Why Capitalism Is Doomed: The Contradictions at Its Core

reply to post by ANOK


Capitalism and free market are not identical, like hate crime and crime are not identical. One of them is an attempt at herding people's minds away from clear thought.

From a socialist point of view Capitalism must include the free market because the free market, out side of the socialistic theory, would be a competing solution to the Capitalist-Socialist dilemma and it is not addressed. In other words, the free market is ignored if it is not included under the rubric of Capitalism. Why did they ignore that?

The free market is based on ownership and personal control of one's own property. Stock is about ownership of an enterprise, to include a share of the profits. Without stock or an homologous idea there is no way for many people to own one thing, and socialism becomes a facade in front of fascism.

Your thought seems consistent in your promulgation of the ideal of socialism but your applications sound pre-totalitarian.

For instance, you say the workers own the means of production and the products of production. But how can they if they own no stock. Stock is ownership of a part of a company.

Are you going to define money as not money as well?

If you own a company without stock how can you avoid needing an authority to ensure that you get your fair share? An authority otherwise known as the government. At this point the government has to own everything so the workers all get what they deserve. Government owning everything cannot be free market.

I'm trying to say that the free market is where you start, not vague blanket social euphamisms.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by ANOK

 

Capitalism and free market are not identical, like hate crime and crime are not identical. One of them is an attempt at herding people's minds away from clear thought.

OK, so what are you talking about then? Of course they're not identical, they are nothing to do with each other, and should never have been associated with each other. It has nothing to do with the definition of the term, or it's practice.

Free market is a system completely separate from the system of capitalism, it is a natural form of economic exchange separate from any economic system. Capitalist society is not free, it is an artificial economic system enforced by the state system.

Capitalism being free-market is a myth, actually an outright lie.

From a socialist point of view Capitalism must include the free market because the free market, out side of the socialistic theory, would be a competing solution to the Capitalist-Socialist dilemma and it is not addressed. In other words, the free market is ignored if it is not included under the rubric of Capitalism. Why did they ignore that?

Capitalism can not be 'free-market', when the means to produce for the market are privately owned by a minority group of people who exploit the majority. Workers are not free to use their own capital, their labour, as they see fit. The majority of people work for a private owner, and have no choice but to do so. We can't all be capitalists, otherwise there would be no one to do the work.

I have no idea what socialists you are talking about?

The free market is based on ownership and personal control of one's own property. Stock is about ownership of an enterprise, to include a share of the profits. Without stock or an homologous idea there is no way for many people to own one thing, and socialism becomes a facade in front of fascism.

Yes the private property of the few lucky enough to own it. Why should that be accepted as bases for an economy? Again we can't all be capitalists, if we were then that would be in a sense socialism, except you would have to work and not simply own.

Your thought seems consistent in your promulgation of the ideal of socialism but your applications sound pre-totalitarian.

Huh how do you figure that? I think you are under the assumption that owning property, and using it to exploit is liberty? Liberty for the privileged yes, but not for the majority who are exploited in that system.

That is another capitalist myth. In socialism the workers have the freedom, as they are no longer wage slaves, and caught in the artificial scarcity caused by capitalism. When the workers own the means of production they are released from the exploitation and can produce for their needs.

For instance, you say the workers own the means of production and the products of production. But how can they if they own no stock. Stock is ownership of a part of a company.

Wow you are very confused and not understanding this at all. Who said anything about owning shares? That is a capitalist concept. Socialism is not owning shares in a company, it is owning the rights to the products of your labour. You produce the product, you decide what is done with it. Instead of the product you produce being taken away and you paid a wage, you own the product and earn from that product, the full fruits of your labour.

Are you going to define money as not money as well?

What do you mean by that? Are you now dismissing even the dictionary definition of these terms?

Actually money is only a requirement in a system of artificial scarcity. When the means of production are owned by the workers and they can produce for their needs then money is irrelevant. It is simply a tool of exploitation.

