Capitalism & Socialism

[pedro durruti]

I have strongly supported socialism for quite awhile, but I always feel a little uneasy when I run into intelligent advocates of capitalism, because frankly, I don't know anything about economics, aside from its fundamentals. I am incredibly drawn to socialism because of the equality in essentially all aspects of life included in socialism. But I have always wondered, can it be completely implemented, without any problems to the population, arising from its economic policies?

So I suppose this thread is for capitalists to point out its flaws, flaws that would definitely harm the well-being of humanity, and for the socialist(s) (anyone besides Dropper?) to refute these claims. And let's put aside all Marxist theory of worker alienation and whatnot, and focus on socialism's economic sustainability and adequacy at providing a better standard of living for the people than under capitalism.

[Iskandar]

I guess I had to get in on this sooner or later. Why fight it?

Do socialist economic policies work? Well, what kind of socialism are we talking about? It's a broad ideology, as is capitalism.

[pedro durruti]

The least extreme, but pure socialist. Not mixed, not tainted by any element of capitalism.

[Iskandar]

The least extreme, but pure socialist. Not mixed, not tainted by any element of capitalism.
Is it a planned economy or not? Is it state-planned or directly? These are important questions if we're to discuss this.

[pedro durruti]

Well, since you'll be at the forefront of the defense (or attack), you pick.

[coe]

I've also been attracted to socialism a little bit, but I've not come out and supported it because I too am not sure about the economics and everything else other than equality.

[peeted]

large socialist states will always struggle when they have to survive in an aggressive global market place.

[White Riot!]

large socialist states will always struggle when they have to survive in an aggressive global market place.

mostly from american sanctions and embargos *cough* *cough*

[peeted]

yea thats pretty much what i was geting at.

[-1up!-]

One of capitalism's inevitable mechanisms is that while it makes it easier for profit and capital to grow, those who have little capital tend not to benefit from those effects. I have sometimes compared capitalism to a train - if you can hop on it, you reap the benefits; if you can't, you get left behind. The analogy also works regarding the levels of wealth; while the rich get richer quickly, the middle classes and the poor do not gain wealth as quickly. While defenders of capitalism point out that the poor/mid classes get slowly wealthier, they neglect to point that the upper end of the wealth spectrum amasses wealth a lot quicker. And this is not something to be neglected - an increasing gap in wealth between the economic elites and the poor/mid classes. Such a gap may be a fertile ground for social, economic tensions or whatsoever - what's clear is that nothing too good can come from an increasing gap in wealth between classes in one society. Given that economic elites are in a better position to lobby and put pressure on political elites, we can reasonably wonder if democracy can be corrupted by capitalism, to the point where money has a heavier weight in the political process than the public voice; I'm not saying it is happening, but it certainly can't be rejected without further thought.

[griftadan]

what kind of socialism are you talking about? social democracy? marxism? syndicallism? technocracy?

i've got issues with all of them.

One of capitalism's inevitable mechanisms is that while it makes it easier for profit and capital to grow, those who have little capital tend not benefit from those effects.

i think the finance industry has grown to the point where anyone with a decent amount of credit can acquire capital.

[Jude]

Socialism is an awesome idea but unfortunately its emphasis on cooperation makes countries that adopt it unable to compete with capitalist economies, which is why it probably won't work other than in adulterated form.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Problem I have with socialism is, your fixed into this class that every one is. There's no way to really "make your way up" in it. It could be said that you're already there, but you'll never really reach the status of 'rich'

[HazMatBlue]

i decided socialism wasnt the way to go after the great leap forward. the need for the berlin airlift didnt help either. not to mention the collapse of the soviet union. socialism has yet to work on the scale of the entire country. only small groups have pulled it of, such as the early christians.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I disagree with socialism because it presupposes that all men are equal, a notion I find offensive

[Smokey D]

One of capitalism's inevitable mechanisms is that while it makes it easier for profit and capital to grow, those who have little capital tend not benefit from those effects. I have sometimes compared capitalism to a train - if you can hop on it, you reap the benefits; if you can't, you get left behind. The analogy also works regarding the levels of wealth; while the rich get richer quickly, the middle classes and the poor do not gain wealth as quickly. While defenders of capitalism point out that the poor/mid classes get slowly wealthier, they neglect to point that the upper end of the wealth spectrum amasses wealth a lot quicker.

While we shouldn't neglect the gap between rich and poor, capitalism does emphasise wealth creation. Everyone in capitalist systems inevitably get richer, even if they're getting richer at different rates.

[-1up!-]

i think the finance industry has grown to the point where anyone with a decent amount of credit can acquire capital.

Yes, I should have made my thought more precise: the poor do not benefit as much, even proportionally, from the capitalist economy. While pretty much anyone has a chance of acquiring capital, it is clear that it perpetuates a gap in wealth levels. Whether this is bad or not, the future will tell.

[Smokey D]

I disagree. The poor do benefit in a capitalist economy, even if it's not proportional to their effort or the value of their work.

If the poor didn't benefit, then there would be an abysmal standard of living in western nations.

[MegaPhony]

I can see a lot of the pros/cons in each system.
I just think considering most of the developed nations seem to have this issue with striving for equality and welfare of the nation.
capitalism kind of eliminates any chance for true equality, as long as there are class divisions, how can equality exist?

[MegaPhony]

I disagree with socialism because it presupposes that all men are equal, a notion I find offensive

It's kind of ironic because you're taking the from the perspective that you're better than a lot of people, but ignoring the fact that a hell of a lot of people are better than you.
Equality also has a number of connotations I suppose though.

[HazMatBlue]

perhaps he means that everybody being equal is not the same as being fair to everyone.

[Smokey D]

I can see a lot of the pros/cons in each system.
I just think considering most of the developed nations seem to have this issue with striving for equality and welfare of the nation.
capitalism kind of eliminates any chance for true equality, as long as there are class divisions, how can equality exist?

There is a difference between giving everyone the opportunity to be equal and enforcing equality. I don't really want to go too in depth into this because both of those assumptions are based on misunderstandings of capitalism and socialism, respectively.

[MegaPhony]

Care to clarify for me then please?:)
(Seriously)

[Smokey D]

It's only bogeyman socialism which really wants to enforce equality on all people. The real goal is to seize or otherwise take control of the means of production and put them to working for the good of the workers, not the bosses. It's argued that the workers are alienated from the product of their labour (ie, the surplus value created by the production process) which the bosses unfairly use as profit. This is, according to most models of socialism, unfair exploitation. Traditional socialist models influenced by Marxism also believe that the ultimate and sole goal of capitalism is to produce more capital, and as capitalist processes progress there will be an ever decreasing compensation to workers. This, according to Marx, would lead to a catastrophic decline in standards of living and serve as one of the factors that would lead to the overthrow of the capitalist system. What's more, it was argued that workers couldn't complain for fear of losing their jobs to the 'army of unemployed' virtually battering down the factory gates. In the 19th century, which was a period of massive urbanisation and large gatherings of urban poor, this must have seemed an accurate assessment.

Capitalists argue that it's not exploitative because the workers have freely entered into a contract with the bosses to sell their labour at an agreed price (ie, wages) so that profit can be produced. They also argue that capitalism, as it is truly envisioned, does not deny people the ability to be equal or freely pursue their own goals. By divorcing a person from their obligations to the state, they might more easily be able to pursue what they truly desire, not what some other agency thinks is good for them. According to capitalism, this adherence to market forces will result in the most good for humanity. Further, capitalists disagree with the Marxist hypothesis of declining standards of living, as it has been empirically proven that treating your workers well (ie, higher wages, holidays, expanded workers' rights) significantly increases productivity. Even if the goal of capitalism is to increase the rate of return to capital, it is in the interests of that pursuit to protect your workers. It is also suggested that the army of the unemployed doesn't exist in modern economies which boast nearly 100% employment, and those that aren't employed often aren't suitable to the work required of them.

[pedro durruti]

I think that the theory that everyone has equal opportunity in the pursuit of wealth is one of the biggest flaws in capitalism, in that it fails to consider reality, where there are so many constraints in the pursuit. Does capitalism ever guarantee the abolition of poverty, and universal, adequate living standards?

And Smokey, if you don't mind, what economic approach do you approve of most?

[Smokey D]

Limited welfare capitalism.

[Iskandar]

Does capitalism ever guarantee the abolition of poverty, and universal, adequate living standards?
I would say no. The nature of capitalism is that the creation and distribution of wealth is unequal. Some of the world's wealthiest nations, which could easily obliterate it, still have significant levels of poverty.

[Smokey D]

It doesn't guarantee anything, but it makes the development of a universally adequate standard of living much more likely.

[pedro durruti]

I would say no. The nature of capitalism is that the creation and distribution of wealth is unequal. Some of the world's wealthiest nations, which could easily obliterate it, still have significant levels of poverty.
But is this because of the current direction capitalism is taking, one so full of greed and negligence of the workers?

[Smokey D]

Capitalism doesn't neglect its workers. At least, it doesn't in the first world.

