Refutation of some sticky capitalist arguments...

[wigsa]

Okay,I regularly get into arguments over the whole communist v capitalist thing considering I attend a private school where basically everyone is a hardcore capitalist.

I tend to argue well,but this is primarily due to my ability to talk shite and make a point where there isn't one.Where I need help is:

My opponents often say that competition is good.That a world can't survive without competition and that competition produces higher quality goods and services.I reply by saying that competition can be good and say that it is possible in a left wing society...is it though??I obviously outline how competition is what creates the divide between rich and poor,i.e. people trying to make goods at a cheaper price to win marketing battles and in doing so skimping on workers' wages.

When people say 'look at the past' I can be stumped to a certain extent.I can explain how USSR was state capitalism,but cannot elaborate on it.I can't comeback on China apart from saying that Mao saved the country from the Japanese.I can't comeback on Romania because that really was a bad situation.I can however,point to Cuba and show how it is good,but that's it.

Any help would be appreciated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, under capitalism competition leads to loss of jobs (as we are seeing right now); it also traps the capitalists themselves in a system they cannot control. They have just laid out of $8+ trillion world-wide in an attempt to bail out the current mess, but this won't solve their problems. Someone is going to have to pay for it, and that will be workers -- who will resist.

Under socialism, competiton will lead to the shortening of the working week -- so if someone discovers a new way of making, say, shoes in half the time, the workers involved can make the same number of shoes in half a working week, and so need only work, say, three days instead of five. Generalise this across the economy and you would have increased production, efficiency, incentives to work hard and innovate -- and more leisure time. No one would fear innovation leading to loss of employment.

This sort of competition is not anarchic as it is now, and will not lead to crises like we see today.

Sure, this is a very simplified picture, but so is the 'competition under capitalism is good' mantra.

[Black Sheep]

Yes,competition under capitalism leads to higher quality goods and services (most of the time,and only if it favours larger profits).
but only to those who can afford them

[Potemkin]

Hopefully this is some help for you in debating. It's from an anarchist-communist perspective mainly, but I'll try to throw in some Marx if you're into that sort of thing :)

Competition: The example given by Rosa doesn't seem to be competition. Perhaps the unstated assumption is that it was competition between shoe makers that lead to the invention. However, I would argue that there's a difference between friendly competition and capitalist/cut-throat competition. More importantly, though, what about cooperation? In the shoe example, this seems like the more likely scenario leading to more efficient shoe-making.

Capitalist competition is not anarchic. I'm sure Rosa meant chaotic, but I think even that is a stretch. Rather, I think it's cold and calculated, not a free-for-all.

I would argue that capitalism does not provide goods and services of higher quality. Look at the quality of health care or education in Cuba versus the US for examples of services, and all of the useless crap produced by or for capitalist countries. And let's not forget that capitalist products rely on the planned and perceived obsolescence of their products so people keep consuming (planned obsolescence is when a product is designed to break after a certain number uses or period of time, perceived obsolescence is where they redesign the product so you look "uncool" if you use the old one -- the old one still works, but you have peer pressure to buy a new one).

Also, according to "The Story of Stuff" dot com (I can't post links yet), which I highly recommend, 99% of EVERYTHING purchased ends up in the trash within six months! It wasn't always like this, so quality is actually getting worse.

"Look at the past": For socialists/communists you could point to Cuba, as you noted, but what about Salvador Allende? And how about current examples? The Zapatistas are Marxist inspired, and what about Venezuela and Bolivia? And some of the best capitalist economies have been fascist, like Pinochet's Chile.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Potemkin:


The example given by Rosa doesn't seem to be competition.

Well, that is because I did not fully describe it.

At the moment designers, engineers and others in one company will be made to compete with those in another to maintain market share etc. The 'same' employees can similarly be set to compete under socialism for the goal of reducing the workload of all, and the kudos that attaches to this. Instead of workers thinking of ways to halt tecnological progress and more efficient work practices and the damage this does to jobs, health and pay packets, they will be competeing in the above manner (and in others) to reduce the necessary labour time of their section of industry, and perhaps for wider sections of the labour force.

The equivalent of nobel prizes could be awarded to those who achieve the best results.

Cooperation too, where it is appropriate -- sure.

[red-carnations]

There are people (Michael Parenti comes to mind) that believe that capitalistic competition brings out the WORST in people by forcing people to engage in deceptive, cut-throat, cover your own arse tactics, just to stay afloat in the turbulant sea of inequality. The whole American bail-out situation, in my opinion, is competition run absolutely amok. Competition fosters greed and selfishness in my opinion!!

