Is Capitalism Self-Destructive?... NOT!!

[LeopardPM]

Expropriate

3. to take (something) from another's possession for one's own use: He expropriated my ideas for his own article.

What's emotional about that? If I were emotional, I would have said 'steal'.

they mean the same thing - and it implies an immoral action. Labor which is voluntarily sold by the owner simply is NOT 'expropriated', or stolen, or coerced, or taken...

No, no, no!

There is a difference between USE VALUE and EXCHANGE VALUE.

A piece of bread has use value in that one can eat it to assuage hunger.

At the same time, it has exchange value in that you can sell it for a profit.

this is always the claim of socialists and communists - followers of Marx. There is no 'use' value and 'exchange' value - there is only 'value. This is a common attempt to objectify value (the so-called 'use' value) - it is a fallacy. What is the 'use' value of a painting? If anything, there might be two different 'values' - a 'personal' value and a market value, and there would always be a difference between the two, but calling attention to such a condition does nothing and can mean nothing. Your claim that exchange value means 'you can sell it for a profit' is just emotive propaganda... ALL exchange, even exchange with nature, contains a portion of 'profit'... if not, then the exchange would not have taken place. Profit is just 'benefit' - something that is personal to the person evaluating the exchange. I 'profit' from hiking up a hill... the feeling I get from the exertion and accomplishment is greater than the labor involved.

In a capitalist society, exchange value not only precedes use value, it undermines it completely. If no one buys the piece of bread, it rots on the shelf - hence its use value is destroyed needlessly and profligately.

untrue - trade increases the value of labor because more uses for it come into being.

What is truly reprehensible is the phenomenon of a market glut that happens periodically in capitalist economies. Employment of technology makes it possible to produce vast quantities without regard for its use. Hence overproduction occurs. In it, goods are deliberately destroyed in an effort to control price and the capitalists' profit.

You sure do have a strange view of what capitalism is and how it works: it does not behoove a producer to produce more than is demanded: so -called 'market gluts' are PROBLEMS for producers and they try as much as possible to forecast correct demand levels so that their profit is maximized. No such mechanism exists in a command economy (socialism/communism). When and if overproduction occurs, the producer's profits are reduced (he is penalized naturally) and he will adjust his production or risk going out of business.

The only time that 'goods are destroyed' is when subsidized by government to do such a despicable (and irrational) act. Usually the producer who has 'made too much' (more than demand) will have a fire sale and drastically reduce price so he can mitigate his losses as much as possible. A producer may destroy product if transport costs become greater than any sales might accrue from bringing the product to market (ie: if the maker of a product that costs $1 to bring to market which has a market value of less than $1 would further lose money in the effort).

Nothing in 'market liberalization' can explain the abundance of cheap goods it produces.

everything in 'market liberalization' explains the reason for the vast quantities of goods.

A market-oriented economy simply means extensive trade. Nothing in communism prohibits trade with other nations. It is one of the most fundamental economic activity. It has nothing to do with HOW goods and services are produced - which is what communism is addressing.

you cannot separate production costs and prices from consumption prices without creating chaos which will inevitably result in both overproduction of some items and great underproduction in others (see: Soviet Union)

The most liberal markets in the world can be found in the third world. That is why the industries in the third world can't developed - they are forced to compete with the technologically advanced industrial west.

you will find that most third world countries are NOT 'liberal. One of the fundamental aspects of a properly working market is respect for private property and third world governments are notorious for not doing so. The third world does not have to 'compete' in the conflict sense you use, they only have to determine their comparative advantage in production and focus on those items. Who cares if a some African nation solely produces candy (which it has a comparative advantage over other countries) for the world to consume, and in exchange, the world provides the goods which it has advantage: food, cars, whatever.

So you see, market liberalization couldn't have been the sole cause of china's economic performance.

what is apparent is someone has an ideological block preventing them from seeing the reality of the world and humans within it.

