Is Communism the way forward..

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Stop just a moment and fill me in on how you got from a to b there. How did people becoming increasingly wealthy lead to the demise of some firms?

Minimum wage increases... increased salary expectations, the usual economic burdens to purchasing labour. This affected manufacturing industry in particular. Export profits often seemed unable to keep pace with salary expectations.

To be frank, you seem to be looking for a textbook instruction here. I am not a leaving cert economics teacher. Inform yourself of the theories before expecting others to write the sparknotes

MarchX

You guys really haven't felt any kind of communism, have you? Otherwise you would stay the hell away from such a notion. Trust a guy who lived it for a while.

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Minimum wage increases... increased salary expectations, the usual economic burdens to purchasing labour. This affected manufacturing industry in particular. Export profits often seemed unable to keep pace with salary expectations.

Minimum wage increases are not a required part of a capitalist system. Increased salary expectations are caused by availability of better paying jobs elsewhere. In our case those salary expectations grew with a construction bubble blown by central banks lowering of interest rates and government incentives. All mentioned are not a required part of a capitalist system.

Poo Fingers

Socialism is the future, kids. Just take a look at the socialist paradise Scandinavians have created for themselves:

High wages. Min wage is about 15 Euro an hour.
Low unemployment.
Low crime AND very civilised prisons.
Excellent education system. Uni is free.
Excellent welfare system. Hardly any homeless or poverty.
Economy managed much better. Low national debt.
Higher levels of general happiness and life satisfaction.
Far fewer money grabbing greedy c*nts.

Why do i sign up?

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Minimum wage increases are not a required part of a capitalist system.

To be honest you're all over the place here. You asked me why people 'get notions', which I am referring to as enhanced expectations. In times of economic growth, workers' expectations are enhanced.

One of the constraints on workers' expectations can be central bank interventions. Another constraint is the threat of undercutting workers with a pool of reserve workers, pulled out of the unemployment net, or from foreign economies. This is illustrative of the wealth divisions that a capitalist society demands, without which it cannot function in accordance with its aims.

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

To be honest you're all over the place here. You asked me why people 'get notions', which I am referring to as enhanced expectations. In times of economic growth, workers' expectations are enhanced.

No the one that is all over the place is you. Your point was that unemployment is required in a capitalist system. Then you brought up Irish Ferries a "corporation upset at its workers 'getting notions' and being unable to select adequate workers from the pool of the unemployed." did capitalism stop for Irish Ferries when it didn't have unemployed to choose from which you tell us are required?

MarchX

Hm. It seems to me like nobody really understands what communism means, so maybe you should learn that:
- you have no rights; even if you had any rights, nobody would care about them, the state is more powerful than your rights;
- you have to get used to various shortages; milk, meat, bread would be rationalized most of the times; you would find coffee, oranges, bananas only two or three times a year;
- no electricity in the evenings for a number of hours; get used to having alternatives, like a gas lamp or candles;
- no heating in the winter for many of you; get used to wearing winter coats while inside;
- one or two TV channels, mainly speaking about how great your communist leader is, and how grateful you should be for living under his guidance;
- you usually do not own your house, an apartment will be assigned to you by the government; while this sounds great in theory, the builder will not care about quality, and you will end up in a s**thole;
- you will wait 7 years when you want to buy a car; a s**tty car, of course, which will cost you 5 times your annual salary;
- you will be assigned roughly 20L of petrol per month;
- you will wait 5 years to buy a color TV;
- you will receive the same pay as the next guy, even if you work twice as much; imagine that as an incentive.

I could go on, but I will stop now and see if communism still sounds appealing.

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

did capitalism stop for Irish Ferries when it didn't have unemployed to choose from which you tell us are required?

Do you understand what happened? Yes, the firm claimed to be, and probably was on the brink of insolvency; labour costs and an inability to secure alternative labour threatened to "stop capitalism" for I.F. (your words, ridiculous phrase ffs) without dramatically 'outsourcing', i.e the firm needed to be able to pay pittance to philipino women to survive. This is a fundamental aspect of capitalism, it needs a desperate poor on the bottom rung.

groom

Jonny7 wrote: »

Out of 200 countries, there are only two true Communist nations left - both are pretty ****ty.

It's a broken system that ends up with everyone being equal alright, equally poor.

Korth Korea and which other? Can't be Cuba

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Do you understand what happened? Yes, the firm claimed to be, and probably was on the brink of insolvency; labour costs and an inability to secure alternative labour threatened to "stop capitalism" for I.F. (your words, ridiculous phrase ffs) without dramatically 'outsourcing', i.e the firm needed to be able to pay pittance to philipino women to survive.

