What do you mean by "voting?"

[Lowtech]

It isn't broad definition. I can quote a Marxist definition of market that shows exactly what I'm writing

...

Only what fails is an understanding that market is feature of capitalism.

Yes, It is broad if you apply it to both the traditional version of a market and to what we have today. it is really a vast over simplification of what we have now and ignores obvious characteristics of our modern "economics": concentration of wealth, oligarchy and the reality that truly only the owners of capital participate and influence it. Supply and demand is actually meaningless when all commodities are treated the same mathematically by the oligarchy; sold above production cost. Using a simplified definition of a market in such a broad sense makes it useless. You are not thinking scientifically, you're developing apologetics that excuses capitalism; making it appear benign to the stupid.

Markets are actually a very big problem today. If your only source of food is market, you will pay more than you should (above production cost) and if your only source of income is to rent yourself to the market you will be exploited as your labor is devalued by the oligarchy. A socio-economic black hole in a sense that keeps us trapped and dependent on a predatory and illegitimate "economic" system.

[tuwix]

Yes, It is broad if you apply it to both the traditional version of a market and to what we have today.

As shows a Marxist definition of market, quoted to you and many others, market is place when exchange of services and goods occurs. I understand that many men and women would like different definition of it. The best would be any limiting it only to existence of money. But it doesn't exist. And according to existing definitions market will never cease to exist.

And there is no need to convince me about detrimental effects of markets that are too free as now or too limited as it is in times of state capitalism that I experienced.

[Lowtech]

As shows a Marxist definition of market, quoted to you and many others, market is place when exchange of values and good occurs. I understand that many men and women would like different definition of it.

You'd have a magnificent point if we were debating the contents of a yet to be written dictionary.

But honestly, aren't you only pointing out that what we have now cannot be classified as a market if we kept to the strictest of definitions?

And previously you said that markets are a characteristic of capitalism, if so, then we cannot classify what we have now as capitalism either. Rather, in such case, we still have some sort of vast economic subjugation, perhaps an advanced form of feudalism where owners of capital subjugated the masses. Whatever it is, it cannot be legitimized economically. No empire lasts forever.

[tuwix]

And previously you said that markets are a characteristic of capitalism

No. I said: Only what fails is an understanding that market is feature of capitalism.

I meant that understanding fails...

[Tim Cornelis]

[QUOTE=tuwix;2752583]It's obvious that you don't know what is price.

In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price

Fair enough

Maybe it will be discovery to you, but primitive tribes (during a phase of primitive communism) trade. They do it by barter. And barter is form of market. Barter although in reduced form will happen in advanced communism too. As people always exchanged something, they will always do so regardless what some ideologists would like...

Primitive communism is based on bands, not tribes. Tribes had neolithic gardens. Bands merely hunted and gathered and did not trade or exchange. Barter will happen incidentally, structurally communism is not based on barter.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Never really understood the necessity of voting in any respect. I mean sure I so like to voice and share my opinions on things however if something is already being done efficiently and honestly, then why should I care? Not to mention voting has single-handedly almost fucked me royally with its inherent tyranny of the majority. For example, last year when we were on strike, I was being purposely undermined by defeatist idiots who were going to let the boss fuck us not realizing it's called negotiations for a reason. That was several thousand dollars of money owed to me that resulted in me losing my apartment at the time and a handful of friends. All from voting. The entire time I was thinking there should be a better while still honest form of social organization. I don't like being led into oblivion as I am now because a handful of aasholes are able to con rubes and tools into this voting racket.

My two pence

[tuwix]

Primitive communism is based on bands, not tribes. Tribes had neolithic gardens. Bands merely hunted and gathered and did not trade or exchange. Barter will happen incidentally, structurally communism is not based on barter.

Primitive communism happens today. I could show you my favorite YT video of San people from Namibia or Botswana who are on stage of primitive communism. But it's irrelevant because by saying that "barter will happen incidentally", you've admitted that market will not cease to exist. I've agreed with you that communism isn't based on market a some time ago.

[Lowtech]

But it's irrelevant because by saying that "barter will happen incidentally", you've admitted that market will not cease to exist.

Well now this discussion is going into circles.

I've established that

1. The strict definition of a market you adhere to is insufficient to define what we have today.

2. Such a simplistic definition is useless in observing modern "economics."

3. Modern "markets" are an invention of owners of capital and as they stand and function today will not exist outside a capitalist system.

or we can ignore the above and argue semantics ad nauseam

[tuwix]

Well now this discussion is going into circles.

I've established that

1. The strict definition of a market you adhere to is insufficient to define what we have today.

2. Such a simplistic definition is useless in observing modern "economics."

3. Modern "markets" are an invention of owners of capital and as they stand and function today will not exist outside a capitalist system.

or we can ignore the above and argue semantics ad nauseam

And I've established that you simply ignore the definitions you don't like and believe that market is something you'd like to be but it isn't...

[Lowtech]

And I've established that you simply ignore the definitions you don't like and believe that market is something you'd like to be but it isn't...

You're partly right, and we should adhere to definitions, however I dont like a simple definition applied broadly, especially when it doesnt fit. Thats appoligetics, not proper unbiased analysis. Barter, trade etc among individuals is fine, but that doesnt lead to what we have today where the owners of capital "trade" thousands of millions of units of a commodity for thier own gain. Nor does it resemble a practical means of using resources on large scales. No allocation is occurring in "markets" nor anything resembling beneficial distribution. owners of capital trade for thier own benefit, not the benefit of millions of people who buy from them.

[Primagen]

Well, I've finished my response to Synthesis and Lowtech. Tim brings up some excellent points.

Well, you said that we need to "provide labor" to everyone who works in fields that would be made obsolete by communism, and that there may not be enough "production" to compensate for this obsolescence. But wouldn't all the labor that would be freed by this obsolescence - which would be a lot - be then free to assist in this production of which you don't think there will be enough? I guess I don't see how your question doesn't answer itself.

You have to understand, you're not talking to another communist. I don't take for granted that if you take tens of millions of people out of their jobs, they'll automatically get to work in other fields. It also seems that you're assuming that the system would have complete worker autonomy, which is incompatible with meeting consumer demands. If you go out and pick 500 apple trees, and consumers only want 100 trees worth, then 400 of them will rot.

I appreciate your input I never called them evil. However i do make observation of thier behavior, and thier behavior speaks for itself. Also, capital only exists when people are denied needed resources so that the rich may contract them to work in exchange for those resources.

