Capitalism Doesn't Work

[ckaihatsu]

---

The financial crisis was by government and not because of capitalism or free market.

An argument can also be made that, instead of scapegoating the capitalists' lapdog -- government -- we should look to see *why* otherwise-rational investors would start putting up the money for shitty-ass, long-shot speculative investments in the subprime mortgage sector.... Weren't they aware that these investments were roughly on par with *junk bonds* -- ???!

Just doing the math -- forensic reasoning, if you will -- we can realize that there must have been a *massive* overhang of cheap capital, along with the regular, dependable coddling (unregulated underwriting of risk) of capital from government. And, sure enough, history proves this reasoning to be correct -- massive bailouts using public funds resulted when such long-shot, risky investments predictably went to shit.

Whatever the political "storyline" for making this the respectable norm doesn't concern us, nor does it matter after the shit hits the fan -- it's public money that was used to keep the charade going.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem is that they ARE PART OF THE ECONOMIC DECISIONS, AND NOT JUST TO REFEREE IT IE THE COURTS. Allow them to expand, if they can do stuff cheaper which helps the average consumer so let them expand.

Here's a fundamental point -- your kind of worldview and concerns rest with the *consumer* side of things, whereas revolutionary leftism is focused on the situation of *labor*: Who actually does the work so that consumers may benefit? (And, if automated, who controls the planning, construction, and implementation of such machines?)

To you "success" means that those who have more purchasing power, as from wealth, will have free and clear access to society's production. But the flipside of that is that those who are actually laboring to produce goods and services for these privileged consumers will *not* receive the same kind of economic consideration for *their* efforts -- purchasing power. This is why political reasoning has to be consciously introduced, because the capitalist / free-market dynamic on its own is only directed to reward wealth and *not* the human labor that produces that wealth.

[ckaihatsu]

Most of those problems was because of government/the protective controls of those governments, which stopped good trade from going to those countries, and stopped people from getting money.

So then -- just to clarify -- you have no objections to those who take action to *correct* such "mismanagement", right?

According to the Guardian:

[T]he full horror of repression over four weeks of demonstrations is beginning to emerge. Human rights groups estimate at least 150-200 deaths since December 17. In random roundups in poor, rural areas, youths were shot in the head and dumped far from home so bodies could not be identified. Police also raped women in their houses in poor neighborhoods in and around Kasserine in the rural interior.

Meanwhile, ordinary Tunisians have targeted businesses owned by members of Ben Ali's family and that of his wife, Leila Trabelsi, who reportedly stole $60 million in gold from the treasury before fleeing the country with her husband.

This comes after years of corruption and looting that enriched a tiny handful of elites connected to Ben Ali and his wife at the expense of the majority of Tunisians. According to Juan Cole on his Informed Comment blog, a U.S. State Department cable revealed by WikiLeaks estimates that "50 percent of Tunisia's economic elite were related in one way or another to [the couple]."

[American Assasin]

Society needs hewers of wood and drawers of water. They should be paid according to their replaceability. Unless you want to argue that a shelf stocker is as important to society as a neurosurgeon.

All things have value, including people. Steel is more useful and valuable than pot metal. Down is better and scarcer than cotton for insulating clothes in the arctic. Doctors and engineers are more important and useful to society than ignorant idealists jerking off on the internet. They cost, as they should, commensurate with their worth.

[American Assasin]

So then -- just to clarify -- you have no objections to those who take action to *correct* such "mismanagement", right?

Yes, and the second point is that elites are connected in communism, too. Someone has to run things for the shitheads.

[American Assasin]

how many of you are using a computer not built by a capitalist company?

[ckaihatsu]

Society needs hewers of wood and drawers of water. They should be paid according to their replaceability. Unless you want to argue that a shelf stocker is as important to society as a neurosurgeon.