[Iskandar]

It doesn't guarantee anything, but it makes the development of a universally adequate standard of living much more likely.
I cordially disagree, but there's little point in arguing. Difference of opinion.

I'm sure you can agree that whatever economic system is best for creating wealth, capitalism as it is current practiced will never distribute wealth perfectly fairly. "Where there is great property, there is great inequality."
But is this because of the current direction capitalism is taking, one so full of greed and negligence of the workers?
I think it's unavoidable because of property, fundamentally.

[lunchforthesky]

I dont know who said it first but "All property is theft."

Although in my opinion in can be tolerated if living standards are high enough (globally!)

[monkeysonmars.]

proudhon i think

EDIT: but are you saying we should tolerate capitalism because of our high living standards or we shouldn't tolerate it because they are not globally level?

[peeted]

You cant approach Marxism as just a national thing anymore and say that capitalism works because in the uk or u.s we have higher living standards than before. Its a global issue, we may have raised living standards, less exploitation, better worker rights etc in western countries but the majority of the produce that would traditionally form the base of a society are now produced in 3rd world countries were the workers are still exploited and have the option of work or starve. In the western world we have decent wages which allow us to engage in consumer culture which in turn exploits workers in 3rd world countries. The Bourgeoisie/proletariat divide is more a western/3rd world divide now. Nothings changed, capitalism's problems just occur on a much larger scale now.

[monkeysonmars.]

You cant approach Marxism as just a national thing anymore and say that capitalism works because in the uk or u.s we have higher living standards than before. Its a global issue, we may have raised living standards, less exploitation, better worker rights etc in western countries but the majority of the produce that would traditionally form the base of a society are now produced in 3rd world countries were the workers are still exploited and have the option of work or starve. In the western world we have decent wages which allow us to engage in consumer culture which in turn exploits workers in 3rd world countries. The Bourgeoisie/proletariat divide is more a western/3rd world divide now. Nothings changed, capitalism's problems just occur on a much larger scale now.

you've started talking in an international context, but all that reveals is that capitalism with a strong democratic root has solved the issues of poverty in many countries (i'm talking Europe here). Strong democratic states have proven themselves able of standing tall against the pressures of capitalism and globalization and providing for their electorate so in my view all that's is left to be seen now is whether democracy (actual democracy not just a claim of it by the state) can take hold throughout Asia and Africa.

[peeted]

Strong democratic countries have the upper hand because they invaded and colonised African and Asian countries hundreds of years ago, sucked them dry and then left them to pick up all the pieces. The capital required for western countries to invest into industrialisation (which was what gave us the head start over countries in the 3rd world) came from things like the slave trade.

Democracy isn't the reason that we have more successful economies than the 3rd world.

[monkeysonmars.]

it wasn't industrialisation that put the general western population in a better position economically speaking though was it? we have democratisation to thank for that. you didn't get factory owners etc thinking, "oh now we're making a **** load of money out of Asia i think we should share the wealth"; they were forced into improving worker rights and pay through political activity.

democracy isn't the reason we have more successful economies but it is the reason that success is actually distributed more evenly throughout the population

[peeted]

Yes, democratically elected governments do tend to create more balanced division of wealth, but the division of wealth is still far from fair, many governments work against the labourers (eg thatcher) industrialisation WAS what put us in our favorable economic position and theres no reason why a socialist state cant be democratic.

Also wile western democracy was developing we were still colonising the rest of the world, these countries didn't have a chance to develop a democracy like in the west because we were ruling them!

[lunchforthesky]

proudhon i think

EDIT: but are you saying we should tolerate capitalism because of our high living standards or we shouldn't tolerate it because they are not globally level?

In theory i would tolerate it if living standards were high enough, but there not globally equal at all and so some kind of reform is necessary.

[pedro durruti]

Capitalism doesn't neglect its workers. At least, it doesn't in the first world.
How so? I would find that any willing worker employed or unemployed that is financially incompetent in providing all the necessities is being neglected, by the company or the state. Wouldn't you have to have a mixed economy leaning more towards socialism in order to provide for all these workers?

[monkeysonmars.]

Yes, democratically elected governments do tend to create more balanced division of wealth, but the division of wealth is still far from fair, many governments work against the labourers (eg thatcher) industrialisation WAS what put us in our favorable economic position and theres no reason why a socialist state cant be democratic.

Also wile western democracy was developing we were still colonising the rest of the world, these countries didn't have a chance to develop a democracy like in the west because we were ruling them!

the Thatcher legacy is one of the reasons the Cons haven't been in for so long (thank you democracy :p). if industrialisation hadn't been followed by political reform then the public wouldn't be in an improved economic position because bosses would have been able to keep all the profit and continue to keep workers on a wage that barely sustains them (thank you democracy).

yeah you're right about the colonisation but that's a result of a poor (and arrogant) understanding of the world around us and you can't purely blame capitalism for that.

[monkeysonmars.]

How so? I would find that any willing worker employed or unemployed that is financially incompetent in providing all the necessities is being neglected, by the company or the state. Wouldn't you have to have a mixed economy leaning more towards socialism in order to provide for all these workers?

an unemployed worker?

[pedro durruti]

Does being unemployed relinquish the status of worker? Being so wealthy that "work" is no longer necessary to live, or earn more money, would, but not many can do this.

[peeted]

the Thatcher legacy is one of the reasons the Cons haven't been in for so long (thank you democracy :p). if industrialisation hadn't been followed by political reform then the public wouldn't be in an improved economic position because bosses would have been able to keep all the profit and continue to keep workers on a wage that barely sustains them (thank you democracy).

yeah you're right about the colonisation but that's a result of a poor (and arrogant) understanding of the world around us and you can't purely blame capitalism for that.
If all those countries developed democracy as well as we did then there would be no source of cheep labour and as a result we would be paying a vast amount more for pretty much everything meaning that the living standards would drop considerably.
And Thatcher was in power for ages and the pm elected after her was also conservative, id hardly call that democracy protecting the working classes.

[monkeysonmars.]

being unemployed very much does relinquish your status as worker. you could be described as working class but that's incorporating all sorts of socio-cultural aspects.

[monkeysonmars.]

If all those countries developed democracy as well as we did then there would be no source of cheep labour and as a result we would be paying a vast amount more for pretty much everything meaning that the living standards would drop considerably.
And Thatcher was in power for ages and the pm elected after her was also conservative, id hardly call that democracy protecting the working classes.

no it just means profit margins would be less, still large enough to make production worthwhile (as can be seen with all produce created inside economically developed countries) just not ridiculously high.

Seriously would you have voted for Kinnock? there is no way you can argue democracy has not looked after the working classes in the 20th century. Sure there have been minor blips on the map but i mean democracy is the only thing that forced the conservatives to embrace the NHS.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

It's kind of ironic because you're taking the from the perspective that you're better than a lot of people, but ignoring the fact that a hell of a lot of people are better than you.
Equality also has a number of connotations I suppose though.

I'm saying I'm "better" than a lot of people, but there are also a lot of people "better" than me. There are a lot of people in general

Socialism seeks to equalize everyone on an economic standpoint by lessening the divide between rich and poor. It achieves this by taxing (in my opinion, stealing) from the rich and giving to the poor. It assumes that simply because you are poor, you deserve to be helped. It is based upon pity, which I consider the worst of all emotions

[monkeysonmars.]

it's based on compassion and empathy, something most people have to some degree or other. what you call 'pity' is all that stops someone from stabbing you in face for giggles.

[peeted]

no it just means profit margins would be less, still large enough to make production worthwhile (as can be seen with all produce created inside economically developed countries) just not ridiculously high.

Seriously would you have voted for Kinnock? there is no way you can argue democracy has not looked after the working classes in the 20th century. Sure there have been minor blips on the map but i mean democracy is the only thing that forced the conservatives to embrace the NHS.

Your right that democracey works as a moderating force, but the fact is that media is controled by the capitalists, capitalists fund elections and capitalists create employment means that in a capitalist society govenment will never work fully in the intrests of the majority. Even if there was a party that fully represented the image of the workers they wouldnt get to far because of bias media representation, lack of funding and the fact that if capitalists pulled out their investments the economy would crash.

[monkeysonmars.]

yeah we'll never get out of a capitalist society through democracy, but the point is we don't need to. it's easy to say "oh yeah capitalism sucks but gee what can i do it's that damn superstructure", when the point is, the base structure accomodated for the superstructure that we are all quite happy living in.

[fifi trixibell]

Socialism seeks to equalize everyone on an economic standpoint by lessening the divide between rich and poor. It achieves this by taxing (in my opinion, stealing) from the rich and giving to the poor. It assumes that simply because you are poor, you deserve to be helped. It is based upon pity, which I consider the worst of all emotions

Alot of people with this mentality seem to think the poor just need to work harder, that they need to "pull theirselves up by their bootstraps", or that they should have just tried harder in school and went to college. The fact is though, the most important thing you need for success in a capitalist economy is buisiness skill. Bill Gates and others at the top didn't make it to the top just because they worked hard. They got there because they are good at what they do.