Indeed their behavior does speak for itself. Their behavior shows that because of Western capitalism, you have internet access, and presumably a residence with electricity, telephone, a computer, running water, food on your table, and countless other things that you neglected to bring up in your analysis of capitalism.

Since communism is a profound change to the socioeconomic system, I think it should have to undergo some very rigorous questioning before we gamble with the welfare of everyone on earth. We can't just narrowly focus on the negative aspects of the current system, and take for granted that any proposition you have would work better.

And yes we are made dependent on capitalist production, our skill sets (jobs) are designed so that we are so over specialized, so that nearly all of us lack the skills to survive outside a market/capital centric system. We've been made helplessly dependent on a system designed to exploit us. natural to the ideology of the owners of capital. Not natural to any humane or economically legitimate system.

Okay, so can you explain how skills would change without the market?

Demand and other concepts you describe are market dynamics which are moot. Not only do supply and demand not exist outside of markets, no matter what charade goes on within the markets, all commodities are treated the same; they are sold above production cost.

So, once the market is gone, you'll stop needing food and water? You'll stop living in a building and using electricity, you'll have the time and patience to walk wherever you want to go, and you'll have no use for any of the products you use on a daily basis? If not, then it certainly looks like there will be demand, though I can't guarantee supply.

What's important is who produces value and who does not. The working class produces value while the rich produce none.

As I said, you're pointing flaws in capitalism. Just because someone doesn't personally do production work with their own two hands doesn't mean they don't play a vital economic role. So I'm asking how you think the economy would work without organizers.

where do I say capitalism is evil? I have pointed out that capitalism cannot be legitimized economically and I may imply they are evil but my comments are rooted in direct observation.

“Legitimate” and “illegitimate” are just your ways of saying “good” and “evil.” Your very argument that capitalism can't be “legitimized” shows that you think you have the moral authority to decide what's legitimate and what isn't. What I think is illegitimate is how the Khmer Rogue, North, Korea, or China turned out, and I'm asking for an explanation of why you think a new attempt at communism wouldn't have similar results, no matter how benevolent, peaceful, or egalitarian the initial intentions are.

We know concentration of wealth creates poverty. We know that the capitalist mode of production economically subjugates the working classes. So *not* wanting that IS wanting in it's place better "dynamics." So your comment is unquestionably false.

Actually, you've just proven that it's true. I suggested that communists justify their position not by trying to suggest that their system is inherently more efficient, but by attacking flaws (normally moral flaws) that they see in capitalism. And you respond by attacking flaws you see in capitalism, exactly as I described.

the "evils" of capitalism are poverty and the fact that the rich do not produce value yet hoard 80% of it while over two thirds of the world population lives on $10 or less a day. Those might pass as evils. But they are undoubtedly illegitimate economically.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not defending communism by discussing the actual dynamics of how it would work (from my experience, more than half of all communists have hardly put any thought into this) or explaining why you think it would work better than capitalism, but by naming flaws to justify why you think society should make an attempt at communism. Even if capitalism is just as bad as you say it is, that doesn't mean that communism would work any better.

you bring up valid concerns regarding the decision making progress. None of which however puts capitalism in a favorable light. (1) People dont require money to understand the merit of thier deeds and science and technology would not vanish with the oligarchy.

(1) See what I mean? When I say communists justify their position by contrasting it with capitalism, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't bother coming up with an explanation for why we shouldn't worry about these concerns I bring up and suggesting that I have to try to bring capitalism into a positive light, or else communism is superior. You make it sound like communism is the established system that's demonstrated success, and capitalism is the bizarre, hypothetical fantasy system. The fact is, it's the other way around. I don't have to prove that no previous attempt at communism could compare to the good that western capitalism has done for workers, because if you take a look around the very room you're sitting in, the evidence speaks for itself. I'm asking what makes you think that communism could deliver all of this to you.

(2) Considering that I don't have the foresight to understand the long term economic impact of every purchase I make, I don't think most other people do, either. When I go to the store, I'm not thinking of the long-term effects my purchases will have on the economy, I'm only thinking of what I want to get right now. I expect the same from consumers in a communist system who would demand things from producers.

No. However skill sets will be redesigned and prioritized for productivity rather than profit.

I figure if anyone is motivated to have skill sets prioritized for productivity, it's business owners, because if workers are more productive, then they don't have to hire as many.

[synthesis]

You have to understand, you're not talking to another communist. I don't take for granted that if you take tens of millions of people out of their jobs, they'll automatically get to work in other fields.

That's not what you were saying, though. You said that production wouldn't catch up to the point where society could "provide labor" for everyone who worked in professions that would become obsolete. The point is that those people's jobs, by virtue of being obsolete, would not need to be "made up for." Now you may disagree that service work, small business ownership, subsistence farming and the like won't become obsolete, but if that premise is accepted then there is no need to "provide labor" to them. You seem to think that a communist society would have to keep everyone working forty hours a week and that to me is just absurd.

I think that if you make "tens of millions" of people's jobs obsolete - it would in fact be much more - while still providing for their food and housing, more than enough people would be willing to "work in other fields" that everyone's needs could easily be met, and then some.

[Lowtech]

Indeed their behavior does speak for itself. Their behavior shows that because of Western capitalism, you have internet access, and presumably a residence with electricity, telephone, a computer, running water, food on your table, and countless other things that you neglected to bring up in your analysis of capitalism.

i don't bring them up in my analysis of capitalism because capitalism doesn't make those things. not concepts such as capital, profit, markets nor the rich. people do. capitalist concepts live outside the commonality of economics that produces the things we use everyday because capitalism serves only to subjugate humanity and to derive surplus value. when usable items and materials are produced in a fashion that is conducive to profit and sold above production cost, it doesn't matter what is produced itself, its all still sold above production cost. this mechanism is illegitimate economically because the quantity and quality of goods are artificially diminished inversely proportional to profit (artificial scarcity).

Since communism is a profound change to the socioeconomic system, I think it should have to undergo some very rigorous questioning before we gamble with the welfare of everyone on earth. We can't just narrowly focus on the negative aspects of the current system, and take for granted that any proposition you have would work better.

in actuality, giving the welfare of everyone on earth a higher priority than capitalism does is LESS of a gamble than continued capitalist production. especially given the destruction of and depletion of natural resources, creation of poverty and the neglect of more than two-thirds the world's population under current conditions. also capitalism doesn't have negative aspects, it is profoundly fundamentally rooted in exploitation and plutocratic class dominance. it is a system of economic subjugation not economics, so outside re-prioritization of economics toward productivity rather than profit, the real change would be cultural and socio-economically. our current culture is economically subservient to the plutocratic class and our commercialized vision of the rich and famous. logistical production methods themselves will change in varying degrees from total obsolescence where a good or technology is discarded as it is unnecessary and wasteful, to the drastic redesign of some goods for productivity, while other very few items may require little modification. these changes would include infrastructure and skill sets. menial jobs would not exist as they are designed for profit rather than productivity (their profitability increases as positions increase in volume). along with obsolescence of menial jobs so too would middle management go the way of the dinosaur as they exist to ensure compliance as people innately do not wish to work menial jobs, reliability and productiveness erodes due to unrest and fatigue. these are among the reasons that high turnover of such jobs is beneficial to the capitalist. people conform easier to economic subjugation when they are threatened with joblessness.

