The Intractable Flaw That Dooms All Capitalist Societies

[Guest happy?]

No I don't. I view capitalism as a selection of behaviours. (Because that's what it is.)

Capitalism isn't actually escapable, though many try. Next time you eat a sandwich, you are acting capitalist. Next time you trade, you are a capitalist.

This must depend on whether you view capitalism as 'natural' or merely a set of behaviours conditioned by circumstance.

[Injin]

This must depend on whether you view capitalism as 'natural' or merely a set of behaviours conditioned by circumstance.

If your circumstance is being a cell based lifeform, then I guess it does.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Capitalism isn't a political system.

Of course it is. It became so the moment the first Capitalist realised they could use their wealth and power to subvert governments and make decisions that benefit their interests.

[Injin]

Of course it is. It became so the moment the first Capitalist realised they could use their wealth and power to subvert governments and make decisions that benefit their interests.

That;s like saying that swimming is the same as sleeping.

Capitalism is an action, when you don't do the action, you aren't the thing.

This understanding is crucial if you want to change anything.

[oracle]

The academic definition of Capitalism is not useful when discussing Capitalism as it exists today. Take Islam for example, its adherents claim that 'it's a religion of peace' but I say 'Islam is what Muslims do'.

so are all the religeons,as long as you toe the line.

the ideaologies of religeons compete for market share just as much as the concepts of economics,and social control mechanisms.

behind all of them is a small clique that want control of the masses.

the better ones have an element of choice.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

That;s like saying that swimming is the same as sleeping.

Capitalism is an action, when you don't do the action, you aren't the thing.

This understanding is crucial if you want to change anything.

No, because again it turns all ideologies into nothing more than idealised constructs. National socialist ideology as it was penned by Hitler neglected to mention death camps, but death camps is what we got.

Edited April 15, 2009 by BoomBoomCrash

[Guest happy?]

I don't understand it. Das Kapital ran for hundreds of pages.

Mises ran out of ink.

Yet you seem to have encapsulated the entire universe in just 7 lines.

It doesn't take account of any form of mutual co-operation inherent in a business either. People co-operate in capitalist enterprises for many different reasons and as any good quaker knows you can make a profit and ensure the welfare of your workforce. Indeed, having a sustainable/motivated workforce is a pre-requisite for those organisations who employ skilled staff.

Too simple an idea - bit like Injin's capitalism as inherently 'natural' - different sides same coin.

[Coolfonz]

Capitalism and communism are both political systems. Nothing to do with economics.

Communism is state capitalism. The effects are essentially the same except in `the west` we get nicer stuff to play with and we slaughter foreigners while some communists - especially Stalin - slaughter their own. Although the figures bandied around for Stalin (20mn) are bull5hit. It's a pretty bad choice.

Anarchism is a form of socialism that can stop the centralisation of power that has corrupted previous regimes.

In actual fact we anarchists are getting closer and closer to the mainstream, we abhor state tyrannies and also private tyrannies. We abhor state terror by the US and its allies and private terror by religious nuts, after all they all want to kill us.

We believe people should be free to organise themselves as best they can at any given moment and that individuals property should be respected. `All property is theft and property is our salvation` as the (much misquoted) phrase goes.

Economies should be dynamic, democratic, open and international, but not centralised.

Law should be equally applicable, international and enforceable.

All a bit reasonable really...it's why we are going to win eventually...in theory you could even do buy to lets

Edited April 15, 2009 by Coolfonz

[Injin]

No, because again it turns all ideologies into nothing more than idealised constructs. National socialist ideology as it was penned by Hitler neglected to mention death camps, but death camps is what are what we got.

I've explained your thinking error three times now.

I won't bother again.

If you are going to mistake sleeping for walking I can't really help you.

[Guest happy?]

That;s like saying that swimming is the same as sleeping.

Capitalism is an action, when you don't do the action, you aren't the thing.

Presumably we can forgive the sinner then if not the sin.

Capitalism is not an action - you're thinking of bartering.

[Injin]

Presumably we can forgive the sinner then if not the sin.

Exactly.

Capitalism is not an action - you're thinking of bartering.

And saving, and appreciating other people have the right to own stuff etc etc

Might as well call it by the oiginal ism that it was.

[aa3]

Ok, so here we go...

As a capitalist your aims should be maximum profit with minimum expenditure. Thus any avenue to cut production costs should be explored and if viable implemented. As labour is just another cost of production it too is subject to the same scrutiny and its cost and necessity (automation of production etc) will be minimised. All the other good little capitalists follow the same ethos. The resultant society has vast warehouses containing the myriad products produced by the companies owned by the capitalists as nobody can afford to buy them. The goal of all capitalists should be y=0, where 'y' is cost of production. Whilst 'y' remains above 0, the good capitalist will look at ways to get closer to that figure. Of course in terms of human labour, y=0=slavery.

Yes this is why the more successful a capitalist society is, the quicker it crashes. Even the best capitalists are bankrupted when no one can buy their product. See the titans of western capitalism falling now.

Social credit is the only long term solution. It is a national dividend to all citizens. The more successful the capitalists are the bigger the dividend gets. The capitalists enjoy a market that grows forever with their ability to produce. And the population benefits even as their jobs are automated, outsourced, reduced whatever. The bigger the gap between production and wages gets the bigger the national dividend gets.

Wages have flatlined since 1970's, but production has risen magnificently. We've been filling the gap by extending ever greater amounts of credit into the economy.

Edited April 15, 2009 by aa3

[Guest happy?]

Exactly.

And saving, and appreciating other people have the right to own stuff etc etc

Might as well call it by the oiginal ism that it was.

Nope. Bartering and capitalism are not synonymous. Capitalism requires money, debt, and FRB. - oh and a sophisticated/evolving means of social control by which to perpetuate itself.

