Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Was Marx Right About Capitalism?


Recommended Posts

Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production.

Collectivism (socialism, fascism, feudalism) = state ownership or control of the means of production.

Collective ownership of the means of production.

In either case that's it nothing to do with bailing out private banks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice analogy.

Looks like a problem with the culture in which science operates. Publish-or-perish, Agendas and Taboos ('this is what we want to prove'), funding regimes, personal empires.

No it's a straw man. Although it does make an interesting comparison.

Science is robust against fraud (nothing is perfect of course, but that's OT), because of replication of results and that sort of thing.

Capitalism is not robust against cheating. That's kind of obvious, but if you want experimental proof look around you, read some history.

This is the exact same flaw as communism, and all utopian systems, they assume a non cheating rule that either has to be enforced, or the rule get changed and your utopia is gone anyway.

Edited by (Blizzard)
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing a rigged market for capitalism.

The problem is that the free market requires rule of law in order to operate- and that requires centralised power. So the idea that the free market is a once pure form of human interaction that has since been corrupted by the state is a bit like the Christian mythology of the fall of man in the garden of Eden- with the state playing the role of the serpent.

The reality is that market is a child of the state, could not exist without it, and so the only way to prevent a rigged market is to have an incorruptible centralised power. There is no 'pure' capitalism to return to- like the Garden of Eden no such place ever existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the free market requires rule of law in order to operate

That isn't a problem and no one is saying is is.

So the idea that the free market is a once pure form of human interaction that has since been corrupted by the state is a bit like the Christian mythology of the fall of man in the garden of Eden- with the state playing the role of the serpent.

We do not have a stable monetary system and therefore our economy is going to be governed by those who control the money supply. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production.

Collectivism (socialism, fascism, feudalism) = state ownership or control of the means of production.

Copyright is a state mandated form of rent seeking.

indeed which highlights your definitions are physically identical as both are derived from state control and imposition, they are no different and therefore will inevitably end up in the same place.

Thats not to say nil state is the solution because humans are animals and inherently violent, the ridiculous nature of us is this unsubstantiated belief that we are special and therefore put this specialness above progeny despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

Theyll never be a sustainable solution to that inherent violence but it takes an immense amount of stupidity to mandate that violence through special flowers and wonder why mandating violence, giving it a new shiny name every few hundred years and scratching heads as to why nothing ultimately changes.

When you have a solution to eradicate violence please get back to me, because power ( the ability to make humans accept detrimental trade offs) only exists through it

Ive always been pretty forthright, get rid of parliament, save some money as a secondary benefit and become a democracy as the only way to reduce power is through fragmentation, its not ideal but i think becoming democracies is just about as good as people will get in this technological day and age

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

but its what works that matters. a fair system, like communism, can be counter productive, because it doesnt work.

no one is advocating a fully free system anymore, except maybe traktion. no one has an issue with regulation etc.. the government can play a role, but we dont want the government to play too big a role because its often poor and incompetent at doing things.

markets generally however are self regulating, because the natural rates of interest should be much higher than they are now. banks should have gone bankrupt, people who borrowed too much should have had their homes repossessed.

the destruction of industries and destruction of capital, which occurs in capitalism, is a good thing, but its socially unacceptable, so id argue sometimes the biggest problem is that the status quo and more of the status quo is often the greatest hinderance.

capitalism often ruffles the feathers and its socialist policies that want to keep things the same as they were yesterday.

I have nothing against free trade, it's a good idea. It just isn't a stable basis for a society, not on its own.

As utopian dreams Communism doesn't work for the same reasons capitalism doesn't work, they are unstable and lead to some form of hierarchical feudal system.

The only thing that has a chance of working is a messy pluralism, where mutually assured destruction holds all forms of power in check. Taken to its limit that leads to a stateless society, although not you might not recognise it as such.

Basically if you support any political or economic hierarchy, and you arent at the top, then youre a patsy.

Edited by (Blizzard)
Link to post
Share on other sites
But what you describe is the capitalist system end game where the system can only be perpetuated by socialising the losses and by propping up corporate profits by money printing, taxation and consumer debt. The result: a world where the vast majority are enslaved into a world of compulsory consumerism funded by the state in order to maintain the elite. This was always known to people like Marx but the plebs still cling on to the belief that capitalism works because so far it has appeared to. The "free market" idealogues will probably still believe it works even when the point is reached whereby we have a totalitarian world working for the benefit not of States (communist or otherwise) but for the benefit of corporate CEO's and the mega rich.

