Capitalism=corporatism

[ComradeRed]

I don't care what the devil you call it, corporatism is a form of capitalism!

Now, before we go on, allow me to define what capitalism is. Most people will say only laissez-faire is the "true" capitalism, but this is the definition of the no true scotsman fallacy(in a form). Capitalism is basically a form of socio-economics(IT IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT!!!) that involves one "subclass" of capitalists(those who invest in capital[that which requires labor to produce commodities or services]) to employ laborors. This is capitalism, the same definition the man who coined the word ----Dr. Karl Marx---- employed.

Corporatism merely replaces the number of companies for cartels/corporations. That is to say that when capitalism from its origins has so few competitors that they have immense power. Social Darwinism has an inherit flaw in it, and -ironically- Social Darwinism is an inherit part of Laissez-faire. Social Darwinism presupposes that the companies reproduce before they "die out", just like in Darwinism, however in practicality no company ever does so! This leads to Oligopolies in Capitalism.

These Oligopolies are oftentimes imperialist(viz. all forms of the East India co., West India Co., etc.). It still, however, qualifies as capitalism. Replacing the single company with that of a collection of many companies under a single leadership of the corporate oligarchy, or the capitalists in a corporatism. What else is there to be said?

[Section 8]

Number one: There are only two ways in which a monopoly can occur.
1)Through government intervention
2)When consumers only buy one brand
Note that number two has and never will happen, unless through government interference.

Corporatism occurs, only, when government interfers with the free market.

[Kyran]

Capitalism is Private Ownership of the Means of production. That means anarcho-Communism is a derivative of capitalism. Hahahaha. Public ownership of the Means of production is socialism.

Corporatism is Socialism for the Bourgeiouse as according to Locke. That means corporate-welfare, FDIC insurance, and other such forms of income redistribution for the rich. Corporatism is the modern day evolution of the primitive laissez-faire system described by Karl Marx.

Capitalism is the solution to corporatism, and according to the standards set forth in Economic Fusionism (my personal form of capitalism) employment of laborers shall only consist of the trading of labor for money.

Remember, Red, income redistribution according to socialists must include everyone. Everyone includes corporations and big business owners too ya know.

[Radioactive Man]

Social Darwinism presupposes that the companies reproduce before they "die out", just like in Darwinism, however in practicality no company ever does so!

Whew! I'm glad the 169-store gardening chain in my area that just announced it will close up shop really won't close up shop!

Pan Am and Republic Airlines must be feeling pretty upbeat about life, too, eh?

Seriously, where do you get this tripe?

[Liberty Landing]

Corporatism merely replaces the number of companies for cartels/corporations.

You're not grasping the concept of corporatism at all. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.

Corporatism simply preserves the ownership of private property, as under capitalism, but in corporatism the government manipulates the system to deliver goods to favored constituents.

If the government does nothing at all to interfere with the free market except to ensure that the use of force or fraud does not interrupt its autonomous functions, then whatever results is still a product of capitalism. Corporatism has nothing whatsoever to do with the monopolization of goods or the presence of multiple companies dominating a market, unless either are products of government intervention.

[ComradeRed]

Corporatism is Socialism for the Bourgeiouse as according to Locke.

Uhmm, that is capitalism. Socialism is capitalism for the proles.

Number one: There are only two ways in which a monopoly can occur. 1)Through government intervention 2)When consumers only buy one brand Note that number two has and never will happen, unless through government interference. Corporatism occurs, only, when government interfers with the free market.

I hear this all the time, but it simply is not true. IT is assuming that competition somehow is always growing, and that it will never have a tendency to shrink. In reality, it is nothing like this. The competition never multiplies, a good example of this is the automobile industry in America. Originally, there were about 500 companies, in less than fifty years it was only 5.

Social Darwinism is a flawed theory, take a course of biology, it's pretty self explanatory.

You're not grasping the concept of corporatism at all. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with this.

Define corporatism, is it a fascist state(definition 1) or a state who's influenced by the corporations(definition 2)[at least according to the dictionary].

Seriously, where do you get this tripe?

What are you maundering about? How is social Darwinism supposed to function in your world?

Corporatism simply preserves the ownership of private property, as under capitalism, but in corporatism the government manipulates the system to deliver goods to favored constituents.

