Robert]

historically demonstrated ability to completely fuck up all that improvement.

Push dude! I knew you'd get in here with some of your inimitable pithiness. Well said.



No, but I would dispute (a) relevance, as I was speaking globally, not just about the U.S., (b) relevance, as most of those time frames are far too short


I anticipated that here:


Plus, I imagine the purchasing power of wages in China and Vietnam are as up, or more, as ours are down or stagnant.

Great minds, you gotta love 'em!

But again, Push, you gotta admit that we capitalists aren't exactly on the cutting edge of progress in the areas of environmental protection, workers' and civil rights. None of those initiatives, begun in the 60's, have been particularly conducive to wealth creation, but I don't think most of us see those as pernicious to society. Not that those are economic issues.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 03, 2007 10:54 pm

don't you think that gradual change for the better is good?

But things are gradually changing for the better, they have been since humanity first civilized. In fact, things have been gradually changing for the better at an increasing rate, and continue to do so under the status quo.
So the development and use of atomic weapons was for the good of humanity? The drastic arms race, and later rampant use of such weapons in the middle east and africa specifically in wars for oil, diamonds and power in general are good trends?

The concept of humans having a quick and simple way for just a few men to decide to destroy the world with atomic weapons is good?

Things get better and worse, and they have been progressing in the latter direction for decades, not only in the U.S. (but not so much) but all over the world, particularly the underdeveloped nations, which have been sinking deeper into debt and poverty.


That's why many "conservatives" believe that the best course of action is to continue doing what we have been doing, which is gradual improvement, rather than a violent, destructive revolution that has a historically demonstrated ability to completely fuck up all that improvement.
Perhaps such a false, defeatist concept of the world's problems is why they conservatives believe such things. I tend to care more about solving problems, than concerning myself with the value of the dollar, which is what conservatism in the US ultimately is.

[Robert]

I'll let Push speak to the atomic weapons, though I think I can guess the response.

As for this:


the value of the dollar, which is what conservatism in the US ultimately is.

You're spending way too much time on this board, I suspect. Conservatism is dedicated to preservation of that which conservatives believe is good and healthy to the culture, and yes, that includes support of the currency (what sane person opposes this?), but it's hardly the only thing. None of the others would appeal to a radical socialist, but they are there nonetheless.

[spartan]

Conservatism is dedicated to preservation of that which conservatives believe is good and healthy to the culture, and yes, that includes support of the currency

(what sane person opposes this?)
The people who are oppressed by it which is about 90% of the worlds entire population (Unfortunately not alot of that 90% are fully aware of this like the few thousand on revleft are :( ).

[RevSkeptic]

- That individual effort is contingent on individual reward.

Where is that effort going into? Making things of beneficial utility or simply effort in gaining a bigger reward? Someone who is without morals can expend effort in activities of questionable social value, but could gain them a big reward.

Further, if you hold a dominant position in the market, the only disincentive from you making harmful products is if the consumer has the resources to take legal actions against you and even then from simply a financial perspective you'll only recall the product if the cost in lawsuits is greater than the profit you can make by leaving a defective product in the market. But, if there's mass inequality how's the consumer going to deter any wealthy producer in any meaningful way?

Also, it's idealistic. Assuming a worker works the western standard 8 hour day then if you pay a worker twice the amount of money that he normally gets paid he's not physically capable of working twice as hard unless he skips sleeping altogether. Most Capitalist economics are mathematical abstractions that try to fit the model to what the economist favour as their reality rather than the other way around. In other words it's not empirical science and has more in relation to numerology.


- That if reward is not proportional to effort, a minimal effort will be made.

Sure, I wouldn't get too excited at working on something that my boss will get to own unless I get paid for my work so I can trade in what I consider alienating work for somebody else for a bit in return in able to buy back that production.

That rule only applies under current social relationships, otherwise if it benefits everybody that contributes to the finished product then some people may take it up as activity worth doing in itself both because of personal fascination with the subject matter and for enjoying the material benefits of the finished product.

But, this depends if the worker has a healthy interest in the subject matter that his is engaging his working activity in. That means that he is an enthusiastic craftsman relative to what he is working on.

[Robert]

Well, there are many important jobs need to be done under any system that nobody gets excited about. Stock boy, assembly line work, garbage collection, investigator for child protective services, bookkeeping, auditing. Not sure what point I'm making, or what you're making.

[pusher robot]

But again, Push, you gotta admit that we capitalists aren't exactly on the cutting edge of progress in the areas of environmental protection, workers' and civil rights. None of those initiatives, begun in the 60's, have been particularly conducive to wealth creation, but I don't think most of us see those as pernicious to society. Not that those are economic issues.

I would dispute that most of those areas of progress began in the sixties - all of them have movements that go back decades if not centuries! Are you a boomer by any chance? I find this myopia common among boomers, where they think all progressivism started in the sixties.