I think we are seeing some kind of end game here- at least of the current paradigm.

I think the shift of wealth to the 1% is creating a dynamic that is inherently unstable. As workers get a smaller slice of the pie and more of it ends up in the hands of the 1% it creates a problem of where this wealth is to be invested- ROI in the real economy is linked to demand- which is a function of wages- so real world ROI is decreasing even as the amount of capital available at the top is going up- a process exacerbated by the ongoing QE orgy.

The Banks responded to this glut of capital seeking yield outside of the real economy by creating a vast new universe of investment 'opportunities' in the form of derivatives- which create zero real wealth but add massively to the liabilities of the system- liabilities that must ultimately be supported by the real economy.

So just as the real economy began to falter due to the redistribution of wealth to the 1%, that 1% -and their bankers- have responded not by increasing their investment in that real economy but by constructing a shadow economy in which they can deploy their wealth in the abstract pursuit of paper profits on derivative gambling bets.

So I would argue that the decline in the power of labour and the hypertrophy of the financial system are one and same thing- capital has moved out of the hands of the worker/consumer and into the hands of the 1% who have chosen to use that capital in an entirely unproductive way.

The endgame arrives when the illusion that the real economy can make good the gambling debts of the 1% is finally exposed to be the desperate self deception it really is.

Debts that can not be repaid will not be repaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Collective ownership of the means of production.

In either case that's it nothing to do with bailing out private banks.

It doesn't matter who the target of resources are (be it the rich or the poor), Collectivism is collectivism, whereby a third party decides where capital and savings are distributed.

In a capitalist society individuals get to keep their capital and decide what to do with it.

The current banks are responsible for manufacturing a form of government designated means of exchange, and the government actively took ownership and control of these organisations during the bailouts.

If the bank bailouts were in any way the result of capitalism, people would have been asked by the failing banks if they wanted trade their savings for the goal of keep these organisations solvent i.e. asked if they wished to participate in an exchange.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'capitalism' is a utopian nonsense (it doesn't account for externalities in any event)

it has never existed anyway. Those in power have and always will prevent what the nutter right like to pretend is 'capitalism' from working.

A very simple example - if we have 'capitalism' why does the Duke of Westminster still own 300 acres of prime real estate in London? and why do self-proclaimed 'capitalists' believe that's a good idea and must be protected at all costs?

Of course Marx was right, but that ain't gonna help anybody very much I'm afraid.

Those in power - Royals, Oil companies, Halliburton, Chinese elite, are going nowhere anytime soon.

Edited by R K
Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter who the target of resources are (be it the rich or the poor), Collectivism is collectivism, whereby a third party decides where capital and savings are distributed.

In a capitalist society individuals get to keep their capital and decide what to do with it.

The current banks are responsible for manufacturing a form of government designated means of exchange, and the government actively took ownership and control of these organisations during the bailouts.

If the bank bailouts were in any way the result of capitalism, people would have been asked by the failing banks if they wanted trade their savings for the goal of keep these organisations solvent i.e. asked if they wished to participate in an exchange.

AGain this is a utopian definition of capitalism. The bailouts happened in capitalist countries as a result of capitalist ideologies. That's real capitalism in action.

Yes the banks own government, they bought it fair and square. Because they can. In effect, the biggest organisations become the government.

Even in its pure form capitalism is collectivist. It requires we all obey the rules of trade, and we organise ourselves around the needs of those people with capital.

Either it expects someone with no money to accept their lot in life, for the good of society. Or It requires those rules to be enforced by someone, who you might like to call a state.

You just want different rules for the collective, that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And who campaigned for that? Oh.

That doesn't make any sense.

The action of bank bailouts was collectivist, by it's very definition. An identical request for a specific action from two different parties does not change somehow change the action.

You are saying that if a capitalist asked you to throw a ball, and then a socialist asked you to throw a ball, and in each case your fulfilled the request to throw a ball, but when asked what you did, in the case of the socialist you swear that you swallowed the ball.

Edited by GradualCringe
Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense.

The action of bank bailouts was collectivist, by it's very definition, it didn't matter who put in the request.

It's like saying that a French person who subsequently learns to speak English is always speaking French.

like fck it was

it was decided by the cabinet of Labour and the shadow cabinet of the Conservatives and signed of by Queenie

thats less than 100 people in 60 million and its collectivist :lol::lol::lol:

I must have missed that referendum (ah my bad that 100 in 60 million is democracy in the Democratic Peoples Republic of UKea)

It might have been carried out by the collectivist but youd need a democracy to prove that which leaves the UK fcked

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

like fck it was

it was decided by the cabinet of Labou and the shadow cabinet of the conservatives and signed of by Queenie

thats less than 100 people in 60 million and its collectivist :lol::lol::lol:

I must have missed that referendum (ah my bad that 100 in 60 million is democracy in the peoples republic of UKea)

I'm sorry that you do not understand the difference between collectivism and capitalism.

