Property Rights

[Geoff332]

You're right about most those problems, but here's the rub: most of the nations which are experiencing the worst problems are pre-capitalist nations. As you admited yourself, capitalism is at least a progressive step between feudalism and communism. The things you commented on are more likely to produce a desire for capitalism, rather than communism.

No-one's really outlined a full model of communism yet (I was going to, but decided that it wasn't worth the effort). The basic model of communism is that all capital is not owned, but is available to the society as a whole for production. The labour process converts the capital, along with raw materials, into production. This production is shared amoung the society on the basis of need.

As with capitalism, there are several critiques that can be levelled. The one I've been working on here is the fact that there are still power disparities. There is no magic formula for deciding exactly what the capital should be used to produce, the most efficient means of using capital for the good of society, and how to allocate the produced commodities. The nature of human systems means that making decisions like this will involve power disparities: some people will have more influence than others in the decision making processes. Nothing can over-come this. These power disparities will lead to injustices within the system just like the power disparities in capitalism lead to injustices within capitalism.

As to why there hasn't been a revolution, Marx missed a bunch of points that undermined his notion of revolution.

1. All established capitalist economies have a significant middle class. Marxist analysis relies on two classes; the third one in the middle upset his analysis.
2. There is far higher class mobility than Marx predicted: one can move from the working class to the upper class. It's not easy, but it is possible. The possibility undermines revolutionary ferver. My father's a carpenter; I own some capital and will get a lot more in the next five years.
3. Democratisation of leisure. Leisure used to be the province of the upper class. Now it is available to most people. Marx rests his argument on the idea that individual value came from the labour process (or from the false hope of religion). The emergence of leisure has allowed people find value and identity outside of the labour process.
4. Technological changes have increased the productivity of capital far beyond anything Marx conceived. The key to the industrial revolution and to Marx's analysis was the idea that the productivity of capital was increasing and this was shifting power out of the hands of labour and into the hands of capital owners. He, in fact, underestimated the extent to which this would happen.
5. Capital ownership is far more wide-spread than Marx suggested. The modern financial, banking and investment system has meant that a very high proportion of people actually own capital (in the form of bank accounts, shares, pensions, insurance, bonds etc). In developed countries we see over a quarter of people sharing in capital ownership to some extent. When you consider that the two third left are often married to or children of people who own capital, the capital owning class (or rather, capital ownership amoung the middle class) haf exceded Marx's predictions.
6. Surplus production is shared with labour. Profit sharing, stock options and bonuses are all techniques that redistribute at least a part of the suprlus value back to labour.
7. Base-lines have been established, through human rights, welfare systems and so forth. All of these have meant that the exploitation of the workers is lower than expected. One of the major problems of capitalism is it's cyclic nature (in a down-cycle, essential goods and services can suffer). This has been partially off-set by Government intervention, meaning we never actually see how bad things can get.

I agree it's an imperfect system and the world has a lot of ugliness in it. But given that most of the problems you've identified seem to be caused by problems inherent in human nature, I fail to see how shifting to a system that won't function if these problems still exist would actually help anyone.

[G. Adams]

The existence of feudal states within a global market is one of the things I see as a big stopper on progress to a revolution. The feudalism allows the suppression of the populace effectively, as well as the populace never experiencing capitalist freedoms which means they don't see quite how bad off they are, while being in a global market means that the vast capital of advanced capitalist societies can most effectively extract that wealth from the feudal societies. As long as a significant number of resource wealthy states remain feudal, then western capitalists can keep themselves in position without having to worry about effectibe labour unions and unrest.

Marxism accepts that there is a petty bourgois that aspires to be bourgois, some succeed and some fail. As we live in a global economy, I think it is much more realistic to look at classes as on a global scale. At this level, that middle class isn't too great in numbers.

Linked to that is my belief that Marx vastly misjudged the time. World wide communism was technologically possible, but the shifts over time have changed other circumstances. The middle class was miniscule in 1850 compared to today in Europe and America, but (i have no stats for this world wide) the merchants, shopkeepers, writers, artists, scientists etc world wide probably did constitute a comparable number to today. However, as wealth has concentrated itself into the West instead of being diffused among many, the middle class followed it. If the most advanced capitalist nations, also the ones most experienced in freedoms, are strongholds of the middle class, who generally benefit from capitalism, then the revolution which was meant to begin in such places will obviously be delayed.