[Black Sheep]

Potemkin

Look at the quality of health care or education in Cuba versus the US for examples of services
Yeah,my example would be like:
Look at the quality of health care or education in Cuba versus the best and most expensive of the US

[Sendo]

it's hard to give simple one-size fits-all refutations, since everyone has his or her own ideology and mixing arguments you don't know enough about can end badly.

For example, I am very defensive of Maoist China because of what I've read of the Cultural Revolution and the attitudes of common Chinese on it. For more on that I suggest monthly review articles and books by Mobo Gao (Gao, Mobo).

The Soviet Union, I feel had flaws from day one. Much better than what preceded it, but flawed and stubborn. I like to switch over to much neglected topics like the communes of Catalonia, which were destroyed in the course of a civil was in Spain wherein the US and the UK openly supported the fascists.

[wigsa]

Hopefully this is some help for you in debating. It's from an anarchist-communist perspective mainly, but I'll try to throw in some Marx if you're into that sort of thing :)

Competition: The example given by Rosa doesn't seem to be competition. Perhaps the unstated assumption is that it was competition between shoe makers that lead to the invention. However, I would argue that there's a difference between friendly competition and capitalist/cut-throat competition. More importantly, though, what about cooperation? In the shoe example, this seems like the more likely scenario leading to more efficient shoe-making.

Capitalist competition is not anarchic. I'm sure Rosa meant chaotic, but I think even that is a stretch. Rather, I think it's cold and calculated, not a free-for-all.

I would argue that capitalism does not provide goods and services of higher quality. Look at the quality of health care or education in Cuba versus the US for examples of services, and all of the useless crap produced by or for capitalist countries. And let's not forget that capitalist products rely on the planned and perceived obsolescence of their products so people keep consuming (planned obsolescence is when a product is designed to break after a certain number uses or period of time, perceived obsolescence is where they redesign the product so you look "uncool" if you use the old one -- the old one still works, but you have peer pressure to buy a new one).

Also, according to "The Story of Stuff" dot com (I can't post links yet), which I highly recommend, 99% of EVERYTHING purchased ends up in the trash within six months! It wasn't always like this, so quality is actually getting worse.

"Look at the past": For socialists/communists you could point to Cuba, as you noted, but what about Salvador Allende? And how about current examples? The Zapatistas are Marxist inspired, and what about Venezuela and Bolivia? And some of the best capitalist economies have been fascist, like Pinochet's Chile.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Great post man,thanks a lot:thumbup1:

[Drace]

Lets not forget about the consumerism which is also a byproduct of profit incentive.
The consumerism really drives a lot of waste.

From http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html:


What's the connection between McDonald's and starvation in the 'Third World'?



THERE's no point in feeling guilty about eating while watching starving African children on TV. If you do send money to Band Aid, or shop at Oxfam, etc., that's morally good but politically useless. It shifts the blame from governments and doesnothing to challenge the power of multinational corporations.

HUNGRY FOR DOLLARS



McDonald's is one of several giant corporations with investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries, sold to them by the dollar-hungry rulers (often military) and privileged elites, evicting the small farmers that live there growing food fortheir own people. The power of the US dollar means that in order to buy technology and manufactured goods, poor countries are trapped into producing more and more food for export to the States. Out of 40 of the world's poorest countries, 36 export food to the USA - thewealthiest.

ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM



Some 'Third World' countries, where most children are undernourished, are actually exporting their staple crops as animal feed - i.e. to fatten cattle for turning into burgers in the 'First World'. Millions of acres of the best farmland in poor contries are being used for our benefit - for tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. - while people there are starving. McDonald's is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat.




GRAIN is fed to cattle in South American countries to produce the meat in McDonald's hamburgers. Cattle consume 10 times the amount of grain and soy that humans do: one calorie of beef demands ten calories of grain. Of the 145 million tons of grain and so fed to livestock, only 21 million tons of meat and by-products are used. The waste is 124 million tons per year at a value of 20 billion US dollars. It has been calculated that this sum would feed, clothe and house the world's entire population fo one yea


http://www.storyofstuff.com/ (http://www.storyofstuff.com/)

[wigsa]

I can't see how 20 bill could feed,clothe and house the world's entire population for a year.That only works out at,what,3 dollars per person?Not buying it,but I see the point.There's better statistics to back that up.

[ZeroNowhere]

Veblen's theories could help you here.


