25-01-2005 20:30									#301
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara One Ned starts making things up on his own, twisting what others say, etc. No one pays attention to him.

Yeah, Che. Sure. Identical situations. One is exploitation. One is not -- according to you. According to everyone else, though, the communist brand of fairness is unfairness personified.

	25-01-2005 20:32									#302
	Support Apolyton

I'm not going to debate you, Ned. You deliberately misinterpret statements to make your points. I'm not going to feed your trolling.

	25-01-2005 20:47									#303
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Unless you're a libertarian, there is a fundimental disagreement with them over what capitalism is. For them, it's the free market, plus private property with no government interference. They would reject certain basic premises, such as capitalism being inherently violent, the cause of wars, etc. while most people would recognize the latter at the least, and when shown sufficient evidence, at least agree that the former has been true at times (if not fully agreeing with it in order to avoid drawing the logical conclusions resulting).

You're mixing up definitions. I'm decidely NOT a libertarian, and I vehemently disagree with them on many things - but I do not disagree with them on what constitutes capitalism. We all agree that the industrialized world operates under a capitalist system that's constrained to one degree or another. We can disagree about whether the constraints are good or bad, but we all recognize the constraints and realize that at the end of the day, it's still capitalism.

As for your contention that capilatism is inherently violent, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. The violence may or may not be an outcome of the system, but it doesn't change what the system is.

	25-01-2005 20:55									#304
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Flubber, Communism pays according to contribution at first. However the ultimate goal is to eliminate pays. This can be achieved if 1) nobody is greedy and 2) there is aboundance of products.

Hmmm-- I think the requirement that NOBODY be greedy is unrealistic. Lets assume you could get the majority of folks to look out for the common good . . I don't think its ever possible to get everyone or even a massive majority. On abundance of products, it depends about what we are talking about. You could have ample food and shelter for everyone but do you have enough cars, bicycles,big screen TVs, gamecubes, palm pilots etc etc. Are we talking about having enough of each and every product that is out there so that any person that wants one can have one? I could see a huge frivolous consumption problem if people don't have to consider some "cost" of things when determining their needs.

quote: Originally posted by Xin Yu Flubber, For example, if there are billions of houses, each is equally good in quality, then you don't need money to buy a house. You just pick one for free..

But even if all houses are identical, the one downwind of the chemical factory is less desirable than the one backing on the park. making the houses identical doesn't change the fact that many people would like to be on the beach, or not be the closest house to the supermarket ( sorry . . . foodstuff distribution centre)-- So with no market or cost, you would have more people wanting certain houses than others. So there would have to be a decison making process. While a house lottery would be fair, I suspect that the central planners would step in in the name of efficiency and that the high rankers would end up by some coincidence with most desirable neighborhoods

	25-01-2005 21:03									#305
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious It's not a communist definition. It's the dictionary and accepted definition. It's very simple. If you possess the means of production for the mere reason of profiting from my work then you've expoited me. ex·ploi·ta·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn) n. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers. An advertising or a publicity program.

hmmm

THE ACT OF EMPLOYING TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE. I like it.

See I thought you were trying to use it like this:

an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class";

You will admit that "exploitation"seems to be a loaded term with connotations of unfairness. But if you mean that a capitalist exploits workers in the same way the miner exploits copper, in that both are employed as efficiently as possible, that seems acceptable.

But kid, you keep saying that exploitation is bad, so I assume you mean to incorporate some unfairness in the meaning of the word as you use it. It is this that I reject. I do not accept that capitalism necessarily "exploits" workers in that I do not accept that they are victimized or treated unfairly.

	25-01-2005 21:04									#306
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki We all agree that the industrialized world operates under a capitalist system that's constrained to one degree or another.