If you own a company without stock how can you avoid needing an authority to ensure that you get your fair share? An authority otherwise known as the government. At this point the government has to own everything so the workers all get what they deserve. Government owning everything cannot be free market.

I'm trying to say that the free market is where you start, not vague blanket social euphamisms.

Again, socialism is not owning stocks. If a company has 10 workers, then 10 workers own and run the company as they see fit. Nothing to do with owning stocks. Worker cooperatives. No one is needed to tell the workers what is fair, they can decide that between themselves.

I agree government owning everything, which is nationalism not socialism, is not free-market just like private entities owning the means of production is not free-market. Stop assuming government ownership is the only other choice, it's not.

Nationalization, also spelled nationalisation, is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is not vague social euphemisms, free market is what we want, capitalism is NOT free-market. I thought I made that pretty clear in my last post. What is vague about it?

Once again please try to understand this, the goal of all socialists is FREE ASSOCIATION...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that had abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism, that causes the class system, the state and the government we have.

(BTW, if this is some April fools joke here, you're too late lol)

reply to post by Semicollegiate


this is socialism:



i would like to ask you to define "stock". if by stock you simply mean a part ownership stake in the business, then yes, socialism is a situation where all workers hold an equal amount of common stock and have an equal amount of control over their workplace as everyone else who works there. if by stock, however, you mean publicly traded commodities, as with a public corporation, that is not even remotely similar to socialism.

reply to post by eboyd


Yes that is the kind of stock I meant.

I don't see a problem with stock being publicly traded. Selling stock is a way for a business to raise money for new equiptment or what not. Like a loan. Let me explain.

Our current system has alot of artificial money that is used to buy property. The artificial money has maximum value at the moment of first purchase but as it works its way through the economy it devalues all other money and allows the concentration of wealth into the hands of the money creators. That is what Ron Paul's basis for sound money is. No money created without physical collateral or perhaps labor collateral at the macroeconomic level.

The process of speculation isn't wrong in itself, it should be the method of retirement. The total amount of money available for speculation in the economy should be the amount of money in savings or by the sale of private property no longer desired by its owners.

The use of the word socialism in most contexts is a reference to goverment ownership of much of the national economy. I see that your use of it is specific to the mode of worker income. Good way to go if you're happy with it.

reply to post by ANOK


Capitalism is used to attack private property, and by extension, free trade in most contexts. I guess you never noticed that.

In a free market a person can own any property, including capital. If it is impossible for a person to own capital then it is not a free market. If an owner of capital wants additional labor for his business, he can sell part of his capital to the laborer or he can pay for labor directly. The laborer has the choice of what trade he wants to make. Maybe the labor is seasonal and so the laborer wants to work for awhile and then move on when the season is concluded. Maybe the laborer wants to work at the business until he retires and so would opt for a piece of the business.

You display a fetish for dogma and lock-step order by your one size fits all blanket endorsement of a social panacea.

Socialism has to be a government, by definition, because it guaranties that everything is "Fair and Balanced"

As in it's against the law to own anything relating to production.

You are separtating economics, sociology, and goverment like they are not related. Everything in human culture derives from economics, that is where all of your needs are supplied from. If society abolishes anything, like private ownership of the means of production, it will need a government structure to enforce the ban. So the government has to keep track of everything you do in your socialism.

Do you know any economics other than the various definitions of socialism?

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by eboyd

 

Yes that is the kind of stock I meant.

I don't see a problem with stock being publicly traded. Selling stock is a way for a business to raise money for new equiptment or what not.

i have several problems with stock, specifically public stock: 1. people can buy uneven amounts of it and the amounts of shares they buy determine how much say that individual has over the business, effectively creating a hierarchy, making the operation of that business no different from a traditionally privately owned firm, 2. stock monies often do not go back into the business to purchase new equipment. they often go as payoffs for large bonuses promised to the guys at the top. 3. by many different methods, stocks allow for people to receive non-labor income, effectively allowing certain people to accumulate wealth at disproportionate amounts for doing absolutely nothing.