Okay, so can you explain how skills would change without the market?

production would no longer be disorganized. some skillsets will be discarded as they are unproductive and wasteful. while others would be improved for productivity. we would have a cohesive system that was simplified to the primary skill sets of infrastructure necessary to sustain an entire civilization (all people on earth); home construction, food production, transportation systems (as cities will become train centric versus car centric), medical sciences and technologies. with the exclusion of artificial scarcity, the abundance and productivity levels of today would be sustained with less work hours and reach every corner of the planet. with the fundamentals met, you'd be free to explore what you are innately inspired by.

So, once the market is gone, you'll stop needing food and water? You'll stop living in a building and using electricity, you'll have the time and patience to walk wherever you want to go, and you'll have no use for any of the products you use on a daily basis? If not, then it certainly looks like there will be demand, though I can't guarantee supply.

you're describing need. demand does not equate to need. 1. people "demand" many things that are not needed, not because that is natural of people but rather because it is natural of capitalist markets (demand for wasteful/unnecessary/useless product is stimulated by commercialization and social engineering.) 2. need encompasses all living people, not just those with money while in contrast capitalism disregards people who are not wage slaves/owners of capital (creating poverty) with a vastly higher priority given to owners of capital (monetarily via artificial scarcity; ie-profit).

As I said, you're pointing flaws in capitalism. Just because someone doesn't personally do production work with their own two hands doesn't mean they don't play a vital economic role. So I'm asking how you think the economy would work without organizers.

capitalism is not a practical hierarchy (eg-military command structure). people do not require capitalists exploiters to organize effectively. also, whatever amount of labor you attribute to capitalism "organizers," their minuscule amount of activity is vastly vastly outweighed by their consumption (income is consumption.) by their own terminology, they are a [social] liability.

“Legitimate” and “illegitimate” are just your ways of saying “good” and “evil.” Your very argument that capitalism can't be “legitimized” shows that you think you have the moral authority to decide what's legitimate and what isn't. What I think is illegitimate is how the Khmer Rogue, North, Korea, or China turned out, and I'm asking for an explanation of why you think a new attempt at communism wouldn't have similar results, no matter how benevolent, peaceful, or egalitarian the initial intentions are.

1. ignoring part of the phrase i used doesn't refute it, you're attempting to falsify my statements. i said "illegitimate economically." if we define a legitimate economic system as one effective at sustaining an entire civilization, adherent only to methodologies necessitated by the logistics of it's purpose, capitalism would be found completely insufficient, inherently detrimental, unscientifically arranged and sociologically designed for economic subjugation imposed on the many by the few.

2. with the absence of moral judgement found in capitalism, it is only logical that application of such ethics would be beneficial.

3. lenin's "brand" of communism has more in common with capitalist businesses than it does with what is described by marx. he would be impressed by modern CEOs and likewise they would be impressed by him. businesses/corporations are the most advanced totalitarian/fascist organizations humans have ever devised.

Actually, you've just proven that it's true. I suggested that communists justify their position not by trying to suggest that their system is inherently more efficient, but by attacking flaws (normally moral flaws) that they see in capitalism. And you respond by attacking flaws you see in capitalism, exactly as I described.


And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not defending communism by discussing the actual dynamics of how it would work (from my experience, more than half of all communists have hardly put any thought into this) or explaining why you think it would work better than capitalism, but by naming flaws to justify why you think society should make an attempt at communism. Even if capitalism is just as bad as you say it is, that doesn't mean that communism would work any better.


(1) See what I mean? When I say communists justify their position by contrasting it with capitalism, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't bother coming up with an explanation for why we shouldn't worry about these concerns I bring up and suggesting that I have to try to bring capitalism into a positive light, or else communism is superior. You make it sound like communism is the established system that's demonstrated success, and capitalism is the bizarre, hypothetical fantasy system. The fact is, it's the other way around. I don't have to prove that no previous attempt at communism could compare to the good that western capitalism has done for workers, because if you take a look around the very room you're sitting in, the evidence speaks for itself. I'm asking what makes you think that communism could deliver all of this to you.

capitalism is our frame of reference. capitalism is all most of us have known for several generations. for thousands of years for european countries. if capitalism cannot stand up to scrutiny, then your attempt to vindicate it has already failed. you haven't brought up concerns, rather you attempt to mitigate the inherently detrimental and economic subjugation fundamental to capitalism. class dominance via violent control of resources and economic subjugation does not equate to "established" or "successful" economic policy. subjugating people into workers is not "doing good" for them. capitalism didn't exist prior to agricultural society, authoritarian religion and proto-modern urban environments (cities). capitalism is what has been tried and failed. communism is what is suppressed by the oligarchy.

I figure if anyone is motivated to have skill sets prioritized for productivity, it's business owners, because if workers are more productive, then they don't have to hire as many.

refer to my definition of the menial job above.

[Primagen]

You should hit enter before each QUOTE tag except the first one, and after each /QUOTE tag, because your posts in the editor read as one mass of text.

i don't bring them up in my analysis of capitalism because capitalism doesn't make those things. not concepts such as capital, profit, markets nor the rich. people do. capitalist concepts live outside the commonality of economics that produces the things we use everyday because capitalism serves only to subjugate humanity and to derive surplus value. when usable items and materials are produced in a fashion that is conducive to profit and sold above production cost, it doesn't matter what is produced itself, its all still sold above production cost. this mechanism is illegitimate economically because the quantity and quality of goods are artificially diminished inversely proportional to profit (artificial scarcity).