But that's just it. Libertarians do not agree that we live in a capitalist system. They call this socialism, or at best, a mized economy. They explain it thus: what to you have if you put a teaspoon of wine in a vat of garbage? Garbage. What do you have if you put a teaspoon of garbage in a vat of wine? Garbage. For them, any government interference in the economy renders an economy socialist. They do not agree with you.

quote: As for your contention that capilatism is inherently violent, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. The violence may or may not be an outcome of the system, but it doesn't change what the system is.

But liberatrians would disagree. You are making the mistake of assuming that libertarians agree with you, without examining what their fundimental beliefs are. Libertarins would say that a system with violence is not capitalism, because for them, capitalism is non-coercisive. Period. If there's coercision, then you're back to that vat of wine with the teaspoon of garbage in it.

	25-01-2005 21:16									#307
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I doubt people choose to be on welfare. I will believe that they can not support their families without welfare. btw, welfare is for children. It supports the parents, but only because of the children.

1. Most people do not choose to be on welfare and are only on it for a short time until their circumstances improve. Long-term users include people with long term mental problems, disabilities, addictions, some people in depressed economic situations with no available work and the lazy asses and system abusers.

2. Welfare must be different where you are. Here an able bodied adult can still collect some welfare. In Calgary there is lots of work-- companies in construction are crying out for basic labourers -- For higher paid work, there are buses that will take people to the oilsands projects where they can live in the camp with food provided (generally two weeks on and 2 off). These workers are very well paid but there is still a shortage---- Yet there are still people in Calgary on welfare.

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Welfare isn't all that you think it is, and that's putting it mildly. Work is a need. Welfare recipients are still denied all of their needs being met until they have a job.

Well if a job is a need then welfare, even if it were a lot of money could not meet that need right?? All I know is that I see a situation here where employers often cannot get enough people to fill available positions. Employers have even done some recruiting elsewhere in Canada.

	25-01-2005 21:28									#308
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I'm not going to debate you, Ned. You deliberately misinterpret statements to make your points. I'm not going to feed your trolling.

Socialist dialectic: divert attention, deny, ignore the other side's argument and finally riducle the intelligence of your opponent. Never ever admit that socialism is flawed in any way.

	25-01-2005 21:30									#309
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

See what I mean? Here I'll argue with everyone else on this thread, but you go and deliberately twist and insult. What's the point of my debating you, Ned? You'll only rewrite what I say to make it fit your agenda.

	25-01-2005 21:36									#310
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious They simple don't compete for resources anymore, which means that their babies aren't eaten by the evil capitalists anymore.

That about sums up the rationality of your views

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You believe that people who work hard get ahead because you have gotten ahead. You really don't know about the other people. You just make an assumption that helps you see yourself in a good light.

Its not just me. its lots of people. But if you want to make it about me for a second lets do that. I grew up in a small fishing community and I think the official unemployment rate hovered around 30%-40%. Everyone went to the same school, played on the same sports teams etc . I saw my classmates grow up and I know where most of them ( and preceding and ensuing years) ended up. Most worked hard, left that town and are doing quite well. A couple stayed in that town and are also doing well. Another few are still in that town and have been "unemployed" for most of the last 20 years. When I see them, they complain about the lack of opportunity and the government but the reality is that they never tried. The welfare/unemployment insurance schemes plus some under the table income creates a comfortable little trap. Its not a lot but its enough for these couple of people to make their way through life. They definitely exhibit NO need to work

Don't try to lecture someone from rural Newfoundland on welfare and unemployment. Do some research on the province and you will see what I mean. I grew up with it all around me . .. and guess what? Anyone that really wanted to escape the trap, did!!

So while no I don't know about all other people (nor do you), I do have a LOT of experience in witnessing what several hundred high school graduates, growing up in less affluent circumstances did do. Most people get ahead.

Sorry if that blows your little theories but it is reality.

	25-01-2005 21:42									#311
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger This should be easy to understand. A capitalist hires workers to make money for him. The money he makes comes from the surplus values the workers produced. If the workers were not exploited, there wouldn't be any surplus values, and the capitalist wouldn't make any money. Minimum wage does not make exploitation illegal, it just decreases the amount of exploitation possible.