[Injin]

Nope. Bartering and capitalism are not synonymous. Capitalism requires money, debt, and FRB. - oh and a sophisticated/evolving means of social control by which to perpetuate itself.

Nope.

That's mercantilism or corporate statism.

[Guest BoomBoomCrash]

Yes this is why the more successful a capitalist society is, the quicker it crashes. Even the best capitalists are bankrupted when no one can buy their product. See the titans of western capitalism falling now.

Social credit is the only long term solution. It is a national dividend to all citizens. The more successful the capitalists are the bigger the dividend gets. The capitalists enjoy a market that grows forever with their ability to produce. And the population benefits even as their jobs are automated, outsourced, reduced whatever. The bigger the gap between production and wages gets the bigger the national dividend gets.

Wages have flatlined since 1970's, but production has risen magnificently. We've been filling the gap by extending ever greater amounts of credit into the economy.

Sounds similar to a citizens income which is an idea I've long supported. Will never happen though as the last thing any government really wants to do is guarantee people financial security. I mean relieved from the necessity yo spend most of their lives engaged in tedious toil who knows what revolutionary ideas might spring forth.

[Guest happy?]

Sounds similar to a citizens income which is an idea I've long supported. Will never happen though as the last thing any government really wants to do is guarantee people financial security. I mean relieved from the necessity yo spend most of their lives engaged in tedious toil who knows what revolutionary ideas might spring forth.

Will I get my flying car?

[dhpcza]

If your circumstance is being a cell based lifeform, then I guess it does.

What do you mean?

[Injin]

What do you mean?

Well if you check any complex lifeform, you'll see some remarkably capitalist behaviours.

They store energy for later use. They have internal parts tailored to different ends, they trade energy, nutrients etc between cells.

http://www.amazon.com/Bionomics-Economy-Ec...d/dp/0805019790

Rothschild argues that free-market capitalism is not an "ism" but a naturally occurring phenomenon. Bionomics makes extensive parallels with the world of biology to reveal capitalism's cooperative as well as competitive aspects. This book predates many more recent writings that apply biological and emergent order ideas to markets and is still one of the best discussions. As the economy is continually and dynamically driven into new states by technological change, the lessons of Bionomics are more pertinent than ever. They suggest great caution regarding government planning and control of a naturally growing and self-regulating market economy. Government's role is to protect the property rights that allow new economic orders to flourish

[dhpcza]

Nope.

That's mercantilism or corporate statism.

You say this, but then you never differentiate between Stalinism and Communism. So one rule for your idea of capitalism and another for any other ideology. I think some consistency between the "isms" would be nice lol.

[dhpcza]

Well if you check any complex lifeform, you'll see some remarkably capitalist behaviours.

They store energy for later use. They have internal parts tailored to different ends, they trade energy, nutrients etc between cells.

http://www.amazon.com/Bionomics-Economy-Ec...d/dp/0805019790

Rothschild argues that free-market capitalism is not an "ism" but a naturally occurring phenomenon. Bionomics makes extensive parallels with the world of biology to reveal capitalism's cooperative as well as competitive aspects. This book predates many more recent writings that apply biological and emergent order ideas to markets and is still one of the best discussions. As the economy is continually and dynamically driven into new states by technological change, the lessons of Bionomics are more pertinent than ever. They suggest great caution regarding government planning and control of a naturally growing and self-regulating market economy. Government's role is to protect the property rights that allow new economic orders to flourish

How about ants and bees?

[Injin]

You say this, but then you never differentiate between Stalinism and Communism. So one rule for your idea of capitalism and another for any other ideology. I think some consistency between the "isms" would be nice lol.

There is no difference.

What political students like to do is relabel the same action in dozens of different ways like it means anything. I got no time for that.

It's men with weapons telling you what to do versus free trade. That's the choice and the only choice.

[Injin]

How about ants and bees?

Yep.

[dhpcza]

Yep.

Hmm, I would suggest the behaviour of those 2 insects is more communist than capitalist. You won't get a worker becomming Queen afterall. I suppose I'll have to agree to disagree with you here.

[Guest happy?]

Well if you check any complex lifeform, you'll see some remarkably capitalist behaviours.

They store energy for later use. They have internal parts tailored to different ends, they trade energy, nutrients etc between cells.

http://www.amazon.com/Bionomics-Economy-Ec...d/dp/0805019790

Rothschild argues that free-market capitalism is not an "ism" but a naturally occurring phenomenon. Bionomics makes extensive parallels with the world of biology to reveal capitalism's cooperative as well as competitive aspects. This book predates many more recent writings that apply biological and emergent order ideas to markets and is still one of the best discussions. As the economy is continually and dynamically driven into new states by technological change, the lessons of Bionomics are more pertinent than ever. They suggest great caution regarding government planning and control of a naturally growing and self-regulating market economy. Government's role is to protect the property rights that allow new economic orders to flourish

All of which shows how some people look for evidence of their belief systems in nature. It's not evidence of how capitalism is natural - rather it's evidence of some people's complete failure to think logically. The fact that someone's invested a massive amount of their time and intellect on a fundamentally flawed proposition doesn't make their error any the less wrong.

I've heard you can buy toast on eBay with images of Christ in it - capitalism in bunny rabbits same difference.

Edited April 15, 2009 by happy?

[dhpcza]

There is no difference.

What political students like to do is relabel the same action in dozens of different ways like it means anything. I got no time for that.

It's men with weapons telling you what to do versus free trade. That's the choice and the only choice.

Can you tell me a point in history where there has been a civilisation (or even just a period of time) where actions were not ultimately defined by men with weapons? I can't think of one -- which leads me to believe it's a natural state of affairs, as much as it might suck big hairy balls.