Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Capitalism, when left to it's own devices, places profit above all else, including the well being of others. One need to only look at the innumerable irresponsible, socially and environmentally damaging actions by various corporations to see this.
This is a fairly textbook answer of why capitalism is bad. One need only look at the fact that capitalism has always led to a higher standard of living for everyone throughout history. Capitalism creates wealth and innovation.
My point was that there is no way to implement communism on a large scale without a central authority forcing it on the masses.
I don't think that's necessarily true. While it's generally turned out that way, I think the reverse is also possible, i.e., the masses utilizing government to implement economic democracy.
Monopolies do not form on a free market, but as a result of government policies.
Even if this statement were true, the free market is a theoretical concept that has never existed (much like a large scale socialist economy).
Governments generally make policies regarding economic issues. The only way to prevent governments from make policies is to take political power in order to remove government influence from the marketplace. The way I see it, libertarians and socialists have the same problem: current governments aren't going to just give up their power without a fight, and both libertarians and socialists are a small percentage of the electorate.
I don't think that's necessarily true. While it's generally turned out that way, I think the reverse is also possible, i.e., the masses utilizing government to implement economic democracy.
Even if this statement were true, the free market is a theoretical concept that has never existed (much like a large scale socialist economy).
Governments generally make policies regarding economic issues. The only way to prevent governments from make policies is to take political power in order to remove government influence from the marketplace. The way I see it, libertarians and socialists have the same problem: current governments aren't going to just give up their power without a fight, and both libertarians and socialists are a small percentage of the electorate.
As I've said before, even if communism could somehow occur and the state step aside and allow it to be pure communism it would still fail as an economic system.
The free market has never been allowed to act on its own, that's true. Governments simply won't give up their power. For communism or capitalism.
Even though I don't consider myself a Marxist, I find myself defending Marx more and more recently. For one thing, there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about what socialism really means and represents as an economic system, and this is especially true with Marx's writings. Many people who take issue with Marx appear to do so based upon his association with "communist" countries that supposedly put his theories into practice, but few of these critics seem to have actually read anything Marx himself wrote (there are exceptions, of course).
I think Marx was wrong about a lot of things, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't think he's the monster that many people often make him out to be. Reading things like The German Ideology and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, for example, make it clear to me that Marx would be absolutely horrified by what authoritarian countries like China and Russia have done in his name.
To begin with, it's true that Marx wasn’t a big fan of private property. In fact, he advocated the abolishment of private property (and by "private property" he was referring to the means of production, e.g., in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 Marx writes: "The character of private property is expressed by labour, capital, and the relations between these two") and the placement of the proletariat (i.e., the majority of the working-class population, not a single person and/or political party who simply claims to represent the proletariat) in direct democratic control of production.
And because of this, some say that Marx was simply a troublemaker—that the whole point was to convince the proletariat they'd be better off if they have a revolution, seize the means of production and institute socialism; that he wasn't appealing to their compassion for their fellow man and was essentially advocating strict authoritarianism with his "dictatorship of the proletariat."
Of course, a selective reading of Marx can support this, but I have to disagree that he was wasn't also appealing to their compassion for their fellow man, or that democracy wasn't a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism — the transitory phase between capitalism and communism — from the very beginning.
While encouraging a proletarian revolution was certainly one of things Marx was trying to do with his writings, he also stressed that he believed the self-emancipation of the proletariat would ultimately bring about the emancipation of all classes. In the words of Erich Fromm, "His concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
According to Marx, all individuals in capitalist society are essentially alienated, from their labour as well as from each other. The reason Marx singled out the working class was because he saw in the working class the means by which capitalism could be transformed. It was his hope, however, that once this economic transformation was underway, the alienation of each individual would gradual be eliminated via a more socialized means of production, which, in turn, would sow the seeds for the "resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man."
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844:
[T]he emancipation of society from private property, from servitude, takes the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not in the sense that only the latter's emancipation is involved, but because this emancipation includes the emancipation of humanity as a whole. For all human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all types of servitude are only modifications or consequences of this relation.
As for the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” it’s true that Marx did say that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and that "this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." However, I still believe that democracy was a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism. For example, even though I'm sure there are things that can be found within Marx's numerous writings that can be used to contradict this view, Engels, in his 1847 programme The Principles of Communism (the precursor to the Communist Manifesto), writes:
"Above all, it [the proletarian revolution] will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat."
He continues by stressing that, "Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat." In addition, Marx, in his 1871 pamphlet The Civil War in France, writes about the Paris Commune (notice the parts about "universal suffrage" and "revocable at short terms," i.e., characteristics of direct democracy):
"The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of "social republic," with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.
Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time."
Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
So, from just these few references, it's clear to me that Marx had a great deal of compassion for his fellow man and that democracy was an essential part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism, including the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Nobody would confuse Marx for the Dalai Lama, but his compassion definitely comes through in his idealism — as well as his hopeful vision for humanity's future — and it's hard to believe that he would approve of what authoritarian countries under the banners of "communism" and "socialism" have done in his name.
Dictatorship is not necessarily undemocratic or autocratic. I would say right now, we are living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or upper classes. Most politicians are rich, and at least in capitalist countries like the US, Canada, etc. are elected democratically.
Remember, Marx's works were written in the 1800's, and obviously some of the words he used won't have the same meaning, or in Modern English or German, would even mean anything anymore, and become outdated. I don't think when he wrote "dictatorship of the proletariat," as in autocracy, but meant that the proletariat would overcome the ruling class, and instead of rich politicians to elect, you would see Classless Joe as a candidate. On a side note, the Dalai Lama is a Marxist. And I quote:
"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism (though disapproving of it on the whole).
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."-The Dalai Lama
But that's beside the point. Actually that quote includes a lot of what I was planning to say in this thread, and Jason's post about the Paris Commune.
I don't really mind if Kevin was singling me out, it may have been "rude", but these kinds of debates keep me on my toes. It's good mental exercise to debates like these, and to keep my beliefs in check.
In response to "Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism", techonlogy was not backwards in the Soviet Union, the pseudo-socialists brought millions of peasants out of the Dark Ages.
Nor is it possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if you are serious about ending private ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious about ending freedom and creativity too. You will have to make the whole of society, or what is left of it, into a prison.
This is a load of bullcrap. A huge load. Socialism is about putting the means of production into the hands of everyone, what does that sound like to you? "Ending freedom and creativity?" What a bunch of demagogic nonsense. Once you destroy all restrictions over capitalism, then you will have your totalitarianism. Then you will have "prisons." Want an enslaved society? Use a free market, until it's filled to the roof with monopolies.
The only thing that will end freedom and creativity will be capitalism, once all corporations buy out the competition. Socialism about humans coming together and making progress together, sharing ideas, tell me, what is so wrong about that? What is so uncreative about that?