What is needed is for all nations to become capitalist. Free trade should by applied as fully as possible, as it allows capitalism to take its most proper course. It will allow the rich to get richer and poor poorer much quicker, thus speeding up the revolution.

[ColWTH]

If as a young man you are not liberal you have no heart.
If as an older man you are not conservative you have no brain.

Socialism/communism/Nazism have all absolutely been proven to be failed concepts. There is no other way around the truth of history.

And in fact the concept of socialism is nearly as old as mankind forming governments. It has been tried on scales large and small for centuries and it NEVER has worked. Not ONCE!

Instead of bothering yourself reading the foolishness of Marx (unless its Groucho) you should read David Hume and Adam Smith.

But not only have the ideas of socialism and communism been proven false they have been proven to be murderously so. Socialism and communism is responsible for the violent deaths of more humans than ANY other ideology to date. If these ideas were not so filled with bloodshed Karl Marx would be in the humor section of your local bookstore.

Do yourself a favor. Wake up to reality and throw that garbage away. Read something USEFUL if not something MORAL.

[Geoff332]

I wonder if you've ever read Marx?

[fedfem]

ColWTH, I don't think you understand what Socialism is. Socialism is a part of most democratic governments. Of course it is applied in varying degrees in the different nations. Here in the US, most local gov is socialist and our states have welfare and at the Federal level we have Social Security. Socialism is not a bad word, unless of course you are an Anti-social person. Communism, I would argue is a viable option for smaller nations. Not the Soviet model or even the models that have been tried in recent decades. Cuba, I feel has been successful in a lot of areas under the communist rule. If they were not constantly on guard against the US then they would be doing even better. I would be curious to know how you define the different "isms".

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by fedfem@09-19-2003 09:13 AM ColWTH, I don't think you understand what Socialism is. Socialism is a part of most democratic governments. Of course it is applied in varying degrees in the different nations. Here in the US, most local gov is socialist and our states have welfare and at the Federal level we have Social Security. Socialism is not a bad word, unless of course you are an Anti-social person. Communism, I would argue is a viable option for smaller nations. Not the Soviet model or even the models that have been tried in recent decades. Cuba, I feel has been successful in a lot of areas under the communist rule. If they were not constantly on guard against the US then they would be doing even better. I would be curious to know how you define the different "isms".

Communism is not possible on the small scale, and I deem the USSR to be small scale. It has to be world wide, or else the remaining capitalist countries put pressure, military and economic on you, to sieze up, and eventually, they all do. USSR turned dictatorship, aswell as state capitalist (i mean by this that the capital of the country was controlled and used for the benefit for the bureaucrats rather than people), China's going capitalist, NK went dictatorship long ago (monarchical except in name now), Cuba stopped its road to communism ever since Che died.

Cuba is not communist, it is just more thoroughly socialist than most other countries. A communist country has not yet existed.

And ColWTH, Socialism has been proved to work over and over again. The end of WWII, GB had given all the wealth of the Empire to the USA before the war got going properly (there was nothing allyish about America's protection of Britain, it was good business), so we were stoney broke and unemployed. A labour government put into place many, many socialist policies, and we eventually got back to normal.

Scandinavian states are the model of socialist success. If every country were like those then we would be on the road to a better world.

Cuba, as already pointed out, is working. If America would give up trying to appease uber right wing exiles in Florida and end its trade blocking, it would be doing much better. As I have said before, Cuba has and produces the best doctors in the world.

[ColWTH]

Cuba is working?

If you are this blind then you are pointless to talk to. You are as bad as the sophist Marxists from the 1950's and 60's who turned a blind eye to the USSR's terror and murder.

Of COURSE there are small aspects of socialism in governments around the world. But it is not used for the purpose of making things "right" for the people. It is used to pander for VOTES! Big difference.

Communism/socialism/Nazism (they are all one one the same in the end despite the piddling textbook definitions) are failed concepts and should be wiped from the earth.

