Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[LennyLen]

For oppression to exist, there has to be at least two classes involved

Wrong. It only takes two people.

[kandrathe]

... blah blah blah capitalism sucks...

I think we can tell who has drunk the Koolaid.

The one sensible thing I could glean was "There is no such thing as a "Marxist" society."

This is probably unfortunate since it appears that it would be magical, if only the everyday citizen could comprehend how we'd all get to do whatever we wanted without concern since all of our needs would be taken care of. It's bewildering that we are just so darned stupid that we cannot figure this out.

Take my children for example; I live in a small commune. Its me, my wife, and my two boys. They are very eager and willing to take advantage of all the upsides, but drag their feet, procrastinate, and attempt to get out of doing all the hard things. The result is that the responsible people (my wife and I) end up doing most of the work in our kibbutz, while the irresponsible ones (my two boys) get most of the benefits. Why does this not reflect the nature of ALL society? You describe Socialism as having cured this, but you fail to explain how? Nobody has to shovel the coal, and we all get to be ballet dancers, and rock stars? C'mon, its magic. Admit it.

What motivates comrade Petr to work hard in the socialist world? Does he get more? If he gets more does this not create inequity, and there we go descending into classes again? How do you eliminate the free rider problem? Forced labor? Under capitalism, if you and I work at the same place, and I outperform you, I get promoted and you get fired. Now, I find this competition for jobs also distasteful, but there is no simple explanation of how to match the worker to the work that needs to be done. Only by comparing one worker against another can you determine which has more value and whether their contribution is worth the money you pay for it. In that way, we are living cogs in the machinery of production.

One of my boys gets to clean the windows, and the other has to change our the litter box. I would say under Capitalism it is in fact more fair in that I exchange labor for money, and then money for goods. What is my labor worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. What are goods worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for them. This is the price mechanism, which is an invaluable economic tool that balances supply and demand, both for labor, and goods. As I acquire skills and specialties, they are mine, and so I can negotiate with prospective employers for higher wages. This puts the onus of keeping myself employable, and valuable on me. What is not readily answered by Capitalism alone is what to do with people who have no vocational value. So, rather than icily watch them starve out on the streets, we care for them -- and under Bill Clinton's "Welfare to work program", we get those workers back into the productive saddle.

And, as for class struggle... It has lost its meaning in a post industrial age. My children are dirt poor, and so they are in the destitute dependency class. When they are 18 they will still be poor, and will hopefully be in college. By the time they are in their 20's or 30's they may be middle class, or upper middle class. After that, depending on the choices and opportunities they get they could possible become upper class. Meanwhile, I will get old, and won't be able to work anymore, so I will get poorer as I burn through any remaining savings after putting them through school. In my life, I've probably already peaked, but who knows, there may be some opportunity out there for me yet too. The point is that you've failed to show or account for the massive amount of mobility. Yes, there is a 1%, and a 10%, but the population of who is in it changes over time. We don't have the post-agrarian landed gentry anymore. Whatever happened to Sean Quinn?

Capitalists do diddly squat. Mmmhmmm. Are you sure? There are some silver spoon trust fund brats I'd like to kick in the teeth, but by and large most billionaires actually did something substantial to earn it. There are numerous examples; Bill Gates, Oprah, Roman Abramovich, Steve Jobs, Li Ka-shing, Sheldon Adelson, etc. etc. etc. No. No. No, you say. They were just lucky. Really? I've got my complaints about the system, but not mobility and entrenchment.

"Again this comparison of Marxism to religions is just silly."

Right, because you entirely missed the fact that Marxism has to do just what you say religion does. That it, "convince their followers that their particular doctrine is the right way of life" Because people are just flocking to the stupendous Marxist system... Right? And... While you might find value in having the world described scientifically, that doesn't mean those that describe it unscientifically do not similarly find the same value. For most people it matters very little if we described gravity scientifically as a force of attraction, or mystically that the Earth just loves us and refuses to let us go. Either way, we're all just stuck here.

I say Marxism has no frame work, and you claim "stupendous and logical system of analysis for understanding ". Right. So it has no framework by which to run a society. Just a way of analysing things which pretty much always results in the answer being "Capitalism Sucks!" Why doesn't this work? We are trapped in our fetishes! We must cleanse ourselves of our Capitalist thoughts. Say three hail Engels and four comrade Marxs... Then, essentially you cave to "the future is too hard to predict" What? What will we eat tomorrow? Whatever we planted last month. Not really hard. Not really.