What is so authoritarian about a free society? Not a society with a "free" market. A free society, without discrimination, where everyone decides what to do with the country democratic?
You can't abolish everyone's private property without using force. If I live in an area that wants to go socialist then you would have to force me to give up my property rights. That's force bud.
As I've said before, monopolies do not form on the free market. They're a product of government policies.
Nothing wrong with a free society. When has communism ever led to this free society? Never.
Yes, I've heard of market socialism, and it still fails the socialist calculation problems that all forms of socialism and communism fail. Without a profit and loss system there will be misallocation, and the system will collapse. You've not yet addressed this.
However, as I've tried to point out in this thread, Marx's, and Plato's, ideal communist world is simply impossible.
Yes, and people say the same thing about libertarianism. That doesn't stop you from studying it and promoting its theoretical good points.
For one it goes against human nature completely. History has shown that no private property and simple communal property will lead to disaster.
Personally, I don't see human nature as a static thing. If anything, our nature is our capacity to actively adapt to change. I've read about certain Native American tribes, for example, who had little to no hierarchy and lived in communal societies where everything was shared. The only thing that led to their disaster was the European "discovery" of the New World, not the lack of private property.
Of course, they weren't part of a worldwide economy, and a large scale communal society hasn't been successful in that context, but I think it's a little much to declare that this is due to some kind of fixed human nature. And to be honest, I don't see why we can't explore economic democracy on a large scale. Hell, even many of the Founding Fathers didn't think political democracy would work on a large scale because of past failures (e.g., Hamilton argued for an elective monarch), but that didn't stop them from trying to create something better than what they had. One possible alternative, for example, could be what David Schweickart's calls "Economic Democracy" (e.g., see Economic Democracy: A Worthy Socialism That Would Really Work).
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that capitalism is the horrible boogeyman more left-leaning individuals such as myself sometimes make it out to be. I fully acknowledge the areas where capitalism has contributed a lot to the development of society—a contribution which I sincerely appreciate. I simply think it has its limits, and I think the fact that an estimated 1 billion people will go hunger illustrates that.
As for the stateless society that communism is supposed to be, Marx certainly intended it to be that way certainly. However, this is also a pipe dream.
And people say the same thing about the free market libertarianism; that doesn't make it true.
To relinquish everyone of their private property and install a communist system there must be a strong central authority to force it on the masses, otherwise it will never happen.
Not necessarily. What if the majority of people decide to implement a socialist system, for example? It may be improbable, and they'd still have to force the minority to comply, but it's not impossible. And what about libertarians, don't they have the same problem? The government (as in, we the people), the Fed, etc. aren't going to relinquish their power over the market on their own (especially when the polls show that the majority of Americans are currently in favour regulating the financial market more, not less).
To implement a free market, you'd have to somehow take away that power. And even if you have a majority of people in favour of doing so, you'll still have to force the minority to comply with getting rid of government regulatory agencies such as the EPA, FDA, SEC, etc.
Marx would be appalled at what the communists have done in his name, but this simply shows a lack of knowledge of human nature and economics on Marx's behalf.
You could be right, Kevin, or it might simply show the lack of the necessary material conditions for socialism's success. I don't think we can say which with absolute certainty, although I think it's obvious where each of us stands.
Dictatorship is not necessarily undemocratic or autocratic. I would say right now, we are living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or upper classes. Most politicians are rich, and at least in capitalist countries like the US, Canada, etc. are elected democratically.
Remember, Marx's works were written in the 1800's, and obviously some of the words he used won't have the same meaning, or in Modern English or German, would even mean anything anymore, and become outdated. I don't think when he wrote "dictatorship of the proletariat," as in autocracy, but meant that the proletariat would overcome the ruling class, and instead of rich politicians to elect, you would see Classless Joe as a candidate.
Oh, I completely get what your saying, Elias. David McReynolds, a member of the SPUSA, commented on what I wrote above:
We must understand what Marx meant by dictatorship of the proletariat. I wish he had used a different term, but that phrase has to be seen in light of his view of the "State as the Executive Committee of the ruling class". All current democracy is, in fact, a dictatorship by the few over the many. It can be a relatively gentle as in the West, or as ruthless as had been the case in Central and Latin America, but the courts and the laws were set up for the protection not of the many, but of the few who owned property.
So Marx had in mind, if I can use such a confusing phrase, "a more democratic dictatorship", in which the State would represent the many rather than the few.
You can't abolish everyone's private property without using force. If I live in an area that wants to go socialist then you would have to force me to give up my property rights. That's force bud.
As I've said before, monopolies do not form on the free market. They're a product of government policies.
Nothing wrong with a free society. When has communism ever led to this free society? Never.
Yes, I've heard of market socialism, and it still fails the socialist calculation problems that all forms of socialism and communism fail. Without a profit and loss system there will be misallocation, and the system will collapse. You've not yet addressed this.
Capitalism doesn't lead to a free society either.
And, if I'm not mistaken, you've haven't addressed the atrocities capitalism has created that I have posted.
By the "misallocation", and Ludwig Mises's book 'Socialism', I'm assuming you're leading me to this?
Markets aren't needed in Marxism. In a economy with no growth, here's where simple reproduction comes in. As a society cannot stop consuming, it cannot stop producing, either. “Every social process of production,” writes Marx, “is at the same time a process of reproduction”.
Simple reproduction refers to a capitalist consuming all of the surplus value created and reinvesting the same amount of capital during each cycle. This causes production levels to remain constant.
First off , workers are seemingly paid in money, in reality they are paid in wages. Off the clock, in order for workers to obtain part of their means of subsistence, they must give these wages back to the capitalist class. “The transaction,” Marx wrote, “is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form of the commodity”.
Second, Marx points out that the capitalist must produce surplus value in order for production to continue. If surplus value is not created, and the capitalist keeps advancing capital (and consuming) from his own pocket, he will eventually go broke. Simple reproduction therefore “converts all capital into accumulated capital”.
Part of the cycle of simple reproduction is the replication of class relations. Workers receive enough to keep them at work and purchase their means of subsistence. “The worker always leaves the process in the same state as he entered it – a personal source of wealth, but deprived of any means of making that wealth a reality for himself”. Since there is nothing left over after purchasing their means of subsistence, they must sell their labor power again. In this way workers remain poor and remain at work. Meanwhile, the capitalists advance capital, create surplus value, and are able to profit and reinvest. The capital-relation is reproduced.
I'm reading Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, by the way. Found a .pdf on the Mises Institute site.
Yes, and people say the same thing about libertarianism. That doesn't stop you from studying it and promoting its theoretical good points.
Personally, I don't see human nature as a static thing. If anything, our nature is our capacity to actively adapt to change. I've read about certain Native American tribes, for example, that had little to no hierarchy and lived in communal societies where everything was shared. The only thing that led to their disaster was the European "discovery" of the New World, not the lack of private property.