Get back to me when the near failure of a single ferry company(due to people getting notions) snowballs to halt capitalism, will I be dead first?

This is a fundamental aspect of capitalism, it needs a desperate poor on the bottom rung.

Why does everyone have to be poor and desperate? People have needs and desires, they need to produce and exchange to fulfill those desires. The hairdresser cuts the butchers hair, and the butcher supplies the hairdresser with some meat. Neither has to be desperate or poor. And what in the hell is the alternative to this arrangement?

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Get back to me when the near failure of a single ferry company snowballs to halt capitalism, will I be dead first?

It didn't fail because they were able to show they meant business by temporarily paying "outsourced" staff as little as €1 per hour, and so, subsequently managed to strike a pay deal with the unions.

Plenty of firms failed because they couldn't manage this - just look at the death of Irish exporting firms during the property boom.

Companies survive under capitalism by keeping wages as low as they can. One block on wage growth is unemployment. I can;'t believe someone is seriously disputing economics 101.

SupaNova2

And again:

Why does everyone have to be poor and desperate? People have needs and desires, they need to produce and exchange to fulfill those desires. The hairdresser cuts the butchers hair, and the butcher supplies the hairdresser with some meat. Neither has to be desperate or poor. And what in the hell is the alternative to this arrangement?

Cody Pomeray

That point has already been gone through, and I am not proposing Communism as an alternative. As far as i am concerned this exchange has reached a point where I suddenly realize you're meandering from point to point without understanding the material under discussion. every time a point is made to you in exasperation, you shrink away and start up something else. It's never-ending, so here it ends.

Tom_Cruise

To be honest, i don't think their is any economic system that actually works like it should , and i think it would be impossible to create one as well. Its just a flawed idea the whole 'money', but what else can we use?

Any one have any ideas?

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That point has already been gone through, as far as i am concerned this exchange has reached a point where I suddenly realize you're meandering from point to point without understanding the material under discussion.

It hasn't been gone through and without out addressing it, your two arguments are:
-Capitalism is flawed because it isn't utopia:rolleyes:
-Capitalism is flawed because some people are richer than others

Well I can agree with the first.

V4Voluntary

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Companies survive under capitalism by keeping wages as low as they can. One block on wage growth is unemployment. I can;'t believe someone is seriously disputing economics 101.

I think you're the one that is disputing economics 101.

laoch na mona

groom wrote: »

Korth Korea and which other? Can't be Cuba

north Korea is a monarchy not a communist state

JDOC1996

Communism is a brilliant idea in theory, but in practice... Not so much.
There'll always be bad individuals in power no matter what the governing system is, there'll always be people who abuse their power, for selfish reasons.
Capitalism is by far the greatest economic system, we have a few dick heads at the top who spoil the game for everybody.

Cody Pomeray

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

To be honest, i don't think their is any economic system that actually works like it should

No, no economic, legal, political system is 'perfect'. That is not a very useful observation... unless you believe our current system is as close to perfection as is humanly possible, which I don't believe is a position to which many people subscribe.

There are plenty of models of capitalism, the least exploitative and the most egalitarian capitalist systems are those which have strong historical links with both Marxism and capitalism, e.g. Nordic and Western Europe, but not the UK and Ireland, or North America.

SupaNova2

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I think you're the one that is disputing economics 101.

I think for Cody Marxism 101 = economics 101.

COYVB

Communism would work perfectly if it weren't for people

V4Voluntary

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, no economic, legal, political system is 'perfect'. That is not a very useful observation... unless you believe our current system is as close to perfection as is humanly possible, which I don't believe is a position to which many people subscribe.

There are plenty of models of capitalism, the least exploitative and the most egalitarian capitalist systems are those which have strong historical links with both Marxism and capitalism, e.g. Nordic and Western Europe, but not the UK and Ireland, or North America.

Capitalism is the only moral system because it is not based on force or coercion.

Cody Pomeray

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Capitalism is the only moral system because it is not based on force or coercion.

capitalism is not coercive? That's ridiculous. Anywhere there is a necessity for ordered group interaction, there must be co-ercion. What are statutory laws and workplace regulations, except instruments of coercion; capitalism, like all economic models, requires some form of coercion if it is to succeed.

V4Voluntary

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

capitalism is not coercive? That's ridiculous. Anywhere there is a necessity for ordered group interaction, there must be co-ercion. What are statutory laws and workplace regulations, except instruments of coercion; capitalism, like all economic models, requires some form of coercion if it is to succeed.