UR-- I know and understand that theory backwards and forwards. I simply

1. reject the idea that the factory/machine does not create some of the value.
2. Reject the use of the term exploitation in the sense of unfairness
3. Think it is an idiotic model since it means the fair value for a diamond miner or oil worker of what they produce can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day while a shop clerk on a slow day may produce neglible value. If the sales clerk makes no sales, does that mean that they should not be paid?

edit-typos

	25-01-2005 21:50									#312
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber 1. reject the idea that the factory/machine does not create some fo the value.

It doesn't. It transfers value from one thing to another. New value isn't created. When the factory/machine was created, the people building it created value. As the machine/factory is used up, it transfers some of that value to the new products.

quote: 2. Reject the use of the term exploitation in the sense of unfairness

It's a loaded term, and some of Marx's terminology from the 19th Century causes problems for people today. Meanings change.

quote: Think it is an idiotic model since it means the fair value for a diamond miner or oil worker of what they produce can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day while a shop clerk on a slow day may produce neglible value. If the sales clerk makes no sales, does that mean that they should not be paid?

Well, the miner doesn't produce the full value of a finished diamond (and oilmen do get paid quite well, IIRC). The dimond must still be removed from the rock, sorted, transported, cut, ground, mounted, and sold to have value. Even then, the only reason they have such a high price is because of artificial scarcity since DeBeers keeps most diamonds off the market. That's going to change soon as artificial diamonds revolutionize the market.

At each stage of the journey, workers add new value to the product. A salesperson adds value to a product. After all, if you can't buy it, it has no value.

	25-01-2005 21:53									#313
	Tired of ads?

quote: It doesn't. It transfers value from one thing to another. New value isn't created. When the factory/machine was created, the people building it created value. As the machine/factory is used up, it transfers some of that value to the new products.

Err no. Since when is value some inherent, essential property of an object? Value is a relative term, simply a function of supply and demand, i.e., more valuable when in demand with less supply. The labour that has gone into it is irrelevant to it; that's a kind of twisted sentimentality that's more of an inpedence than anything else.

	25-01-2005 22:03									#314
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by Kontiki We all agree that the industrialized world operates under a capitalist system that's constrained to one degree or another. But that's just it. Libertarians do not agree that we live in a capitalist system. They call this socialism, or at best, a mized economy. They explain it thus: what to you have if you put a teaspoon of wine in a vat of garbage? Garbage. What do you have if you put a teaspoon of garbage in a vat of wine? Garbage. For them, any government interference in the economy renders an economy socialist. They do not agree with you. quote: As for your contention that capilatism is inherently violent, I don't see how that has anything to do with it. The violence may or may not be an outcome of the system, but it doesn't change what the system is. But liberatrians would disagree. You are making the mistake of assuming that libertarians agree with you, without examining what their fundimental beliefs are. Libertarins would say that a system with violence is not capitalism, because for them, capitalism is non-coercisive. Period. If there's coercision, then you're back to that vat of wine with the teaspoon of garbage in it.

Not only am I aware that Canada is a form of constrained capitalism, I like it that way. The individual freedom and opportunities are present but there is also the ever present social safety net which means that everyone should be provided a certain standard. Its imperfect. For example some mentally ill persons have a level of competence that means that authorities are not able to hospitalize them against their will but they reject and are paranoid about the government and thus do not and will not collect their cheques or avail themselves of housing.


Constrained capitalsim is not only what we have but its what I promote. I like it .. Fiddle with it all you want. Increase or change benefits etc but leave the basic model alone.

Oh and I don't think there are many libertarians in Canada so I'm not too worried about there concerns. This after all is the place where the creator of nationalized healthcare was voted as our "Greatest Canadian"

As an aside, Alberta is not the easiest place to sell a dogma where workers have to feel exploited. With worker shortages in many industries driving wages up and up and up, most of those "proletariet"are too busy banking all of their cash to be worried about theoretical models of how bad they have it.