So by that logic, if all companies cut back on workers and production, their profits would go through the roof. You don’t quite understand how competition works. Though it has room for improvement, the reason I defend western-style capitalism is because it puts power in your hands, not as a worker, but as a consumer. Companies make money buy producing things that people buy. If one company can make an improved version of a product for the same cost or a at least a better value, then that company gains an edge over its competitors while better serving the demands of consumers. If you look at different countries objectively, without regard to your communist agenda or your moral judgment of capitalism, you’ll see that there’s a positive correlation between the number of private, competing enterprises, the human development index, and the GDP per capita.

in actuality, giving the welfare of everyone on earth a higher priority than capitalism does is LESS of a gamble than continued capitalist production. (1) especially given the destruction of and depletion of natural resources, creation of poverty and the neglect of more than two-thirds the world's population under current conditions. also capitalism doesn't have negative aspects, it is profoundly fundamentally rooted in exploitation and plutocratic class dominance. it is a system of economic subjugation not economics, so outside re-prioritization of economics toward productivity rather than profit, the real change would be cultural and socio-economically. our current culture is economically subservient to the plutocratic class and our commercialized vision of the rich and famous. logistical production methods themselves will change in varying degrees from total obsolescence where a good or technology is discarded as it is unnecessary and wasteful, to the drastic redesign of some goods for productivity, while other very few items may require little modification. these changes would include infrastructure and skill sets. menial jobs would not exist as they are designed for profit rather than productivity (their profitability increases as positions increase in volume). (2) along with obsolescence of menial jobs so too would middle management go the way of the dinosaur as they exist to ensure compliance as people innately do not wish to work menial jobs, reliability and productiveness erodes due to unrest and fatigue. these are among the reasons that high turnover of such jobs is beneficial to the capitalist. people conform easier to economic subjugation when they are threatened with joblessness.

(1) No, it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what your priorities or intentions are if you don’t have a practical strategy to make your visions a reality. All you’ve been talking about so far has been the end goals of your system. If all along, there was a simple, obvious, scientifically deducible solution to all the world’s problems, I’m sure it would have been done by now. The fact is, economics is not a hard science, and a lot of it depends on the subjective demands that people have. You can’t just arbitrate what you think they “need,” pretend like everything else isn’t important, and expect it to work.

(2) What do you mean by “menial?”

I’m not going to debate whether we’re all subjugated by plutocratic tyrants. Even if we assume that it’s true, the burden of explaining the logistic superiority of your system still falls on you, because your system has yet to stand up to the rigors of real world application.

production would no longer be disorganized. (1) some skillsets will be discarded as they are unproductive and wasteful. (2) while others would be improved for productivity. we would have a cohesive system that was simplified to the primary skill sets of infrastructure necessary to sustain an entire civilization (all people on earth); home construction, food production, transportation systems (as cities will become train centric versus car centric), (3) medical sciences and technologies. with the exclusion of artificial scarcity, the abundance and productivity levels of today would be sustained with less work hours and reach every corner of the planet. (4) with the fundamentals met, you'd be free to explore what you are innately inspired by.

(1) Do you mean there should be some plan for the economy? If so, who gets to decide on the plan? What makes you think people will agree on any plan? After all, if there’s some plan for the economy, doesn’t that require some people to do certain jobs?

(2) Who’s going to decide what positions are needed and what ones aren’t, and ensure that people are only producing things that other people need? More importantly, how are they going to enforce it?

(3) How is limiting people’s mobility to train tracks and schedules going to help the economy?

(3) What makes you think that? Don’t just respond with “because capitalism does (x),” I’m asking you to defend communism on its own merit, and lay out a practical strategy.

(4) You’re taking for granted that the production of people following their innate interests would naturally sync with the demands of consumers. I’m convinced that if the demands of consumers are to be met, then most people will have to do jobs that they’re not particularly interested in. So if the innate interests of people in the communist system don’t fit with the needs of consumers (which they almost certainly won’t), then they’ll face the choice of impoverishing themselves through ignoring consumer demands, or giving some governing body the power to decide who works where.

you're describing need. demand does not equate to need. 1. people "demand" many things that are not needed, not because that is natural of people but rather because it is natural of capitalist markets (demand for wasteful/unnecessary/useless product is stimulated by commercialization and social engineering.) 2. need encompasses all living people, not just those with money while in contrast capitalism disregards people who are not wage slaves/owners of capital (creating poverty) with a vastly higher priority given to owners of capital (monetarily via artificial scarcity; ie-profit).

You’re specifying the definition of “demand” too much. When I say demand, I mean anything you want to get and are willing to work for, whether you need it or not. And even if the demands of consumers aren’t things they need, that doesn’t mean that you can safely ignore them.

Frankly, you can save the “wage-slave” rhetoric for the next time you talk to someone who cares. I’m a pragmatist, not a moralist. Even if workers are just as oppressed as you say, that doesn’t that a “wage slave” isn’t better off in terms of both wealth and freedom than a worker living in a society that’s giving communism a try. The worst decisions are made with the best intentions, and if we have to choose between two evils, I’ll still go with the lesser.

As I said before, unless you have a practical strategy for improving the lives of everyone on earth, whether your system prioritizes the well-being of people couldn’t matter less.

capitalism is not a practical hierarchy (eg-military command structure). people do not require capitalists exploiters to organize effectively. also, whatever amount of labor you attribute to capitalism "organizers," their minuscule amount of activity is vastly vastly outweighed by their consumption (income is consumption.) by their own terminology, they are a [social] liability.

Yeah, the role that organizers play is to set production time and production parameters, and to organize distribution. These parameters are set according to consumer demands, and they’re absolutely necessary to take into consideration and arrange production accordingly. Whether or not these people are overpaid is another discussion (and I’d even agree that they are frequently overpaid,) but I’ve yet to see any sound explanation on how a modern industrial society could work without them, or any historical system that’s demonstrated that society could work nearly as well without them.

1. ignoring part of the phrase i used doesn't refute it, you're attempting to falsify my statements. i said "illegitimate economically." if we define a legitimate economic system as one effective at sustaining an entire civilization, adherent only to methodologies necessitated by the logistics of it's purpose, capitalism would be found completely insufficient, inherently detrimental, unscientifically arranged and sociologically designed for economic subjugation imposed on the many by the few.

First off, that’s your definition of economic legitimacy, it’s not our definition, and it’s certainly not the definition.

Above all, you seem to be forgetting that your proposed system is purely hypothetical, and it has yet to face the rigors of real world application. You can go on as long as you want about how horrible and oppressive capitalism is, but at the end of the day, people living under western capitalism are still better off than people living in any other socioeconomic system as evidenced by the higher human development indexes (HDIs) and inequality-adjusted human development indexes (IHDIs) of western countries.

You think you’re speaking from some intellectual pedestal where you intuitively know the logistic efficiency of economic systems, and you know how to devise a system that will solve all the problems we’ve been having since the dawn of time. You go on about how your system will be “logistically efficient” and “scientifically arranged,” but you’ve yet to provide any specific ideas on which economic arrangements are “scientific.”