I don't think you understand capitalism. If you did, you wouldn't be talking about regulations.

Cody Pomeray

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I don't think you understand capitalism. If you did, you wouldn't be talking about regulations.

Okay lets go through this again.

Capitalism requires laws to underpin it and ensure its success... all economic systems do... that's the point.

All laws are simply instruments of coercion. We say "behave in this way, or we will deny you liberty, or we will take away your property". No matter what economic model you choose, you must have co-ercion.

V4Voluntary

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Okay lets go through this again.

Capitalism requires laws to underpin it and ensure its success... all economic systems do... that's the point.

All laws are simply instruments of coercion. We say "behave in this way, or we will deny you liberty, or we will take away your property". No matter what economic model you choose, you must have co-ercion.

"behave in this way, or we will deny you liberty, or we will take away your property".....this is not capitalism. You're failing to distinguish between capitalism and state interventionism in the market.

Cody Pomeray

You just aren't getting this.

Marxism and capitalism both require coercion to underpin them. Capitalist theory and Marxist theory both presuppose an ordered society, governed by laws which stand ready to deprive individuals of property or liberty. Yes Marxism is implicitly co-ercive, but there can be no capitalism without coercion either.

ScumLord

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Capitalism is the only moral system because it is not based on force or coercion.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, it's the crudest system humans have.

V4Voluntary

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You just aren't getting this.

Marxism and capitalism both require coercion to underpin them. Capitalist theory and Marxist theory both presuppose an ordered society, governed by laws which stand ready to deprive individuals of property or liberty. Yes Marxism is implicitly co-ercive, but there can be no capitalism without coercion either.

I think you're the one who is just not getting this.

Your last number of posts basically stated that capitalism is coercive without specifying what is coercive about it. That's not an argument. That's an opinion. You're entitled to it of course but it's not based in any evidence whatsoever. Socialism/Communism is inherently coercive because you don't get a choice. In a capitalistic system, you have a choice. You can either choose to die or you can flourish. Not being permitted to live at the expense of everybody else does not constitute a coercive argument.

V4Voluntary

ScumLord wrote: »

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, it's the crudest system humans have.

I whole-heatedly disagree.

Capitalism is simply the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the market place. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the "crudest system humans have" that lifted billions of people out of total poverty.

ScumLord

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I whole-heatedly disagree.

Capitalism is simply the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the market place. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the "crudest system humans have" that lifted billions of people out of total poverty.

Capitalism has been been place since the very beginning. I think it's the default state for humans. We had capitalism before democracy even before religion and civilization. It's lifted no one out of poverty, democracy, education and science did that.

Nemeses

Democracy is really picking a dictator for the country... We just get to choose who dictates what...

V4Voluntary

ScumLord wrote: »

Capitalism has been been place since the very beginning. I think it's the default state for humans. We had capitalism before democracy even before religion and civilization. It's lifted no one out of poverty, democracy, education and science did that.

Without even realising, you've just made a solid argument re-enforcing the benefits of capitalism.

Capitalism is about production and savings. A capital accumulation for future consumption. Since it first dawned on primitive man that his interests lay in developing tools that allowed him to work at a greater productive level, we have seen a wealth of technoligical and scientific breakthroughs. From the discovery of fire, to the development of the wheel, to the research of machines in the Industrial Revolution. Man has worked tirelessly to discover a way in which he/she can increase production in as shortest a time as possible. This is capitalism.

Education and mans understanding of the world around him stems from this. Democracy, in and of itself, means very little. Taking it as it is, Democracy has the power to extract or coerce one individual at the behest of two others. It's not Democracy that defends and protects the individual, it's the Constitution and the rule of law.

Capitalism has been in place since the beginning, true. But it's akin to having your cereal with no milk. For example, the market has always been interfered with at one point or another whether it be the dictates of a Monarchy, Mercantilism or modern protectionism and legislation that favours corporate entities and institutions. This is not capitalism in the truest sense of the system but merely a system permitted or not at the direction and whims of powerful authorities.

ScumLord

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Without even realising, you've just made a solid argument re-enforcing the benefits of capitalism.

I've already explained my position in my first post.

Capitalism is about production and savings.

Capitalism is about trade. Trade is what made human unique out of the humanoid apes around 200,000 years ago. We traded things across great distances, it forced us to interact in a peaceful way. I've said since the very beginning that trade is a fundamental part of human society and it can't be removed. Making communism and the likes pointless.

That doesn't mean I think modern capitalism is anything but a corruption and abuse of human instinct.