"Look at the past": For socialists/communists you could point to Cuba, as you noted, but what about Salvador Allende? And how about current examples?
Why Cuba? We're arguing for socialism. I could bring up Sweden and say that it's better than the US in terms of blah blah blah, but we're arguing against capitalism, correct?
Also, Allende was a tinkering reformist. Also, Pinochet's Chile was a 'successful capitalist economy'? In what sense? It was good for the capitalists? Would one really call that a 'success'?
It was, after all, a testing ground for neoliberalism, and I'm sure we all know how badly that's done for everybody except the capitalists.


It wasn't always like this, so quality is actually getting worse.
Well, yes, Keynesianism only broke down a few decades ago.

[spice756]

Well, under capitalism competition leads to loss of jobs (as we are seeing right now); it also traps the capitalists themselves in a system they cannot control. They have just laid out of $8+ trillion world-wide in an attempt to bail out the current mess, but this won't solve their problems. Someone is going to have to pay for it, and that will be workers -- who will resist.

.


You need competition in capitalism to drive the price down .If you make DVD player and put on market for $70 and I put DVD player on the market for $50 :)people will come to me.You will have to compete with me or go for bankruptcy.

Under socialism we want the stuff very cheap or for free so overproduction is good.Under capitalism they want to make a profit and it is the best interest of the capitalist to have that product very expensive.Under capitalism the capitalist will lower price to compete .

[ZeroNowhere]

You need competition in capitalism to drive the price down .If you make DVD player and put on market for $70 and I put DVD player on the market for $50 :)people will come to me.You will have to compete with me or go for bankruptcy.

Under socialism we want the stuff very cheap or for free so overproduction is good.Under capitalism they want to make a profit and it is the best interest of the capitalist to have that product very expensive.Under capitalism the capitalist will lower price to compete .


Well, yes, if a monopoly needs to compete with some upstart, they can just cut prices in the competitive field and raise it in others. Certainly, a small business situated in the US and having to deal with the unions, etc, isn't going to compete with a globalized corporation giving tiny amounts of money to people in Africa, who can even sell at a loss for longer until their competitor has no choice but to stop.

[mikelepore]

and that competition produces higher quality goods and services

I guess that's why, whenever someone says the phrase "used car saleman", the first image that comes to everyone's mind is honesty and trustworthiness.

[Potemkin]

ZeroNowhere: I think many Communists and socialists still look to Cuba as a good example, don't they? Especially before they started opening up their economy. They were a shining star for the New Left, and I know a few people that still look to them favorably.

Also, I used Pinochet's Chile as an example one could bring up with someone who supports capitalism. It shows that fascism and capitalism are not incompatible. And yes, I would argue that a successful capitalist economy is only successful for capitalists, that's one of the reasons to oppose it.

Moving on, I'm not an economist, so I'm getting a little out of my field, but part of the reason we're able to buy so many (relatively) cheap products is because the costs of production have been offset by other factors. For instance, one of the reasons Wal-Mart can keep prices so low is that they don't pay decent benefits for workers, encouraging them to get government assistance instead. So those cheap goods at Wal-Mart actually cost us more than that, because we're also paying for the workers' healthcare. Under socialism, where everyone should benefit from public healthcare, I don't see it as a problem, but under capitalism I think it's a big problem.

Also, from an anarchist perspective, this is an argument against both capitalism and the state, as the state works to protect the capitalist economy. I don't think capitalism could exist without state protection. I'm just saying how I would argue, as an anarchist. I realize that there are probably good defenses for a (socialist) state, that we just might not agree on.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't think capitalism could exist without state protection.
Well, of course not. However, getting rid of the government is no solution, since capitalists would simply form another state. The 'anarcho'-capitalists even seem to admit this by proposing a structure that would simply be a privatized state (even by the Weberian definition they tend to use). The differemce being that they pretend that 'state' just means 'the government', and thus getting rid of the President, Congress, etc in the US would thusly be 'getting rid of the state'.
Of course, from the Marxist definition, the state is the enforcement of one class' interests over another, thus as long as the bourgeoisie exist (the Anarchist FAQ brings this up saying 'Oh noez after revolution there will still be a bourgeoisie!?!?!?!', but that's called being silly), as they will until the revolution is successful internationally (for example, the Spanish communes didn't get rid of the bourgeoisie, they were funding Franco, or backstabbing the anarchists in the case of the USSR capitalists). Of course, this means that as long as there is capitalism there is a state, thus one must abolish capitalism in order for the state to collapse, or another state, perhaps with different characteristics, will just take power once more. See, capitalism requires the enforcement of private property. This means the state.
Thus, we don't need any of the fancy 'without the state, we wouldn't be able to defend the revolution' and other bullshit arguments, because if we're using a "workers' state" to mean a party dictatorship, then that is being stupid, and if not, then what's the argument? It's not that we build a state or the revolution would fail, it's that there is a state.