Some people, alot actually, try hard at school and at work, but don't really get anywhere because they just, well they just suck at life I guess. Yes alot of people just need to try harder but some people will enevitaly be left in the dust. If eveyone tried as hard as they could everyone would not become magically rich. The naturally skilled people would still rise to the top. Since people don't get to decide whether they are naturally skilled or not, I think the rich should give up their greed and stop hoarding soo much money. Sure they can have some nice things, but they don't need $500 jeans and private jets when there are people out there that can't eat

[peeted]

yeah we'll never get out of a capitalist society through democracy, but the point is we don't need to. it's easy to say "oh yeah capitalism sucks but gee what can i do it's that damn superstructure", when the point is, the base structure accomodated for the superstructure that we are all quite happy living in.
Well were back were we started again, we might be quite happy but capitalism as a system is still hughley unfair on a global scale (and even to an extent within our own country's), we still really on under payed workers who live in poverty and have no choice about their labour. There may be no shellfish reason to get out of a capitalist economy if your a middle class westerner but if your part of the proletariat (which has merely changed locations) your still in the same mess.

[DBoons Ghost]

Since people don't get to decide whether they are naturally skilled or not, I think the rich should give up their greed and stop hoarding soo much money. Sure they can have some nice things, but they don't need $500 jeans and private jets when there are people out there that can't eat

Only the strong survive. It's the process of natural selection. Wild horses kill their lame. Most animal kingdoms leave their weak or lame to fend for self, and if they can't, they die.

If you are weak, prolonging your life on the skill of others means what? You'll still be stupid, except now the richer and stronger are going to carry you on their back. Great. Now, you'll procreate, and produce generations of losers who will know that they can always depend on the rich to take care of them when they themselves fail.

That's not how it works. Only the strong survive. The weak unskilled mop floors and bag groceries. They live in shacks and trailer parks. The world needs security guards.

[griftadan]

Alot of people with this mentality seem to think the poor just need to work harder, that they need to "pull theirselves up by their bootstraps", or that they should have just tried harder in school and went to college. The fact is though, the most important thing you need for success in a capitalist economy is buisiness skill. Bill Gates and others at the top didn't make it to the top just because they worked hard. They got there because they are good at what they do.

Some people, alot actually, try hard at school and at work, but don't really get anywhere because they just, well they just suck at life I guess. Yes alot of people just need to try harder but some people will enevitaly be left in the dust. If eveyone tried as hard as they could everyone would not become magically rich. The naturally skilled people would still rise to the top. Since people don't get to decide whether they are naturally skilled or not, I think the rich should give up their greed and stop hoarding soo much money. Sure they can have some nice things, but they don't need $500 jeans and private jets when there are people out there that can't eat

i agree with him, although i never agreed with the notion that everyone was capable of helping themselves, it just never bothered me as much as the alternatives.

[fifi trixibell]

That's not how it works. Only the strong survive. The weak unskilled mop floors and bag groceries. They live in shacks and trailer parks. The world needs security guards.

Only the strong survive in the natural world, not in human society. We have medicine, glasses, wheelchairs and many other such things to help the "weak" survive. It sounds to me like you wish to punish the weak for being weak.Of course we need fast food employees, garbage men and whatnot. I'm just saying those people deserve more than they currently get. They're not bad people, they just happen to not have the buisiness skill to make it big. I don't see why actors and sports stars need so much more money compared to these people. I'm not saying that the rich should give up so much money to the point of where everybody is equal. Just enough to where the poorest people can eat well and have a functional home.

[griftadan]

It sounds to me like you wish to punish the weak for being weak

not so much punish, as not reward.

[fifi trixibell]

not so much punish, as not reward

Food and shelter are not rewards they are neccesities.

I think it is really callous for an extremely rich person to feel that their money is better spent buying another expensive sports car, when there are people who are starving to death right now. Do they need the sports car more than others need food?

[-1up!-]

I disagree. The poor do benefit in a capitalist economy, even if it's not proportional to their effort or the value of their work.

If the poor didn't benefit, then there would be an abysmal standard of living in western nations.

No I think you misunderstood what I was saying. And it's not the first time; please read.

I never said the poor do not benefit capitalism. I said they actually do, albeit less than the wealthy, creating a dynamic which increases the gap in economic power between "classes".

[Iskandar]

if your part of the proletariat (which has merely changed locations) your still in the same mess.
The proletariat makes up the vast majority in any capitalist society. The only thing that's changed has been the type of jobs we work.
Socialism seeks to equalize everyone on an economic standpoint by lessening the divide between rich and poor.
That's egalitarianism, not socialism. The goal of socialism is to give society a degree of control over its own wealth, hence the name. Socialism is egalitarian in nature, but it's not as simple as applying a heavily progressive income tax and handing out free ****.

[peeted]

The proletariat makes up the vast majority in any capitalist society. The only thing that's changed has been the type of jobs we work.
hit.

As far as alienation and position in relation to the means to production i agree, but in terms of wealth and lifestyle even the poorest of the proletariat in the west (the vast majority any way) are far from the wealth and lifestyle of the proletariat back in Marx's day, unlike in the 3rd world were they still live in extreme poverty and suffer in that way too.
(I'm not saying that alienation isn't important, because i think that's probably the most important part of Marx's philosophy, but the thread starter specifically said that this shouldn't be a discussion about alienation etc)

[Iskandar]

As far as alienation and position in relation to the means to production i agree, but in terms of wealth and lifestyle even the poorest of the proletariat in the west (the vast majority any way) are far from the wealth and lifestyle of the proletariat back in Marx's day, unlike in the 3rd world were they still live in extreme poverty and suffer in that way too.
The standard of living has increased in the West, but so has the divide between rich and poor.
(I'm not saying that alienation isn't important, because i think that's probably the most important part of Marx's philosophy
Class struggle is probably more important.

[peeted]

I don't think the divide between the rich and poor has really increased that much, at least not in a single country (comparing the 3rd world and the west then yea id agree) but forgetting about the extremes (both of which are in a minority) of poverty and wealth i think the gaps in the west have actually closed. This may seem far fetched but wen you compare the slum conditions of the proletariat in Marx's day and the mansions the capitalists occupied the difference really is HUGE, even more so than today.

And as for class struggle, yes that was probably Marx's biggest contribution to modern political philosophy and social science but i think alienation is a more important aspect because its the main reason for a class struggle in the first place. if there was no alienation then why would there be a struggle?

[pedro durruti]

Apples and oranges, too much theory. Can we look at some economic practices common in most socialist doctrines, and evaluate them?

[Smokey D]

No I think you misunderstood what I was saying. And it's not the first time; please read.

I never said the poor do not benefit capitalism. I said they actually do, albeit less than the wealthy, creating a dynamic which increases the gap in economic power between "classes".

You said "those who have little capital tend not benefit from those effects". I was merely reinforcing that the poor do in fact get richer in capitalist economies. You did say this, but you implied it was much more difficult for them to so. It certainly is more difficult, but I don't know if it is as hard as you make out. At the least, capitalism seems to make people richer, even poor people, than other systems.

The standard of living has increased in the West, but so has the divide between rich and poor.

Poor folk today live far better lives, for the most part, than rich people of the previous centuries. I think this is a success that shouldn't be neglected.


How so? I would find that any willing worker employed or unemployed that is financially incompetent in providing all the necessities is being neglected, by the company or the state. Wouldn't you have to have a mixed economy leaning more towards socialism in order to provide for all these workers?

This is exactly the kind of capitalism we have today, and, if you look a bit further up from this post, the model I support.


Regarding the divide between first and third world living conditions and the problem of a globalised economy, I think China and India are exceptional examples of the benefits of capitalist enterprise. Both countries had highly regulated economies prior to the 1990s, but by adopting some of the strategies of the west have become vastly richer and more able to provide for their people. Certainly things are not without their problems, but it pretty hard to deny that over time, globalised capitalism is benefitting more people than any other system we've tried to date.

[pedro durruti]

This is exactly the kind of capitalism we have today, and, if you look a bit further up from this post, the model I support.
Which countries are you referring to? I refuse to believe that everyone in the first world is being provided with all the essentials, or that people aren't living difficult, even if mostly financially stable, lives (difficult because of their economic position).

[Iskandar]

Poor folk today live far better lives, for the most part, than rich people of the previous centuries. I think this is a success that shouldn't be neglected.
Neither should the existence of firms with more revenue than some small nations.
Regarding the divide between first and third world living conditions and the problem of a globalised economy, I think China and India are exceptional examples of the benefits of capitalist enterprise. Both countries had highly regulated economies prior to the 1990s, but by adopting some of the strategies of the west have become vastly richer and more able to provide for their people.
India would never have gotten where it is today without decades of socialism, and China is merely proof that a mixed economy is better than a command economy.

[Smokey D]

Which countries are you referring to? I refuse to believe that everyone in the first world is being provided with all the essentials, or that people aren't living difficult, even if mostly financially stable, lives (difficult because of their economic position).

The vast majority of the western world are provided with the essentials of life.