I might not have a thorough explanation for the logistic efficiency of capitalism, but I don’t need one because I can go by the facts rather than pure theory. And the facts say that even a janitor or a fast-food cook in the west is better off in terms of both wealth and freedom than nearly everyone living in a society that has attempted communism. The only two exceptions I can think of are Russia, which has had time to recover from Stalinism, and Cuba, which has one of the most corrupt governments on earth, a disproportionately low GDP per capita compared to their HDI, and still doesn’t compare to the west in terms of development.

Considering how hard it is to prod you to discuss the nature of your system, I don’t think you have any practical ideas on how it’s to be accomplished. When you say you want “scientific arrangement” or “increased productivity,” you’re just stating your end goals that you expect other people to accomplish.

2. with the absence of moral judgement found in capitalism, it is only logical that application of such ethics would be beneficial.

Right, because subjective moral principles are always the best basis to make a practical decision. As long as your proposition would purportedly be more ethical than capitalism, then we can all take for granted that it would work out exactly as you say it would, even if you don’t explain how. Your problem is that you’re not judging capitalism by comparing it to any objective standard, you’re comparing to your ideal fantasy system that you can’t even prove would work.

3. lenin's "brand" of communism has more in common with capitalist businesses than it does with what is described by marx. he would be impressed by modern CEOs and likewise they would be impressed by him. businesses/corporations are the most advanced totalitarian/fascist organizations humans have ever devised.

I doubt that’s true with all his anti-capitalist rhetoric, but I was asking you to explain why you think a new attempt at communism wouldn’t have the same results. You’ll have to do better than “because we’d do it differently this time. We care about people!” Do you think the peasants who fought for Mao Tse Tung ever thought their grandchildren would be making Nike shoes for two cents an hour? So far, every attempt at communism has had results that were completely different from the original goals.

It’s my argument that since workers left to their own devices can’t be guaranteed to produce what people demand, any society attempting communism starting with worker autonomy will have to waste a significant amount of time and resources before they learn that people aren’t paying enough attention to the work that needs to be done, at which point they’ll start devising economic plans that nobody can agree on because every plan requires someone to work in a way that they don’t want to, only they can’t just choose to quit as you could for a capitalist enterprise. And even if capitalism is just as oppressive and exploitative as you say it is, that doesn’t mean communism wouldn’t be even worse.

capitalism is our frame of reference. capitalism is all most of us have known for several generations. for thousands of years for european countries. if capitalism cannot stand up to scrutiny, then your attempt to vindicate it has already failed. you haven't brought up concerns, rather you attempt to mitigate the inherently detrimental and economic subjugation fundamental to capitalism. class dominance via violent control of resources and economic subjugation does not equate to "established" or "successful" economic policy. subjugating people into workers is not "doing good" for them. capitalism didn't exist prior to agricultural society, authoritarian religion and proto-modern urban environments (cities). capitalism is what has been tried and failed.

Or to phrase it another way, communism hasn’t existed since the days of hunter-gatherer tribes or ancient farming villages. Since you’re using capitalism as a frame of reference, you’re suggesting that your proposed system would be better for workers than western-style capitalism. Today, European countries have higher average HDIs and IHDIs than any other continent, except Australia, which also has western-style capitalism. So, objectively, how can you say western capitalism has failed? What makes you think that your proposed communist system would be better for workers than western-style capitalism when your only defense for that assertion is more attack on capitalism? If anything, Europe is a testament to the superiority of capitalism. When compared to every other socioeconomic system that has been tried, western capitalism has passed the test of real world application, and communism has not. Whether it passes the test of your moral approval couldn't matter less.

Your problem is that you get so caught up in theories on how systems work that you forget to weigh them against the facts, which is probably why you’re making it sound like what you’re saying is the obvious, undisputed fact, and I’m just trying to deny it. Here you’re saying that western capitalism, in which even fast-food workers and janitors are better off than most other people on earth, is the worst of all possible worlds, and we can all take for granted that any proposition you have would work better. And when I ask why you think that, you go on more about how horrible capitalism is, rather than trying to defend communism on its own merit.

communism is what is suppressed by the oligarchy. refer to my definition of the menial job above.

What “definition” are you talking about? You never provided a definition for a menial job. You only said that “menial” jobs would be eliminated because they were designed for exploitation of workers. You never specified what constitutes a “menial” job, or gave examples of jobs that you regard as “menial.”

[tuwix]

Above all, you seem to be forgetting that your proposed system is purely hypothetical, and it has yet to face the rigors of real world application.

It isn't "purely hypothetical". Beside cases of primitive communism present on Earth even today, there are Kibbutz in Israel where people don't see any money for dozens years, but they don't suffer famine and live in quite high standard...

[Primagen]

It isn't "purely hypothetical". Beside cases of primitive communism present on Earth even today, there are Kibbutz in Israel where people don't see any money for dozens years, but they don't suffer famine and live in quite high standard...

The "purely hypothetical" system I was talking about was communism on a global or large regional scale. Communes survive by either focusing their efforts into producing their basic needs (which leaves them at a lower standard of living than most people living under Western capitalism) or by focusing their efforts into production and trading their products with the outside world in the same way that any capitalist enterprise does, only the community shares the rewards. No matter what the living standards are, joining a commune is the surest way to be forced into labor that you never volunteered for. If you're trying to devise a system that would offer workers complete freedom to work as they choose with what interests them, communes are the wrong place to look for inspiration.

[tuwix]

^^On global scale, there was primitive communism in the beginning of human civilization. But I understand you mean an industrial communism. For that it's needed (IMHO) such an automation of production to have at least 95% physical works done by machines. The very great majority of non-physical jobs is completely unneeded in terms of needs of humanity. Accounting and financial services are irrelevant when there is no money. The 5% percent of remaining jobs then it could be done by volunteers as privilege. Especially when the job today becomes more and more a privilege today. Then only a problem of private property is to be to solve. I think the revolution is a sufficient solution in this case.

[Lowtech]

You should hit enter before each QUOTE tag except the first one, and after each /QUOTE tag, because your posts in the editor read as one mass of text.

i'll try to accommodate your request

So by that logic, if all companies cut back on workers and production, their profits would go through the roof.

there is a minimum they cannot reduce below, that minimum being the amount of labor and materials necessary for the minimum acceptable product.