A capital accumulation for future consumption. Since it first dawned on primitive man that his interests lay in developing tools that allowed him to work at a greater productive level, we have seen a wealth of technoligical and scientific breakthroughs.

I don't think capitalism is about consumption or progress, while they're intertwined the environment the human is in has a greater influence on progress and technology.

From the discovery of fire, to the development of the wheel, to the research of machines in the Industrial Revolution. Man has worked tirelessly to discover a way in which he/she can increase production in as shortest a time as possible. This is capitalism.

It's not, your applying a modern concept of capitalism for corporations to prehistoric people that was fighting for survival not profit.

Education and mans understanding of the world around him stems from this. Democracy, in and of itself, means very little.

Taking it as it is, Democracy has the power to extract or coerce one individual at the behest of two others. It's not Democracy that defends and protects the individual, it's the Constitution and the rule of law.

Democracy is majority rule and the majority of people are going to want equality. Humans have always coerced each other, mostly through violence, democracy at least in theory tries to stop a minority of people subjugating the majority for their own benefit.

Democracy was probably with humans early on, in smaller groups it could be harder for one person to act like dictator. It wouldn't surprise me if people went democracy > Kings > Emperors and then back to democracy.

SupaNova2

ScumLord wrote: »

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, it's the crudest system humans have.

It's always survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, just the definition of the fittest changes, the fittest in a system with strong state power are those who can get hold of that power and use it for their own good. Your argument against capitalism is actually an argument against people. So with the same selfish people who kill or be killed you look at which system gets results.

V4Voluntary

ScumLord wrote: »

I've already explained my position in my first post.

Capitalism is about trade. Trade is what made human unique out of the humanoid apes around 200,000 years ago. We traded things across great distances, it forced us to interact in a peaceful way. I've said since the very beginning that trade is a fundamental part of human society and it can't be removed. Making communism and the likes pointless.

That doesn't mean I think modern capitalism is anything but a corruption and abuse of human instinct.


I don't think capitalism is about consumption or progress, while they're intertwined the environment the human is in has a greater influence on progress and technology.

It's not, your applying a modern concept of capitalism for corporations to prehistoric people that was fighting for survival not profit.

Education and mans understanding of the world around him stems from this. Democracy, in and of itself, means very little.

Democracy is majority rule and the majority of people are going to want equality. Humans have always coerced each other, mostly through violence, democracy at least in theory tries to stop a minority of people subjugating the majority for their own benefit.

Democracy was probably with humans early on, in smaller groups it could be harder for one person to act like dictator. It wouldn't surprise me if people went democracy > Kings > Emperors and then back to democracy.

There's a couple of things in there that you've probably unintentionally twisted. I never said capitalism is about consumption and nothing else. That would equate capitalism with spending which we know doesn't work. Keynesian take on capitalism is not capitalism at all. Trade is of course a feature of capitalism as you've rightly pointed out but what would one have to trade with others if one didn't have anything of worth?

It makes little difference whether it be said in terms of modern corporations or primitive man, the actions of both ancient and modern peoples are followed by the exact same rule. When a human being makes a choice, that choice is made to benefit their lives in one way or another be it ancient primitive man or modern sophisticated corporation. This choice doesn't need to be physical or financial because a person that devoted his life to the simple life of a monk still values that life over others. If not, they wouldn't make that decision. The same occurs when we give to charity. We get nothing in return of physical worth but we believe our state of mind is in a better position afterwards. That's why we do it. We are motivated by self-improvement and it's this that drives society. One mans success is societies gain. The farmer grows crops not for the purpose of feeding others, but for his own personal gain. In turn, because he does this, society now has an array of products from which to choose.

Democracy doesn't protect the life, property and liberty of an individual. I would go so far as to say that there is a strong argument that Democracy (in the current format we have now) is incompatible with capitalism. I'm not saying that Democracy cannot be used for those that wish to participate but the idea that 49% of society must be forced by the other 51% is an extremely frightening concept.

Nitochris

Capitalism as an economic and social order is coercive just usually not at the end of the gun.


Firstly in order to survive under capitalism people are coerced to work for others in order to live – therefore the choice to work cannot be said to be free. The response to this is welfare, which serves to protect capitalism from a backlash as much as it does protect those who may fall through the cracks. Those who oppose welfare – often support charity as an alternative itself nothing but paternalism at best and a fashion statement at worst.


The race for profits under a capitalist economic order when it is not profitable to maintain the highest safety standards as we saw in Bangladesh recently – capitalist economics force workers to work in these unsafe conditions – the fear of the loss of the job and its consequences render this relationship authoritarian.