I was talking about finite, natural, non-renewable resources. The exploitation of these resources must not be entirely dependent on the unrestricted pursuit of ever-increasing profits - which is the motto of capitalist production.

every resource is both finite (relative to ease of acquisition) and infinite (when determining the total available in the universe. The cost, price, and profit ratios of every good and service determine when it is best to extract or use certain resources at certain times. You look at profits as some horrendous thing without understand what function they serve: to direct production and consumption along the most efficient and desired paths as determined by the market (ie: humans)

From above, it is clear that the pursuit of profit is NOT sustainable.

if it is not sustainable then humanity is 'not sustainable'. This is false. Both capitalism and humanity are sustainable and, in fact, are intertwined.

I agree completely.

That is why I do not quite agree with the revolutionary reconstitution of society happening in a fortnight. The inherent contradictions in capitalism must become apparent before the necessity to change it comes about.

The point I'm making is that there are inherent contradictions in capitalism, as marx pointed out. It is these incongruities which would ultimately cause its demise - hence self destructive.

capitalism is just a natural extension of human needs, desires, dreams, and goals. It is not capitalism which will destroy humanity, it will be due to either human actions/mistakes or an outside event such as a catastrophic asteroid collision or whatever. Even in such a circumstance, it will be capitalism which provides humans with the best capacity to avoid or withstand such an event. Capitalism solves the problems that the universe presents us - socialism/communism adds to these problems, the result is striking and informative.

 

[Coyote]

Pure capitalism is not good - it has no moral compass. It's the closest thing to the law of the jungle - each person is out for himself and everything has a price.

 

[Castle]

Pure capitalism is not good - it has no moral compass. It's the closest thing to the law of the jungle - each person is out for himself and everything has a price.

I agree with you to the extent that pure capitalism encourages the acquisition of wealth and power which ultimately has consequences. However, throughout human history, what has been the most powerful motivator if not greed? Until humanity is capable of rising above it's own glaring inadequacies, capitalism will continue to work best in my opinion of course. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one" Didn't a Vulcan say that? Figures!

-Castle

 

[JavaBlack]

The primary problem is the polarization surrounding capitalism. Obviously capitalism is the best economic system. But it does have some big flaws.
The problem is not capitalism though. It is that many capitalists believe capitalism is a government in itself.
It is not the duty of capitalism to fix its flaws. The duty falls on society and on government.
The problem is that the hardline laissez faire loons have framed any attempt to make up for capitalism's flaws as socialism... to the point where a lot of liberals accept that definition. Socialism is a system in which the people collectively control the means of production. A well-targeted, efficient welfare state is not socialism... It is government making up for the flaws of capitalism.

 

[numinus]

they mean the same thing - and it implies an immoral action. Labor which is voluntarily sold by the owner simply is NOT 'expropriated', or stolen, or coerced, or taken...

From where does profit come from, then?

this is always the claim of socialists and communists - followers of Marx. There is no 'use' value and 'exchange' value - there is only 'value. This is a common attempt to objectify value (the so-called 'use' value) - it is a fallacy. What is the 'use' value of a painting? If anything, there might be two different 'values' - a 'personal' value and a market value, and there would always be a difference between the two, but calling attention to such a condition does nothing and can mean nothing.

This is exactly what I said: something has both a use value and exchange value.

Your claim that exchange value means 'you can sell it for a profit' is just emotive propaganda... ALL exchange, even exchange with nature, contains a portion of 'profit'... if not, then the exchange would not have taken place. Profit is just 'benefit' - something that is personal to the person evaluating the exchange. I 'profit' from hiking up a hill... the feeling I get from the exertion and accomplishment is greater than the labor involved.

Trade of goods and services is based on emotion? Hmm.

The reason to produce anything - that is, the employment of human labor - is use.

Exchange happens when one cannot produce all the things one needs or invariably wants.

untrue - trade increases the value of labor because more uses for it come into being.

Trade is itself, a HUMAN ACTIVITY, hence HUMAN LABOR.

You sure do have a strange view of what capitalism is and how it works: it does not behoove a producer to produce more than is demanded: so -called 'market gluts' are PROBLEMS for producers and they try as much as possible to forecast correct demand levels so that their profit is maximized. No such mechanism exists in a command economy (socialism/communism). When and if overproduction occurs, the producer's profits are reduced (he is penalized naturally) and he will adjust his production or risk going out of business.

This is such nonsense, I don't even know where to begin explaining things to you.