Of course, they weren't part of a worldwide economy, and a large scale communal society hasn't been successful in that context, but I think it's a little much to declare that this is due to some kind of fixed human nature. And to be honest, I don't see why we can't explore economic democracy on a large scale. Hell, even many of the Founding Fathers didn't think political democracy would work on a large scale because of past failures (e.g., Hamilton argued for an elective monarch), but that didn't stop them from trying to create something better than what they had. One possible alternative, for example, could be what David Schweickart's calls "Economic Democracy" (e.g., see Economic Democracy: A Worthy Socialism That Would Really Work).
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that capitalism is the horrible boogeyman more left-leaning individuals such as myself sometimes make it out to be. I fully acknowledge the areas where capitalism has contributed a lot to the development of society—a contribution which I sincerely appreciate. I simply think it has its limits, and I think the fact that an estimated 1 billion people will go hunger illustrates that.
And people say the same thing about the free market libertarianism; that doesn't make it true.
Not necessarily. What if the majority of people decide to implement a socialist system, for example? It may be improbable, and they'd still have to force the minority to comply, but it's not impossible. And what about libertarians, don't they have the same problem? The government (as in, we the people), the Fed, etc. aren't going to relinquish their power over the market on their own (especially when the polls show that the majority of Americans are currently in favour regulating the financial market more, not less).
To implement a free market, you'd have to somehow take away that power. And even if you have a majority of people in favour of doing so, you'll still have to force the minority to comply with getting rid of government regulatory agencies such as the EPA, FDA, SEC, etc.
You could be right, Kevin, or it might simply show the lack of the necessary material conditions for socialism's success. I don't think we can say which with absolute certainty, although I think it's obvious where each of us stands.
There are different forms of libertarianism, so which are you referring to?
None of the founders believed in democracy, they believed in a constitutional republic.
Forcing people to give up government regulation is not the same as taking away people's private property. They don't own those regulatory agencies.
And, if I'm not mistaken, you've haven't addressed the atrocities capitalism has created that I have posted.
By the "misallocation", and Ludwig Mises's book 'Socialism', I'm assuming you're leading me to this?
Markets aren't needed in Marxism. In a economy with no growth, here's where simple reproduction comes in. As a society cannot stop consuming, it cannot stop producing, either. “Every social process of production,” writes Marx, “is at the same time a process of reproduction”.
Simple reproduction refers to a capitalist consuming all of the surplus value created and reinvesting the same amount of capital during each cycle. This causes production levels to remain constant.
First off , workers are seemingly paid in money, in reality they are paid in wages. Off the clock, in order for workers to obtain part of their means of subsistence, they must give these wages back to the capitalist class. “The transaction,” Marx wrote, “is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form of the commodity”.
Second, Marx points out that the capitalist must produce surplus value in order for production to continue. If surplus value is not created, and the capitalist keeps advancing capital (and consuming) from his own pocket, he will eventually go broke. Simple reproduction therefore “converts all capital into accumulated capital”.
Part of the cycle of simple reproduction is the replication of class relations. Workers receive enough to keep them at work and purchase their means of subsistence. “The worker always leaves the process in the same state as he entered it – a personal source of wealth, but deprived of any means of making that wealth a reality for himself”. Since there is nothing left over after purchasing their means of subsistence, they must sell their labor power again. In this way workers remain poor and remain at work. Meanwhile, the capitalists advance capital, create surplus value, and are able to profit and reinvest. The capital-relation is reproduced.
I'm reading Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, by the way. Found a .pdf on the Mises Institute site.
Actually I have. I've stated that governments commit crimes all the time. Capitalism doesn't turn governments into angels.
You'll find many PDF's at the Mises Institute, and I hope you take the time to read them. There's a wealth of knowledge there regarding just about any economic topic.
You said no markets are needed because there's no growth, do you really want to live in an economy where there's no growth? An economy with no growth would eventually become a third world country. Not to mention the misallocation of resources that would ultimately lead to the collapse of the entire system.
There are different forms of libertarianism, so which are you referring to?
Any that advocate a free market, which, as I've already mentioned, is a theoretical concept that has never existed.
None of the founders believed in democracy, they believed in a constitutional republic.
Which is a type of representative democracy.
Forcing people to give up government regulation is not the same as taking away people's private property. They don't own those regulatory agencies.
Alternatively, one could say that abolishing private property would allow more people to have ownership in all industry, as well as have a say in how it's run, because that's what socialism is, economic democracy. But, either way you look at it, private property isn't going to be abolished anytime soon, and neither will the Fed or government-run regulatory agencies.
Actually I have. I've stated that governments commit crimes all the time. Capitalism doesn't turn governments into angels.
You'll find many PDF's at the Mises Institute, and I hope you take the time to read them. There's a wealth of knowledge there regarding just about any economic topic.
You said no markets are needed because there's no growth, do you really want to live in an economy where there's no growth? An economy with no growth would eventually become a third world country. Not to mention the misallocation of resources that would ultimately lead to the collapse of the entire system.
Perhaps I phrased that wrong. I believe planned economy would work better.
An economy with no growth would eventually become a third world country.
While I think the term "third world" is rather out-dated, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine back in May. We were discussing GM, Chrysler and the offshoring of our manufacturing, and I mentioned that the way I see it:
[W]ithout greater government involvement or worker participation in the decision-making process, we're never going to keep the jobs we still have or get the ones we lost back. Unless, of course, the U.S., becomes more like a developing nation than a developed one, with high rates of unemployment, and the jobs get shipped back here due to the massive pool of cheap labour and lower taxes, which will mean things like our quality of life and social safety nets (e.g., Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, unemployment etc.) will take even more of a beating. From my vantage point, the economic future of the U.S. doesn't look pretty.
I think the fact that Ford is building another new assembly plant in China in order to compete with GM helps to illustrate my point. As I said in an earlier part of the same conversation:
One of the main problems I see is the fact that U.S. based multinational corporations are beyond borders. They can pack up and ship their capital and resources, like manufacturing and tech support, to almost anywhere in the world with cheaper wages and and lower taxes while still technically being headquartered in the U.S. One thing we need to do is to make this more difficult, otherwise there won't be anything left to outsource. It may be good for a company's profit margins, but it is devastating to our economy as a whole.
But I don't think that government ownership via stocks, such as in the case of GM, will stop outsourcing. In fact, it hasn't. When I said "greater government involvement," I was referring to things like tariffs, stricter trade policies and outright nationalization if needed, not simply ownership of stock in a given company.
The problem is that, when owning stocks, the main focus is on returns, so whatever makes a profit is seen as a good thing from that point of view. And if a company can make more profit by offshoring its manufacturing, all the better. The stockholders benefit regardless of where those manufacturing jobs are located, i.e., there's no real incentive for stockholders to keep them here, and even less so if it means a better return on their investment.