Neither should the existence of firms with more revenue than some small nations.

You now have to prove how and why this is a bad thing.


India would never have gotten where it is today without decades of socialism, and China is merely proof that a mixed economy is better than a command economy.

India was bankrupt and cripplingly poor between 1947 and 1997. Obviously poverty still persists, but I find it hard to grasp that it was because of India's Unaligned command economy.

China is proof that capitalism creates wealth.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

The Indian economy grew steadily from 1947 to 1997. I'm not sure why you mark 1997 as some sort of cut-off point.

[pedro durruti]

The vast majority of the western world are provided with the essentials of life.
The "essentials of life" don't really provide for what I believe make up a good life, or at least the foundations for one. Food, water, clothing and housing aren't enough. And I might add that for all these things there should be a comforting amount, whatever that may be. Free healthcare, an adequate education, and every minor benefit middle and upper class citizens receive that poorer people don't (proper tax funding for communities) are just as essential as the basic life-sustaining necessities. Whether or not a community's tax money provides for the payment of these things, the government, I believe, should provide for them. To grant certain portions of the population privileges and ignore the rest would be discrimination. Capitalism could support this model though, couldn't it?

[griftadan]

so now its up to the government to make sure you have a "good life"?

[Dave de Sylvia]

India would never have gotten where it is today without decades of socialism, and China is merely proof that a mixed economy is better than a command economy.
Oh. Oh my God!

[Rams]

Quality of life is a relative term.

This is like intro to macroeconomics stuff. Capitalism is more efficient than socialism.

[Mr. Ron]

I used to be a hardcore capitalist. But once I got more inducted into the working world I saw how people can easily take advantage of you under capitalism.

[griftadan]

I used to be a hardcore capitalist. But once I got more inducted into the working world I saw how people can easily take advantage of you under capitalism.

replacing the the system won't change this fact.

[pedro durruti]

so now its up to the government to make sure you have a "good life"?
A democracy is meant to grant liberty to its citizens, and when an economic system tolerated by government prevents someone from acting freely, it isn't doing its job. By providing the essentials I listed (and I'm sure I left some out), I believe government will be granting liberty to its fullest capacity. And yes, through socialism you are resricting the liberty of pursuit of wealth, but, by adhering to Marxism, this to me is for the most part infringing on others liberty.

[Mr. Ron]

replacing the the system won't change this fact.

It will lessen, I think.

[griftadan]

A democracy is meant to grant liberty to its citizens, and when an economic system tolerated by government prevents someone from acting freely, it isn't doing its job. By providing the essentials I listed (and I'm sure I left some out), I believe government will be granting liberty to its fullest capacity. And yes, through socialism you are resricting the liberty of pursuit of wealth, but, by adhering to Marxism, this to me is for the most part infringing on others liberty.

you don't want to be free, you want to be enabled. even if i disagree in principle, i don't have to make much of an arguement for that because the practical implications of trying to best please everyone the best at the same time are hard if not impossible to surpass, and create new problems which have to be delt with.

It will lessen, I think.

how?

[Mr. Ron]

you don't want to be free, you want to be enabled. even if i disagree in principle, i don't have to make much of an arguement for that because the practical implications of trying to best please everyone the best at the same time are hard if not impossible to surpass, and create new problems which have to be delt with.



how?

By changing how the government goes about taking your money.

[Iskandar]

Oh. Oh my God!
Not going to explain that arbitrary interjection, I see.
This is like intro to macroeconomics stuff. Capitalism is more efficient than socialism.
Efficient in what way?

Planning economic actions can be very efficient if done properly.
replacing the the system won't change this fact.
At the root of all exploitation is private property.

[pedro durruti]

Dropper, I'm just wondering, why aren't you jumping to my defense here?
you don't want to be free, you want to be enabled. even if i disagree in principle, i don't have to make much of an arguement for that because the practical implications of trying to best please everyone the best at the same time are hard if not impossible to surpass, and create new problems which have to be delt with.
I disagree, for a lot of people not having these things is to be disabled. For example, someone's mother gets cancer. Medical bills are overwhelming, there goes school. Of course, he could go to school through a loan, but that would just put them further into debt, at least for a very long time. Or he could go on a scholarship, but despite how hard he tried in school (poorly funded school), he wasn't able to get into college. Or maybe he couldn't do well in school because he was busy working so often and helping with the family.

And even if it is just enabling people, what of it? As long as in the attempt to "enable" people, people aren't ultimately "disabled," there's nothing wrong with it.

And why is it so hard to do this? And what are these problems?

[Mr. Ron]

Not going to explain that arbitrary interjection, I see.

Efficient in what way?

Planning economic actions can be very efficient if done properly.

At the root of all exploitation is private property.

Well, I do think people should have private property. I'm for mixed economies, not ones that totally take away what is yours.

[griftadan]

Efficient in what way?

its the same as a monopolized industry, the government won't use recources in the most cost effective ways because they don't have to, they're not competing with anyone.

At the root of all exploitation is private property.

i suppose that would depend on what you mean by exploitation, people always seem to find arbitrary meanings for that word.

[Iskandar]

Well, I do think people should have private property. I'm for mixed economies, not ones that totally take away what is yours.
Neither am I. There's a vast difference between taking away everything from everyone, and making everything everyone's.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No there isn't.

[Iskandar]

No there isn't.
Allow me to clarify, since you won't: There is a vast difference between the seizure and control of all property by the state, and the common ownership of all property by everyone.

[italic zero]

i thought you were supposed to make the distinction between private and personal property right here

[Mr. Ron]

Allow me to clarify, since you won't: There is a vast difference between the seizure and control of all property by the state, and the common ownership of all property by everyone.

Yeah but you'd have to seize it from people to make that happen.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Allow me to clarify, since you won't: There is a vast difference between the seizure and control of all property by the state, and the common ownership of all property by everyone.
No, because neither provides any real security.

[Iskandar]

i thought you were supposed to make the distinction between private and personal property right here
Are you trolling me?
Yeah but you'd have to seize it from people to make that happen.
In the absence of any natural right to property, the property relations of a society can be whatever we damned well want. Property isn't legitimate in my eyes anyway.
No, because neither provides any real security.
I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Mr. Ron]

Are you trolling me?

In the absence of any natural right to property, the property relations of a society can be whatever we damned well want. Property isn't legitimate in my eyes anyway.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Ok, but what if that society wants property of their own?

[Iskandar]

Ok, but what if that society wants property of their own?
I wouldn't want to coerce anyone into anything.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't see what is so bad about someone buying a piece of land and saying "this is mine".

[Iskandar]

I don't see what is so bad about someone buying a piece of land and saying "this is mine".
Not initially.

The thing is, though, that there's no justification for saying that land is his.

[Mr. Ron]

Not initially.

The thing is, though, that there's no justification for saying that land is his. It could potentially belong to anyone ... or everyone.

All land is claimable. If everyone had the land there would be conflicts over who would get to do what on which piece of land since its "everyones".

[Iskandar]

All land is claimable. If everyone had the land there would be conflicts over who would get to do what on which piece of land since its "everyones".
But I don't see how claiming land is yours gives you a right to it. Property rights are a legal construct, that's all.

Yes, that would be a conflict. But there are worse conflicts associated with property, in my opinion.

[Mr. Ron]

But I don't see how claiming land is yours gives you a right to it. Property rights are a legal construct, that's all.

Yes, that would be a conflict. But there are worse conflicts associated with property, in my opinion.

A lot of things are legal constructs. People need laws and legal constructs in order to be civilized. Even the most radical communes had laws and whatnot.

[Iskandar]

A lot of things are legal constructs. People need laws and legal constructs in order to be civilized. Even the most radical communes had laws and whatnot.Well, yeah. My point is just that there is no natural right to property as far as I can see. I can't justify it, personally. I've never been able to.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, yeah. My point is just that there is no natural right to property as far as I can see. I can't justify it, personally. I've never been able to.

I know there isn't, but then again all rights are made up.

[Iskandar]

I know there isn't, but then again all rights are made up.
Yeah, and what constitutes our "rights" can vary....

[Mr. Ron]

I agree. I just disagree with you on what rights we should have I guess.

[Iskandar]

I agree. I just disagree with you on what rights we should have I guess.
Probably not that much. It might just be property.

(Actually it's not that I disagree with property, it's a different interpretation of it. You want individuals to own some property; I want society to own all property.)

[Mr. Ron]

Probably not that much. It might just be property.

(Actually it's not that I disagree with property, it's a different interpretation of it. You want individuals to own some property; I want society to own all property.)

Yeah, it probably is just property. I'm a socialist on many things...


I guess with me, it's the security of knowing that "this is yours" or "am man's house is his castle" kind of thing. I like having my own corner of the world to do what I wish.

[Iskandar]

Yeah, it probably is just property. I'm a socialist on many things...


I guess with me, it's the security of knowing that "this is yours" or "am man's house is his castle" kind of thing. I like having my own corner of the world to do what I wish.
But that's not incompatible with socialist ideas of property at all.