The "invisible hand" is supposed to do this. I suppose it just slaps you capitalists silly, eh?

Corporatism is the modern day evolution of the primitive laissez-faire system described by Karl Marx.

Well, if Dr. Marx was right(and he has been so far) then the labourors will unionize and demand higher and higher wages. A slow and steady project, but it will destroy Capitalism.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Radioactive Man Pan Am and Republic Airlines must be feeling pretty upbeat about life, too, eh?

Both died capitalist deaths and were absorbed by their more successful, oligopolistic competitors. (Republic by Northwest, wasn't it?). That ain't reproduction, it's cannibalism.

And that's how it goes with capitalism: barring some intervening force (see government), wealth gets concentrated into ever fewer hands. Any semblance of a free market ultimately requires government intervention of some sort.

To stay with the airline example, the present concentration of the US airline sector into ever fewer hands was triggered by deregulation and has been going on ever since.

[Kyran]

Red, it's the 21st century. Try to use words as they are defined in the Now instead of the Then.

Demand $100.00/hr if you want to. The taxpayer will bailout the companies and the government will get into more debt, or the prices will rise on goods.

Living in the past isn't going to bring the future.

Let's break down Marx's little manifesto...

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Property taxes accomplish this to a degree.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Yep. Got that too.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Done. Estate tax.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Got that to some degree. Drugs and guns are taken from anyone who oppose the federal government.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Check.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

The airwaves and public roads are in the hands of the state. The cell-phone industry is under attack by regulation as we speak.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Zoning and Planning departments do this.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We haven't gotten here yet. Only 98% of the population works. Marx says Equal Work but he doesn't say Equal Pay. You forget this. CEOs work.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

First part done. Soveriegnty is gradually being eroded. Most people are unable to make the distinction that their home states are sovereign nations and that the federal government is not a national one.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Check, check, and check.

With all this communism going on, how can you sit there and attack the ghost of capitalism? You're the one in control. Income tax, public schools, child labor law, central bank, estate tax, etc etc. But this is a capitalist country? My left fucking nut it is!

This is less and less about communism and it's really about the liberal agenda: seizing the means of Wealth from the rich.

Just because you're being so retarded, I'm gonna nail you with this one.

Because of Karl Marx's call for a central bank, the United States became a Corporatist Union.

Way to go, ace. We're all slaves now. Happy?

[ComradeRed]

Demand $100.00/hr if you want to. The taxpayer will bailout the companies and the government will get into more debt, or the prices will rise on goods.

Should the company be bailed out, there will still be a debt irrelevant to who bailed them out! Should the price rise, there will be a loss in buyers unless other prices rise proportionally.

Let's break down Marx's little manifesto...

You're looking in the wrong book. Read Das Kapital ALL three volumes, then you get to me on Marx's view of economics.

Your analysis of Marx's demands totally ignores how life was in the 19th Century, perhaps you should remember what things were like way back then.

With all this communism going on, how can you sit there and attack the ghost of capitalism? You're the one in control. Income tax, public schools, child labor law, central bank, estate tax, etc etc. But this is a capitalist country? My left fucking nut it is!

"With all this communism going on"? I do believe that you forget yourself, sir, you are attacking anything and everything that you perceive to be non-capitalist. The demands Marx made in the Manifesto was to better the conditions of the working class(in America, the American working class is indeed much better, but Marx too knew that these reforms would be costly and ultimately lead to the collapse of capitalism, which is why he demanded them).

This is less and less about communism and it's really about the liberal agenda: seizing the means of Wealth from the rich.

The liberal agenda is just as bourgeois as that of the right, both seeks to have capitalism(be it in the form of laissez-faire[like what bush is now doing] or in a mixed economy). Neither the right nor the liberals want anything revolutionary, they want things to stay the way it is.

Because of Karl Marx's call for a central bank, the United States became a Corporatist Union.

Confusing cause and effect fallacy.

Way to go, ace. We're all slaves now. Happy?

Indeed we are all slaves, wage-slaves to the capitalist system.

The definition of capitalism[just to bear in mind]:
Capitalism: a new and much larger class of mini-despots[capitalists, industrialists, bourgeois, etc] who own the means of production and distribution and exploit the labor of those who don't; the end of private property in people.