I say, "people like to own stuff" and you ignore that and point out the inequity. But, let me just hop on your straw man for a minute. Show me where any non-capitalist system has generated wealth for the workers.

I say, "coercion is bad", and you ignore that every attempt at communism so far has resulted in repression and coercion. Is coercion bad? I'd say yes. Even in the system we are in now.

I say "illiterate people don't read or understand Marx". You blame that on all the capitalist schools... wait. They're government run. "The U.S. average per student expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools in 2011–12 fall enrollment
was $10,834. States with the highest per student expenditures: New York ($18,616), Vermont ($18,571), New Jersey ($18,485), Alaska ($17,032), and Rhode Island ($16,683). Arizona ($6,683), Utah ($6,849), Nevada ($8,247), Oklahoma ($8,285), and Idaho ($8,323) had the lowest per student expenditures (H-11). " Hint: It has nothing to do with Capitalism. We know teachers aren't getting paid $215K per classroom, so the bulk of the cost of educating a child is going to overhead (indirect costs).

And, where oh, where did Marx ever explain how his workers paradise would resolve the exploitation of nature?

[FireIceTalon]

For oppression to exist, there has to be at least two classes involved

Wrong. It only takes two people.

Yea, you try oppressing me, and see what happens

Your oppression of me would last about 5 seconds, and thats being generous. Oppression requires some form of power to legitimize it, be it physical, monetary or economic, or the use of state force. Society does not consist of abstract individuals competing with one another for dominion over one another's interests, it consists of CLASSES that have conflicting and irreconcilable interests - that is why the concept of the modern state was formed to begin with.

[FireIceTalon]

This is probably unfortunate since it appears that it would be magical, if only the everyday citizen could comprehend how we'd all get to do whatever we wanted without concern since all of our needs would be taken care of. It's bewildering that we are just so darned stupid that we cannot figure this out.

It's not bewildering at all that people haven't figured it out. Considering the bourgeois shoves pro-capitalist ideology down our throats at every turn.

Take my children for example; I live in a small commune. Its me, my wife, and my two boys. They are very eager and willing to take advantage of all the upsides, but drag their feet, procrastinate, and attempt to get out of doing all the hard things. The result is that the responsible people (my wife and I) end up doing most of the work in our kibbutz, while the irresponsible ones (my two boys) get most of the benefits. Why does this not reflect the nature of ALL society? You describe Socialism as having cured this, but you fail to explain how? Nobody has to shovel the coal, and we all get to be ballet dancers, and rock stars? C'mon, its magic. Admit it.

This isn't socialism - this sounds like forced child labor to me. Of course you and your wife do the harder jobs, as YOU SHOULD. What are you gonna do, put your kids in a coal mine and tell them to start shovelin' or else? Cause thats what it sure sounds like to me.

The free rider problem may well exist in a socialist organization of society, but it would be no worse than it is now, and I would argue that it would be drastically reduced. Right now, there is limited management in every place of business, so it is pretty difficult if not impossible to tell who is actually slacking or who is just slower or less abled to accomplish a task. The whole point that people can be fired for slacking or otherwise though is the very essence of why capitalism is a shitty system - people need to work to some degree to survive (yes, even in a socialist society) to produce the things they need to survive, and to fire them is to take away that very livelihood....its most dehumanizing for sure. All because we have a few nitwits that own private property and get to make all the decisions. Why should we have to model our lives around the demands of capitalism and our bosses? The answer is that we shouldn't have to, but as long as this system exists, we are coerced into doing so. Besides, one of the purposes of socialism is so that we DONT have to work as hard. Right now we have work everyday doing the same old menial jobs for paltry wages. We work so we can pay rent and squeek by, and if were lucky, or maybe get ahead if we have that opportunity (much less likely). We aren't motivated to make good widgets or a lot of widgets because we don't then get any of the benifits of creating the better widgets, we just get paid the same wage and we don't get to decide if these are useful or desireable widgets or if we are producing them in the best and most efficient way.

What motivates comrade Petr to work hard in the socialist world? Does he get more? If he gets more does this not create inequity, and there we go descending into classes again? How do you eliminate the free rider problem? Forced labor? Under capitalism, if you and I work at the same place, and I outperform you, I get promoted and you get fired. Now, I find this competition for jobs also distasteful, but there is no simple explanation of how to match the worker to the work that needs to be done. Only by comparing one worker against another can you determine which has more value and whether their contribution is worth the money you pay for it. In that way, we are living cogs in the machinery of production.