As Conor McCabe recently pointed out in Look Left (I think it was the March issue) the Irish Middle Class, the same group who maintain capital, placed the ideological apparatus of the state in the hands of those who defend and maintain there class interests – the Catholic Church and we all know how well that worked out, and how oppressive they were.


Capitalism elevates money over people encouraging the sort of behaviour we have seen in Anglo, and worse Bangladesh.


The market conditions are always determined by those who hold the resources – this unequal relationship is another element the coercive nature of capitalism.


The externalities, as economists term it, require that people outside the supposedly free agreement between two or more parties are affected against their will. Again we see the coerciveness of capitalism.


Capitalism is primarily based on private property (and I should point out here that as a left Libertarian and I use the term in the correct meaning of the term, I distinguish between private and personal property) now the reason this is key is that the owner of this property often does not produce from it themselves instead they hire others. Fine and fair enough until you notice that this hold on property allows them to exploit the workers essentially creating and maintaining an exploitative relationship as the worker has no choice but to continue to work for their employer or face unemployment, entry into another relationship of the same nature or in the unlikely event that they have access to resources themselves become the exploiter themselves.

ScumLord

V4Voluntary wrote: »

It makes little difference whether it be said in terms of modern corporations or primitive man, the actions of both ancient and modern peoples are followed by the exact same rule. When a human being makes a choice, that choice is made to benefit their lives in one way or another be it ancient primitive man or modern sophisticated corporation. This choice doesn't need to be physical or financial because a person that devoted his life to the simple life of a monk still values that life over others.

Humans generally do what's best for the community, we have been promoting individual rights in the last century or two, rightly so. Individual rights have improved everybodies rights. But treating humans as individuals is flawed in it's own way. Humans aren't lone tigers, we're ants and without the community we're next to useless. The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few.

Corporations have no concerns, while a human will vote for the betterment of his tribe as a whole the corporation has one goal and that's to better itself at the cost of everything around it.

We get nothing in return of physical worth but we believe our state of mind is in a better position afterwards.

I think that plays back to the community, human sympathy and basic species survival instincts.

That's why we do it. We are motivated by self-improvement and it's this that drives society. One mans success is societies gain.

I don't think it's as much down to self improvement, many advances were made for the state or king.

The farmer grows crops not for the purpose of feeding others, but for his own personal gain. In turn, because he does this, society now has an array of products from which to choose.

When farming was developed it was done by a community, the majority of humans lived in tight knit communities and developed larger food requirements. One person has no need for farming, it's a complete waste of their time. food also didn't travel to well back then so the idea is what got traded rather than what was produced on the farm.

It's likely farming came after religion too, if people wanted to settle at a religious site and stop following herds they needed a different food source.

Democracy doesn't protect the life, property and liberty of an individual. I would go so far as to say that there is a strong argument that Democracy (in the current format we have now) is incompatible with capitalism.

It probably is, democracy is the will of the people, capitalism is a fight for supremacy. Democracy at least gives the majority of people a voice. Capitalism says one person can acquire everything for personal gain.

I'm not saying that Democracy cannot be used for those that wish to participate but the idea that 49% of society must be forced by the other 51% is an extremely frightening concept.

It's less alarming than a minority having control of all the resources.

Nitochris wrote: »

Firstly in order to survive under capitalism people are coerced to work for others in order to live – therefore the choice to work cannot be said to be free.

It's always been like that though, slavery, serfdom, employee. We are slaves to our society but we choose to be, you can go back and hunt wild game in the fields or you can contribute to modern society.

Our current economic and governmental systems are the best we've come up with so far but they are flawed, that's not surprising or anyones fault but with the knowledge we've gained in the past 50 years we can make some major improvements to our systems. Our current systems come from the industrial age, are outdated and don't suit an overpopulated planet with a god like creature on it capable of gouging every bit of worth out of the planet.

Ravelleman

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I don't think you understand capitalism. If you did, you wouldn't be talking about regulations.

Regulation is absolutely something that can exist within a capitalist system - it just depends on what type it is.

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I whole-heatedly disagree.

Capitalism is simply the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the market place. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the "crudest system humans have" that lifted billions of people out of total poverty.

This is at most a 'pop' definition and analysis of capitalism and its effects.

V4Voluntary wrote: »

I think you're the one who is just not getting this.

Your last number of posts basically stated that capitalism is coercive without specifying what is coercive about it. That's not an argument. That's an opinion. You're entitled to it of course but it's not based in any evidence whatsoever. Socialism/Communism is inherently coercive because you don't get a choice. In a capitalistic system, you have a choice. You can either choose to die or you can flourish. Not being permitted to live at the expense of everybody else does not constitute a coercive argument.