The way I see it, giving workers direct control and ownership is one way to ensure that manufacturing and other product based jobs stay here, regardless of the industry, because it's in their best interest.
While I think the term "third world" is rather out-dated, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine back in May. We were discussing GM, Chrysler and the offshoring of our manufacturing, and I mentioned that the way I see it:
[W]ithout greater government involvement or worker participation in the decision-making process, we're never going to keep the jobs we still have or get the ones we lost back. Unless, of course, the U.S., becomes more like a developing nation than a developed one, with high rates of unemployment, and the jobs get shipped back here due to the massive pool of cheap labour and lower taxes, which will mean things like our quality of life and social safety nets (e.g., Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, unemployment etc.) will take even more of a beating. From my vantage point, the economic future of the U.S. doesn't look pretty.
I think the fact that Ford is building another new assembly plant in China in order to compete with GM helps to illustrate my point. As I said in an earlier part of the same conversation:
One of the main problems I see is the fact that U.S. based multinational corporations are beyond borders. They can pack up and ship their capital and resources, like manufacturing and tech support, to almost anywhere in the world with cheaper wages and and lower taxes while still technically being headquartered in the U.S. One thing we need to do is to make this more difficult, otherwise there won't be anything left to outsource. It may be good for a company's profit margins, but it is devastating to our economy as a whole.
But I don't think that government ownership via stocks, such as in the case of GM, will stop outsourcing. In fact, it hasn't. When I said "greater government involvement," I was referring to things like tariffs, stricter trade policies and outright nationalization if needed, not simply ownership of stock in a given company.
The problem is that, when owning stocks, the main focus is on returns, so whatever makes a profit is seen as a good thing from that point of view. And if a company can make more profit by offshoring its manufacturing, all the better. The stockholders benefit regardless of where those manufacturing jobs are located, i.e., there's no real incentive for stockholders to keep them here, and even less so if it means a better return on their investment.
The way I see it, giving workers direct control and ownership is one way to ensure that manufacturing and other product based jobs stay here, regardless of the industry, because it's in their best interest.
The government should cut taxes and quit enacting so many foolish regulations, perhaps give these corporations a reason to stay here.
Perhaps I phrased that wrong. I believe planned economy would work better.
Okay, well I'm a member of the 'working class' as it were. I have a blue collar job that I started at the bottom with. I showed up to work the first day knowing that I'd make a certain hourly rate.
I worked really hard, and harder than most of the other people around me. So I advanced in the company and the second year, I made more money.
Can you tell me how I'm being oppressed by the capitalists who run the company?
And my second point. The company operates like this. We paint houses and our warehouse is privately run by an individual (so not run by the workers). We go out, paint houses as directed by the managers, and collect our calculated sum every two weeks. It's a win/win. The boss gets his houses painted, he makes his profit, and I get my paycheck.
This is a fairly textbook answer of why capitalism is bad.
And thus far all I've seen from you are fairly textbook libertarian responses. Looks like textbooks rule the day.
One need only look at the fact that capitalism has always led to a higher standard of living for everyone throughout history. Capitalism creates wealth and innovation.
Has it really? Look at, for example, migrant farmers during the great depression who were driven off their farms then denied at just about every opportunity to make an honest living a decent wage for themselves and their families. I fail to see how capitalism led to a higher standard of living for these folks.
But if my experience with libertarians is any indication I suspect you're too blinded by ideology to ever admit that capitalism is anything less than a perfect, infallible system that leads to a golden land of plenty for everyone.
The government should cut taxes and quit enacting so many foolish regulations, perhaps give these corporations a reason to stay here.
What incentive would those corporations have to keep jobs here when they can ship them overseas and have those same jobs performed at a fraction of the cost? Seriously? You have the option of having television set manufactured by one group of workers at $15/hour per worker, or of having those TV sets manufactured by another group of workers at $5/day per worker which do you choose? What incentive do you have to use the $15/hour group?
And thus far all I've seen from you are fairly textbook libertarian responses. Looks like textbooks rule the day.
Has it really? Look at, for example, migrant farmers during the great depression who were driven off their farms then denied at just about every opportunity to make an honest living a decent wage for themselves and their families. I fail to see how capitalism led to a higher standard of living for these folks.
But if my experience with libertarians is any indication I suspect you're too blinded by ideology to ever admit that capitalism is anything less than a perfect, infallible system that leads to a golden land of plenty for everyone.
I gave you a textbook answer because that's what you gave me. If you look throughout this thread I've explained why communism fails economically. Not exactly a textbook answer.
Well whatever your experience with libertarians in the past, I've already said in this thread capitalism isn't a perfect system. Not everyone is going to "win," so to speak. However, capitalism gives everyone the best chance to "win." Unlike communism or socialism which just forces everyone's standard of living down.
As to the Great Depression, that was not a failure of capitalism, but a failure of central banking. History shows that tampering with interest rates will lead to a recession, and that's what the Federal Reserve did.
What incentive would those corporations have to keep jobs here when they can ship them overseas and have those same jobs performed at a fraction of the cost? Seriously? You have the option of having television set manufactured by one group of workers at $15/hour per worker, or of having those TV sets manufactured by another group of workers at $5/day per worker which do you choose? What incentive do you have to use the $15/hour group?
If taxes were cut and regulations not as severe it would certainly be more attractive to do business here in the U.S. However, some companies may still move overseas to avoid the higher cost of employment brought about by unionization. But I fail to see how unions pricing themselves out of a job would be the fault of the business.
Communism is a dispicable ideology, many millions have died in the name of equality of man but as we all well know in samsara we certainly arent equal.
Its why it will never work because we as deluded beings are all self centred.
I gave you a textbook answer because that's what you gave me. If you look throughout this thread I've explained why communism fails economically. Not exactly a textbook answer.
Yeah, it is pretty textbook. I've heard these same arguments more times that I could hope to recount.
Well whatever your experience with libertarians in the past, I've already said in this thread capitalism isn't a perfect system. Not everyone is going to "win," so to speak. However, capitalism gives everyone the best chance to "win."
This kinda contradicts your previous statement of capitalism always raising the standard of living for everyone.
Unlike communism or socialism which just forces everyone's standard of living down.
True communism has never really been implemented. What has been implemented is totalitarian regimes under the guise of communism.
As to the Great Depression, that was not a failure of capitalism, but a failure of central banking. History shows that tampering with interest rates will lead to a recession, and that's what the Federal Reserve did.
Forgive me, I should have stated "Dust Bowl" rather than "Great Depression".
If taxes were cut and regulations not as severe it would certainly be more attractive to do business here in the U.S. However, some companies may still move overseas to avoid the higher cost of employment brought about by unionization. But I fail to see how unions pricing themselves out of a job would be the fault of the business.
What regulations, exactly, do you feel should be cut to make doing business here more attractive? And if I'm ignorant here then pardon me, but wouldn't a business headquartered in the U.S. still be subject to the same taxes regardless of where it's actual production takes place?