	25-01-2005 22:05									#315
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Err no. Since when is value some inherent, essential property of an object?

It isn't of an object. Specific objects, however, such as commodites, however, have value inherent in them. If they didn't have value inherent in them, they wouldn't be commodities. It would be like saying money has no inherent value. If it didn't it wouldn't be possible to use it as a medium of exchange. A factory or a machine are just as much commodities as a pencil or a banana.

quote: Value is a relative term,

D'uh.

quote: simply a function of supply and demand, i.e., more valuable when in demand with less supply.

Incorrect. Value |= price. Price tends to follow value, but not always. Supply and demand can distort the price away from the value of an object, such as in the afore mentioned case of diamonds.

quote: The labour that has gone into it is irrelevant to it; that's a kind of twisted sentimentality that's more of an inpedence than anything else.

Labor is the only common element that has gone into every item that people use (with the exception of air). It is the only basis for a comparison of the relative values of all commodities.

	25-01-2005 22:08									#316
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Not only am I aware that Canada is a form of constrained capitalism, I like it that way.

I definately prefer it to unrestrained capitalism. Even the tattered, small safety net we have in the U.S. is better than nothing.

	25-01-2005 22:09									#317
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki You, Kid, Odin, Spiffor and I'm sure many others disagree on what the fundamental tenets of communism are. People like me, Floyd or Flubber and even you have no disagreements on what capitalism is - it's an economic system where private owners of capital produce goods produce goods for exchange-value.

Very recently (maybe even in this thread), Berzerker defined capitalism as a free-market system. This is the reason why he denied that 1980's India was a capitalist system. If you take the definition of capitalism that you provided (and which Che used in that discussion with Berz), you'd agree with Che that 1980's India was capitalistic, and you'd fundamentally disagree with Berz.

Edit: found it. Link #1
Link #2
Link #3

EditEdit: Berz didn't deny the capitalist nature of nazi Germany in this thread (but I'm confident he considers nazi Germany not to be a capitalist system). That was India which he called not capitalist

	25-01-2005 22:12									#318
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara [ quote: 2. Reject the use of the term exploitation in the sense of unfairness It's a loaded term, and some of Marx's terminology from the 19th Century causes problems for people today. Meanings change.

Thank you. Thats why I don't like the term since it reads as "treated unfairly".

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara [ quote: Think it is an idiotic model since it means the fair value for a diamond miner or oil worker of what they produce can be hundreds of thousands of dollars a day while a shop clerk on a slow day may produce neglible value. If the sales clerk makes no sales, does that mean that they should not be paid? Well, the miner doesn't produce the full value of a finished diamond (and oilmen do get paid quite well, IIRC). The dimond must still be removed from the rock, sorted, transported, cut, ground, mounted, and sold to have value. Even then, the only reason they have such a high price is because of artificial scarcity since DeBeers keeps most diamonds off the market. That's going to change soon as artificial diamonds revolutionize the market. At each stage of the journey, workers add new value to the product. A salesperson adds value to a product. After all, if you can't buy it, it has no value.

MY problem with the value added concept is that two workers doing similar work . .. one can create great value while another creates ZERO value, in each case through no fault or credit to them. If the worker works for a year on a product that becomes obsolete and has negative value (disposal costs) is that worker entitled to the value of their work. Since its a negative number I assume they pay ther capitalist back for his loss. NO -- ohh thats right-- The capitalist takes the risk of loss but heaven forbid they get the chance of profit

	25-01-2005 22:16									#319
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I definately prefer it to unrestrained capitalism. Even the tattered, small safety net we have in the U.S. is better than nothing.

YUP

I was suprised to learn how scant benefits are generally in the US. One that stood out was maternity.