[Mr. Ron]

I guess I would have to do more research into the socialist point of view on land and property. I admit I'm not that well versed in it.

[Iskandar]

I guess I would have to do more research into the socialist point of view on land and property. I admit I'm not that well versed in it.
It varies from say hippie commune (absolutely everything must belong to everyone) to Marxist (personal possessions can be justified but not property per se) to Sweden (mixed market). I favour the Marxist interpretation, as it makes the most sense to me.

Remember, the whole point of socialism is NOT to "make everyone equal" as is often misconstrued. It is to give others a degree of control over wealth, as a basis for fairness.

[Mr. Ron]

I like the kind where everyone is guaranteed to not be poor. What would that fall under?

[Iskandar]

I like the kind where everyone is guaranteed to not be poor. What would that fall under?
Well, the point of all kinds of socialism is to do that ... but a popular ideology that focuses on egalitarianism is the welfare state (Sweden, Iceland, Denmark etc.).

[Mr. Ron]

Mmm, I like that. Since most crime is based off of poverty I think everyone being able to afford a living will make the world a much better place.

[Iskandar]

Mmm, I like that. Since most crime is based off of poverty I think everyone being able to afford a living will make the world a much better place.It'd give them the chance to contribute as well.

If you like societies like Sweden, you're probably center/a bit left-leaning economically.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah. I like small government, but strong in the sense of defense and economics.


Basically: "We'll be in your personal lives as little as possible, but if you need economic help we'll be there, and if you need protection we'll be there."

[Iskandar]

Yeah. I like small government, but strong in the sense of defense and economics.


Basically: "We'll be in your personal lives as little as possible, but if you need economic help we'll be there, and if you need protection we'll be there."
That's what I call a government, although I'm not big on defense if it's not necessary (i.e. Canada should not fund a military).

The difference lies in the economy. I want economic action to be planned.

[coe]

We like the same things, Dropper.

[Iskandar]

We like the same things, Dropper.
Cool. Glad to have you in PWNI.:wave:

[Mr. Ron]

That's what I call a government, although I'm not big on defense if it's not necessary (i.e. Canada should not fund a military).

The difference lies in the economy. I want economic action to be planned.

I do too.


Why shouldn't Canada fund it's defense forces?

[Iskandar]

I do too.


Why shouldn't Canada fund it's defense forces?We don't really need a military. Our allies would protect us if we were ever in need, which we are not likely to be. Canada's military is a waste of our federal budget.

Look at Costa Rica: they abolished their military decades ago and they've been fine since.

[Mr. Ron]

We don't really need a military. Our allies would protect us if we were ever in need, which we are not likely to be. Canada's military is a waste of our federal budget.

Look at Costa Rica: they abolished their military decades ago and they've been fine since.

Thats because Costa Rica and Canada are relatively weak countries. America needs to have a military. So, in our case we would need funding.

[Iskandar]

Thats because Costa Rica and Canada are relatively weak countries. America needs to have a military. So, in our case we would need funding.
Whoa, watch it before you call my country weak.

Costa Rica and Canada don't need militaries because they are stable and have few if any enemies. America needs a military because it has historically and is currently pursuing military action internationally.

[Mr. Ron]

Whoa, watch it before you call my country weak.

Costa Rica and Canada don't need militaries because they are stable and have few if any enemies. America needs a military because it has historically and is currently pursuing military action internationally.

I agree.

But I would say, unless you change human nature, there will always be the need to fund armies. Kind of sad.

[Iskandar]

I agree.
I look forward to a future where military action will be less common.

I see universal democracy and development as leading to this.

[Mr. Ron]

True.


In your point of view, what are the major obstacles that are preventing this?

[Iskandar]

True.

In your point of view, what are the major obstacles that are preventing this?
Lack of good government and economic development. I don't really care how these are achieved, so long as they are done with respect to humanity and the planet.

[The Digital Pimp]

I do too.


Why shouldn't Canada fund it's defense forces?

And you don't put an apostrophe on "its" unless it's a contraction of "it is".

[Mr. Ron]

And you don't put an apostrophe on "its" unless it's a contraction of "it is".

Really, no one cares.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I care. You mess with punctuation, you mess with me.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Bitch.

[Eliminator]

wanna fight about it i eat u num num num

[Mr. Ron]

I care. You mess with punctuation, you mess with me.

I'll kick you!:angry:

[Eliminator]

wit his feet

[Mr. Ron]

^^^^

[pedro durruti]

So, what's wrong with nationalizing certain industries?

[peeted]

nothing.

[HazMatBlue]

So, what's wrong with nationalizing certain industries?

socialized industry often cannot respond to a market change like a free market industry can. this makes shortages, which can destroy an industry or a country if the industry is important enough.

[Iskandar]

socialized industry often cannot respond to a market change like a free market industry can. this makes shortages, which can destroy an industry or a country if the industry is important enough.
There's a cost for every action in economics.

[Smokey D]

The Indian economy grew steadily from 1947 to 1997. I'm not sure why you mark 1997 as some sort of cut-off point.

While it was at least partially bankrolled by the USSR. By 1991, India had reached an untenable economic position with state costs far outweighing anything it could produce.


The "essentials of life" don't really provide for what I believe make up a good life, or at least the foundations for one. Food, water, clothing and housing aren't enough. And I might add that for all these things there should be a comforting amount, whatever that may be. Free healthcare, an adequate education, and every minor benefit middle and upper class citizens receive that poorer people don't (proper tax funding for communities) are just as essential as the basic life-sustaining necessities. Whether or not a community's tax money provides for the payment of these things, the government, I believe, should provide for them. To grant certain portions of the population privileges and ignore the rest would be discrimination. Capitalism could support this model though, couldn't it?

First of all, a life with food, water clothing and housing is certainly much better than one without them. Secondly, it is not up to the government to determine what a person wants or does not want, and it is impossible for a command economy to reflect these desires (demand) as effectively as the market.

There's a cost for every action in economics.

The principles of opportunity cost and marginal utility suggest that where the cost of an action is greater than the benefit gained, the action should be forgone.

[pedro durruti]

First of all, a life with food, water clothing and housing is certainly much better than one without them. Secondly, it is not up to the government to determine what a person wants or does not want, and it is impossible for a command economy to reflect these desires (demand) as effectively as the market.
Well yes, but having all that certainly doesn't equal a decent life. For most people, at least. I don't get your second point. These other things would be in the best interest of the majority. How would providing them transform the economy into a command economy?

[Smokey D]

Well yes, but having all that certainly doesn't equal a decent life. For most people, at least.

Yes, but capitalism provides a groundwork on which to achieve these things and then using them to gain more consumer goods.

I don't get your second point. These other things would be in the best interest of the majority. How would providing them transform the economy into a command economy?

What other things are you talking about? Subsidised medical care? Most, if not all, Western states provide that in some fashion.

[pedro durruti]

Yes, but capitalism provides a groundwork on which to achieve these things and then using them to gain more consumer goods.



What other things are you talking about? Subsidised medical care? Most, if not all, Western states provide that in some fashion.
Consumer goods, ie things like fruit roll ups, iPods, and other useless crap that make up the bulk of what consumers buy? If so, what's the good in that? Things that consumers don't necessarily want... but through advertisements do want.


Yes, but subsidizing isn't enough, given the extreme cost of simply staying overnight in a hospital, not to mention the costs involved in the actual treatment. These other things are what I outlined in post number 00069. I think it is wealth discrimination to spend more money on public facilities in an affluent community than in a poorer community.

What's your opinion on Marxist theory?

[Smokey D]

Consumer goods, ie things like fruit roll ups, iPods, and other useless crap that make up the bulk of what consumers buy? If so, what's the good in that? Things that consumers don't necessarily want... but through advertisements do want.

Luxury items which are the things which are the material element of what makes life more than the bare essentials.


Yes, but subsidizing isn't enough, given the extreme cost of simply staying overnight in a hospital, not to mention the costs involved in the actual treatment. These other things are what I outlined in post number 00069. I think it is wealth discrimination to spend more money on public facilities in an affluent community than in a poorer community.


Subsidising is quite often enough. Most public facilities funded publicly receive the same amount of funding, or at least so that it is the same once it has been adjusted for location costs.

What's your opinion on Marxist theory?

Eurocentric twaddle.

[Iskandar]

it is not up to the government to determine what a person wants or does not want, and it is impossible for a command economy to reflect these desires (demand) as effectively as the market.
The command economy, along with all the problems associated with it, is dead. Planned economies are not necessarily command economies.
The principles of opportunity cost and marginal utility suggest that where the cost of an action is greater than the benefit gained, the action should be forgone.
Not meaning to be rude, but I've studied economics. This is old hat.Eurocentric twaddle.
As if all classical economic theory wasn't Eurocentric.

At least Marx was an internationalist.

[Smokey D]

The command economy, along with all the problems associated with it, is dead. Planned economies are not necessarily command economies.

You can set economic goals, but co-opting massive amounts of resources into human betterment beyond basic infrastructure is going to result in inefficiency.