Okay, well I'm a member of the 'working class' as it were. I have a blue collar job that I started at the bottom with. I showed up to work the first day knowing that I'd make a certain hourly rate.
I worked really hard, and harder than most of the other people around me. So I advanced in the company and the second year, I made more money.
Can you tell me how I'm being oppressed by the capitalists who run the company?
How are you oppressed by the capitalist system of production? The short answer is, (1) the capitalist — or employer if you prefer — profits far more from your labour than you do (exploitation), and (2) the product of your labour doesn’t legally belong to you (alienation).
Labour creates wealth (surplus value). But in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, the product of your labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism).
Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from your labour into their company while you, the labourer, are forced to spend your meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So from one perspective, an individual might look at it like, "Wow, some guy will pay me a few bucks an hour to paint houses; now I'll have some money for rent, bills and food." But from another, wider perspective, there’s an entire class of people who’ve been created by the capitalist mode of production who must sell their labour in order to survive while others thrive by exploiting that labour.
This doesn’t mean, however, that the employer is necessarily the "bad guy," or even consciously in charge of this exploitation, since, as a friend of mine points out, "... the logic of the system seems to force the hand of the bourgeoisie as much as that of the proletariat."
How are you oppressed by the capitalist system of production? The short answer is, (1) the capitalist — or employer if you prefer — profits far more from your labour than you do (exploitation), and (2) the product of your labour doesn’t legally belong to you (alienation).
In a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, the product of your labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism).
Furthermore, the employer is able to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting it in their company while the labourer is forced to spend their meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So from one perspective, an individual might look at it like, "Wow, some guy will pay me a few bucks an hour to paint houses, now I'll have some money for rent, bills and food." But from another, wider perspective, there’s an entire class of people who’ve been created by the capitalist system of production who must sell their labour in order to survive while others thrive by exploiting them.
This doesn’t mean, however, that the employer is necessarily the "bad guy," or even consciously in charge of this exploitation, since, as a friend of mine points out, "the logic of the system seems to force the hand of the bourgeoisie as much as that of the proletariat."
But it's voluntary. If my employer agrees to hire me and I agree to work for him for X dollars, I fail to see the exploitation. Sure, I'm selling my labor, but so so what? I'm selling a skill-set. I'm selling experience in the field.
The reason I accept some of the libertarian principles on economics, is because it views contracts between individuals as extremely vital to a free society.
If there was ever a strong movement in my company to unionize, I would be the first to throw down my paint brush and leave. I refuse to pay union dues, and I don't think unions really care about workers. They would sooner prefer to be out of a job completely than be payed a little less than their idea of a just wage.
But all that being said, what would be a more just way for my business to be run.
As to the Great Depression, that was not a failure of capitalism, but a failure of central banking. History shows that tampering with interest rates will lead to a recession, and that's what the Federal Reserve did.
I've also heard the Great Depression was caused by the trickle-down economic policies (or "free-enterprise principles," as Reagan called them) in vogue during the 20s. To be honest, I'm not sure what the real causes were, but it doesn't really matter; it was still a failure of capitalism, just not of free market capitalism.
Okay, well I'm a member of the 'working class' as it were. I have a blue collar job that I started at the bottom with. I showed up to work the first day knowing that I'd make a certain hourly rate.
I worked really hard, and harder than most of the other people around me. So I advanced in the company and the second year, I made more money.
Can you tell me how I'm being oppressed by the capitalists who run the company?
Dude, aren't you joining the military? Am I confusing you with someone else? If you are, ever hear of the economic draft?
But it's voluntary. If my employer agrees to hire me and I agree to work for him for X dollars, I fail to see the exploitation. Sure, I'm selling my labor, but so so what? I'm selling a skill-set. I'm selling experience in the field.
It doesn't matter whether it's voluntary or not; in fact, that's already assumed. The point is still same.
I know that you don't agree with what I've said, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I'm simply trying to explain what Marx meant by "exploitation," etc.
The reason I accept some of the libertarian principles on economics, is because it views contracts between individuals as extremely vital to a free society.
Of course, social contracts are important in any society. It's the nature of those contracts and the bias of their terms within the context of the capitalist mode of production that's being questioned here.
If there was ever a strong movement in my company to unionize, I would be the first to throw down my paint brush and leave. I refuse to pay union dues, and I don't think unions really care about workers. They would sooner prefer to be out of a job completely than be payed a little less than their idea of a just wage.
You've said this before, and while I don't want to debate the pros and cons of unions, I'd at least like to point out that it was unions who fought for things like the abolishment of child labour, the 40 work day, weekends, paid vacations, workers' compensation, etc.
But all that being said, what would be a more just way for my business to be run.
I'd say for it to be worker-owned and operated, but it doesn't really matter since it'd still be within the context of a capitalist system.
I have been following this thread and I have to say I agree with Kevin.
History bears out the fact that capitalism, though not perfect, is a better economic system than communism. Haven't I heard that communism is now dead?
Russia, China tried it, but from my reading, I dont think that they even got to becoming a truly Marxist country before they realize that they have to be part of the new world economic order if they want to succeed.
Even China is opening up its economy to foreign companies and encouraging entreprenuerialship among its citizens.
I was reading an article by Freeman Dyson who said that an economic power stays on only for about 150 years based on history, so the U. S. has only 50 years left. He is predicting, as most economists do, that the next economic power is either China or India. (Population has a great deal to contribute to the economic equation. (We are only 20 mil. here in Australia))
Marxism will always be a hot topic for debate in college cafes, but once you go out in the real world and see samsara for what it is, you know we can never be equal because dualities are right there starkly staring us in the face.
Even if it somehow could happen then it would still fail as an economic system. Without any way to rationally allocate resources it will lead to malinvestment on a massive scale, and make everyone forced to live under it much poorer.
Who says there is no way to rationally allocate resources in a communist system? It's almost 2010, and we couldn't figure out how to allocate resources? I don't believe that at all.
there is no way to implement communism on a large scale without a central authority forcing it on the masses. A state is required, otherwise people will realize that communism is not in their best interests and move towards capitalism.
The definition of large-scale and the proper scale to implement communism has already been discussed. However, I dismiss the idea that all people believe that properly implemented communism is not in their best interests. For anyone who hasn't seen this site, I highly recommend it: http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/ It's a kind of utopian concept, but I also see it as being similar to communism (of course, I could be way off base there.) I would love to see this come to fruition.