No, I personally do recognize that not all labor is the same, and I wouldn't expect all work roles to be treated equivalently in a post-capitalist political economy. That said, though, I *don't* agree that work roles should be valued on the basis of their replaceability, since that's a *market*-oriented approach -- it *commodifies* human beings and creates alienation.

But, politics aside, there *is* still something to be said for the time out of a person's life that they spend in preparation for their income-earning position. This, then, is more in line with the connotation of 'specialization' as we normally think of the term. A white-collar proletarianized worker can justifiably ask, "Why did I put in all that time at school if not so that I can do the good job at my work that I do today?"

We would only be dismissive and insulting in our approach if we told this kind of educated worker that what they do, with their one or more degrees of academic training, is literally on par with the work of a janitor. Yes, as workers-in-society their roles are all socially necessary, but, on an individual basis, as individual lives, we *cannot* just blur them all together as generic 'workers', wantonly ignoring the differences in the *type* of work they do.

We don't have to address matters of compensation in the *current* time-frame, as if in a reformist way -- since we're revolutionaries -- but we *do* have to posit some treatment of these material factors of work for a realistic interpretation of how a future *post*-capitalist society could establish consideration for the same.

In order to respond to arguments like the one for this thread, I developed a model that takes these critical factors -- like work difficulty -- into account in a material way. One excerpt is here -- please note the 'survey' part within it:

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Determination of material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

Yes, and the second point is that elites are connected in communism, too. Someone has to run things for the shitheads.

Or, instead of relying on a "Communist" (Stalinist) bureaucratic elite caste to run things, society could be set up to *collectivize* all liberated labor and co-administrative duties. Not everyone would have to do everything, but that would be a guideline-like ideal to aim for. Those who happened to develop more concerns with societal functioning, then as now, would be more involved with political matters, but not in a controlling way since all (liberated) labor would be self-selected and absolutely uncoerced, regardless of work status.

[In] the *present*, under capitalism, those who do the actual labor (mental / emotional / physical) should receive the full surplus labor value of what the product of their efforts is sold for on the market. Of course no one does....

In a *post*-capitalist, *collectivized* political economy [...] one would not be in such a social situation to be "hogging" their talents and abilities -- in other words it wouldn't be a society of individualistic hobbyists and artists. There would be social dynamics that would encourage the organization of liberated labor on a *mass* basis.

how many of you are using a computer not built by a capitalist company?

This is a moot point because we were all born into capitalism by default. It's not like any of us have a choice about how computers are made -- we can't select a computer that's been entirely built from scratch by *non*-commodity labor....

[ckaihatsu]

What we have now is not capitalism it is a form of fascism which is democratic. That what most countries are in the end Democratic Fascisms.

If you would, I'd be interested to know if you consider the following to be a description of the reality of fascist-type rule (meaning Ben Ali and his family, Tunisia's economic elite, and the police actions):

According to the Guardian:

[T]he full horror of repression over four weeks of demonstrations is beginning to emerge. Human rights groups estimate at least 150-200 deaths since December 17. In random roundups in poor, rural areas, youths were shot in the head and dumped far from home so bodies could not be identified. Police also raped women in their houses in poor neighborhoods in and around Kasserine in the rural interior.

Meanwhile, ordinary Tunisians have targeted businesses owned by members of Ben Ali's family and that of his wife, Leila Trabelsi, who reportedly stole $60 million in gold from the treasury before fleeing the country with her husband.

This comes after years of corruption and looting that enriched a tiny handful of elites connected to Ben Ali and his wife at the expense of the majority of Tunisians. According to Juan Cole on his Informed Comment blog, a U.S. State Department cable revealed by WikiLeaks estimates that "50 percent of Tunisia's economic elite were related in one way or another to [the couple]."

[Revolution starts with U]

Society needs hewers of wood and drawers of water. They should be paid according to their replaceability. Unless you want to argue that a shelf stocker is as important to society as a neurosurgeon.

