Come on now!? I am enjoying your decomposing of Marxism but this statement is just silly. The Depression was quite clearly a serious crisis which had passed the self-correcting (in a humanly acceptable short-run) stage. Don’t let an ideological slant blind you to very good case for governmental invervention. Or at the least you can say that it remains controversial and complicated.
There was a thread about communism a couple days back. If you want to talk about communism, you should probably go to that thread, or start another one. This thread is about capitalism.
This thread isn’t about unfettered or fettered capitalism, it is about capitalism in general. Unless you want to come up with a system of capitalism that is so controled as collapse can not occur, in which case you should start a thread espousing the virtues of such a system. I believe economists call such a system fascism. That name might have some negative connotations you might have to deal with in defending your position, but as long as someone like Quicksilver doesn’t show up and keep changing the subject, you should be fine. Oh, wait, you are Quicksilver. Well, good luck on that thread anyway.
In the context of this thread, I think oldscratch is examining capitalism as a whole. If you are going to argue that somehow in today’s capitalism, most people do not work a company that makes something and then tries to sell it, I for one am all ears.
Adam Smith is usually held up as THE LAWGIVER of capitalism, a la Planet of the Apes, but Adam Smith disapproved of joint-stock companies. what we now call corporations.
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/pol/Seattlef/abolitionism.html
(these URLs are getting to damn long)
i am not saying that i disapprove of corporations. i think the evolution of technology has made them inevitable. the question is will the way they are managed and what is being done with technology, inevitably crash.
i was looking in a book with essays on macroeconomics last night from 1974. it was talking about doomsayers and pollution. i don’t recall anybody talking about global warming in 1974. it looks like we are going to keep talking and painting ourselves into a corner until the collapse gets here.
Dal ‘one-trick’ Timgar
Hang on a second there speedy. Is it not oldscratch that started his OP by extracting large portions of communist theories to discuss the topic of capitalism? How is it that I am wrong but he is right in holding this discussion within context of both political systems.
Doesn’t capitalism in general immediately imply all manners of capitalism and including fettered, unfettered and purple with yellow polka dots?
I beg to differ but oldscratch is arguing capitalism strictly from the point of view of a communist. It is my opinion that he is attempting to predicting the downfall of capitalism based on a set of old communist critiques. I would be more inclined to agree with him, and you, if you argued the failures of capitalism in the context of capitalism alone. As it is, you are both claiming that capitalism will fail bacause Marx says so. Sorry, not very convincing.
**
Actually this thread is about why communist dislike capitalism.
Marc
Isaac Newton was an alchemist who believed you could find a chemical way of turning lead into gold, and spend the end of his life trying to do so. That doesn’t invalidate his theories about the laws of motion (though, Einstien did.) If someone started a thread quoting Newton’s Laws, you can’t just go ranting that these are alchemist theories as a counter arguement, even if you are technically correct.
Now I know how Ralph Nader feels. So you think there are only these two economic systems, and it is an either/or deal? Fine. But if the Democrats are bad about something, pointing out the Republicans are worse doesn’t mean the Democrats still aren’t bad, right? So, just try to have an open mind. I don’t like communism. But, I still think capitalism can fail and cause depressions and that can lead to dangerous politcal events.
OK. If you want to point out that some limits can be but on capitalism to fix the problems of the business cycle let us know. You perhaps want to get rid of the stock market?
OK, but try to play along a little. I don’t want to be told I’m just oversimplifying everything.
Take deflation for example. Let’s say there is a minor hiccup in the people’s earning power. So, people, who mostly already have cars, don’t buy new cars for a month. Or, maybe they buy old cars instead. Now the car makers look and see sales are down maybe 15%. So, they lower their prices to move their backlog. Now, the hiccup might not be over yet. So the car makers cut their prices the next month too. Now, a consumer notices, suddenly, new cars are getting cheaper every month. Now he only has so much money. Why not wait another month, or two, or more, to buy that new car if the price is going to keep dropping? Which it is, because people have caught on and are going to wait until prices stop dropping until they buy their car. But the makers are going to have to keep cutting prices to try and sell their cars, even if it means a temporary loss just to stay afloat. Eventually, they have to shut down factories, laying people off. Perhaps the whole industry can’t stay afloat.