IN Canada, the parents can share up to a year of unemployment insurance benefits (if you qualify). While this is not a huge amount of money its a help and many employers will pay full salary for a portion of that time.


It just seems to me that Americans on average are just so anti-tax that no one is willing to pay for such things.

	25-01-2005 22:26									#320
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Flubber NO -- ohh thats right-- The capitalist takes the risk of loss but heaven forbid they get the chance of profit

My problem with capitalism is only partly ethical. Within a capitalist system, I agree that capitalists should be rewarded for their risk. The basic rules I have very little problem with. I wouldn't argue that within a feudal system, the King shouldn't be able to rule as he wishes. That's how the system works. I might argue that things should be more fair, less arbitrary, but within a given system there are rules and the way things should work. Reality is, of course, that things tend to fall far from the goal.

On the other hand, I have a problem with capitalists calling out the troops or police to smash strikes, getting their countries to go to war to protect their interests (except in the case of examples like the War of 1812, where the Brits were stopping our shipping and seizing our sailors), polluting without limit, etc. I think there are substantial reforms that can be done to make the capitalist system more humane and liveable.

For Marxists, the problems with capitalism, mainly, is the system's inherent flaw, the periodic crisis of overproduction. In every previous society, famine and economic collapse was caused by a shortage of goods. In capitalism, they are caused by having too many goods, that they can't all be sold, forcing companies to go out of business. People starve because there's too much food. That's insane!

Combined with that is the resultant tendency towards monopoloziation. With each economic crisis, the weaker firms either collapse or are bought out by competitors, resulting in ever greater concentrations of capital, which tends to result in every more disasterous crises.

Now it seems that a Keyenesian model of managing capitalism actually tends to not only minimize the effects of these crises, but also the rivalry between capitalists, such that, in contrast to what Marx argues, it may be possible, with enough proper government interference, that these crises could be a thing of the past. If capitalists could be prevented from always trying to undue the contraints upon them, it may be that the social demcorats, and not the Marxists, were correct after all. Combined with a strong anti-monopoly policy, and maybe I'm obsolete.

	25-01-2005 22:54									#321
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If capitalists could be prevented from always trying to undue the contraints upon them, it may be that the social demcorats, and not the Marxists, were correct after all. Combined with a strong anti-monopoly policy, and maybe I'm obsolete.

I hope you are

Good post by the way. Its nice to see a communist that can acknowledege that capitalism has adapted

	25-01-2005 22:56									#322
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: It isn't of an object. Specific objects, however, such as commodites, however, have value inherent in them. If they didn't have value inherent in them, they wouldn't be commodities. It would be like saying money has no inherent value. If it didn't it wouldn't be possible to use it as a medium of exchange. A factory or a machine are just as much commodities as a pencil or a banana.

But money has no inherent value. It relies upon context for its value. If you're dumped on a desert island with no hope of rescue, on your own with a million pounds in 20's in a briefcase, all you have is a briefcase and 50'000 bits of toilet paper. I assume also you're familiar with hyperinflation in the German Weimar Republic?

quote: Incorrect. Value |= price. Price tends to follow value, but not always. Supply and demand can distort the price away from the value of an object, such as in the afore mentioned case of diamonds.

Value = price if you assume the demand market has can affect the demand... i.e., certain wildcards that affect demand (and so value), and price then = value.

You assume some absolute essentialist value but you fail to provide for how it works.

quote: Labor is the only common element that has gone into every item that people use (with the exception of air). It is the only basis for a comparison of the relative values of all commodities.

But how can that possibly apply to value? My little brother might draw me a picture that takes him 20 seconds, so not much labour has gone into it, and yet I value it more (I have a greater demand for it in my context) than, say, *looks around for poster on wall* Eschers "Relativity", into which went an awful lot more labour.

Either value is, as I said, relative and a function of supply and demand, or it is meaningless and useless in economics.