Our current system has alot of artificial money that is used to buy property. The artificial money has maximum value at the moment of first purchase but as it works its way through the economy it devalues all other money and allows the concentration of wealth into the hands of the money creators. That is what Ron Paul's basis for sound money is. No money created without physical collateral or perhaps labor collateral at the macroeconomic level.

Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard. while that would probably be superior to the fiat money that currently circulates the economy it still doesn't directly address the issue of scarcity and understand that scarcity is, in fact, a basis for an objective value. we need to understand that there are commodities in our economy that have objective, subjective, and intersubjective values and we need to treat each accordingly. when a laborer creates a product, he's supplying a commodity with a specific demand. the difference between that supply and demand is scarcity (or abundance if the supply exceeds demand). rather than using a subjective theory of value to decide the market cost of this product (ie: marginal utility), or an intersubjective theory (ie: labor theory of value), we need a truly objective value theory. to do this, we need to separate the payment the laborer receives from the price of the product. to do so, we would have to create a currency that is created with the creation of that product and deleted upon transaction. of course this does not address commodities with subjective values, such as art work that has been passed down for generations through a family, or intersubjective value, such as a car someone has owned for a long time and put a lot of work into. for these things, one could use the objective currency to purchase what i call "labor notes". these labor notes would be used to purchase things with a subjective or intersubjective value. i am flirting with the ideas of either having one currency that all agree upon and determine the value of at municipal meetings, or competing currencies as people like Murray Rothbard have suggested. either way, i feel this is definitely superior to the gold standard. it allows products to reach their natural prices.

The process of speculation isn't wrong in itself, it should be the method of retirement. The total amount of money available for speculation in the economy should be the amount of money in savings or by the sale of private property no longer desired by its owners.

i oppose all forms of non-labor/trade income.

The use of the word socialism in most contexts is a reference to goverment ownership of much of the national economy. I see that your use of it is specific to the mode of worker income. Good way to go if you're happy with it.

edit on 1-4-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

the reference to socialism as government ownership is one of the most fallacious uses of a political or economic term of all time. up there with communism, fascism, democracy, and tyranny. socialism, plain and simple, means workers' ownership and control over the means of production. this could be in reference to a single worker owning his own business, or a group of workers owning a worker cooperative, but the basis of the principle is that they all have direct control over capital and, in the case of the worker coop, each worker controls the capital equally on a one person, one vote or consensus basis.

It's not so much the system that matters, but rather the people that run the system (and in it). Theory =/= real life. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and all of the other systems that have existed...history is the story of a very few elite exercising control over the masses through the use of these systems, primarily through the force of the state. Power, especially concentrated power, corrupts and it also tends to centralize over time.

Again, the system doesn't matter as much as the society, and the individuals who reside in it.

That being said (going back to the real world), I challenge someone to say to me, with a straight face, that the average citizen in the Communist societies of the 20th/21st century are/have been better off than their Capitalist counterparts.

And don't give me that "they didn't do it right" BS. It's an old argument that has no logical basis (of course they didn't do it right, not everyone in that system will be rational/moral).

Free market is what we all strive for...well...hope for. If I choose to take my product or services to the market at "price a" and it is too high...then I won't have very many sales. If I choose to use "price b" and undercut all of my competitors, that is my choice and the ramifications of that can be minimal profit margins or loss...but it is my choice to make.

Capitalism basically functions (in my humble understanding) by creating a demand and then monopolizing the resources to meet that demand...thus creating a "false scarcity" of product, services or resources. Edward Bernays was a genius in the arts of creating demand...making people think they needed something they really didn't. His work in the early to middle parts of the 20th century were brilliant...he created astronomically successful campaigns wherein peoples perceived need to 'self express" chocked in huge profits for many-many corporations.

Here is an extremely long video sort of wrapping up what he accomplished and how...based on his uncle Sigmund Freud, he was able to fire marketing right into the subconscious thoughts of untold masses of people...he was astoundingly clever and brilliant...sad that his legacy is the "me-me-me" generation we are now surrounded with....