Now, that presumes comsumers are intelligent, which I know dal_tigmar woud disagree with. But, a minor downturn under the right conditions can create a ripple effect. Maybe that is not the best description of the dangers of deflation, so if anyone wants to jump in.
First of all, Newton managed to prove his theories using the scientific method. Second, Newton’s observations and view of reality were objective.
Again, you’re oversimplifying. Does this “hiccup” affect every car manufacturer equally? I’d say that it would hurt some hard, some only slightly, some not at all and a few it would actually help (say, a manufacturer of cheap cars). Yes, some companies would lose money, but the industry as a whole would do fine. That’s the thing with ultra-complex systems - they’re self-correcting. You sound a bit like those radical ecologists who claim that if a single species becomes extinct, the entire ecosystem will collapse.
according to the book THE MILLIONAIRE NEXT DOOR, 36% of millionaires buy USED cars. that MUST MEAN 36% of millionaires are stupid.
Dal Timgar
jmullaney: Sure, capitalism has it’s failures, and sure I can easily imagine a catasrophic global economic crisis under capitalism. But the question then becomes, what happens after that? Sure, we’re stuck in a depression, breadlines, dogs and cats eating each other. But is the answer to the problem to institute state control over the means of production? Or to pick ourselves up and start over again with a brand new baby capitalist system? We can easily see that a free-market system can lead to wild positive feedback loops. Intelligent governments will do what they can to dampen the loops.
But you seem to think that because we will have a crisis that we must abandon capitalism. Why can’t we have a crisis, get over it, and keep on going? These periodic crisises are bad, but they don’t mean the end of capitalism. What makes you think that replacing a free-market system with your {insert random economic system here} system would be better?
Sure, your example of devaluation could lead to an economic contraction…that’s what happens during recessions and depressions. A company fires one guy, he buys less so the other companies have to fire ten guys, so they buy less so the other companies have to fire 10,000 guys, and suddenly you’ve got a recession/depression. But so what? Does the fact that we have a business cycle, or that capitalism has it’s ups and downs mean that we should replace it with some other non-free market system?
What Marx was talking about was that the capitalists would gain more and more power, essentially enslaving the proletariat. When the proletariat is disenfranchised enough then they will eventually see that they have nothing to gain by supporting the system and will destroy it in favor of a new communist system. But is that what is happening in the real world? Sure, capitalists are powerful. But are the workers really getting so downtrodden that they have nothing to lose by starting a revolution? It seems to me that we are wealthier than ever and anyone who has enough fire and drive to lead a revolution can instead become a capitalist themselves. If we hold to the labor theory of value, then there is no way that a capitalist can make a profit without forceably underpaying the workers. But we can easily see that the labor theory of value is not true, a capitalist can create products that are valued more than the sum of the value of the materials and labor, just like they can create products that are worth much much less…you can spend millions of dollars on a rocket and end up with a worthless smoking crater rather than a valuable telecommunications system.
I do not claim that capitalism is perfect, merely that it works better, more fairly, and more morally than any other economic system THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS. You claim that the counter-examples of the Soviets and Chinese are irrelevant. But if we are examining the flaws of the capitalist system, we must examine non-capitalist systems as well, right? We can easily see that capitalism is much more productive and much more fair than a slave system, or feudal system. But what are you planning to replace it with? If we change our economic system enough we can no longer call it capitalism, right? So how can we say that your proposed system is better than capitalism or immune to the defects of capitalism when it doesn’t exist and has never existed except in obviously dismal totalitarian countries?
And don’t tell me that we’re not discussing Maxism/Communism here, just capitalism. You’re like a creationist who feels it is enough to point out flaws in evolution without proposing some other mechanism that would explain things better. “No, we’re not discussing creationism, I’m just saying that evolution is wrong.” Obviously there are more possibilities than the Modern Synthesis or Genesis.