	25-01-2005 22:59									#323
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: My problem with capitalism is only partly ethical.

Define your ethics.

	25-01-2005 23:14									#324
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara On the other hand, I have a problem with capitalists calling out the troops or police to smash strikes, getting their countries to go to war to protect their interests (except in the case of examples like the War of 1812, where the Brits were stopping our shipping and seizing our sailors), polluting without limit, etc. I think there are substantial reforms that can be done to make the capitalist system more humane and liveable.

I agree (and would agree even more if I lived in the US) that reforms can be made but I will say this. Troops or police to smash strikes seems to be rare in the modern capitalist countries . In fact my sister just went through a 5 month strike ( she's a manager) where the most the police would get involved would be to drop by after several hours to escort them past the picketers blocking their access to the workplace. The police were obviously pro-striker.

Also while countries will go to war to protect their interests, I think its rarely about capitalism any more. If the capitalist wants the assets of another country, they just go there and buy them

	25-01-2005 23:26									#325
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy But money has no inherent value.

Nothing has an inherent value. Things only have value in relation to human beings. Value is thus socially determined (at least the type of value we are discussing). Thus when we say that money and other commodities have an inherent value, we assume human society is part of the equation. Without a social system, things cease to be commodities. On a desert island with no contact with other humans, nothing has an exchangable value, as there is no one to exchange anything with.

quote: Value = price if you assume the demand market has can affect the demand... i.e., certain wildcards that affect demand (and so value), and price then = value.

No, value is separate from price. Prices can rise or fall above an item's "real" value, in which case you will see an abnormality in the market, either a run on underpriced goods or people ceasing to buy overpriced ones.

quote: You assume some absolute essentialist value but you fail to provide for how it works.

No, I don't. I just don't see any point in stating certain basic assumptions, like human beings have to exist or exchange is a precondition. A commodity is an item created for the purpose of exchange, hence I shouldn't have to explain certain simple basics.

quote: My little brother might draw me a picture that takes him 20 seconds, so not much labour has gone into it, and yet I value it more (I have a greater demand for it in my context) than, say, *looks around for poster on wall* Eschers "Relativity", into which went an awful lot more labour.

And for what could you exchange it? Social value, exchange value, is not the same thing as emotional value. You're too smart to play semantic games.

	25-01-2005 23:27									#326
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Define your ethics.

Be excellent to each other.

	25-01-2005 23:36									#327
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Flubber In fact my sister just went through a 5 month strike ( she's a manager) where the most the police would get involved would be to drop by after several hours to escort them past the picketers blocking their access to the workplace. The police were obviously pro-striker.

You forget that compared to us, you live in a communist country.

quote: Also while countries will go to war to protect their interests, I think its rarely about capitalism any more. If the capitalist wants the assets of another country, they just go there and buy them

At a certain level, it's all about capitalism. Why are the terrorists attacking us? Because we prevoiusly engaged in certain activities in order to ensure a steady and cheap supply of oil. There are all sorts of ancillary reasons, but one of the root causes of our current troubles is capitalism. Why'd we attack Iraqi in GW I? Because we were (supposedly) afraid he'd be able to seize control of most of the ME's oil. Why'd we invade Panama? Because (supposedly) their dictator was engaged in the drug trade? The root causes of the fight in Afganistan hail back to the Cold War, which was definately about capitalism.

It's not always about seizing assets, especially in the Post War era. Sometimes its about protecting the market. Sometimes its about trying to control the market. Sometimes its about access to resources. It's a mistake to think that we commies have a one-dimensional view of capitalists, their actions, and their motives, even if we're often resposible for that with our slogans.