You don’t quite understand how competition works.

competition however does not mitigate artificial scarcity. and healthy, useful competition exists only in a normative environment. like in sports, where everyone starts from the same starting line, everyone in a mostly stationary position. that is why physical enhancement drugs aren't allowed. no matter what amount of "competition" may appear in capitalism, there's no common starting point, some start from nothing, others start from parent's money, other's are born with an inheritance. capital, as stated before, does not exist until you deny other's a needed resources so you can contract them to work for you in exchange for that resource. mathematically, competition and other market dynamics are meaningless to the underlying mathematics of surplus value (ie-profit)

Though it has room for improvement, the reason I defend western-style capitalism is because it puts power in your hands, not as a worker, but as a consumer.

this is the illusion of free choice as it has no effect on the underlying mathematics of the profit mechanism (ie-selling above production cost and devaluing labor).

Companies make money buy producing things that people buy. If one company can make an improved version of a product for the same cost or a at least a better value, then that company gains an edge over its competitors while better serving the demands of consumers.

there's no denying that capitalists seek efficiency. but more specifically they seek market efficiency. not efficiency of meeting need. if they did, they'd seek production at high enough capacity that it not only met "demand" but rather met need (ie-needs of the entire global population). this kind of prioritization would shape the design of products differently. what is successful in a market environment, especially one as stratified as ours, not only lowers priority of need but often ignores it completely. allocating 80% of wealth to 20% of the population is a very undeniable example that capitalism is inefficient at sustaining a civilization. if one accepts current class structure and concentration of wealth, one is in actuality accepting a culture that prioritizes value to the "desirables." where desirables are those "deserving" of attention or a better life style for various superficial reasons, none moreso than "if he's rich, it MUST be because of various virtues someone surely must hold if they're among the desirables." ie-we are culturally assimilated to believe plutocratic rule is the way things should be.

(1) No, it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what your priorities or intentions are if you don’t have a practical strategy to make your visions a reality.

what practical strategy don't i have? you imply that rejecting capitalism is to reject technology and science (that you obviously attribute to benefits of plutocratic rule). that's not my position at all. in fact, my position is that with plutocratic class stripped away, we won't miraculously lose the ability to apply science and technology. money and class based society has never provided nor bolstered that anyway.

All you’ve been talking about so far has been the end goals of your system. If all along, there was a simple, obvious, scientifically deducible solution to all the world’s problems, I’m sure it would have been done by now.

the scientifically deducible solution is not profitable. and have you forgotten that resources are concentrated to 20% of the population that own capital, and those owners of capital decided how that capital is used? they have no scientific advisers to discern which product will best meet global need or which technology uses resources most efficiently toward that goal, rather they don't give a damn how resources could be used for the good of all mankind, they use it to their own benefit alone. they are the "haves." why would they want it any other way? the problem with your apologetics is they only work when you ignore really existing capitalism.

The fact is, economics is not a hard science, and a lot of it depends on the subjective demands that people have. You can’t just arbitrate what you think they “need,” pretend like everything else isn’t important, and expect it to work.

that's the problem. the one thing that has the largest influence on our lives is not a hard science. an analogy would be a bridge we all have to traverse, but the design of the bridge is not scientific, and it works fantastic for 20% of the people and the rest are ignored. that's a very shitty bridge.

the priorities that you and the rest of capitalislm ignore are this: there are x amount of people in the world. and one person requires discernible amounts of food, water, space, technology and access to transpiration etc that ensure a productive, happy existence. you take those understood requirements and multiply that by x. everything else is an extension of the logistics required to accomplish that. its not just good intentions, its the only fashion a legitimate modern economy can function. economic subjugation we have today is a misguided spiral into oblivion where over 80% of the population either lives in poverty or works from birth to death for nothing.

(2) What do you mean by “menial?”

a menial job is any job that is designed for profitability. every job in capitalist economics is menial to some degree. but since menial jobs are skill sets designed for profitability and not productivity, the vast majority have their labor devalued to such a degree, its hard for them to feed themselves and their families, it takes far too much of their time and leaves them feeling helpless, stressed and trapped. its the effects of artificial scarcity. when labor is devalued, their income is inversely proportional to the profits made by the company they work for. in contrast, skill sets designed around need are not menial. that's not to say they are easy or that they don't require hard work, rather worker's yield 100% of it's benefits. there's no surplus value transferred to a business owner. it was once psychologically rewarding if you hunted, gathered or grew enough food for yourself and your family. built a home with your own two hands. today there's no psychological reward for working. just the temporary relief that your paycheck purchased an acceptable amount of food.

I’m not going to debate whether we’re all subjugated by plutocratic tyrants. Even if we assume that it’s true, the burden of explaining the logistic superiority of your system still falls on you, because your system has yet to stand up to the rigors of real world application.

you have already stated that capitalism is not a hard science. why now contradict yourself and imply that it has logistic superiority?

capitalism hasn't met any "rigors of real world application." capitalism doesn't do the work, the working class does. its the working class that has toiled on in the face of plutocratic oppression. you wrongfully attribute our successes to our plutocratic masters. and by what measurement do you find capitalism successful? it only works for 20% of the population.

also i have explained before that capitalism is not a system of economics, rather it is a mechanism (ie- profit mechanism) and a method of economic subjugation (via social engineering, using social constructs like money and capital). with it not being a system of economics, this debate is the economic version of the debate between evolution and creation. i know your beliefs tell you the rich should have the best of everything, i'm telling you based on direct observation and a scientific look at economics, your beliefs are wrong.

(1) Do you mean there should be some plan for the economy? If so, who gets to decide on the plan? What makes you think people will agree on any plan? After all, if there’s some plan for the economy, doesn’t that require some people to do certain jobs?

skill sets are not currently designed to meet need. rather they are designed to be profitable (menial) in a market environment where the few "own" the vast majority of resources (in the form of money/capital). therefore any system that is scientifically arranged and designed to meet global need will require the redesign of all skill sets as a result of re-prioritization of production and infrastructure. this will be decided by open forums. the first question will be "should we abolish the notion of capital, profit and the artificial scarcity it produces so that the quality of life of 80% of the global population increases to coincide with the economic value propagated within the economy?" the vast majority would have no opposition to that.

the question of people being required to work in certain jobs. that's exactly how things are today. but i believe you are implying that people will be forced into groupings of undesirable jobs based on a central authority. its remarkable to me that you see an employer as anything different than that. however, it is a legitimate question so i will answer it.

there will be some restrictions, however being that training is freely available in all fields (this would be available in the communism counterpart to public education), with a basic understanding of all fields, even though people would be drafted in a sense based on one's strengths and weaknesses, there's no reason people cannot swap jobs or there would be flexibility based on changing in staffing needs. apart from this, people would have more of a cultural connection to the various fields. something we've lost as a people in our "modern" times. there used to be a connection between the usefulness of a trade and the people that work in those fields. additionally, with less work hours, there's less chance of fatigue and stress related accidents. also technologies and re-design of skill sets allow for reducing stress and fatigue in general. in contrast, a skill set designed for profitability doesn't take into account the needs of the worker, as their income is inversely proportional to the profits made by the owner.