Not meaning to be rude, but I've studied economics. This is old hat.

Then you saying all actions in economics have a cost isn't the end of the story. You have to figure out which is more or less costly per unit of benefit.

As if all classical economic theory wasn't Eurocentric.

Course it is.


At least Marx was an internationalist.

He tried, but he didn't succeed very well.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

While it was at least partially bankrolled by the USSR.
source?

Then you saying all actions in economics have a cost isn't the end of the story. You have to figure out which is more or less costly per unit of benefit.
unit of benefit?

[pedro durruti]

Luxury items which are the things which are the material element of what makes life more than the bare essentials.
But won't luxury goods, and all goods for that matter, be much more expensive in proportion to what they cost now once labor costs throughout the world are on a much more equal level? Which sort of brings me to another question, regarding capitalism's growth. You know, always seeking new markets, always expanding and apparently (so I've heard) will eventually be unable to support itself. Is there any truth in this?
Subsidising is quite often enough. Most public facilities funded publicly receive the same amount of funding, or at least so that it is the same once it has been adjusted for location costs.
So for everyone who receives medical treatment, there is no financial burden involved?

Equal funding then doesn't mean equal quality.
Eurocentric twaddle.
All of it?

[peeted]

Does Engels later work count as classical Marxism? That certainly wasn't eurocentric.

[Rams]

But won't luxury goods, and all goods for that matter, be much more expensive in proportion to what they cost now once labor costs throughout the world are on a much more equal level?

Supply-Demand. It makes no sense for businesses to charge more/less than they are going to get the optimal amount of money.

Labor costs wouldn't go up (equalize?) ceteris paribus.

[Smokey D]

source?

Bankrolled is the wrong word, but significant trading relations existed. The Soviet Union was particularly important in the supply of military hardware.


unit of benefit?

You can quantify benefit, more or less.

But won't luxury goods, and all goods for that matter, be much more expensive in proportion to what they cost now once labor costs throughout the world are on a much more equal level? Which sort of brings me to another question, regarding capitalism's growth. You know, always seeking new markets, always expanding and apparently (so I've heard) will eventually be unable to support itself. Is there any truth in this?

Wages will never be equal across the world, so there will always be people who have to take industrial manufacturing jobs. Also, with the increased rate and efficiency of mechanisation, labour costs could decrease -- especially if there was a significant disincentive (the increased wages you've alluded to) in the employment of human labour.

Capitalism's growth is fundamentally limited by the amount of resources available in the system, but this is the same with any economic model. Capitalism might be able to sustain growth beyond the physical constraints on what's available through the development of informational and intellectual property, and other 'virtual' commodities.

So for everyone who receives medical treatment, there is no financial burden involved?

Of course there's a financial burden. It's impossible to avoid, even if something is fully subsidised.

There's also going to be a burden in securing the revenue to provide the subsidy. Taxation has profound consequences in itself on an economic situation.


Equal funding then doesn't mean equal quality.

Then there's a problem wrong with something other than the economics.

All of it?

The important bits, especially the dialectic and historical materialism.

Does Engels later work count as classical Marxism? That certainly wasn't eurocentric.

Unless he radically opposed the Marxist hypothesis that all labour -capital relations would parallel the European model and that this was an inevitable feature of society, he was still being Eurocentric.

[peeted]

Unless he radically opposed the Marxist hypothesis that all labour -capital relations would parallel the European model and that this was an inevitable feature of society, he was still being Eurocentric.

Well "Origin of the Family" is based on anthropomorphic studies of the cultural development of native Americans...id hardly call that euro-centric.

[Iskandar]

Unless he radically opposed the Marxist hypothesis that all labour -capital relations would parallel the European model and that this was an inevitable feature of society, he was still being Eurocentric.
Not when you consider the globalization of capital.

[Smokey D]

Well "Origin of the Family" is based on anthropomorphic studies of the cultural development of native Americans...id hardly call that euro-centric.

What's the conclusion?


Not when you consider the globalization of capital.

If anything, the world has adopted an American model, which is radically different to the European capital structure of the 19th century. Also, you (and Marx) suppose that there will not be further developments which will diversify or change the way business is conducted.

[italic zero]

Well "Origin of the Family" is based on anthropomorphic studies of the cultural development of native Americans...id hardly call that euro-centric.
I'd also hardly call it relevant.

[Iskandar]

If anything, the world has adopted an American model, which is radically different to the European capital structure of the 19th century. Also, you (and Marx) suppose that there will not be further developments which will diversify or change the way business is conducted.
What has changed about the fundamental nature of capitalism since then? He was correct that capitalism is a self-perpetuating system.

[Smokey D]

What has changed about the fundamental nature of capitalism since then? He was correct that capitalism is a self-perpetuating system.

The growth of markets, diversification and increased liquidity in virtually all aspects of economic activity. It's not as if Microsoft resembles the capital-labour/management/financial set up of some 19th century Viennese factory.

This is one of the problems of Marx. Where he sees revolutions there are more often evolutions and creeping normalcy.

[Iskandar]

The growth of markets, diversification and increased liquidity in virtually all aspects of economic activity. It's not as if Microsoft resembles the capital-labour/management/financial set up of some 19th century Viennese factory.
It's not as if markets didn't exist in his time. He even noted the tendancy for capital to seek markets and predicted their expansion.

The most concrete difference I see between 19th-century capitalism and modern capitalism is the type of production and thus labour done. Of course, there have been plenty of other important changes.

[Smokey D]

Yes, but the way in which they've done that has fundamentally reorganised the game. Modern economic situations are almost as different from Marx's time as industrialised factories were from feudal production, especially in the first world.

[pedro durruti]

Wages will never be equal across the world, so there will always be people who have to take industrial manufacturing jobs. Also, with the increased rate and efficiency of mechanisation, labour costs could decrease -- especially if there was a significant disincentive (the increased wages you've alluded to) in the employment of human labour.

Capitalism's growth is fundamentally limited by the amount of resources available in the system, but this is the same with any economic model. Capitalism might be able to sustain growth beyond the physical constraints on what's available through the development of informational and intellectual property, and other 'virtual' commodities.
So what exactly does this entail for the class that I believe Marx referred to as the "proletariat"? The inevitable underdog stuck with the most labor-intensive jobs?

Of course there's a financial burden. It's impossible to avoid, even if something is fully subsidised.

There's also going to be a burden in securing the revenue to provide the subsidy. Taxation has profound consequences in itself on an economic situation.
If it's fully subsidized, wouldn't taxation be the only burden? Now, does this really serve as a burden when taxation is heavily progressive?
Then there's a problem wrong with something other than the economics.
That's what I was beginning to think... So how often does this occur in the Western World?
Unless he radically opposed the Marxist hypothesis that all labour -capital relations would parallel the European model and that this was an inevitable feature of society, he was still being Eurocentric.
Wasn't Marx hypothesizing that because the European model was the capitalist model?

[Smokey D]

So what exactly does this entail for the class that I believe Marx referred to as the "proletariat"? The inevitable underdog stuck with the most labor-intensive jobs?


But membership of the proletariat is not entrenched, unlike Marx predicted. Further, work intensive jobs have had a tendency to become less work-intensive which is a rise in the standard of living, not a decline as necessitated by Marx's theory.


If it's fully subsidized, wouldn't taxation be the only burden? Now, does this really serve as a burden when taxation is heavily progressive?

It serves as a massive burden because it significantly curbs available economic activity (as Dropper said, every action in economics has an opportunity cost) by incurring a dead weight loss. Also, there are costs involved in the collection of taxation that cannot be recovered.

Even with subsidised medical care, chronically sick people still endure a difficult life.

That's what I was beginning to think... So how often does this occur in the Western World?

Probably more than it should. I haven't done the research.

Wasn't Marx hypothesizing that because the European model was the capitalist model?

Yes, and I don't see any reason to conclude capitalism would be inevitable for the rest of the world or that it would arrive in the European model.

[quote]

[peeted]

What's the conclusion?

That the family developed in line with the economic base of the society and that due to the legal nature of marriage bourgeois marriage was much less free than proletariat marriage because the laws around marriage were based on the protection of property that the proletariat didn't own any way. He also identified historical stages very similar to those identified by Marx in Europe.

[Smokey D]

And he reached this conclusion using native American society, despite the fact no native American society had either a bourgeoisie or proletariat?

[peeted]

And he reached this conclusion using native American society, despite the fact no native American society had either a bourgeoisie or proletariat?

I'm guessing that's why he used native American society's because they had not reached that historical stage yet, making it easier to find reliable studies of those societies. The last chapter is not based on the same American research. Its the historical analysis which is based on native American society's.

[Smokey D]

Native Americans hadn't reached any sort of similar development to urbanised Eurasian societies. I don't think it's a very good comparison.

[Iskandar]

Smokey D, are you saying the worldwide spread of capitalism isn't inevitable?

[Smokey D]

I'm saying even if some international economic system takes hold it was never an inevitability that it would be European capitalism or that the model which has taken is necessarily the same or even particularly similar as the capitalism Marx identified in the 19th century.