So you can point out the flaws of capitalism, but that does not mean that they are fatal flaws, or flaws that do not have to exist. The reason we all support capitalism is that there is no other alternative. If you want to propose an alternative you are free to do so, but you can’t expect us to take your objections as anything more than general grumbling and moaning until you do. Since we are currently living under capitalism, it is up to you to show that a change will be beneficial, not up to us to show that capitalism is perfect. Unless your critique of capitalism includes some ideas for change it is worthless.
I can if I can show that his theories on natural laws are based on his alchemist beliefs and thus misguided.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I was not the one who introduced communist critiques into a thread about capitalism’s shortcomming.
The dramatic dismemberment of any political and economic system can be dangerous and painful. But not always. Compare and contrast East/West Germany re-unification vs the former Yugoslavia. It all depends on the political leadership and climate, religious and nationalistic climates and economic variables. It does not have to degenerate into something horrible. Though sadly, it often does.
Given how my stocks have performed lately, getting rid of the stock market doesn’t sound like such a bad idea :), however, I don’t see the up/down cycles in the capitalist framework as problems per se. Much like in nature, every system tends towards a balance. When something disturbs that balance, the system attempts to compensate by establishing a new balance. Sometimes it’s in my favour, sometimes not. I’m not inclined to dump the entire system just because my portfolio happens to be going in the toilet right now.
But you are oversimplifying. A downturn in the new car market always leads to an upturn in the used car market as well as replacement car parts market. People need their cars and if they are not going to replace them they are going to fix them. Thus service garages business improves as well.
I wish I knew all these smart people you are talking about. Maybe one of them could give me some tips on determining the precise moment when the stock market bottoms out so that I can get in and maximize my profits.
Well yes, there is that danger, but given the expanding global economy the likelyhood of this is very small. So as long as I am permited to apply your examples to a more or less real world situation and not some theoretical economic model in a book, I feel confident that it will not come to such a catastrophic ends. Besides, demands fuel supply. If demands drop off (and they are unlikely to do so to such a high degree overnight) then the industry in question will adjust in step. Production will decrease and people will be let go. People out of work will seek employment elsewhere.
There was a very interesting program hosted by John Stossel (sp?) a few weeks ago on just such a subject. A large factory which supported the economy for an entire town was closed down. I believe it was a heavy industry plant like smelting or something similar. People found themselves out of work. Within two years most if not all the people found work again because other businesses moved into the area because there was an available workforce and infrastructure. Most people said they were doing better than in the past. Working at cleaner and safer jobs for more pay. Many people were being retrained for more hightech jobs than before and thus were becoming more marketable.
Is this some sort of critique of capitalism? In the communist worker’s paradise, are manufacturing and travel undertaken on a mass level with magical machines that don’t burn fossil fuels, or something? I mean, really, the former Soviet republics are far more polluted than the United States could ever become even with decades of devoted effort.
Phil -
I think you better brace yourself for the:
rebuttal.
…I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it. 
I’d like to keep this on the ‘labor theory of value’ track until we can get a satisfactory answer out of OldScratch. I don’t want him dodging this, because it’s one of the fundamental underpinnings of communist theory, and it’s demonstrably false.
It’s easier to see how Marx might have believed in it in the late 1800’s - the pace of innovation was slower, and there actually was more of a direct link between labor and value at that time. But with the rise of automation, assembly lines, process control theory, and all of the other modern tools that make us so efficient, that flimsy correlation between labor and value no longer exists. It’s EASY to disprove it. And without the labor theory of value we no longer have a zero-sum economy, which means the workers are not exploited out of their ‘social surplus’, which means there will be no need for a revolution, which means communism as a theory is DEAD.
OldScratch, please invoke Marxist theory to explain those points I made in my last message. For example, if labor is equal to value, why is it that Japanese autos cost more than domestic autos, even though they take MUCH less labor to build? The capitalist explanation for this is that the Japanese have much better management, thus they have better control over defect rates and quality. In fact, U.S. auto makers made an intensive study of Japanese management practices in order to improve their own products. What does a Marxist have to say about this?