Just my opinion though...here is the vid....4 hours...might wanna watch it on youtube direct and bookmark it as you go along.

Originally posted by eboyd

Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard. while that would probably be superior to the fiat money that currently circulates the economy it still doesn't directly address the issue of scarcity

I feel that there is very little point talking about Ron Paul at all, truthfully; and this is what I've often tried to say to his followers. Either:-

a] He won't be allowed to win at all. (Most likely)
b] He wins, but has his head blown off roughly five minutes after taking the oath of office.

I don't have any illusions about how the American political system works, and nobody else should, either.

With that said, yes, the gold standard would be a step in the right direction. The entire reason why the banksters don't want money tied to any material of real, physical value, is because if they have that, then they can't game the system. They can only engage in speculation/flipping etc, if money isn't based on the value of a reserve commodity.

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
It's not so much the system that matters, but rather the people that run the system (and in it). Theory =/= real life. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and all of the other systems that have existed...history is the story of a very few elite exercising control over the masses through the use of these systems, primarily through the force of the state. Power, especially concentrated power, corrupts and it also tends to centralize over time.

Again, the system doesn't matter as much as the society, and the individuals who reside in it.

we are not so much saying that if people create a socialist society it will be the "best", as many societies have taken the name "socialism" and created societies that turned out to be horrible, dictatorial regimes. we are simply saying that a society running on socialist principles (worker control over the means of production) will be more beneficial to a larger number of people than capitalist principles (private ownership of the means of production). while there have been several examples of countries calling themselves socialist/communist, no large scale, long lasting examples of the actual principles of either of these ideologies has been witnessed. the same cannot be said for capitalism, and most capitalist societies, including some of the best examples we have such as the US, have HUGE wealth discrepancies, large numbers of impoverished peoples, rampant crime that can be linked directly to economic factors, etc. and the US is an example of a society that has very little of this in comparison to, say, Argentina in 2001 where poverty levels exceeded 56% under Menem's IMF based economic policies.

That being said (going back to the real world), I challenge someone to say to me, with a straight face, that the average citizen in the Communist societies of the 20th/21st century are/have been better off than their Capitalist counterparts.

no disagreement here.

And don't give me that "they didn't do it right" BS. It's an old argument that has no logical basis (of course they didn't do it right, not everyone in that system will be rational/moral).

edit on 5-4-2012 by CaptainIraq because: (no reason given)

i think my explanation above shows how this logic is flawed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a thread I made recently, where I linked to the movie Thrive, which has recently become freely available to view, on the film's official YouTube channel.

I would be very interested to know what Leftist, ANOK, and eboyd think of this film.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by ANOK

 

Capitalism is used to attack private property, and by extension, free trade in most contexts. I guess you never noticed that.

Huh? How is that even possible? Capitalism attacks private property? Capitalism attacks itself?

Capitalism is NOT free-markets for the billionth time. If you're going to try to debate me at least read through the thread and understand my arguments. Capitalism can not be free-market because labour is not treated as other resources are. Capitalists make money by exploiting labour and then investing the wealth created. Workers are exploited because they have to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit.
In a true free-market labour would be treated as any commodity and workers would be able to demand the full worth of their labour. But that will not happen under capitalism, as it relies on that exploitation. The only way that can happen is if the workers owned the means of production themselves, cutting out the unnecessary private owner.

The term 'free-market' was around long before capitalism replaced feudalism, the terms are not synonyms. It is just another example of the capitalist right-wing appropriating left wing terms, and yes 'capitalism' is a left-wing term.

In a free market a person can own any property, including capital. If it is impossible for a person to own capital then it is not a free market. If an owner of capital wants additional labor for his business, he can sell part of his capital to the laborer or he can pay for labor directly. The laborer has the choice of what trade he wants to make. Maybe the labor is seasonal and so the laborer wants to work for awhile and then move on when the season is concluded. Maybe the laborer wants to work at the business until he retires and so would opt for a piece of the business.

That is not the definition of 'free-market', you are describing capitalism. Under socialism the workers own the means of production, they own their own capital, so yes it can be and is 'free-market'.