(2) Who’s going to decide what positions are needed and what ones aren’t, and ensure that people are only producing things that other people need? More importantly, how are they going to enforce it?

living indoors, drinking clean water or spending more time with family are not things needing to be "enforced." need decides what skill sets are required. the primary skill sets will be in food production, home construction, medical sciences, transportation infrastructure, energy technologies and infrastructure. the design and construction of sustainable cities. everything else will not be "jobs" and they will not function for the gain of business owners. concentration of wealth is the boldest indicator that the quality of life for 80% planet would increase drastically with the elimination of artificial scarcity.

(3) How is limiting people’s mobility to train tracks and schedules going to help the economy?

you imply that capitalism doesn't limit people to schedules lol. you're so contradictory you're almost biblical. train centric infrastructure is the most efficient form of transportation that can be made available to the most amount of people (over land). how does this help the economy? by utilizing technology and resources in an economic manner; by being effective at sustaining an entire civilization, adherent only to methodologies necessitated by the logistics of it's purpose.

why would people travel in a world where need is prioritized and the needs of most if not all people are met? they would travel for personal enrichment. not to seek a new kind of economic subjugation. there would no longer be "gold rushes."

(3) What makes you think that? Don’t just respond with “because capitalism does (x),” I’m asking you to defend communism on its own merit, and lay out a practical strategy.

what you're really saying is that you don't want me to refute your position (being that your position is baseless.) but i will play your silly little game.

the practical strategy is to discard artificial scarcity and the social-economy that supports it. we're not proposing to discard production methods and technologies/tools themselves, eg-pasteurization of foods for safety or using certain building materials. rather we are proposing the re-prioritization of those technologies and the ultimate use of resources for the benefit of all people on earth. economics requires a clear purpose acknowledged by all people, as such it is for anything that effects the lives and quality of life of all people on the planet. something so universal must be normative, otherwise it is open to exploitation and ultimately incapable of fulfilling it's purpose. that purpose will then become the rule of measure that allows us to refine production. somethings will be mass-produced on a global scale. putting an advanced medical diagnosis computer in every home for example. or mass producing durable clothing. other specific things will be made locally or via "3d printer" technologies like a unique hat design you like. public spaces will be designed to last thousands of years with minimal upkeep. there may be home-clusters grown from genetically engineered flora that integrate DNA-encoded network interfaces for computers and biologically reproducible solar cells. perhaps some of our food would be grown from these same living structures. sort of like coral reefs on land for use by people. sounds futuristic, but i believe people can think beyond the cubicle and beyond their paychecks. i don't care that you call it "Utopian." if you have no vision, that's your own fault.

(4) You’re taking for granted that the production of people following their innate interests would naturally sync with the demands of consumers. I’m convinced that if the demands of consumers are to be met, then most people will have to do jobs that they’re not particularly interested in. So if the innate interests of people in the communist system don’t fit with the needs of consumers (which they almost certainly won’t), then they’ll face the choice of impoverishing themselves through ignoring consumer demands, or giving some governing body the power to decide who works where.

this might be compelling if it weren't for the fact that current jobs fit within the framework of the products produced currently and those products produced are further locked within the framework of a market environment where production occurs in the pursuit of market efficiency. market efficiency being how well products/services produce a profit within an environment where resources are monopolized by owners of capital that want to make a profit when selling to you. this means quality and quantity is far more expensive than it's real cost in labor and resources and the ideal is to produce a thing with the least production cost, even if it means the thing has little to no usefulness. exactly why digital content is sold rather than freely available; it has almost no production cost which equals higher rates of profit. although this is a very bad thing. something with little to no production cost (eg-digital content) now consumes value when exchanged. value that could have gone to feed people or to bolster infrastructure.

You’re specifying the definition of “demand” too much. When I say demand, I mean anything you want to get and are willing to work for, whether you need it or not. And even if the demands of consumers aren’t things they need, that doesn’t mean that you can safely ignore them.

even with your arbitrary concept of "demand" it still has zero effect on the underlying profit mechanism (eg-all things being sold above production cost. ie-surplus value; profit; net income). demand, as part of market dynamics, are an observation of behavior within a market environment, they are not axioms of economics.

Frankly, you can save the “wage-slave” rhetoric for the next time you talk to someone who cares. I’m a pragmatist, not a moralist. Even if workers are just as oppressed as you say, that doesn’t that a “wage slave” isn’t better off in terms of both wealth and freedom than a worker living in a society that’s giving communism a try. The worst decisions are made with the best intentions, and if we have to choose between two evils, I’ll still go with the lesser.

its not rhetoric when it is based on direct observation. we are wage slaves mathematically (ie-via surplus value; profit; artificial scarcity as our income is inversely proportional to the profit that the rich derive. there is no other mathematically substantiated explanation as the rich do not produce value.) and we are wage-slaves sociologically because the rich are perceived as the "desirables" and workers perceive themselves as inferior requiring work in exchange for plutocratic benevolence.

As I said before, unless you have a practical strategy for improving the lives of everyone on earth, whether your system prioritizes the well-being of people couldn’t matter less.

well worded sneers hardly refute what is mathematically observable.

Yeah, the role that organizers play is to set production time and production parameters, and to organize distribution. These parameters are set according to consumer demands, and they’re absolutely necessary to take into consideration and arrange production accordingly. Whether or not these people are overpaid is another discussion (and I’d even agree that they are frequently overpaid,) but I’ve yet to see any sound explanation on how a modern industrial society could work without them, or any historical system that’s demonstrated that society could work nearly as well without them.

if you believe modern industrial society "works" as it is now, only for 20% of the population, you're setting the bar far too low. if you design a vehicle that only utilizes 20% of the fuel, you've made a pretty crappy car. you're fired!

First off, that’s your definition of economic legitimacy, it’s not our definition, and it’s certainly not the definition.

we all wish to live and prosper. so it is our definition. although in the last portion, you are right, it is not the definition (as defined by the oligarchy). the fact that you are a idiot and have no informed opinion on the matter changes nothing.