[Geoff332]

I ask again: have you read Das Kapital? Or anything else by Marx?

[fedfem]

Originally posted by ColWTH@09-21-2003 07:55 PM Cuba is working? If you are this blind then you are pointless to talk to. You are as bad as the sophist Marxists from the 1950's and 60's who turned a blind eye to the USSR's terror and murder. Communism/socialism/Nazism (they are all one one the same in the end despite the piddling textbook definitions) are failed concepts and should be wiped from the earth.

How do feel Cuba has failed? Some facts please.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

You people demonstrate the difference between rational and irrational philosohy well. An irrational mind decides what he 'feels' humanity should be and tries to rationalize the mass of evidence to the contrary. A rational mind accepts what humanity is and finds ways to use that knowedge to his/her advantage.

FedFem
Show me one artistic concept that does not relate to pain, death, or sex...or any concept at all, really..

[RebelWithanAK]

Greatwyrm, according to that, we should be greedy bastards with no care for society as a whole except how to exploit it. It's a good thing you don't live in the same world as we do.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

It appears that it is you that has the low opinion of humanity, if that is what you get from my statement, not me.

But while I am at it what does the marriage or non-marriage of our parents have to do with the issue???

[RebelWithanAK]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-21-2003 10:56 PM A rational mind accepts what humanity is and finds ways to use that knowedge to his/her advantage. FedFem Show me one artistic concept that does not relate to pain, death, or sex...or any concept at all, really..

"accepts what humanity is," which means not seeking to change the system, but "finds ways to use (it) to his/her advantage," which means personal gain from said system - however it is laid out. If you know it's flawed, and you seek to gain from it anyway, I'd most certainly call that exploitation. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now: It's exploitation!

Also, formalist planning, expressionist painting, classical architecture, string figures, the folk music of a people not immediately hard-put. Just because our society is sick now doesn't mean it always was and will be.

[Geoff332]

The core assumptions of capitalism centre on human beings being self-interested and rational. Since you have pointed out that most people here are not behaving in accordance with your view of rationality, does that mean that we should reject the notion of capitalism? Huge amounts of effort in modern economics goes into dealing with situations where economic actors do not act in accordance with the 'rational' model of economic man. Here's an economist article on the endowment effect -- one of the ways in which people do not behave rationally.

I also notice that in Ayn Rand's work, rational self-interest is a premise, not a conclusion or observation (in technial terms, she talks about rational self-interest, which is the same as normative egoism from mainstream philosophy -- in either case, it describes how people ought to act, not how they do act). rand herself talks about how one should act, not how one does act. Does this mean her rational philosophy is irrational?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Rebel
Pretending a rock is a flower does not make it smell pretty. You have to know what you have in order to change it to something else. Do not be so arrogant as to asume that only you have any answers...

As I have to ask a lot arund here, exactly who's interest am I supposed to be working in here????

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Geoff
Rationality like every other philosophical goal is more a path than a destination. Just because we do not wake up one morning perfectly rational does not mean that the road goes nowhere. Rational philosophy merely claims that we can get farther using our minds than our emotions...

BTW: Just because I have used Rand as an example does not mean I care if you seek to insult her, egoists do not have idols... so try that tactic on your irrational peers.

[RebelWithanAK]

You appear to be confusing understanding with acceptance. I see the system as flawed. I seek to change it to a slightly less flawed state. The best part is I do so understanding that it would very much limit my profit potential. So?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

You are assuming that acceptance has to be a static concept, it is not. Use some calculus, rate of change is a definable concept...not my problem if you only use scaler values rather than linear ones...

[Geoff332]

An irrational mind decides what he 'feels' humanity should be and tries to rationalize the mass of evidence to the contrary. A rational mind accepts what humanity is and finds ways to use that knowedge to his/her advantage.

Rational philosophy merely claims that we can get farther using our minds than our emotions

So, it sounds to me like rational philosophy is describing how you feel humanity should be, not how it is -- making it irrational according to your own distinction.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Geoff
I said exactly the opposite of what you decided I said. Rationality is determining what we are, deciding what we want to be, and then defining a way to get there. Irrationality is simply deciding you are already there and simply explaining away anything that says oterwise. Scientific process...