And btw, this is DIRECTLY ON TOPIC. This thread is called, “Is Capitalism Destined to Failure?”, but the OP made it clear that he wanted to invoke Marxist principles to ‘prove’ that capitalism must fail. Since he’s using Marxism to prove it, the proper response is to debunk Marxism.
i try to avoid what i call dichotomy thinking, good vs evil, black vs white, capitalism vs communism. argued with a teacher in college about linear vs circular time. i said why not think of it as a helix. from the end its a circle, from the side it’s a sine wave. he stands there giving me a blank expression.
i have no loyalty to capitalism or communism. i do consider capitalism to be an obsolete term to use for the american economy. i prefer corporate consumerism. however, any economist talking about how the western economy works and not talking about planned obsolescence is an ignoramus or a liar. i HATE badly implemented technology. even if this planet had infinite resources and an unlimited ability to cleanse itself of pollution these crappy cars would pi$$ me off.
i’ve found websites talking about the middle class shrinking and The Economist magazine had a graph of the bankruptcy rate in the US rising since 1994. i see many more homeless people on the streets than 4 years ago. i don’t buy the economy is doing great business. who is selecting and cooking the statistics. i noticed the business of depreciation of durable consumer goods TOTALLY DISAPPEARING in 1976. they have been doing that since the end of WWII. how can economists with PhDs not notice that for 55 years. that is where losses due to planned obsolescence would show up. curiouser and curiouser.
Dal ‘one-trick’ Timgar
I don’t think you can say that about Marx. He seems to have worked really hard at developing his theories, then later on uses them to justify communism as a superior system. A grain of salt is fine, but you are dashing with the whole pillar. We all know Marx was a communist.
Sorry.
But if this instability is inherent to capitalism, that should be a real concern even if it doesn’t always lead to such a bad state that things can not recover.
What means “balance”? If I freeze cheese it stays cheese. I leave it on the counter and it becomes mold. Which is the balnced state?
Capitalism is an unnatural system – and I think what oldscratch is insisting on is that is needs to keep growing in order to thrive. Eventually it must collapse, and when it does it is hard to stop. And I can do without world wars, famines, and anarchy every 75 years.
OK, but imagine deflation now in the full scale. Everyone slows their consumption and everything keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. And more and more people are laid off, so they can not even afford to buy anything. You are going to have a lot of hungry, greedy people on your hands mixed in with a handful of rich. And we know how people are – the clear answer is these rich people are swine who got the system in the mess in the first place. They should be rounded up and shot. Oh, and let’s raise an army while we’re at it and “liberate” our neighboring countries from their oppression as well. Oh, sure, things will settle down to a “balance” again – but will it be cheese or mold?
Inflation is just the same problem in reverse.
Don’t look at me. I don’t gamble. :wally
As long as it keeps expanding.
The fuel supply, that’s a whole other… Oh, wait. Ahem. But, man in his natural state doesn’t demand much. Yes, capitalism must encourage greed and instant gratification. Buy now, new and improved, while supplies last. But, how infinitely maleable a creature is man? What happens when the ads stop working? If people didn’t buy half the crap they didn’t need, unemployment would skyrocket, the market would crash.
Busy work, to keep people employed. Of course, people don’t like to see that.
I demand music, art and theater. I demand television, movies, radio. I demand street fairs, state fairs and malls.I demand a PC with some fun games. I demand good food and a nice place to eat it. I demand a nice car and nice places to drive to. I demand fashionable clothes and a place to show them off. I demand sports, games, and a big shaggy dog. I demand books. I demand love, respect, honor, friendship and the feeling that all is right in the world.
Oh yes - I also demand food and a roof over my head. That’s a given. By demanding more than that, am I “unnatural”? Good, because the other option sounds like hell on earth.