If capitalism is tied to a state, which it always is, then coercion become inherent to the system. Given that, in Weberian terminology, states historically develop a 'monopoly on the legitimate use of violence', coercion becomes implicit in society. It is expressed through laws, policing etc. Some theorists on both 'left' and 'right' would also suggest that our system of selling labour to employers on the job market is a form of economic coercion in itself, in that our material needs can only be met by earning money, which is then used to buy food, shelter and all that. It might not be immediately obvious in the world around you - as in some one forcing you to do something with a bayonet at your back - but coercion is there and that is something that I think all sociologists, political scientists and historians of any quality would recognise.

V4Voluntary

Nitochris wrote: »

Capitalism as an economic and social order is coercive just usually not at the end of the gun.

Firstly in order to survive under capitalism people are coerced to work for others in order to live – therefore the choice to work cannot be said to be free. The response to this is welfare, which serves to protect capitalism from a backlash as much as it does protect those who may fall through the cracks. Those who oppose welfare – often support charity as an alternative itself nothing but paternalism at best and a fashion statement at worst.

Under capitalism, nobody is forced to work for anybody else. The employee trades his labour which the employer needs in exchange for something the employee requires from the employer. Both mutually benefit from this exchange.

I don't believe an argument which lays out that an employee is coerced to work as the alternative is poverty has a concrete foundation. The reason being that nobody has the right to live at the expense of everybody else. Because you choose to work does not equate it with coercion.

Nitochris wrote: »

The race for profits under a capitalist economic order when it is not profitable to maintain the highest safety standards as we saw in Bangladesh recently – capitalist economics force workers to work in these unsafe conditions – the fear of the loss of the job and its consequences render this relationship authoritarian.

As Conor McCabe recently pointed out in Look Left (I think it was the March issue) the Irish Middle Class, the same group who maintain capital, placed the ideological apparatus of the state in the hands of those who defend and maintain there class interests – the Catholic Church and we all know how well that worked out, and how oppressive they were.

Safety standards and pay increases rise in the marketplace regardless of government legislation. We see an increase in working conditions and wages because of competition and production. We must not forget that employers are also in a heated fight for quality labour in the market. Garys business will attract better quality labour if Gary supports better working conditions and higher salary packages than Micks business does. Mick must then raise his standards and those of his employees to survive.

I'm not a leftist in the modern sense of the term. But I am a leftist in the historical sense. In 19th century France, the market advocates located themselves on the left side of Parliament as opposed to the conservative aristocracy of the time. That's where the word "Liberal" comes from. Liberal used to denote those in favour of free markets. In the last one hundred years and particularly in the US, the word "Liberal" has been somewhat hijacked by those inclined to promote socialist and "progressive" policies.

So as you can tell, I'm not such a huge fan of Look Left as a magazine.

Nitochris wrote: »

Capitalism elevates money over people encouraging the sort of behaviour we have seen in Anglo, and worse Bangladesh.

There's a few things here that might be a little off.

Firstly, Anglo as an institution were not operating under the practices which any corporations or company would consider beneficial in the marketplace. In other words, Anglo as a bank is insolvent and it was still operating under insolvency. But that's the nature of the banking system today and it has nothing to do with capitalism. Any basis or presumption of capitalism ends immediately when a central bank is created. Look around the world. If a nation has a central bank, whether it be the ECB or the Federal Reserve, there can be no capitalism.

With regards to developing countries and sweatshops, we cannot change this overnight. No matter how much you oppose this on moral grounds, we must remember that we, and let's say Europe, the US and others were in a similar situation at one point. If you go to a developing country, you'll see tasks being carried out that seem alien to us. For example, many years ago in Asia I came across two guys filling a pot hole on the road. They emptied the sand and water onto the pathway and did what they needed to do to make the cement. Here, we have cement mixers and the job gets done in half the time. This is because we, and other first world countries have accumulated capital over the last two hundred years. In essence, these developing nations will grow but they need time. Time that we needed at one one point.

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans generally do what's best for the community, we have been promoting individual rights in the last century or two, rightly so. Individual rights have improved everybodies rights. But treating humans as individuals is flawed in it's own way. Humans aren't lone tigers, we're ants and without the community we're next to useless. The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few.

Corporations have no concerns, while a human will vote for the betterment of his tribe as a whole the corporation has one goal and that's to better itself at the cost of everything around it.

I think that plays back to the community, human sympathy and basic species survival instincts.