Maybe you've heard the joke that its odd how people in FL are born poor and hispanic, but die rich and jewish. Likewise, a lot Americans start their adulthood as democrats and die republicans. Why is that? Capitalist greed. In my view, the way that a typical republican dismisses the concept of social healthcare is because they already have healthcare. If you fired them from their job and put them out on the street, they'd change their mind within a week. This is why I lean towards socialist concepts as they're implemented in Europe. I believe that every person has a right to an education, healthcare, food, water, and shelter. Capitalism is easy and desirable to the 'haves', but hard and not ideal to the 'have-nots'. Lastly, I think Tiger Woods should be the poster child for what's wrong with capitalism. Take a billion dollars and siphon it out of the pockets of the working class and give it to a personality-lacking cheat who does seemingly nothing beneficial to anyone. Great system we have.
This is a never-ending debate, which is the strength of a democracy: that even stupid ideas can be held and expressed freely and contribute to the political process. The attempts by various regimes of different stripes to eliminate one or other opposition political philosophy has always been doomed to failure.
Looking at political philosophies from outside the process, as far as is possible, it seems to me that each one of them strives for human betterment, even if the definitions of "betterment" vary. Success seems to come more from dialogue than from argument and camping on an "Us vs. Them" position.
Both capitalist and socialist systems, republican and monarchic present me with serious problems when I measure them against the Dharma and the Kerygma. All the systems are marked with grasping and ego-satisfaction. It behoves us, therefor, to challenge each and every system in the name of the teachings which we proclaim as crucial, whilst, all the time, bearing in mind (as our brother Palzang reminds us regularly) that "we have no abiding city" in samsara.
My biggest criticism of the free market and capitalism is that it is not now or will it ever be in the best interest for the system to have compassion on those who need it most.
When those in power had complete control over the livelihood of the labor force, the laborers were worked to death, quite literally, regardless of their well being; making the laborer a pure commodity to be traded with other capitalists. Look at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I am forever grateful for men like Marx who stood up to the tyranny of those in power to inspire change in the hearts of humankind.<O:p
On the other side, when the workers have complete power to dictate their wages regardless of what their production returns in capital, they will bankrupt the company or economy. <O:p
A healthy functioning economy balances the two. It creates incentives for both parties. Is Marxism a pipe dream? Maybe, but its function to inspire people to have compassion and work towards the greater good of all living beings is not. <O:p
Yes, of course, but we have to keep things in perspective. There is no magic bullet that is going to solve all our problems and make samsara a paradise. That's just magical thinking.
Yes, of course, but we have to keep things in perspective. There is no magic bullet that is going to solve all our problems and make samsara a paradise. That's just magical thinking.
Palzang
Indeed, but I don't think anyone here is laboring under such delusions.
i acually am a marxist and i just think that people are actualy just standing up for themselves if u look at what people critisize us for its all the doing of saying your communist when actualy thats false mao stalin and others have all lead false communism but look at P.F.L.P and che they are examples of good communism and marxism.
Comments
This is a fairly textbook answer of why capitalism is bad. One need only look at the fact that capitalism has always led to a higher standard of living for everyone throughout history. Capitalism creates wealth and innovation.
Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism
I don't think that's necessarily true. While it's generally turned out that way, I think the reverse is also possible, i.e., the masses utilizing government to implement economic democracy.
Even if this statement were true, the free market is a theoretical concept that has never existed (much like a large scale socialist economy).
Governments generally make policies regarding economic issues. The only way to prevent governments from make policies is to take political power in order to remove government influence from the marketplace. The way I see it, libertarians and socialists have the same problem: current governments aren't going to just give up their power without a fight, and both libertarians and socialists are a small percentage of the electorate.
As I've said before, even if communism could somehow occur and the state step aside and allow it to be pure communism it would still fail as an economic system.
The free market has never been allowed to act on its own, that's true. Governments simply won't give up their power. For communism or capitalism.
Dictatorship is not necessarily undemocratic or autocratic. I would say right now, we are living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, or upper classes. Most politicians are rich, and at least in capitalist countries like the US, Canada, etc. are elected democratically.
Remember, Marx's works were written in the 1800's, and obviously some of the words he used won't have the same meaning, or in Modern English or German, would even mean anything anymore, and become outdated. I don't think when he wrote "dictatorship of the proletariat," as in autocracy, but meant that the proletariat would overcome the ruling class, and instead of rich politicians to elect, you would see Classless Joe as a candidate. On a side note, the Dalai Lama is a Marxist. And I quote:
"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism (though disapproving of it on the whole).
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."-The Dalai Lama
But that's beside the point. Actually that quote includes a lot of what I was planning to say in this thread, and Jason's post about the Paris Commune.
I don't really mind if Kevin was singling me out, it may have been "rude", but these kinds of debates keep me on my toes. It's good mental exercise to debates like these, and to keep my beliefs in check.
In response to "Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism", techonlogy was not backwards in the Soviet Union, the pseudo-socialists brought millions of peasants out of the Dark Ages.
Nor is it possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if you are serious about ending private ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious about ending freedom and creativity too. You will have to make the whole of society, or what is left of it, into a prison.
This is a load of bullcrap. A huge load. Socialism is about putting the means of production into the hands of everyone, what does that sound like to you? "Ending freedom and creativity?" What a bunch of demagogic nonsense. Once you destroy all restrictions over capitalism, then you will have your totalitarianism. Then you will have "prisons." Want an enslaved society? Use a free market, until it's filled to the roof with monopolies.
The only thing that will end freedom and creativity will be capitalism, once all corporations buy out the competition. Socialism about humans coming together and making progress together, sharing ideas, tell me, what is so wrong about that? What is so uncreative about that?
What is so authoritarian about a free society? Not a society with a "free" market. A free society, without discrimination, where everyone decides what to do with the country democratic?
Also, ever heard of market socialism, Kevin?
As I've said before, monopolies do not form on the free market. They're a product of government policies.
Nothing wrong with a free society. When has communism ever led to this free society? Never.
Yes, I've heard of market socialism, and it still fails the socialist calculation problems that all forms of socialism and communism fail. Without a profit and loss system there will be misallocation, and the system will collapse. You've not yet addressed this.
Yes, and people say the same thing about libertarianism. That doesn't stop you from studying it and promoting its theoretical good points.
Personally, I don't see human nature as a static thing. If anything, our nature is our capacity to actively adapt to change. I've read about certain Native American tribes, for example, who had little to no hierarchy and lived in communal societies where everything was shared. The only thing that led to their disaster was the European "discovery" of the New World, not the lack of private property.
Of course, they weren't part of a worldwide economy, and a large scale communal society hasn't been successful in that context, but I think it's a little much to declare that this is due to some kind of fixed human nature. And to be honest, I don't see why we can't explore economic democracy on a large scale. Hell, even many of the Founding Fathers didn't think political democracy would work on a large scale because of past failures (e.g., Hamilton argued for an elective monarch), but that didn't stop them from trying to create something better than what they had. One possible alternative, for example, could be what David Schweickart's calls "Economic Democracy" (e.g., see Economic Democracy: A Worthy Socialism That Would Really Work).