In a collectivist system (be it fascism, socialism, or feudalism) a third party get to decide where capital and resources are distributed (hence government control or ownership of the means of production) i.e. a ruling council or elite of some sort (the number of people in the committee doesn't change the definition, whether the decision was made by referendum or the privy council makes no difference whatsoever).

If this were a capitalist decision there have been a voluntary trade between the banks and individuals to do so i.e. no abitrating third party invovled i.e. individuals get to choose where to put their captial.

Edited by GradualCringe
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you do not understand the difference between collectivism and capitalism.

In a collectivist system (be it fascism, socialism, or feudalism) a third party get to decide where capital and resources are distributed (hence government control or ownership of the means of production) i.e. a ruling council or elite of some sort.

If this were a capitalist decision people there would have been a voluntary trade between the banks and individuals to do so i.e. no abitrating third party involvement.

nope sorry you dont seem to understand the difference between capitalism and collectivism, one has the mandate of the majority

(collectivism, that would be no MPs for the last 20 years) and one has the the mandate of the state (capitalism).

The bank bailouts were capitalism, the very definition of statism Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership which can only be mandated through violence or as we know it, the state

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

nope sorry you dont seem to understand the difference between capitalism and collectivism, one has the mandate of the majority

(collectivism, that would be no MPs for the last 20 years) and one has the the mandate of the state (capitalism).

The bank bailouts were capitalism, the very definition of statism Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership which can only be mandated through violence or as we know it, the state

Neither acquiring savings or paticipating in trade requires state mandated violence.

You are saying that 50 people sending round goons to your home to take your savings, rather than 5 million, changes the result.

In either case it is quite easy to observe that all your savings would be gone and that you did not choose this outcome, unless of course you ask a solipsist.

* EDIT *

The defining hallmark of any collectivist system is that a 3rd party is required to distribute capital and resources, whether the people doing the deciding insist on a referrendum or otherwise.

Furthermore a 3rd party decided (the state) decided that the savings of individuals should be given to another party, without consent. A capitalist system would insist on a voluntary trade between 2 parties, not abitration by a third that picks who's donating and who's receiving.

You seem to think (as do others) that the bank bail outs were not collectivism because "rich/influential people" received the proceeds, "rich/influential people" made the decision, and the everyone else was made to cough up, which is ironic because in any collectivist system the most politically influential receive the majority of resourecs, be it fascism, feudalism, or socialism i.e. those that suck up to the committe making the decision, or those that sit on decision making committees are those that are comparitively well off.

Edited by GradualCringe
Link to post
Share on other sites

And what you keep missing is that a man with no job does not have any wages-so to him prices are irrelevant.

And the more people who find themselves without work the less bargaining power remains in the hands of those who might try to enforce a wage claim.

The point is that the system is driven to eliminate the wages that the system requires in order to function- in that sense capitalism has a death wish built into it's DNA.

So our increased productivity risks creating not wealth for all but poverty for most leading to a collapse of the system.

The issue is access- there are people going to bed hungry in places where supermarkets are piled high with food- because they have nothing to exchange in return for access to that food.

for your position to hold true you must assume no new jobs are created, theres is nothing left for mankind to do, no new products, no new services, no new ideas. as though today is the peak of society. what you describe should have happened in the industrial revolution. in fact i believe many labourer thought thats what would happen at the time.

there billions of things that can be done that arent being done. people in 50 years will look at the jobs being done today and say what a waste of time.

no ones saying you cant help other people. there are 65 million people in the UK but only 31 million people in work, so not everyone is working to get stuff even today. theres lots of elderly and young not working.

however by making food cheaper its easier to give away free food. by making computers cheaper it makes it easier for someone on low income to buy a a computer.

keeping costs high is not in the interests of society. in order to advance people have to lose their jobs. you cant do new things because youre busy doing what youre currently doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

And what you keep missing is that a man with no job does not have any wages-so to him prices are irrelevant.

And the more people who find themselves without work the less bargaining power remains in the hands of those who might try to enforce a wage claim.

The point is that the system is driven to eliminate the wages that the system requires in order to function- in that sense capitalism has a death wish built into it's DNA.