I would disagree with you here. Humans are not ants. Ants are community creatures. Now that's not to say that humans are lone tigers, far from it. We need society but we need society to better and advance our own needs, wants and desires. For example, if I grow blueberries and you filter water: I need your services and you need mine. I'm not giving you food for your betterment. I'm giving you food for my betterment because I want the water, and you in return need the food. And because of that, we both benefit from each other.

The needs of the many doesn't take priority over the few. This is the talk of a socialist/communist. It may sound quite legitimate and proper to you and that, of course, is your prerogative but to others it is merely an opinion and not a fact.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think it's as much down to self improvement, many advances were made for the state or king.

Historically, if we look back we can see that, putting brainwashing or manipulation aside, that humans generally do what is in their own self-interest. This is a concept that doesn't keep me awake at night because when you go to work everyday, you're helping me and I thank you for that. It is a concept that many find unacceptable though. Why, I don't know.

In any event, if advances were made for the betterment of a King or a State, then those participants obviously seen that it was in their best interests to join the cause. Be it money, sycophancy in a bid to win favour, religious advancement or a myriad of reasons, we can see that humans do what is in their self-interest.

ScumLord wrote: »

It probably is, democracy is the will of the people, capitalism is a fight for supremacy. Democracy at least gives the majority of people a voice. Capitalism says one person can acquire everything for personal gain.

It's less alarming than a minority having control of all the resources.

Again, this is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Personally I don't buy into the collectivist argument. I don't see where my interests are being protected by the mob of voters. Moreover, I don't see humans as one mass collection or force. Instead, I approach it from the perspective that everybody is an Individual and it's this Individual that is supreme.

Today it may be fashionable for the youth to downgrade capitalism and rile against it but the fact is that those successful businessmen are the people that create thousands of jobs, not the government. When a businessman acquires wealth, he is not the evil monster he is made out to be by the socialists. Because when a businessman receives his profits he can do a number of things which, regardless of what he does, he improves the lives of his fellow men. For example, he can invest his profits back into his business to create more jobs and improve the living standards of his workers. He can increase his own buying by purchasing a car, or a pair of shoes which creates jobs in car manufacturing and shoe-makers. Or maybe he buys or invests in an ice-cream factory or some other industry. Whatever he does, he creates jobs, highers wages and working conditions and raises the living standards of his fellow men. His "greed" has helped everybody else in society and we must be grateful to him for that.

Ravelleman wrote: »

Regulation is absolutely something that can exist within a capitalist system - it just depends on what type it is.

Consider this.

Capitalism is a spectrum of sorts. On one side, you have state-controlled "capitalism". In other words, crony-capitalism/Keynesianism. Some refer to it as corporatism/corporate fascism. On the other end of the spectrum we have market anarchy. It is this market anarchy that historically denotes the system of capitalism. Therefore, what we have today is not capitalism but a manipulated version of it.

Regulation can of course exist within capitalism so long as that regulation is decided by market forces. In other words, regulation is an inherent feature of the capitalist system. Everything else, in other words, government legislation is not natural to the market. It's this kind of government intervention regulation that acts as a cancer to capitalism. It distorts markets and re-directs resources and labour away from where they are most needed in order to fulfill some political promise. And we are worse off for it.

Capitalism has it's own in-built regulatory framework. It's called demand. It doesn't need government intervention.

Ravelleman wrote: »

If capitalism is tied to a state, which it always is, then coercion become inherent to the system. Given that, in Weberian terminology, states historically develop a 'monopoly on the legitimate use of violence', coercion becomes implicit in society. It is expressed through laws, policing etc. Some theorists on both 'left' and 'right' would also suggest that our system of selling labour to employers on the job market is a form of economic coercion in itself, in that our material needs can only be met by earning money, which is then used to buy food, shelter and all that. It might not be immediately obvious in the world around you - as in some one forcing you to do something with a bayonet at your back - but coercion is there and that is something that I think all sociologists, political scientists and historians of any quality would recognise.

What you're describing here is state-controlled capitalism or crony-capitalism. It differs significantly from capitalism in it's natural way i.e - market anarchy. I don't promote or advocate the corporatist or state controlled system we have today. I'm a capitalist.

Ravelleman

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Consider this.

Capitalism is a spectrum of sorts. On one side, you have state-controlled "capitalism". In other words, crony-capitalism/Keynesianism. Some refer to it as corporatism/corporate fascism. On the other end of the spectrum we have market anarchy. It is this market anarchy that historically denotes the system of capitalism. Therefore, what we have today is not capitalism but a manipulated version of it.

The terms you use here are not interchangeable, I'm afraid. Corporatism, for example, is something entirely different.