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that capitalism is the horrible boogeyman more left-leaning individuals such as myself sometimes make it out to be. I fully acknowledge the areas where capitalism has contributed a lot to the development of society—a contribution which I sincerely appreciate. I simply think it has its limits, and I think the fact that an estimated 1 billion people will go hunger illustrates that.
And people say the same thing about the free market libertarianism; that doesn't make it true.
Not necessarily. What if the majority of people decide to implement a socialist system, for example? It may be improbable, and they'd still have to force the minority to comply, but it's not impossible. And what about libertarians, don't they have the same problem? The government (as in, we the people), the Fed, etc. aren't going to relinquish their power over the market on their own (especially when the polls show that the majority of Americans are currently in favour regulating the financial market more, not less).
To implement a free market, you'd have to somehow take away that power. And even if you have a majority of people in favour of doing so, you'll still have to force the minority to comply with getting rid of government regulatory agencies such as the EPA, FDA, SEC, etc.
You could be right, Kevin, or it might simply show the lack of the necessary material conditions for socialism's success. I don't think we can say which with absolute certainty, although I think it's obvious where each of us stands.
Oh, I completely get what your saying, Elias. David McReynolds, a member of the SPUSA, commented on what I wrote above:
So Marx had in mind, if I can use such a confusing phrase, "a more democratic dictatorship", in which the State would represent the many rather than the few.
Capitalism doesn't lead to a free society either.
And, if I'm not mistaken, you've haven't addressed the atrocities capitalism has created that I have posted.
By the "misallocation", and Ludwig Mises's book 'Socialism', I'm assuming you're leading me to this?
Markets aren't needed in Marxism. In a economy with no growth, here's where simple reproduction comes in. As a society cannot stop consuming, it cannot stop producing, either. “Every social process of production,” writes Marx, “is at the same time a process of reproduction”.
Simple reproduction refers to a capitalist consuming all of the surplus value created and reinvesting the same amount of capital during each cycle. This causes production levels to remain constant.
First off , workers are seemingly paid in money, in reality they are paid in wages. Off the clock, in order for workers to obtain part of their means of subsistence, they must give these wages back to the capitalist class. “The transaction,” Marx wrote, “is veiled by the commodity-form of the product and the money-form of the commodity”.
Second, Marx points out that the capitalist must produce surplus value in order for production to continue. If surplus value is not created, and the capitalist keeps advancing capital (and consuming) from his own pocket, he will eventually go broke. Simple reproduction therefore “converts all capital into accumulated capital”.
Part of the cycle of simple reproduction is the replication of class relations. Workers receive enough to keep them at work and purchase their means of subsistence. “The worker always leaves the process in the same state as he entered it – a personal source of wealth, but deprived of any means of making that wealth a reality for himself”. Since there is nothing left over after purchasing their means of subsistence, they must sell their labor power again. In this way workers remain poor and remain at work. Meanwhile, the capitalists advance capital, create surplus value, and are able to profit and reinvest. The capital-relation is reproduced.
I'm reading Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, by the way. Found a .pdf on the Mises Institute site.
There are different forms of libertarianism, so which are you referring to?
None of the founders believed in democracy, they believed in a constitutional republic.
Forcing people to give up government regulation is not the same as taking away people's private property. They don't own those regulatory agencies.
Actually I have. I've stated that governments commit crimes all the time. Capitalism doesn't turn governments into angels.
You'll find many PDF's at the Mises Institute, and I hope you take the time to read them. There's a wealth of knowledge there regarding just about any economic topic.
You said no markets are needed because there's no growth, do you really want to live in an economy where there's no growth? An economy with no growth would eventually become a third world country. Not to mention the misallocation of resources that would ultimately lead to the collapse of the entire system.
Any that advocate a free market, which, as I've already mentioned, is a theoretical concept that has never existed.
Which is a type of representative democracy.
Alternatively, one could say that abolishing private property would allow more people to have ownership in all industry, as well as have a say in how it's run, because that's what socialism is, economic democracy. But, either way you look at it, private property isn't going to be abolished anytime soon, and neither will the Fed or government-run regulatory agencies.
Perhaps I phrased that wrong. I believe planned economy would work better.
While I think the term "third world" is rather out-dated, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine back in May. We were discussing GM, Chrysler and the offshoring of our manufacturing, and I mentioned that the way I see it:
I think the fact that Ford is building another new assembly plant in China in order to compete with GM helps to illustrate my point. As I said in an earlier part of the same conversation:
But I don't think that government ownership via stocks, such as in the case of GM, will stop outsourcing. In fact, it hasn't. When I said "greater government involvement," I was referring to things like tariffs, stricter trade policies and outright nationalization if needed, not simply ownership of stock in a given company.
The problem is that, when owning stocks, the main focus is on returns, so whatever makes a profit is seen as a good thing from that point of view. And if a company can make more profit by offshoring its manufacturing, all the better. The stockholders benefit regardless of where those manufacturing jobs are located, i.e., there's no real incentive for stockholders to keep them here, and even less so if it means a better return on their investment.
The way I see it, giving workers direct control and ownership is one way to ensure that manufacturing and other product based jobs stay here, regardless of the industry, because it's in their best interest.
That's a given. My suggestion is to keep reading Mises.org.
The government should cut taxes and quit enacting so many foolish regulations, perhaps give these corporations a reason to stay here.
Okay, well I'm a member of the 'working class' as it were. I have a blue collar job that I started at the bottom with. I showed up to work the first day knowing that I'd make a certain hourly rate.
I worked really hard, and harder than most of the other people around me. So I advanced in the company and the second year, I made more money.
Can you tell me how I'm being oppressed by the capitalists who run the company?
And my second point. The company operates like this. We paint houses and our warehouse is privately run by an individual (so not run by the workers). We go out, paint houses as directed by the managers, and collect our calculated sum every two weeks. It's a win/win. The boss gets his houses painted, he makes his profit, and I get my paycheck.
What would be a better way to run the company?
And thus far all I've seen from you are fairly textbook libertarian responses. Looks like textbooks rule the day.
Has it really? Look at, for example, migrant farmers during the great depression who were driven off their farms then denied at just about every opportunity to make an honest living a decent wage for themselves and their families. I fail to see how capitalism led to a higher standard of living for these folks.
But if my experience with libertarians is any indication I suspect you're too blinded by ideology to ever admit that capitalism is anything less than a perfect, infallible system that leads to a golden land of plenty for everyone.
What incentive would those corporations have to keep jobs here when they can ship them overseas and have those same jobs performed at a fraction of the cost? Seriously? You have the option of having television set manufactured by one group of workers at $15/hour per worker, or of having those TV sets manufactured by another group of workers at $5/day per worker which do you choose? What incentive do you have to use the $15/hour group?
Her philosophy gets problematic as soon as you look at her life and that of her followers.
I gave you a textbook answer because that's what you gave me. If you look throughout this thread I've explained why communism fails economically. Not exactly a textbook answer.