[Iskandar]

I'm saying even if some international economic system takes hold it was never an inevitability that it would be European capitalism or that the model which has taken is necessarily the same or even particularly similar as the capitalism Marx identified in the 19th century.
Capitalism is that international system, and whatever changes it has undergone I still consider it capitalism.

[Smokey D]

Perhaps, but it is not particularly similar to Marx's capitalism, and doesn't really behave in the same way. At the least, it didn't follow the same developments that Marx predicted.

[Iskandar]

Perhaps, but it is not particularly similar to Marx's capitalism, and doesn't really behave in the same way.
I consider it to be a progression from its earlier form, not an entirely new system. Capital is still invested, labour is hired, products are bought and sold.

[Smokey D]

As it was in feudalism.

[Iskandar]

As it was in feudalism.Not nearly on the same scale.

[Smokey D]

I merely consider it a progression, not a fundamentally different system.

[Iskandar]

I merely consider it a progression, not a fundamentally different system.
What is a progression of what?

[Smokey D]

If today's economic system is simply an extension of the 19th century capitalist ethos, then that we hire labour, invest resources and produce, buy and sell products is merely a progression of feudalism, not something radically new.

[Iskandar]

If today's economic system is simply an extension of the 19th century capitalist ethos, then that we hire labour, invest resources and produce, buy and sell products is merely a progression of feudalism, not something radically new.
Capitalism even in its earliest form was obviously a marked departure from feudalism.

[Smokey D]

Not really. The lords were frequently the ones providing the greatest impetus for capital development, and they did so using resources procured from their estates.

[i don't know lol]

neither system of government will ever be ideal for all people. therefore both are flawed, imo

[pedro durruti]

But membership of the proletariat is not entrenched, unlike Marx predicted. Further, work intensive jobs have had a tendency to become less work-intensive which is a rise in the standard of living, not a decline as necessitated by Marx's theory.
What I want to know is that once cheap labor can no longer be acquired except when done covertly, with a corresponding increase in the price of goods, how this will affect the poorer classes.

And, going back to that other post, I wonder what will happen with unemployment when machines replace humans for a number of jobs.
It serves as a massive burden because it significantly curbs available economic activity (as Dropper said, every action in economics has an opportunity cost) by incurring a dead weight loss. Also, there are costs involved in the collection of taxation that cannot be recovered.

Even with subsidised medical care, chronically sick people still endure a difficult life.
But aren't there multiple countries with universal healthcare who have a stable, dynamic market? As I stated earlier, I'm not very good at economics, even after I read the article on dead weight loss on wikipedia. And yes, but taxes wouldn't be collected if there wasn't a higher margin of return.

I know, but there's no need to make life even more difficult with financial matters.


And just sort of a random question, what is Cuba like?

[Rams]

What I want to know is that once cheap labor can no longer be acquired except when done covertly, with a corresponding increase in the price of goods, how this will affect the poorer classes.

And, going back to that other post, I wonder what will happen with unemployment when machines replace humans for a number of jobs.

Doubt it will change much than it has now. Suppliers will still set their products at a price that is accessible by most of its market to achieve the maximum profit. If their input prices are too high forcing them to charge too much, then they wont sell it because it isn't profitable enough.


Machines have already replaced humans in many markets. It just leads way to new jobs to be opened up.

[Smokey D]

What I want to know is that once cheap labor can no longer be acquired except when done covertly, with a corresponding increase in the price of goods, how this will affect the poorer classes.

Some section of the population will always be cheaper to employ relative to everyone else.



And, going back to that other post, I wonder what will happen with unemployment when machines replace humans for a number of jobs.

Information economies. Provided it's not an overnight shift, the world should be able to adjust.

But aren't there multiple countries with universal healthcare who have a stable, dynamic market? As I stated earlier, I'm not very good at economics, even after I read the article on dead weight loss on wikipedia. And yes, but taxes wouldn't be collected if there wasn't a higher margin of return.

The entire first world, really. Except maybe America.

And the more you tax, the smaller the marginal return on the tax.


And just sort of a random question, what is Cuba like?

Paradise lost, or so I've heard. Universal healthcare and education are all well and good, but the country is pretty much running on fumes and Castro's personality.

[Iskandar]

Paradise lost, or so I've heard. Universal healthcare and education are all well and good, but the country is pretty much running on fumes and Castro's personality.
Castro's impending death won't improve much either, I think.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Bankrolled is the wrong word, but significant trading relations existed. The Soviet Union was particularly important in the supply of military hardware.

"bankrolled" and "significant trading relations" are completely different things.

You can quantify benefit, more or less.
how?

[Smokey D]

"bankrolled" and "significant trading relations" are completely different things.

It's difficult to see how India would have maintained its economic model without support from the USSR.

how?

Utility.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

It's difficult to see how India would have maintained its economic model without support from the USSR.

again: source?

Utility.
nope that's not an explanation.

[Smokey D]

again: source?

Wiki it. I don't have history books on hand.


nope that's not an explanation.

Any basic cost benefit analysis quantifies benefit. Of course, it's not an absolute number, but seeks to describe it relative to other possible actions. "I like Coke more than I like Pepsi" quantifies the enjoyment I get out of the two products.

[pedro durruti]

Some section of the population will always be cheaper to employ relative to everyone else.
Why?
Information economies. Provided it's not an overnight shift, the world should be able to adjust.
What kind of entry-level jobs make up this market?
The entire first world, really. Except maybe America.

And the more you tax, the smaller the marginal return on the tax.
So what's the problem with universal healthcare?

?
Paradise lost, or so I've heard. Universal healthcare and education are all well and good, but the country is pretty much running on fumes and Castro's personality.
I want to vacation there. Do you know which hotel I should stay at?

[Smokey D]

Why?

The dialectics of business.


What kind of entry-level jobs make up this market?

Computer systems, research, writing etc. Plus information economies would be chiefly supported in balance of payments by the sale of information, but no doubt commerce and entertainment would be the main source of work.

So what's the problem with universal healthcare?

There's nothing wrong with it. There's something wrong with co-opting a nation's resources into more than just things like the national health.


I want to vacation there. Do you know which hotel I should stay at?

Never been, unfortunately. I understand it's cheap as chips, so stay at a four/five star if possible. It won't cost you very much compared to hotel accommodation in the first world.

Beers are like 50cents, if you dig that.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Wiki it. I don't have history books on hand.

I can't see anything about it on the wiki for indian economic history.

"I like Coke more than I like Pepsi" quantifies the enjoyment I get out of the two products.
begging the question

Still, even if i were to agree, all you are able to say is that Utility from A > utility from B for one person -- rank preferences. And you can only determine this when that person has consciously ranked their preferences. And this does not allow you to compare the utility between different people.

[Smokey D]

I can't see anything about it on the wiki for indian economic history.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1721/17210170.htm

Still, even if i were to agree, all you are able to say is that Utility from A > utility from B for one person -- rank preferences. And you can only determine this when that person has consciously ranked their preferences. And this does not allow you to compare the utility between different people.

Prices rank utility.

[pedro durruti]

Man, I'm all out of questions for now. I feel confused, alone, and a little cold. I still feel fundamentally opposed to capitalism, but if it's 'better', I'll accept it as legitimate. I just don't know...
Computer systems, research, writing etc. Plus information economies would be chiefly supported in balance of payments by the sale of information, but no doubt commerce and entertainment would be the main source of work.
WHAT?

This seems like you have to be more qualified to work

Never been, unfortunately. I understand it's cheap as chips, so stay at a four/five star if possible. It won't cost you very much compared to hotel accommodation in the first world.

Beers are like 50cents, if you dig that.
:chug:

[Smokey D]

WHAT?

This seems like you have to be more qualified to work

Virtually all jobs require some degree of expertise.

[pedro durruti]

I know but it sounds like information requires more than a high school diploma!

[Smokey D]

So do most jobs. If not a diploma, work experience.

[Iskandar]

The trend in general in the last century has been to need more education to work.

[pedro durruti]

Going back to an earlier question, Smokey, do you find anything wrong with nationalizing certain industries (rail, coal, etc.)?

[Mr. Ron]

I thought of something today.


The state and federal government both can tax you. Well, what if the state could only tax you, then the states would decide how much of that earned tax they would give to the government?

[Smokey D]

Going back to an earlier question, Smokey, do you find anything wrong with nationalizing certain industries (rail, coal, etc.)?

That depends on a whole raft of factors. The decision to nationalise has to be made with consideration given to the size of the population, the willingness of private business both to invest and give adequate returns, the difficulty involved in securing compliance, the power of the state in relation to corporate interests, the tendency towards natural monopolies in certain industries etc.



The state and federal government both can tax you. Well, what if the state could only tax you, then the states would decide how much of that earned tax they would give to the government?

I'm not sure how different it would b to what we have today.

The Federal government has an expensive role to play in the modern world. I don't know if the states would be willing to provide it with the funds it needs to carry out its business (even if we could live in some hypothetical world without corruption and an overly large government).

[pedro durruti]

Well, I know this might be asking too much, but can we look at some examples that had different results?