In any case, I take your point. Generally these movements would not count "capitalists" as their allies. But I think that even die-hard capitalists are not obligated to be dogmatic. After all, many of these changes have occurred as our understanding of capitalism has matured as well - better understandings of things like externalities, market failures and their cures, and better modeling of economic behavior. Partly they are due to a redefinition of socially subjective concepts, like "fairness" and "justice." And partly they represent the informed decision of a sufficient plurality to "buy" these things with reduced efficiency or tax dollars or both.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 04, 2007 12:20 am
I'll let Push speak to the atomic weapons, though I think I can guess the response.

As for this:


the value of the dollar, which is what conservatism in the US ultimately is.

You're spending way too much time on this board, I suspect. Conservatism is dedicated to preservation of that which conservatives believe is good and healthy to the culture, and yes, that includes support of the currency (what sane person opposes this?), but it's hardly the only thing. None of the others would appeal to a radical socialist, but they are there nonetheless.
Spending way too much time?? I haven't visited this site for 2 weeks since today.

As for the issue on the dollar, no person should consider its value greater than human life. The fact that you try to defend such judgements shows where your priorities are.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The issue is one of scarcity, which the socialist community will have to deal with (sorry Technocrats, your views on that subject are in error) and which its corolary is supply and demand.
I was addressing pusher robot's post about technological advances rendering things like starvation and poverty largely irrelevant. The decline of scarcity was his premise, not mine.

[Robert]

no person should consider its value greater than human life.

Now you're hallucinating, because nobody said that Yes, you have clearly spent too much time reading socialist nonsense for way too long, either here or elsewhere. Good luck.

[Robert]

deleted

[Dean]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 04, 2007 02:31 am


no person should consider its value greater than human life.

Now you're hallucinating, because nobody said that Yes, you have clearly spent too much time reading socialist nonsense for way too long, either here or elsewhere. Good luck.
I said that, when I put foreward my original argument - I didn't claim that one of you believed it:

Perhaps such a false, defeatist concept of the world's problems is why they conservatives believe such things. I tend to care more about solving problems, than concerning myself with the value of the dollar, which is what conservatism in the US ultimately is.

Defending "concern with money" above my argument ath human beings are the most important issue here is pretty clear. Sound to me like you've been reading too much propaganda to wrap your mind around simple linguistic concepts, for instance, the concept that a person can make reference to his or her own inferences.

You really are a joke. I make a simple, amiable post and you try to attack me with spittle - ridden vitriol. Good for you, I guess.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 12:54 am
That's why many "conservatives" believe that the best course of action is to continue doing what we have been doing, which is gradual improvement, rather than a violent, destructive revolution that has a historically demonstrated ability to completely fuck up all that improvement.
Gradual improvement? Progress in the 20th century was anything but "gradual" - it came at the cost of two World Wars, a Great Depression, numerous colonial wars and the near-annihilation of the world through nuclear warfare.

It is very rare to see a revolution erupt spontaneously in an otherwise stable and peaceful country. What usually happens is that a country gets destabilized by various factors and then a revolution occurs.

It seems that you and many of your fellow capitalists have taken up a late 19th century sort of attitude, which is to say a belief that we have entered a period of eternal slow, gradual, peaceful improvement of the human condition. World War One shattered that kind of illusion before, and it is only a matter of time before a similarly catastrophic event shatters your illusions as well.

The task of communists today is to ensure the survival (and, if possible, the growth) of communist ideology until the next major world-changing event happens. There have been several such events in the 20th century; it is reasonable to expect at least one more in our lifetime.

[pusher robot]

Gradual improvement? Progress in the 20th century was anything but "gradual" - it came at the cost of two World Wars, a Great Depression, numerous colonial wars and the near-annihilation of the world through nuclear warfare.

No, progress enabled us to overcome those colossal wastes of blood and treasure. In an earlier time, humanity might have been set back centuries. As it was, we picked ourselves up and rebuilt everything even better than it was before (at least in the West).


It is very rare to see a revolution erupt spontaneously in an otherwise stable and peaceful country. What usually happens is that a country gets destabilized by various factors and then a revolution occurs.

Inasmuch as a revolution is inherently destabilizing, that is a tautology. My point, of course, is that the status quo is likely quite stable for the foreseeable future.


It seems that you and many of your fellow capitalists have taken up a late 19th century sort of attitude, which is to say a belief that we have entered a period of eternal slow, gradual, peaceful improvement of the human condition. World War One shattered that kind of illusion before, and it is only a matter of time before a similarly catastrophic event shatters your illusions as well.
Nobody is saying that. All we're saying is that the status quo is delivering progress at a measured, increasing rate, and so long as we remain peaceful, that is likely to continue. Something may happen to shatter that situation, but it would not be desirable and most people will work to avoid it if possible.