So our increased productivity risks creating not wealth for all but poverty for most leading to a collapse of the system.

The issue is access- there are people going to bed hungry in places where supermarkets are piled high with food- because they have nothing to exchange in return for access to that food.

I think Fluffy nailed it in another of many, many similar threads when he talked about dying in the gutter to marginally increase the value of the remaining labour force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither acquiring savings or paticipating in trade requires state mandated violence.

You are saying that 50 people sending round goons to your home to take your savings, rather than 5 million, changes the result.

In either case it is quite easy to observe that all your savings would be gone and that you did not choose this outcome, unless of course you ask a solipsist.

* EDIT *

The defining hallmark of any collectivist system is that a 3rd party is required to distribute capital and resources, whether the people doing the deciding insist on a referrendum or otherwise.

Furthermore a 3rd party decided (the state) decided that the savings of individuals should be given to another party, without consent. A capitalist system would insist on a voluntary trade between 2 parties, not abitration by a third that picks who's donating and who's receiving.

You seem to think (as do others) that the bank bail outs were not collectivism because "rich/influential people" received the proceeds, "rich/influential people" made the decision, and the everyone else was made to cough up, which is ironic because in any collectivist system the most politically influential receive the majority of resourecs, be it fascism, feudalism, or socialism i.e. those that suck up to the committe making the decision, or those that sit on decision making committees are those that are comparitively well off.

I think you're suffering from 'cold war-ism' a rather debilitating intellectual condition where everything on the universe must be reduced to either 'capitalism' or 'socialism', and ultimately 'good' and 'bad'.

IMHO trying to shoe-horn the bank bail-out into 'collectivism-not-capitalism' is seriously odd enough to point to a bad case of this unfortunate malady.

You can believe all sorts of crazy stuff when you emphasise correlating patterns (I note your reasoning as to why you see it as 'collectivism') but become indifferent to the difference between means and ends - McCarthyism is one example of where you can end up.

Individual policies and techniques are of secondary importance. I think it's fair to say that the decision-makers at the time could not have given a monkeys if it was called Marie-Antoinettism' they were desperately trying to save the overall system - however corrupted - generally known as 'capitalism'.

I think we're by now all familiar with the refrain 'privatise the gains socialise the losses' and why this in principle is a serious perversion of either capitalism or 'collectivism''

From Wikipedia here is a reminder of what 'collectivism' is supposed to be about:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being in a society or civilization.[citation needed] Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture).

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia here is a reminder of what 'collectivism' is supposed to be about:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being in a society or civilization.[citation needed] Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture).

The important bit is not collectivism, or the absence thereof, rather how collectivism is bought about: By the voluntary interactions of individuals via the market and trade, or by the coercive dictat of government.

In politics, collectivism only ever means the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
From Wikipedia here is a reminder of what 'collectivism' is supposed to be about:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being in a society or civilization.[citation needed] Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture).

That doesn't mean anything, it's not measureable.

The measureable and common parameters of all collectivist systems is the method of distribution and who savings, capital and production belong to (or are controlled by).

By logical extension it means that communism, fascism, and feudalism are all forms of collectivism, I am not sure what you think it has to do with the cold war or Senator McCarthy, only observeable facts.

The bank bail outs are the actions of those that would be most closely associated with fascist collectivists.

The rest of your argument is ad-hominem.

* EDIT * May I ask what your definition of capitalism is?

Also, do you think the bank bail outs were a voluntary transaction between two parties, bailer and bailee (a capitalist transaction)? Or a mandatory transaction, involving three parties where one party of authority chose who would receieve and who would give (a collectivist transaction)?

Edited by GradualCringe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production.

Collectivism (socialism, fascism, feudalism) = state ownership or control of the means of production.

Copyright is a state mandated form of rent seeking.

Copyright does for virtual goods what laws against theft do for physical goods - they ensure that you can do about your daily business without the neighbourhood bully stealing everything that you own. They are necessary for society to function.

On the other hand, when you have copyright terms extending to (death of author) + 1 million years, then yes, we have a corruption of the original goal and clear rent-seeking (cf. Steamboat Mickey). But that doesn't mean that the basic idea isn't sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Copyright does for virtual goods what laws against theft do for physical goods - they ensure that you can do about your daily business without the neighbourhood bully stealing everything that you own. They are necessary for society to function.

On the other hand, when you have copyright terms extending to (death of author) + 1 million years, then yes, we have a corruption of the original goal and clear rent-seeking (cf. Steamboat Mickey). But that doesn't mean that the basic idea isn't sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.