[Kyran]

Red, the X system which we are under consists of Karl Marx's policies. So if X is capitalism. It's Marxist capitalism. Very simple logic, son. Don't bust a brain cell.

You can try to put the blame on somebody else, but it holds no weight. This system has fulfilled the core planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Marx was a liberal. The income tax didn't better the conditions of the working man. Liberals passed it and now you pay the income taxes of corporations. The word sucker comes to mind.

Not only are you not tired of paying Microsoft's, Pepsi's, and Frito-Lay's corporate taxes, but you're letting your emotions deceive you. You like being exploited. You like being a slave.

If you didn't...you'd do something about it.

[ComradeRed]

Red, the X system which we are under consists of Karl Marx's policies. So if X is capitalism. It's Marxist capitalism. Very simple logic, son. Don't bust a brain cell.

That's incorrect logic. It is the stealing concept fallacy, you deny that Marx was the man who coined the word capitalism and what he meant it to be. You are perverting it into something else.

You can try to put the blame on somebody else, but it holds no weight. This system has fulfilled the core planks of the Communist Manifesto.

You assume that communism is exactly what Marx said the reforms the working class demanded. The two are not the same. The latter was for the benefit of the working class, the former was the stage after the collapse of capitalism.

Marx was a liberal.

No, Marx was a leftist.

The income tax didn't better the conditions of the working man.

I had to look up the exact quote, lookey here:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

You see, Marx said the income tax should be used to even out the class distinctions. You misinterpret what he said and misuse it.

The word sucker comes to mind.

Yeah, I know the feeling.

Not only are you not tired of paying Microsoft's, Pepsi's, and Frito-Lay's corporate taxes, but you're letting your emotions deceive you. You like being exploited. You like being a slave.

And only "you" can "set me free"? I am sick of only two options of what to drink or to eat, and I am sick of you making these leaps of logic which asserts things which I have not even spoke of.

How am I being exploited? I don't even work! You have no clue what you are talking about, you consistantly steal Marx's ideas and completely deny its roots. That is the "stolen concept fallacy".

[Kyran]

No Red, it is not the 19th century anymore. I'm not perverting any words, you're perverting mine. Capitalism has 4 different meanings today and your interpretation of Marx is not one of them. The unadulterated definition of Capitalism is the Private Ownership of the Means of Production and Distribution. Means cannot include slavery, because ownership does not apply to human beings.

In order to have Capitalism, the Worker must own himself.

When Karl Marx wrote his book and manifesto, he was not numero uno compadre! A few years after he died, people in our government began passing the 10 planks of Marx's Manifesto. Now you want to raise the bar and say it wasn't enough? As long as someone has more than you, it's not enough? Well guess what...someone will always have more than you. That's life. Get used to it.

There's nothing in Marxism which can possibly remove class distinction from the face of humanity.

You don't work...what are you...16? Oh well no fucking wonder you think you can own the world. Okay, I'm going back to talking with adults.

[ComradeRed]

Kyran, you are putting a new definition to what capitalism is not!

The worker "must" own himself, but then sells his labor to survive!

Where have you been? The entire purpose of communism is equality! That was Marx's purpose when he wrote the 10 demands! That is why there is a socialist transition to a communist, i.e. classless, society! It's not "life"...IT'S CAPITALISM!

And your coup de poste is a magnificent ad hominem, as well as making several assertions. The funniest of which is that "I am 16".

There's nothing in Marxism which can possibly remove class distinction from the face of humanity.

You haven't read any of Marx except for the Manifesto, so you are now an expert who knows everything on Marxism, eh? I find this hard to believe!

[donkrabbit]

Most economists will agree that the reason why capitalism is a better economic system than communism is because of the market's ability to set prices.

I'm just curious- do you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? How do you propose that prices be set in the economic society which you advocate?

[ComradeRed]

Most economists will agree that the reason why capitalism is a better economic system than communism is because of the market's ability to set prices.

Yes, bourgeois economists boast this without even looking at the facts, ahhh The manifest idiocy of capitalism.

I'm just curious- do you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? How do you propose that prices be set in the economic society which you advocate?