	25-01-2005 23:45									#328
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Very recently (maybe even in this thread), Berzerker defined capitalism as a free-market system. This is the reason why he denied that 1980's India was a capitalist system. If you take the definition of capitalism that you provided (and which Che used in that discussion with Berz), you'd agree with Che that 1980's India was capitalistic, and you'd fundamentally disagree with Berz. Edit: found it. Link #1 Link #2 Link #3 EditEdit: Berz didn't deny the capitalist nature of nazi Germany in this thread (but I'm confident he considers nazi Germany not to be a capitalist system). That was India which he called not capitalist

An interesting take on it, because I read what Berz said in those three posts and agree with him. Where we differ with Che is that if the government owns the means of production and dictates output, I wouldn't call it capitalism. I'm not entirely familiar with the history of the Indian economy, so I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not that was actually the case in 1980s India. Furthermore, Berz provided his definition of capitalism further down in the thread. I don't recall him saying anything about a complete lack of government regulations being necessary.

Capitalism IS fundamentally a free market system. However, you can put a certain number of restraints on the free market and still have the essence of capitalism - private ownership of capital and production for exchange-value. But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism? State ownership? Worker ownership? No ownership? State mandated prices and production? Still a free market driving demand? Equal wages? Wage disparity based on task complexity? Effort? Performance? What?

	26-01-2005 00:03									#329
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki An interesting take on it, because I read what Berz said in those three posts and agree with him.

I've tussled with Berz many times, and I've known libertarians at least since 1988, so I've got a decent handle on their ideology.

quote: Where we differ with Che is that if the government owns the means of production and dictates output, I wouldn't call it capitalism.

It depends on how and why that ownership is carried out. For example, in the USSR, the state owned all of the industry and most of the land. Production was primarily for the purpose of meeting needs and not for the purpose of selling things to extract surplus value. In Norway, on the other hand, the state owns the oil industry, and sees it as a means of producing revenue, i.e., extracting surplus value. The later case, despite the lack of private ownership, would be an example of state capitalism. You had a lot of both going on in India, but most Indians were engaged in private economic activity for profit. That's why I say it was capitalist.

quote: Capitalism IS fundamentally a free market system.

I disagree with the use of the term fundimental. Unless you are using it to be synonomous with generally, if something is fundimental, it is necessary. Capitalism has existed without a free market under fascist regimes, as well as both democratic and monarchal systems during the World Wars. There was still private property and profit, but the markets were tightly controlled.

quote: However, you can put a certain number of restraints on the free market and still have the essence of capitalism - private ownership of capital and production for exchange-value.

I don't disagree, but someone folowing the liberarian philosophy would disagree. Remember the argument about the garbage and the vat of wine. For a libertarian, any state interference is socialism (which, if one applies that as a universal, renders the insane conclusion that feudalism was socialism, since the state, in the person of the king, owned everything)

quote: But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism?

Social ownership of the means of production. Distribution based on need. The abolition of class society. Rational allocation of the resources of society. Communal/social decision making in more spheres of life (work, school, etc.)

	26-01-2005 00:05									#330
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Hmmm-- I think the requirement that NOBODY be greedy is unrealistic.

Agreed. However it is required for ANY ideal society that excessive greedy must be controlled. Let me repeat: you have to have it or your society is not an ideal one. I would like to loose the condition to 'nobody can be extremely greedy' (meaning anybody who is extremely greedy would not be able to survive in such a society). That should still work, provided that the other condition holds.

quote: Originally posted by Flubber But even if all houses are identical, the one downwind of the chemical factory is less desirable than the one backing on the park

That will not be the issue if technology is very advanced. Computers can create 'virtue view's for a house, for example, to make every house attractive. It will be so nice that if you are not extremely greedy you should be satisfied.

You can argue that these are not possible to achieve, and hence discard the idea. However if you want an ideal society, then these two are actually the minimum conditions for it: you have to have good people and good living conditions for a good society, right?

So, unless you believe that there will never be an ideal society (if so, why live?), you have to believe that communism is possible. That is why I'm not against communism -- I want to believe that there will be an ideal society in the future, but other than a communist one I cannot think of any other form for it.