The task of communists today is to ensure the survival (and, if possible, the growth) of communist ideology until the next major world-changing event happens. There have been several such events in the 20th century; it is reasonable to expect at least one more in our lifetime.
We have already experienced one: the rise of the internet and the ubiquitization (I made that word up) of personal computing and communications. Yet communists have so far failed to capitalize in any successful way on any world-changing events ever; I see no reason for that trend to change either.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher robot+December 04, 2007 09:30 am--> (pusher robot @ December 04, 2007 09:30 am) No, progress enabled us to overcome those colossal wastes of blood and treasure. In an earlier time, humanity might have been set back centuries. As it was, we picked ourselves up and rebuilt everything even better than it was before (at least in the West). [/b]
20th century progress happened because of, not in spite of, its turbulent history. The two world wars in particular were enormous catalysts for progress in all fields - social, economic (Keynesianism, post-WW2 boom), political (universal suffrage, civil rights, decolonization, rise of social democracy) and technological (modern information technology can trace its origins back to WW2 code-breakers, then there are jet aircraft, nuclear power, and so on and so forth).


Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)Inasmuch as a revolution is inherently destabilizing, that is a tautology. My point, of course, is that the status quo is likely quite stable for the foreseeable future.[/b]
That is true, unfortunately. Which is why I am looking forward to the unforseeable future.


pusher [email protected]
Nobody is saying that. All we're saying is that the status quo is delivering progress at a measured, increasing rate, and so long as we remain peaceful, that is likely to continue. Something may happen to shatter that situation, but it would not be desirable and most people will work to avoid it if possible.
The longer we remain peaceful the stronger the grip of the ruling class becomes. You may believe that it is possible to have such a thing as "measured progress" for all, but I believe that even the small dose of freedom we enjoy under the current capitalist system can only be maintained through regular episodes of bloodshed. In any class society, peace breeds tyranny. The longer the status quo lasts, the more authoritarian the world will become.


pusher robot
We have already experienced one: the rise of the internet and the ubiquitization (I made that word up) of personal computing and communications. Yet communists have so far failed to capitalize in any successful way on any world-changing events ever; I see no reason for that trend to change either.
You must have skipped the chapters dealing with the years 1917 to 1950 in your history books if you imagine that communists have not capitalized on world-changing events in the past.

By the way, the spread of information technology does not [yet] count as such an event because it has not [yet] changed social or political relations in any meaningful way. For the most part, people have shaped the internet in the image of the existing world; the internet has not shaped the world in its image.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 04, 2007 04:29 am
The longer we remain peaceful the stronger the grip of the ruling class becomes. You may believe that it is possible to have such a thing as "measured progress" for all, but I believe that even the small dose of freedom we enjoy under the current capitalist system can only be maintained through regular episodes of bloodshed. In any class society, peace breeds tyranny. The longer the status quo lasts, the more authoritarian the world will become.
I have noted this global trend towards authoritarian capitalism, but like the IT productivity paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox), there is a paradox to all of this: the democratic peace theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory).

While the above liberal theory is "negative" (ie, the lack of authoritarian rule forces global cooperation), historical evidence suggests that the "positive" is more correct:

The more authoritarian the various capitalist societies become, the greater the likelihood that they'll go to war with one another once they realize that the key to further economic growth lies abroad. Why? Because of the lack of a prominent democratic opposition.

[This was already explained in the "positive" by Lenin in Imperialism: THSOC.]

P.S. - Are you also indicting the DOTP, because once the post-aggravation peace settles in long after the revolution, you're saying that a tyranny will emerge?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 01, 2007 03:52 pm
To my fellow rich capitalists: Draw near and 'splain me something.

The debates we have here with the left are so sharp and fundamental that I believe we capitalists are doing little more than amusing ourselves. We certainly aren't going to convince anybody on the embittered left to embrace our point of view or question theirs, so let's forget that for a minute and ask ourselves honestly: why aren't we socialists?

Are our values really that different from those on the left? They're utopian, yes, but, is the current system the best we capitalists can devise? Have we really reached the end of history and we won? Are the Sudanese and Guatemalans forever to live eating dirt, dying of AIDS and freezing in winter? Maybe we're as defeatist as they are utopian.

Is this as good as it gets?
look my dear capitalists,becouse of you some children are not sleep well,you know why?
becouse your parents earn so mutch money so others children sleep in hunger,becouse you have so mutch money and other children dont,becouse you dont give a shit about those other children whitch they are hungry,and becouse you have so mutch occasion to make your day other children dont,other children must sell himself for pedophile motherfuckers,other children must become slaves if they whant to survive,other children must work for the sneaker pimps for 1$ for an our,other children must lost the childhood for you,should I continue?