Well whatever your experience with libertarians in the past, I've already said in this thread capitalism isn't a perfect system. Not everyone is going to "win," so to speak. However, capitalism gives everyone the best chance to "win." Unlike communism or socialism which just forces everyone's standard of living down.
As to the Great Depression, that was not a failure of capitalism, but a failure of central banking. History shows that tampering with interest rates will lead to a recession, and that's what the Federal Reserve did.
If taxes were cut and regulations not as severe it would certainly be more attractive to do business here in the U.S. However, some companies may still move overseas to avoid the higher cost of employment brought about by unionization. But I fail to see how unions pricing themselves out of a job would be the fault of the business.
Its why it will never work because we as deluded beings are all self centred.
Yeah, it is pretty textbook. I've heard these same arguments more times that I could hope to recount.
This kinda contradicts your previous statement of capitalism always raising the standard of living for everyone.
True communism has never really been implemented. What has been implemented is totalitarian regimes under the guise of communism.
Forgive me, I should have stated "Dust Bowl" rather than "Great Depression".
What regulations, exactly, do you feel should be cut to make doing business here more attractive? And if I'm ignorant here then pardon me, but wouldn't a business headquartered in the U.S. still be subject to the same taxes regardless of where it's actual production takes place?
How are you oppressed by the capitalist system of production? The short answer is, (1) the capitalist — or employer if you prefer — profits far more from your labour than you do (exploitation), and (2) the product of your labour doesn’t legally belong to you (alienation).
Labour creates wealth (surplus value). But in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, the product of your labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism).
Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from your labour into their company while you, the labourer, are forced to spend your meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So from one perspective, an individual might look at it like, "Wow, some guy will pay me a few bucks an hour to paint houses; now I'll have some money for rent, bills and food." But from another, wider perspective, there’s an entire class of people who’ve been created by the capitalist mode of production who must sell their labour in order to survive while others thrive by exploiting that labour.
This doesn’t mean, however, that the employer is necessarily the "bad guy," or even consciously in charge of this exploitation, since, as a friend of mine points out, "... the logic of the system seems to force the hand of the bourgeoisie as much as that of the proletariat."
But it's voluntary. If my employer agrees to hire me and I agree to work for him for X dollars, I fail to see the exploitation. Sure, I'm selling my labor, but so so what? I'm selling a skill-set. I'm selling experience in the field.
The reason I accept some of the libertarian principles on economics, is because it views contracts between individuals as extremely vital to a free society.
If there was ever a strong movement in my company to unionize, I would be the first to throw down my paint brush and leave. I refuse to pay union dues, and I don't think unions really care about workers. They would sooner prefer to be out of a job completely than be payed a little less than their idea of a just wage.
But all that being said, what would be a more just way for my business to be run.
I've also heard the Great Depression was caused by the trickle-down economic policies (or "free-enterprise principles," as Reagan called them) in vogue during the 20s. To be honest, I'm not sure what the real causes were, but it doesn't really matter; it was still a failure of capitalism, just not of free market capitalism.
It doesn't matter whether it's voluntary or not; in fact, that's already assumed. The point is still same.
I know that you don't agree with what I've said, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I'm simply trying to explain what Marx meant by "exploitation," etc.
Of course, social contracts are important in any society. It's the nature of those contracts and the bias of their terms within the context of the capitalist mode of production that's being questioned here.
You've said this before, and while I don't want to debate the pros and cons of unions, I'd at least like to point out that it was unions who fought for things like the abolishment of child labour, the 40 work day, weekends, paid vacations, workers' compensation, etc.
I'd say for it to be worker-owned and operated, but it doesn't really matter since it'd still be within the context of a capitalist system.
The Lotus Lounge Hey, lay off the heady discussions! This is the place to post "anything else"
WOW!
So many threads have gone off the deep end lately.
There ain't no justice.
I thought the same thing. But where else would it go? Not really current events since we're debating Marx.
History bears out the fact that capitalism, though not perfect, is a better economic system than communism. Haven't I heard that communism is now dead?
Russia, China tried it, but from my reading, I dont think that they even got to becoming a truly Marxist country before they realize that they have to be part of the new world economic order if they want to succeed.
Even China is opening up its economy to foreign companies and encouraging entreprenuerialship among its citizens.
I was reading an article by Freeman Dyson who said that an economic power stays on only for about 150 years based on history, so the U. S. has only 50 years left. He is predicting, as most economists do, that the next economic power is either China or India. (Population has a great deal to contribute to the economic equation. (We are only 20 mil. here in Australia))
Marxism will always be a hot topic for debate in college cafes, but once you go out in the real world and see samsara for what it is, you know we can never be equal because dualities are right there starkly staring us in the face.
Maybe you've heard the joke that its odd how people in FL are born poor and hispanic, but die rich and jewish. Likewise, a lot Americans start their adulthood as democrats and die republicans. Why is that? Capitalist greed. In my view, the way that a typical republican dismisses the concept of social healthcare is because they already have healthcare. If you fired them from their job and put them out on the street, they'd change their mind within a week. This is why I lean towards socialist concepts as they're implemented in Europe. I believe that every person has a right to an education, healthcare, food, water, and shelter. Capitalism is easy and desirable to the 'haves', but hard and not ideal to the 'have-nots'. Lastly, I think Tiger Woods should be the poster child for what's wrong with capitalism. Take a billion dollars and siphon it out of the pockets of the working class and give it to a personality-lacking cheat who does seemingly nothing beneficial to anyone. Great system we have.
brian
Looking at political philosophies from outside the process, as far as is possible, it seems to me that each one of them strives for human betterment, even if the definitions of "betterment" vary. Success seems to come more from dialogue than from argument and camping on an "Us vs. Them" position.
Both capitalist and socialist systems, republican and monarchic present me with serious problems when I measure them against the Dharma and the Kerygma. All the systems are marked with grasping and ego-satisfaction. It behoves us, therefor, to challenge each and every system in the name of the teachings which we proclaim as crucial, whilst, all the time, bearing in mind (as our brother Palzang reminds us regularly) that "we have no abiding city" in samsara.
When those in power had complete control over the livelihood of the labor force, the laborers were worked to death, quite literally, regardless of their well being; making the laborer a pure commodity to be traded with other capitalists. Look at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I am forever grateful for men like Marx who stood up to the tyranny of those in power to inspire change in the hearts of humankind.<O:p
On the other side, when the workers have complete power to dictate their wages regardless of what their production returns in capital, they will bankrupt the company or economy. <O:p
A healthy functioning economy balances the two. It creates incentives for both parties. Is Marxism a pipe dream? Maybe, but its function to inspire people to have compassion and work towards the greater good of all living beings is not. <O:p
Palzang
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to do what we can.
Palzang
Indeed, but I don't think anyone here is laboring under such delusions.