Overproduction may happen simply by failing to anticipate demand against supply. Overproduction or not, what is produced still has use value.

The problem arises when one DELIBERATELY destroys goods in order to keep the price, hence profit, up. In such a case, the fundamental impetus of human labor - to produce useful things - is superseded by the capitalists' notion of exchangeability.

The contradiction becomes glaring when the capitalist destroys food - which is often the preferred solution in a market glut.

What epoch in human history, other than in a capitalist society, justifies the deliberate destruction of food while people are hungry?

It is simply unprecedented.

The only time that 'goods are destroyed' is when subsidized by government to do such a despicable (and irrational) act. Usually the producer who has 'made too much' (more than demand) will have a fire sale and drastically reduce price so he can mitigate his losses as much as possible. A producer may destroy product if transport costs become greater than any sales might accrue from bringing the product to market (ie: if the maker of a product that costs $1 to bring to market which has a market value of less than $1 would further lose money in the effort).

What do you mean, 'subsidized by government'?

Whatever else you might mean, when you say 'costs $1...', you are demonstrating what I have been saying all along - a product MUST FIRST exhibit its exchange value BEFORE its use value.

It CONTRADICTS the reason for employing the creative forces of human labor - USE.

everything in 'market liberalization' explains the reason for the vast quantities of goods.

But it does not explain how china produces them CHEAPLY.

you cannot separate production costs and prices from consumption prices without creating chaos which will inevitably result in both overproduction of some items and great underproduction in others (see: Soviet Union)

What are you talking about!

In classical economics, the equal exchange of things is as follows:

production cost + profit = cost of raw materials + labor = consumption price.

(This is oversimplified to illustrate the point)

In capitalism, the capitalist pockets the profit, regardless of the fact that he does not appear in the equation.

you will find that most third world countries are NOT 'liberal. One of the fundamental aspects of a properly working market is respect for private property and third world governments are notorious for not doing so. The third world does not have to 'compete' in the conflict sense you use, they only have to determine their comparative advantage in production and focus on those items. Who cares if a some African nation solely produces candy (which it has a comparative advantage over other countries) for the world to consume, and in exchange, the world provides the goods which it has advantage: food, cars, whatever.

No.

A 'liberal' economy is that which allows trade with as little government interference as possible - tariffs being the most effective government interference. In this regard, japan, us and europe are the most unliberal economies there are.

Your example is not at all practical since you can only sell so much candy. Besides, why import the candy and pay tariffs, if one can produce it on their own and no tariffs?

The comparative advantage of the third world is their natural resources, which is non-renewable. They sell it raw and cheap, while they buy expensive finished goods - since their industries are stunted by unfair competition brought about by 'liberalization'.

what is apparent is someone has an ideological block preventing them from seeing the reality of the world and humans within it.

You should try reading some literature on the causes of under development in the third world. I think the imf and adb have made studies on it abundantly. Maybe you could get rid of some of the 'ideological blocks' of your own.

Candies indeed!

every resource is both finite (relative to ease of acquisition) and infinite (when determining the total available in the universe. The cost, price, and profit ratios of every good and service determine when it is best to extract or use certain resources at certain times. You look at profits as some horrendous thing without understand what function they serve: to direct production and consumption along the most efficient and desired paths as determined by the market (ie: humans)

Please don't lecture me about extra-terrestrial economics. For the purpose of discussing REAL economics, it is best to view natural resources as finite.

Profit, or surplus value, is the DIRECT result of human labor employed in economic production.

The question which communism addresses is - who owns surplus value? Is it the capitalist, by virtue of his ownership of the means of production, or the people who actually work to produce things?

If you answer the former, then on what basis is this ownership made valid?

if it is not sustainable then humanity is 'not sustainable'. This is false. Both capitalism and humanity are sustainable and, in fact, are intertwined.

And capitalism is sustainable because...?

It is not a very difficult scenario - infinite drive for endless profit within limited resources vs. limited resources therefore take only what you can use.

capitalism is just a natural extension of human needs, desires, dreams, and goals. It is not capitalism which will destroy humanity, it will be due to either human actions/mistakes or an outside event such as a catastrophic asteroid collision or whatever. Even in such a circumstance, it will be capitalism which provides humans with the best capacity to avoid or withstand such an event. Capitalism solves the problems that the universe presents us - socialism/communism adds to these problems, the result is striking and informative.