After the shelf stocker is gauranteed a place to stay, food to eat, and a say in the runnings of his workplace, I am sure his pay will be less than an engineers. But to think a stocker deserves less than a living wage is disgusting and barbarous. Come out of the dark age friend

Doctors and engineers are more important and useful to society than ignorant idealists jerking off on the internet. They cost, as they should, commensurate with their worth.

Awww, somebody's mad at his restriction
Their cost should equal their worth. That's what socialism is all about. We oppose capitalists expropriating the value of a man's labor; ie, not paying him his worth.

[American Assasin]

It is fascism, for the economic elite were working with the government and are related to each other..... That is family based fascism instead of regulatory fascism, and that is "hard" fascism instead of "soft" fascism, like we have in America. What do you think of that?

[American Assasin]

That is what Capitalism is also about, that their cost should equal their worth, and if it does not equal, then you are getting cheated.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think fascism was capitalism's reaction to the socialist movement's of the time. That is what happens when capitalism goes "revolutionary (sic)".
Private ownership of the means of production, maintenance of the profit motive, no worker say or democratic rights.... it certainly isn't "socialist."

[Revolution starts with U]

That is what Capitalism is also about, that their cost should equal their worth, and if it does not equal, then you are getting cheated.

No, in capitalism labor becomes a commodity to be traded to the highest bidder. One's labor is purposefully made to be as low valued as it can. The capitalist then sells the product for as much as he can, and reaps the profits (i.e. the surplus value of his workers, who did all the actual producing).

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Society needs hewers of wood and drawers of water. They should be paid according to their replaceability. Unless you want to argue that a shelf stocker is as important to society as a neurosurgeon.

All things have value, including people. Steel is more useful and valuable than pot metal. Down is better and scarcer than cotton for insulating clothes in the arctic. Doctors and engineers are more important and useful to society than ignorant idealists jerking off on the internet. They cost, as they should, commensurate with their worth.

You view humans as equals to products. I have a question for you... do you agree with slavery? Because, you know, by your logic people who are born disadvantaged and just happen to be taken by slavers are "less valuable to society" than doctors. You know, because they're "replaceable."

This sickening logic, considering humans as commodities, is what we hope to avoid. Payment based on "usefulness" makes humans equal to commodities, and, in effect, all those payed by wage are akin to a type of slave. A slave to capital.

Also, we recognize that all people have different abilities. Some may be more intelligent than others... and so they can become doctors. But that doesn't mean that the jobs of those who are less intelligent are any less necessary. In fact, if they weren't necessary they wouldn't exist. Also, those less appealing jobs often require far more labor, more work, and they are far less enjoyable. Without the construction worker, the doctor's job wouldn't be facilitated... and probably wouldn't exist. All labor is necessary to keep the economy running and to provide people with the means of subsistence. Just because one individual was born to a family which gave him the opportunity to go to college DOESN'T MEAN that he should live in luxury while another man who works JUST AS HARD in a "lesser" job lives in scarcity. It's illogical and inhumane. Especially considering that the labor of both individuals is needed to make the economy run.

ExUnoDisceOmnes
From One, Learn All

[American Assasin]

That is not Capitalism, that is not free market. Capitalism would be agreeing on terms which would be fit the worker, and the employer, fit the worth to the cost on mutually agreeable terms.

[American Assasin]

Slavery is forced on a person, and cant leave the situation unless he can buy out of it or escapes from it, that is not equal to my idea. A person who is an immigrant should be equal to one who lived there for centuries.

[American Assasin]

Wall Streeters want what Fannie’s having — “Wells Fargo and some other large banks would like private companies, perhaps even themselves, to become the new housing finance giants helping to bundle individual mortgages into securities — that would be stamped with a government guarantee,” reports the New York Times. Some big pigs have lined up at the federal trough: Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse have all publicly met with Treasury officials in hopes of being able to do what private student loan companies no longer can. While the Treasury has remained quiet about its plans, former Treasury undersecretary and Rubin protege Michael S. Barr has called it a bad move. “I don’t think that private shareholder-owned entities should issue federal government guarantees,” Barr said. “I think that creates the same conflict we had in the past.” You know something’s up when a Rubinite speaks out against giving special treatment to Wall Street.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/21/th...#ixzz1Bgqb1bdH

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

That is not Capitalism, that is not free market. Capitalism would be agreeing on terms which would be fit the worker, and the employer, fit the worth to the cost on mutually agreeable terms.