Above all, you seem to be forgetting that your proposed system is purely hypothetical, and it has yet to face the rigors of real world application.

and what "rigors of real world application" has capitalism met while concentrating 80% of the world's resources to only 20% of the population? a "real world application" is making the rich happy at our expense?

that's the rigors of real world bullshit.

You can go on as long as you want about how horrible and oppressive capitalism is, but at the end of the day, people living under western capitalism are still better off than people living in any other socioeconomic system as evidenced by the higher human development indexes (HDIs) and inequality-adjusted human development indexes (IHDIs) of western countries.

ah, i see. nothing is really bad as long as things are worse somewhere else. lol

You think you’re speaking from some intellectual pedestal where you intuitively know the logistic efficiency of economic systems, and you know how to devise a system that will solve all the problems we’ve been having since the dawn of time. You go on about how your system will be “logistically efficient” and “scientifically arranged,” but you’ve yet to provide any specific ideas on which economic arrangements are “scientific.”

and plutocratic subjugation has? keep trotting your high horse.

I might not have a thorough explanation for the logistic efficiency of capitalism, but I don’t need one because I can go by the facts rather than pure theory. And the facts say that even a janitor or a fast-food cook in the west is better off in terms of both wealth and freedom than nearly everyone living in a society that has attempted communism. The only two exceptions I can think of are Russia, which has had time to recover from Stalinism, and Cuba, which has one of the most corrupt governments on earth, a disproportionately low GDP per capita compared to their HDI, and still doesn’t compare to the west in terms of development.

the bar by which you measure success is still far far too low, in a world where so many live in poverty and over 80% of the population lives on $10 or less a day. the concept of surplus value, profit, net income is universal regardless what school of economic thought we come from. and i have established that such notions cannot be economically legitimized. i can forgive your elitism if you can admit to having it.

Considering how hard it is to prod you to discuss the nature of your system, I don’t think you have any practical ideas on how it’s to be accomplished. When you say you want “scientific arrangement” or “increased productivity,” you’re just stating your end goals that you expect other people to accomplish.

did you just call me a capitalist? i think you did. should i accept that as a compliment?

Right, because subjective moral principles are always the best basis to make a practical decision. As long as your proposition would purportedly be more ethical than capitalism, then we can all take for granted that it would work out exactly as you say it would, even if you don’t explain how. Your problem is that you’re not judging capitalism by comparing it to any objective standard, you’re comparing to your ideal fantasy system that you can’t even prove would work.

my "ideal fantasy" works everyday. worker's contributions far exceed the needed labor for that "ideal fantasy" yet those contributions are stolen by the rich who "thank" us via shit wages. and this is mathematically observable.

I doubt that’s true with all his anti-capitalist rhetoric, but I was asking you to explain why you think a new attempt at communism wouldn’t have the same results. You’ll have to do better than “because we’d do it differently this time. We care about people!” Do you think the peasants who fought for Mao Tse Tung ever thought their grandchildren would be making Nike shoes for two cents an hour? So far, every attempt at communism has had results that were completely different from the original goals.

they were not attempts at communism. i had told you that lenin's brand of communism has more in common with modern businesses than it does with what marx described because they are literally different things. if the core of your argument is that two separate things are the the same, your argument amounts to brain vomit.

It’s my argument that since workers left to their own devices can’t be guaranteed to produce what people demand, any society attempting communism starting with worker autonomy will have to waste a significant amount of time and resources before they learn that people aren’t paying enough attention to the work that needs to be done, at which point they’ll start devising economic plans that nobody can agree on because every plan requires someone to work in a way that they don’t want to, only they can’t just choose to quit as you could for a capitalist enterprise. And even if capitalism is just as oppressive and exploitative as you say it is, that doesn’t mean communism wouldn’t be even worse.

hold on. lets back up to the argument over what demand is. if one assumes you are correct, that capitalists produce what people demand, then per that logic, people demand things that are profitable to the rich. and if people demand things that are profitable to the rich, people want concentration of wealth and the detrimental effects it produces; poverty, wag slavery, class stratification, reduced access to healthcare, reduced access to clean water, continued strife over resources, food overloaded with sugar and salt, etc etc. why the FUCK would anyone WANT those things?! capitalist economics is a circus of bullshit.

Or to phrase it another way, communism hasn’t existed since the days of hunter-gatherer tribes or ancient farming villages. Since you’re using capitalism as a frame of reference, you’re suggesting that your proposed system would be better for workers than western-style capitalism. Today, European countries have higher average HDIs and IHDIs than any other continent, except Australia, which also has western-style capitalism. So, objectively, how can you say western capitalism has failed? What makes you think that your proposed communist system would be better for workers than western-style capitalism when your only defense for that assertion is more attack on capitalism? If anything, Europe is a testament to the superiority of capitalism. When compared to every other socioeconomic system that has been tried, western capitalism has passed the test of real world application, and communism has not. Whether it passes the test of your moral approval couldn't matter less.

economic "language" between you and i is very incompatible. in your mind direct observation of really existing capitalism is an "attack." and you assume that i have to accept your definition of successful economics as one that allows for poverty, economic subjugation and concentration of wealth. economics where only the rich matter is not successful nor a "testament to superiority." the only vindication for capitalism is one where it can be proven that workers are so inferior that they must work in exchange for plutocratic benevolence. and the only way one can legitimize capitalism is to economically substantiate the inverse proportion between profit and quality of life of workers. if you can't do that, i suggest "not quitting your day job."

[Red Deathy]

Markets will exist eternally if you define all human activity as market relations. What some European observers of primitive societies saw as barter was in fact gift relations (the difference being with barter you fix the relative values before exchange, with gifts you simply have to return a similar or greater worth at some point, or perhaps never, after all, an unreturned gift is a win at potlacthing).

Among the Hadza in Tanzania, they have been observed to have what some anthropologists describe as tolerated scrounging: if you are seen with some meat or honey, say, someone can walk up to you, and say "I want some" and you just hand it over, no exchange.

Among arctic peoples name sharing exists, whereby you get a cut of the meat based on your name (and in other societies it's by clan). In some societies, IIRC Polynesian, a man will not work his own property. His field belongs to his uncle, his scythe to his cousin, the cart to his nephew, etc. of course his cousin, uncle and nephew are working his land at the same time.

Andean peoples did engage in barter (as barter) but that was at quite a developed stage.

Extended gift relations may persist into socialism, even maybe the odd bit of barter, but this would be hugely marginal compared to production for use and concrete needs.

Of course, in all these types of societies, these relations are negotiated, but unless you define all negotiation as market (and thus all human interaction) they are not markets.

[Primagen]

I've got a few responses to catch up on. This will take a long time.