There is nothing natural about capitalist greed of this magnitude.

Look at per capita income of the nations of the world.

Do you really wish to peddle the notion that the bottom of the pile represents naturally inferior human beings?

Or that this immense gap is even remotely explainable by the petty corruption of a few?

Or that this systematic phenomenon of underdevelopment is attributable to cultural quirks?

The delusions of unbridled capitalists are running a bit thin.

 

[bokile]

hahaa

We are only slaves allowed to freely change owners

 

[numinus]

We are only slaves allowed to freely change owners

Nicely and succintly put.

 

[invest07]

numinus

"Do you really wish to peddle the notion that the bottom of the pile represents naturally inferior human beings?"

No. We only wish to peddle the truth that being on the bottom of the pile is most likely the result of a defective economic system.

Socialism, communism, dictatorships and theocracies all fall in this defective category.

As to the PRC, how do you think they have made so much economic progress in such a short time? It is called limited capitalism. The ChiComs understand that communism is a blueprint for economic misery. Capitalism is a blueprint for prosperity. So the ChiComs permit limited capitalism to be practised and are reaping the benefits of capitalism while still maintaining the vacant facade of communism.

 

[DrWho]

numinus

"Do you really wish to peddle the notion that the bottom of the pile represents naturally inferior human beings?"

No. We only wish to peddle the truth that being on the bottom of the pile is most likely the result of a defective economic system.

Socialism, communism, dictatorships and theocracies all fall in this defective category.

As to the PRC, how do you think they have made so much economic progress in such a short time? It is called limited capitalism. The ChiComs understand that communism is a blueprint for economic misery. Capitalism is a blueprint for prosperity. So the ChiComs permit limited capitalism to be practised and are reaping the benefits of capitalism while still maintaining the vacant facade of communism.

I have heard that the poorest in America today enjoy the lifestyle equivalent of a middle class family in the 1960s.

So if the bottom of the pile is pretty good just how bad is the economic system in which they live? Especially if they themselves had something to do with them being at the bottom of the pile.

 

[DrWho]

It is one thing to 'rely' on another person's labors - quite another to 'expropriate' it for yourself.

In capitalism people enter into contracts and trade with each other freely. Trading one's time is not inherently wrong. If a person expropriates another's labor then he should be tried and convicted. The existence of individuals who break laws is not a good reason to adopt an economic system inferior to capitalism. If we did then the scoundrels who attempted to take advantage of a person in a capitalistic system would just make a similar attempt in another system.

 

[DrWho]

Pure capitalism is not good - it has no moral compass. It's the closest thing to the law of the jungle - each person is out for himself and everything has a price.

Within capitalism human greed will always motivate people to enact just laws to protect themselves thus ensuring the protection of all. It is however a slow and torturous road.

 

[Chip]

The capitalistic control form of the Money System can be, depending on the variety of capitalism, the closest thing to the raw Money System itself.

Of all the Money System control forms -- capitalism, socialism, communism, idiosyncratic concoctions of the three -- capitalism more than any other form allows the intrinsic traits of the Money System to be at their strongest.

Thus the Money System trait of neurotic neanderthalistic dog-eat-dog scarcity-based competition is more active in capitalism than in any other Money System control form.

And that can't be healthy.

Capitalism requires constant thinking, thinking, thinking in order to stay ahead of the "other" guy. Such behavior can exacerbate paranoia and facilitate neuroticism.

Capitalism by virtue of all the constant competitive thinking it requires ... is a man's system of economics.

Statistics show that men, 60% to 40%, are thinking-dominant, and are thus more likely, also by virtue of their "caveman" roots, to find capitalism appealing, complete with its attendant risk.

Women, however, are feelers, and by the same 60% to 40%, are feeling-dominant, and are thus less likely, and also by virtue of their child-raising safety roots, to find the male-oriented competitiveness and risk of loss associated with capitalism to be appealing.