And you call us utopianists...

There never has been and never will be a free market. The system of capitalism creates massive negative incentives that lead it far far away from that sort of system. Corporations control the wealth, the means of production, and the sheer power to prevent that from ever happening. The only way to change the system is through the power of the masses because the corporations power rests on the exploitation of the masses. However, in undertaking that change, the corporations will be destroyed, making your "vision" for capitalism impossible to reach.

Capitalism is driven by profit. I think Engels explains it well:

With this as its basic constitution, civilization achieved things of which gentile society was not even remotely capable. But it achieved them by setting in motion the lowest instincts and passions in man and developing them at the expense of all his other abilities. From its first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization; wealth and again wealth and once more wealth, wealth, not of society, but of the single scurvy individual–here was its one and final aim. If at the same time the progressive development of science and a repeated flowering of supreme art dropped into its lap, it was only because without them modern wealth could not have completely realized its achievements.



Since civilization is founded on the exploitation of one class by another class, its whole development proceeds in a constant contradiction. Every step forward in production is at the same time a step backwards in the position of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. Whatever benefits some necessarily injures the others; every fresh emancipation of one class is necessarily a new oppression for another class. The most striking proof of this is provided by the introduction of machinery, the effects of which are now known to the whole world. And if among the barbarians, as we saw, the distinction between rights and duties could hardly be drawn, civilization makes the difference and antagonism between them clear even to the dullest intelligence by giving one class practically all the rights and the other class practically all the duties.



But that should not be: what is good for the ruling class must also be good for the whole of society, with which the ruling-class identifies itself. Therefore the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to cover the evils it necessarily creates with the cloak of love and charity, to palliate them or to deny them–in short, to introduce a conventional hypocrisy which was unknown to earlier forms of society and even to the first stages of civilization, and which culminates in the pronouncement: the exploitation of the oppressed class is carried on by the exploiting class simply and solely in the interests of the exploited class itself; and if the exploited class cannot see it and even grows rebellious, that is the basest ingratitude to its benefactors, the exploiters.

[Revolution starts with U]

Slavery is forced on a person, and cant leave the situation unless he can buy out of it or escapes from it, that is not equal to my idea. A person who is an immigrant should be equal to one who lived there for centuries.

I think you should quote who you're responding to. It would make things easier.
Anyway, according to this quote, you would agree that wage workers are slaves, correct? They cannot leave the situation, generally, because they need food and shelter for their families, and all land is already owned (making escape from the system impossible).
On the second part, I completely agree. Borders are arbitrary nonsense.

Wall Streeters want what Fannie’s having — “Wells Fargo and some other large banks would like private companies, perhaps even themselves, to become the new housing finance giants helping to bundle individual mortgages into securities — that would be stamped with a government guarantee,” reports the New York Times. Some big pigs have lined up at the federal trough: Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse have all publicly met with Treasury officials in hopes of being able to do what private student loan companies no longer can. While the Treasury has remained quiet about its plans, former Treasury undersecretary and Rubin protege Michael S. Barr has called it a bad move. “I don’t think that private shareholder-owned entities should issue federal government guarantees,” Barr said. “I think that creates the same conflict we had in the past.” You know something’s up when a Rubinite speaks out against giving special treatment to Wall Street.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/21/th...#ixzz1Bgqb1bdH

^ capitalism

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Slavery is forced on a person, and cant leave the situation unless he can buy out of it or escapes from it, that is not equal to my idea. A person who is an immigrant should be equal to one who lived there for centuries.

...as they would be under socialism. In fact, all people would be equal in social and economic standings