[Smokey D]

I don't really have any examples off hand, but one of the dangers of nationalisation is that it sacrifices efficiency for political expediency. This can have terrible effects for the economy, long term, as it ends up requiring more resources than can be supplied. Rail companies are notorious for doing this -- when rail was denationalised in New Zealand in the 1980s, only a third of the staff were kept. This suggests that the company had been operating below profit for several years, sopping up the unemployed (which was beneficial to the government's popularity figures) but requiring a significant outlay in tax revenue to pay for the additional staff.

However, sometimes the benefits to society from a nationalised (or semi-nationalised) company help more than they harm. The BBC is at least partially nationalised, but it fills quite a vital role in the UK's media discourse.

[pedro durruti]

Don't profits create a lot of revenue that can be used for social programs and whatnot? Or provide citizens with free or extremely cheap goods/services?

[Smokey D]

That's only true if a company is operating at profit. In many cases, this requires a company to operate with a market mentality, which can (but not always) defeat the purpose of nationalisation.

[pedro durruti]

Hellow fellows, on a scale of 1 to 10, what would you rate the Scandanavian countries? Ten being Communist Russia, zero being capitalism in the "good old days."

[Iskandar]

Hellow fellows, on a scale of 1 to 10, what would you rate the Scandanavian countries? Ten being Communist Russia, zero being capitalism in the "good old days."
I'd hardly call the USSR the ultimate in socialist experiments, but if you merely meant "ten is far left economics and zero is far right" then the Scandanavian countries might be somewhere around 4-5. Sweden spends something like 50% of its annual GDP on things like social services and nationalized industry.

[griftadan]

yeah i guess that would warrant about a 5 if 50% of the GDP is in public hands.

[Smokey D]

I want to point out that the Scandanavian countries aren't actually socialist. They are merely welfare capitalist states (although they emphasise the welfare aspect much more than most others). There is a big difference.

As such, I don't know if I would rate them as socialist at all.

[-1up!-]

Prices rank utility.

lol are you serious?

[Smokey D]

lol are you serious?

They give an indication of the satisfaction gained from the consumption of any given good. Of course, they are not perfect indicators -- it is exceedingly difficult to measure anything with certainty in self-regulating systems like economies -- but they are the closest thing we have to approximations over large numbers of people.

[griftadan]

lol are you serious?

considering utility is largely subjective, uh yeah.

[Iskandar]

I want to point out that the Scandanavian countries aren't actually socialist. They are merely welfare capitalist states (although they emphasise the welfare aspect much more than most others). There is a big difference.

As such, I don't know if I would rate them as socialist at all.
Canada is a good example of welfare capitalism. The Scandanavian countries are good examples of social democracy, I think, an ideology which is really a middle ground between capitalism and socialism. But due to their typically progressive social policies these countries are often called "left."

[-1up!-]

They give an indication of the satisfaction gained from the consumption of any given good. Of course, they are not perfect indicators -- it is exceedingly difficult to measure anything with certainty in self-regulating systems like economies -- but they are the closest thing we have to approximations over large numbers of people.

Did I miss out on something? Wasn't there a good ol' time where product prices were determined by their production cost, labor price, offer and demand? :mad:

[Smokey D]

What do you think determines demand if not the satisfaction consumers get from a product?

[GreyHam]

socialism goes against certain human instincts, which is why it works amazingly well in small communes but would be incerdibly difficult to implement on a wide level without coersion. which leads us back to communist russia, autocracies, and various other maggubins that we usually dont like that much

smurfs = communists

[Iskandar]

which leads us back to communist russia, autocracies, and various other maggubins that we usually dont like that much
The USSR and related states were never democratic. They were doomed to become autocracies from the start.
smurfs = communists
Not going to deny that.:p While we're at it, Papa Smurf = Marx and Bright Smurf = Trotsky.:thumb:

[GreyHam]

i was doing random wikipedias and it came up with the smurfs as communists...

sorry i didnt mean to imply that they ever were democracies.

it was 7 in the morning, i was up at 5 writing an essay, leave me be....lol

[griftadan]

Did I miss out on something? Wasn't there a good ol' time where product prices were determined by their production cost, labor price, offer and demand? :mad:

yeah and you can gauge utility by the demand part of that forumula

[-1up!-]

In that case isn't "prices rank utility" a very minimalist conception of demand, one that ignores other important factors?

[Iskandar]

In that case isn't "prices rank utility" a very minimalist conception of demand, one that ignores other important factors?
What factors do you mean? Demand is really just desire + affordability.

[Smokey D]

Whenever you choose to buy something, your utility is ranked. Prices are determined by how much is demanded with respect to how much is supplied. The producer determines how likely someone is to buy their product (by attempting to predict the satisfaction they gain from it), and produces at the appropriate level. This is where utility determines prices, and offers an indication of what is most desired (generally, the cheaper something is, the more it is produced and the more it is desired). Obviously this is not a perfect reflection, but it certainly is one nonethesless.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

neo-classical price theory doesn't support the idea that we can quantify benefit. If utility was the same as benefit then you would have to come to the conclusion that gambling is an extremely beneficial activity.

[griftadan]

In that case isn't "prices rank utility" a very minimalist conception of demand, one that ignores other important factors?

well of course there is also the supply side of the equation.

[Smokey D]

neo-classical price theory doesn't support the idea that we can quantify benefit. If utility was the same as benefit then you would have to come to the conclusion that gambling is an extremely beneficial activity.

It's more about quantifying personal satisfaction than objective benefit.

Neo-classical theorists generally argue that maxmising utility is the most beneficial arrangement, but that might need some critiquing.

[Mr. Ron]

lmao


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VstTwFxNKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXTd9v56LQ

[Eliminator]

i also find such horrible american attempts at discrediting mother russia laughable!

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

It's more about quantifying personal satisfaction than objective benefit.
so we can't quantify benefit


Neo-classical theorists generally argue that maxmising utility is the most beneficial arrangement, but that might need some critiquing.
uh no strictly neo-classical theory doesn't make any judgements about how beneficial something is.

[Smokey D]

so we can't quantify benefit

Nothing can 100% accurately.

uh no strictly neo-classical theory doesn't make any judgements about how beneficial something is.

What that reflects is how the aggregate of everything everything desirable is beneficial. If you want to attack that at some metaphysical level, do so, but don't think it's sufficient in itself.

[metalkingtiger]

Sorry to reveive this old thread but I've been looking for people in this forum with my same socialist views and I've guess I've found it. Anyway, there seems to be quite a few socialist people in this forum so why don't we start like a Socialist Club thread?

[gregulus]

Sorry to reveive this old thread but I've been looking for people in this forum with my same socialist views and I've guess I've found it. Anyway, there seems to be quite a few socialist people in this forum so why don't we start like a Socialist Club thread?

Because there's absolutely no point...

What are you going to do? Talk about how socialist everybody in the "club" is? "Dude, I'm like such a socialist. Today I read 3 pamphlets on way capitalism is evil. **** America, they're evil."

[Iskandar]

Because there's absolutely no point...

What are you going to do? Talk about how socialist everybody in the "club" is? "Dude, I'm like such a socialist. Today I read 3 pamphlets on way capitalism is evil. **** America, they're evil."That wasn't called for at all.

[gregulus]

That wasn't called for at all.

:/. Sorry metalking. I apologize for being a dick.

[Iskandar]

:/. Sorry metalking. I apologize for being a dick.No problem. I just expect better of you.:wave:

[pedro durruti]

So, I read two awesome pamphlets today about evil American bourgeois corporations exploiting foreign workers abroad.

[Iskandar]

So, I read two awesome pamphlets today about evil American bourgeois corporations exploiting foreign workers abroad.I have no time for pamphlets. I read Das Kapital.

Actually, I'm not sure if I want to read that either.

[Der Übermensch]

It's quite boring...

[gregulus]

I have no time for pamphlets. I read Das Kapital.

Actually, I'm not sure if I want to read that either.

Talk about light reading. Be a man and read a book with length, sheesh. :wave:

[slashjunior]

I do agree with The Dropper a lot on this subject. You do not appear to be wholly socialist or wholly capitalist. So what you're basically saying is the capitalist system has a good base to it it just needs to be managed in a better way which in essence is a mixed economy and what a lot of countries practice. If everyone was equal then there would be little incentive to invent new things and make the world a better place and progress. However, if there was no government then there would be no central location to help out the people who are genuinely not fit to work and have severe disabilities or at least creating opportunities and training for people who do not have the skills. It is also good to protect culture and domestic business, there seems to be none of that here in the UK as all traditional companies are brought up by Private Equity firms or foreign businesses, which is one major problem of capitalism.

So looking at today's western countries none of them are purely capitalist because there are always people who will abuse the system and make it impossible for some people to make a living. The governments are there as the socialists to make sure that the poor aren't left out or its residences aren't exploited by globalisation. The effectiveness of governments is debatable in practice, but in theory it is probably the best way to manage an economy. Is this social capitalism? I have no idea about all this lingo.