As more and more women speak their economic voice and become politically involved, at least we can hope to find ourselves modifying capitalism to be less hierarchical and more equitable, so that human beings, which women are, will require less thinking and competition in order to obtain their basic needs and desires.

At worst, though, the Money System's capitalistic control form will turn women into "men", Ayn Rand clones who think too much and morally feel too little. I don't think any man really wants that ... and not only will it be spiritually bad for our children, it most definitely could contribute to the feeling-absent nuclear destuction of our species itself.

At best we can hope to, not replace the ancient out-dated system of the scarcity-creating Money System control form of the money system which Capitalism is with the equally dysfunction control forms of communism and socialism, but to redesign the economic system itself, replacing the Money System with a human health and thrival oriented system that accurately reflects, not ancient and extinct neanderthals, but the modern evolved human beings that we truly are today.

There's nothing worse than having to scratch and claw our economic survival within a paradigmic system that we've long since outgrown to keep up the illusion that such is our nature. It's not. Human nature is not doing the other guy in to win one's survival. Human nature includes not only women but modern men ... and once we are removed from the dysfunction-creating Money System, like the Winkies in the "Wizard Of Oz", who were under the fear-based confining, restricting spell of the Wicked Witch of the West until Dorothy liberated them, we will then no longer miserably and paranoically "growl" at our "enemies" exhibiting behavior that is not really our nature at all, but we will then be really free to be our true cooperative "one for all and all for one" progressive and heart-centered selves.

The Money System, and thus capitalism, will simply not be with us forever.

One way or the other it will come to an end.

Let us hope that that end will not be because it ultimately compelled us to execute it's primary twisted edict: self-destruction.

Let us hope that it is because truly courageous people, "Dorothy"s all, finally threw a bucket of water on it.

 

[numinus]

numinus

"Do you really wish to peddle the notion that the bottom of the pile represents naturally inferior human beings?"

Heavens, no! The capitalist socio-economic order SYSTEMATICALLY put them there.

No. We only wish to peddle the truth that being on the bottom of the pile is most likely the result of a defective economic system.

Socialism, communism, dictatorships and theocracies all fall in this defective category.

Nope.

As to the PRC, how do you think they have made so much economic progress in such a short time? It is called limited capitalism. The ChiComs understand that communism is a blueprint for economic misery. Capitalism is a blueprint for prosperity. So the ChiComs permit limited capitalism to be practised and are reaping the benefits of capitalism while still maintaining the vacant facade of communism.

Its called 'trade liberalization' with a very distinct chinese flavor - to compete with the developed nations of the world at a time and manner of their OWN choosing.

It was NECESSARY for china (after getting rid of the yolk of western colonialism) to develop their industries indigenously. Only when these industries were in place could they hope to enter global trade as an equal.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

In capitalism people enter into contracts and trade with each other freely. Trading one's time is not inherently wrong. If a person expropriates another's labor then he should be tried and convicted. The existence of individuals who break laws is not a good reason to adopt an economic system inferior to capitalism. If we did then the scoundrels who attempted to take advantage of a person in a capitalistic system would just make a similar attempt in another system.

The basis of capitalism, and the one thing that marx criticized above all, is the bourgeoisie's OWNERSHIP of the means of production.

Different epochs of human societies (from slave society to feudalism to capitalism) define property and ownership differently. And while the definitions are different, the purpose for which they were contrived remains the same - for man to exploit his fellow man.

The most rational definition of property and ownership I have read is from john locke - whose 2nd treatise of civil government provided the politico-philosophical impetus of us independence.

Ironically enough, his views on property and ownership DOES NOT contradict marx's labor theory, and in fact, REINFORCES it.

 

[numinus]

I have heard that the poorest in America today enjoy the lifestyle equivalent of a middle class family in the 1960s.

So if the bottom of the pile is pretty good just how bad is the economic system in which they live? Especially if they themselves had something to do with them being at the bottom of the pile.

Do you really think that the us economy exists in a vaccum? Isn't capitalism, in the guise of freedom, the us most enduring export.

Is this not the primary reason why the standard of living in the us and the developed economies of the west are SO FAR removed from the rest of the under-developed world.

Don't take my word for it. Try reading on the phenomenon of under-development in the third world, preferrably from imf or adb sources.