Are all these modern needs and demands fostered upon be by the Evil Capitalist Overlords? If so, remind me to send them a thank-you note.
You’ve almost perfected the virtue of greed, Alessan. Keep working on it. But, you lack impatience. It is not enough to merely demand these things. You need to demand them NOW. Do not, whatever you do, slow your purchases in anyway. The fate of corporate consumerism rests on your shoulders. Be strong. Now, go, and max your card.
OK. First off. This has turned into a discussion on the labor theory of value, which it really isn’t. It’s a discussion on the merits of capitalism. Which is why, quicksilver, you are more than welcome to bring up Marx’s theories on economics, but bringing up what happened in Iran in the 1970’s and how that applies to Marxist philosophy is entirely inappropriate. No one has yet disputed the OP. Does anyone want to? Can anyone actually find any problems with it? Because if you can’t, and you have to keep asking me to explain the Labor Theory of Value (which I am more than happy to continue doing) I will conclude that I am right, and you people admit that Capitalism is a fundamentally flawed system, but don’t agree with my alternative. At that point, we can proceed to discuss the merits of Socialism. There isn’t much point in discussing Socialism with someone who thinks capitalism is just ducky.
Or to bring up Lemur’s creationsim reference. If a creatioist, using scientific methods, could prove that evolution as we understand it does not work, there is nothing wrong with it. Thier belief in creationism doesn’t invalidate their arguments. It also doesn’t mean that you have to accept creationism. You do have to admit that evolution doesn’t work though. Same vice versa. If an evolutionist can rove to a creationist that they are wrong, that doesn’t mean they have to accept evolution. And if they kept bringing it up, you could call them on raising a red herring. That is what you guys keep doing. Rather poorly too I might add.
And not only that but the stupidity, yes stupidity, of some of the questions is starting to irritate me. Either cut it out, or I’m going to close the thread. Example?
Let’s see. Use your head. If I have an apple tree, and I apply labor to set it on fire, of course it will go down in value. Or look at the hole argument. I’ve already talked about how labor does not in all cases add value, it should be obvious that it can subtract value as well. No matter how much labor I apply using a sledgehammer to an Imac, it will not increase in relative value. (and don’t bring up it’s speculative value as art either)
So to summerise. No one has really addressed the OP, Failure to do so will cause me to believe that you really can’t dispute it. I am going to go on and further discuss the labor theory of value in the meantime.
[
OK. LABOR THEORY OF VALUE. Here we go. All posted in my own interpretations of Marx. With lengthy quotes from capital.
When talking of value, we are first off speaking of the value of commodities. A commodity (now pay carefull attention to my definitions here… They are what I’ll be using as my basis for argument.) is something that satisfies a human want. Each commodity has two measurable values. The use-value, and the value otherwise known as the substance and magnitude of value.
The use value is determined by it’s utility. “A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful.” This use value is completely independent of the labor required for the commodity. The utility of an apple does not change no matter how much labor I put into it’s harvest. So far nothing we disagree on, I hope
Use-values are only realised through consumption. An apple that is not to be eaten has no utility. The same goes for rocks by a stream. As soon as I appropriate the rocks as a tool, they assume a use-value. It is this use-value that form the basis of society’s wealth. They are also the depositories of exchange value.
Exchange-value. At first the exchange-value of commodities appears to be accidental and entirely relative. However. If you take a given commodity, let’s say a bushel of apples. That bushel is worth gold-x, silver-y, and oranges-z. So the bushel of apples has not one exchange value but thousands. Also we then must state that gold-x, silver-y, and oranges-z are also equal. "Therefore, first: the valid exchange-values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange-value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it. "
"Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron. What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things — in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both. The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value, must therefore be reducible to this third.
A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude. In the same way the exchange-values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity. "
This common something must be abstracted from the commodities. The exchange of commodities is something that is completely abstracted from use-value. “One sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value… An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold. As use-values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange-values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use-value.”
Everyone agree so far? Or not maybe. More tomorrow. I’ve been quite busy lately.