You display a fetish for dogma and lock-step order by your one size fits all blanket endorsement of a social panacea.

Huh? All I propose is worker ownership of the means of production, what dogma are you talking about?

Socialism has to be a government, by definition, because it guaranties that everything is "Fair and Balanced"

No that is not correct. Once again socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a more fair system because it is a needs based system rather than a profit making system.

Again for the billionth time, do you people ever bother reading, socialism requires no government, Anarchism is the no-state version of socialism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

As in it's against the law to own anything relating to production.

According to who? Socialism is not a set of rules. In a system that teaches the socialist alternative to capitalism, as it would if it is truly free, then people could make up their own minds. If people had a choice as to work for a private owner at an hourly wage, or work at a worker owned company, where you share directly in the fruits of your labour and have a direct say in running the business, most people would choose worker ownership.

You are separtating economics, sociology, and goverment like they are not related. Everything in human culture derives from economics, that is where all of your needs are supplied from. If society abolishes anything, like private ownership of the means of production, it will need a government structure to enforce the ban. So the government has to keep track of everything you do in your socialism.

Yes I am because they should not be related. Economics should not be politicized, but capitalists do that in order to use government to control the playing field to their advantage.

Again government is not required. Under anarchism the workers run and control their own workplace, with voluntary directly democratic organization. Yes anarchism is, and has to be, socialist.

Do you know any economics other than the various definitions of socialism?

Like what? There are only realistically three choices, capitalism, nationalism, or socialism. What do you suggest, that aliens from Mars own the means of production?

Socialism is an economic system, the various versions of socialism are political systems, anarchism, syndicalism, Marxism etc. The political system we have is a result of capitalism, not in-spite of it.

If you truly believe in 'free-markets' you should learn what they are, and stop associating them with capitalism. It seems most capitalist supporters do so based on the myth that they are 'free-markets'.
You support your own economic slavery. That is the power of state control and conditioning.

Capitalism is economic privilege not free-markets. We want a society that is not controlled by force or economic privilege, but through free association and voluntary cooperation.

If you truly understood the history of the working class left (not government 'left'), and what it's desires were, it becomes very clear what the right-wing establishment has done by appropriating left-wing terms, in order to confuse and weaken the power of the working class left.

Nice thread. A lot of people have been brainwashed on how a "free market" would save the world but they never seriously sat down and thought about the implications of a free market, which would be extreme corporate tyranny.

I am neither left or right but I think nearly all political/economic theories have something to bring to the table.

reply to post by eboyd


Stock can be abused the same as any agreement between people. The owners, the workers in this case, can always hold on to a controlling amount of shares. The convoluted stock situation we see today is the result of many back room insider deals over centuries. Stock itself is just a form of real, true money. Money backed by the value of the company issuing it.

Like you, I am also leery of gold as the only backing for money. The total stock of gold could be controlled or outright owned by some small percentage of the population.

In our sound byte media, gold is a shortcut to bring up the subject of non-fiat, commodity equivalent money.

The basic idea is that,
1) there is a limited amount of work that can be done in a given time, and
2)there is exactly so much stuff that has been made at a given time, and
3)there are only so many resources at any given time.

The amount of money should equal the amount of things that can be traded for money. Money should not be created except when the amount of labor, goods, or resources has increased.

reply to post by ANOK


Capitalism, in most current usage, means that the rich peole should give away money, by jobs, that each person is owed at birth. How much is the regular life worth?

Capitalism should mean that a smart person with organizational talent or a green thumb or a gambler's luck or a useful insight into the workings of the world, or a gift for communication, etc. should be able to control a larger than normal share the of the production in an economy. In that way, everyone's labor and the given amount of resources produce more goods.

The life of the economy is production. For instance, food must be made before it can be demanded.

Socialism could be considered fair by some perspectives, but it is not the most efficient way to do anything, except get people to join up. Socialism is alot like organized religion in that it puts a facade ahead of real life.

So the receptionist and the master craftman have an equal vote?