I believe in the Labor theory of value, and I am trying to justify it as a matter of fact. But you are assuming that communism has money, communism is a lot different than anything ever seen before. What is Communism? A Brief Definition

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed, Yes, bourgeois economists boast this without even looking at the facts, ahhh The manifest idiocy of capitalism.

Dear God. This is why we need more Economics education in schools.

Also, don't fool yourself. The article you linked to did not contain facts. It was a theory (and a wacky one at that). Theories are not "facts".


The article assumes that suppliers are only concerned about the marginal price of their goods, and not the quantity of demand for these goods. The logic that the author advocates would say that a supplier would rather sale one good for $8 than two goods for $5 each. We know that this is entirely unrealistic. Suppliers are concerned about both the quantity demanded and the price at which they are selling their goods. This is why the Law of Supply exists. It describes how, as prices increase (which is what happens during a shortage), supply will increase. This is why shortages don't occur in a free-market economy. When a shortage occurs, suppliers have incentive to increase production and reduce prices. They make more money that way. If you don't see why that is true in words, then some other time I can draw you a graph (although I don't have the best artistic skills).

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRed,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I believe in the Labor theory of value, and I am trying to justify it as a matter of fact.[/b]

If I work for months to desalinate ocean water, I will be left with the same product as the fresh water that I can buy at the store. Why should the water that I spent months working to desalinate be valued any more highly than water that is already without salt?


<!--QuoteBegin-ComradeRed,

But you are assuming that communism has money, communism is a lot different than anything ever seen before. What is Communism? A Brief Definition[/quote]

No I'm not. I didn't say anything about money. I asked about prices. How do you propose that the value of a commodity be determined, and how do you propose that it be most efficiently allocated?

[ComradeRed]

The logic that the author advocates would say that a supplier would rather sale one good for $8 than two goods for $5 each.

I'm not sure that this is entirely true, hypothetically it is true of course; however, in practice I doubt there would ever be a situation when this is true.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the theory, but its a flawed one.

When a shortage occurs, suppliers have incentive to increase production and reduce prices.

Uh huh, tell me, there is a shortage of food in Africa and elsewhere, what "incentive" is there that the "competition" will "gravitate" the prices to a "reduced price"?

PLEASE DON'T DRAW ME A GRAPH! I understand the theory, but its a flawed one, lemme see if www.paecon.net has something on it.

[edit] I found this that debunks the theory: http://www.debunking-economics.com/

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRed,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not sure that this is entirely true, hypothetically it is true of course; however, in practice I doubt there would ever be a situation when this is true.[/b]

So you're saying that a supplier would rather make $8 than $10? Why?

Originally posted by ComradeRed,@ Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the theory, but its a flawed one.

How is it flawed?

<!--QuoteBegin-ComradeRed,
Uh huh, tell me, there is a shortage of food in Africa and elsewhere, what "incentive" is there that the "competition" will "gravitate" the prices to a "reduced price"?[/quote]

First of all, shortages cause increased prices- not reduced prices. That was the point of the website you linked, right? And I don't know why you put those words in quotation marks as if I had said them. I had never mentioned competition or gravitation. It isn't releveant to anything I've discussed so far.

Second of all, we're discussing different shortages here. Up until this point we've been discussing supply-side shortages (as that website does). This type of shortage involves consumers who are willing and able to buy a certain quantity of goods at a certain price. Market Equilibirium is the term used to describe a quantity of goods that demanders are willing to buy at a certain price, which is equal to the quantity of good that suppliers are willing to supply at that same price. This is a win-win situation for both sellers and buyers. Sellers are making the most money possible and the buyers are getting the most for their dollar. This is why the market will always naturally move from a shortage to Market Equilibirium.

But anyway, I think the reason why people are starving in Africa is because of government restricted markets. If everybody were allowed to trade freely, living standards would increase. Take Somalia for example. Now that it's labor market is open to multinational corporations, it's living standards have shot up in comparision to it's neighboring countries.

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed, [edit] I found this that debunks the theory: http://www.debunking-economics.com/

Specifically where on that site is it debunked? I couldn't find it anywhere.

Are the any specific articles or anything that you could link to, so I don't have to go hunting around?