I think we should look at those countries that have managed to combine strong economic growth, with low unemployment and decent levels of quality of life and happiness among the population.

The most optimal system seems to be the mixed market / socialist economy of most countries in Europe.

Funnily, even right wing think tanks find some European countries to have as much if not more economic freedom than the good ol' USA:

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Karl Stein

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Capitalism is simply the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the market place.

I think you're getting the free market confused with Capitalism.

You'll note the notion that there is a free market is a myth perpetuated by fools and liars.

FootShooter

Just going to leave this here

V4Voluntary

Ravelleman wrote: »

The terms you use here are not interchangeable, I'm afraid. Corporatism, for example, is something entirely different.

Entirely different to what?

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I think you're getting the free market confused with Capitalism.

You'll note the notion that there is a free market is a myth perpetuated by fools and liars.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I was referring to free market capitalism. I never once said we had free market capitalism today. I do believe it is the best system. TBH, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to convey here. Can you specify?

Karl Stein

V4Voluntary wrote: »

TBH, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to convey here. Can you specify?

You spoke about Capitalism as if it were some sort of 'virtuous' entity that exists in a hermetically sealed box that insulates it from exploitation, price fixing, monopolies, patent protection, copyright protection, limited liability, protectionism, corporatism, cronyism etc.

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Under capitalism, nobody is forced to work for anybody else. The employee trades his labour which the employer needs in exchange for something the employee requires from the employer. Both mutually benefit from this exchange.

This is nice little sunshine and lollipops tale that completely ignores the inherent power differential, and thus opportunity for exploitation, between employee and employer. In the real world the power differential between employer and employee is mitigated by employment/labour laws.

Ravelleman

V4Voluntary wrote: »

Entirely different to what?

Corporatism is different to corporate capitalism. You seem to think the terms are interchangeable - they are not.

Corporatism is a form of social organisation where people join together in a group based on common interest or activity. Its political development in Europe was influenced by the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) and was later adopted by various right-wing and fascistic groups as an alternative to the perceived materialism of Marx's theory of class struggle.

Corporate capitalism describes a capitalist economy where large companies whose stock is bought and sold on the stock market (corporations) have a significant, even controlling influence on the marketplace.

KyussBishop

Capitalism (of which the definition changes often, depending on the poster) can work fine, with the right help. Without the right help though, it's doomed to eventually fall prey to debt-deflation during economic downturns, caused by excessive amounts of private debt; this pain almost always falls disproportionately upon the poorest, during economic crisis. Capitalism can survive and limp along this way, probably for centuries more, but it's far from optimal and leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering and deaths (something opponents of state intervention have no solution for).

The entire problem goes back to the monetary system itself, which is something that is almost entirely ignored in most economic theory. We have an economic system which is almost entirely made up of debt-based money, where the amount of debt in the economy tends to grow far larger than the amount of money, and where the stability of the economy itself depends upon neverending growth (and which can cause huge unemployment or partially seize up when growth stalls sufficiently, i.e. when there is a bad enough economic crisis).

You need the state for capitalism to work well (arguably for it to exist at all, seeing as you need the the state to define laws to define private property), and all arguments surrounding this, usually just argue about how much state involvement there should be. If you reform the monetary system, so the state can actually resolve the problems debt-based money creates (by using non-debt-based money to unseize the economy and pump it back up during crisis), you can resolve one of the biggest recurring problems of capitalism, and can do a lot more besides.

Valmont

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Socialism is the future, kids. Just take a look at the socialist paradise Scandinavians have created for themselves

High wages. Min wage is about 15 Euro an hour.
Low unemployment.
Low crime AND very civilised prisons.
Excellent education system. Uni is free.
Excellent welfare system. Hardly any homeless or poverty.
Economy managed much better. Low national debt.
Higher levels of general happiness and life satisfaction.
Far fewer money grabbing greedy c*nts.

Why do i sign up?

http://www.ryanair.com/en/sweden-flights

Don't let the door hit you on the way to heaven on earth:rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Socialism is the future, kids. Just take a look at the socialist paradise Scandinavians have created for themselves:

High wages. Min wage is about 15 Euro an hour.
Low unemployment.
Low crime AND very civilised prisons.
Excellent education system. Uni is free.
Excellent welfare system. Hardly any homeless or poverty.
Economy managed much better. Low national debt.
Higher levels of general happiness and life satisfaction.
Far fewer money grabbing greedy c*nts.

Why do i sign up?

The problem is that Irish people are greedy and won't pay the 15% extra tax this requires. Or trust the governemnt with said tax, but in all fairness, who would?