You are making people out to be lazy and that we dont like to do things. This is a pretty warped perception. In hunter/gatherer societies, did anyone have to motivate us that we had to go out and get food, find better shelter, learn to make better tools, and so on? No, they didn't. We figured it out on our own. Contrary to what you WANT to believe, people are relatively intelligent and know how to adapt to a wide variety of environments. Humanity needs bosses and capitalists about as much as we need cancer. The whole notion we need some boss telling us what to do, how much to do it, and when to it is nothing more than bourgeois great-man theories rhetoric. There was an old joke some Anarchist told me, "how many capitalists does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: none, because we don't need capitalists to do anything that can be done. Not a funny joke really, but a very true one nonetheless. Maybe YOU think you need someone telling you what your strongest abilities are, what YOU are good at, what you should produce, how to produce it, and when to produce it. I sure as hell do not.

If people find a product or service useful and desirable, that in itself is motivation right there to work. It just becomes a question on how best to democratically organize the completion of the required tasks, and there are many possibilities to do this. For example, at a diner in your community, maybe everyone would decide that to be able to eat at that diner anytime you like, you have to put in a certain amount of labor time working there. We will after all have to labor to some extent to survive, and this could be one way that it can be done democratically, through compromise. Each community can decide based on what suits their particular needs best. Whatever the case may be, we certainly don't need capitalists/bosses to dictate that for us.

One of my boys gets to clean the windows, and the other has to change our the litter box. I would say under Capitalism it is in fact more fair in that I exchange labor for money, and then money for goods. What is my labor worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. What are goods worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for them. This is the price mechanism, which is an invaluable economic tool that balances supply and demand, both for labor, and goods.

This logic is nearing insanity. So lets pretend for a moment, im the boss, you are the worker. You pick fruit for 12 hours a day in the hot blazing sun, and I am willing to pay you $1 per hour. Therefore, your labor is worth a dollar an hour. Do you not see the absurdity in this, and in the whole rationality (or irrationality I should say) of the capitalist system? The whole concept of supply and demand is folly, because the purpose of capitalism is to maximize profits. To do this, you have CREATE demand to get people to buy shit they otherwise wouldn't, outside of what they need to survive. This of course, results in an over abundance of goods, which in turn creates the so-called 'poverty in the midst of plenty' since people do not have the purchasing power to obtain many of these goods or services. Thus the capitalists begin to experience a falling rate of profit after awhile and that is when unemployment increases and wages go down, exploitation goes up. I think you not only do not understand socialism, you don't get capitalism either.

And, as for class struggle... It has lost its meaning in a post industrial age. My children are dirt poor, and so they are in the destitute dependency class. When they are 18 they will still be poor, and will hopefully be in college. By the time they are in their 20's or 30's they may be middle class, or upper middle class. After that, depending on the choices and opportunities they get they could possible become upper class. Meanwhile, I will get old, and won't be able to work anymore, so I will get poorer as I burn through any remaining savings after putting them through school. In my life, I've probably already peaked, but who knows, there may be some opportunity out there for me yet too. The point is that you've failed to show or account for the massive amount of mobility. Yes, there is a 1%, and a 10%, but the population of who is in it changes over time. We don't have the post-agrarian landed gentry anymore. Whatever happened to Sean Quinn?

That's because the cultural hegemony of capitalism has done an outstanding job at denying that class struggle somehow doesn't exist anymore (it does, or the ruling class wouldnt require a state to protect itself), and I would even go farther to say that we don't like to talk about class anymore because it goes against the whole idea of the Horatio Alger myth, that we can go from rags to riches and to talk about class at all is not on the agenda of capitalist interests. Massive mobility? LMAO...where is this massive mobility you speak of? How can I account for that which does not exist? And even if there IS some mobility, this doesnt change the fact that capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, and we shouldn't have worry about mobility in the first place.

Capitalists do diddly squat. Mmmhmmm. Are you sure? There are some silver spoon trust fund brats I'd like to kick in the teeth, but by and large most billionaires actually did something substantial to earn it. There are numerous examples; Bill Gates, Oprah, Roman Abramovich, Steve Jobs, Li Ka-shing, Sheldon Adelson, etc. etc. etc. No. No. No, you say. They were just lucky. Really? I've got my complaints about the system, but not mobility and entrenchment.

Indeed, it takes a very substantial amount of labor exploitation of MANY, MANY workers, to make one man very, very rich. The fact Apple's products are made in factories of oppressed Chinese workers that are paid a dollar a day really shows Steve Jobs worked his ass off , or that the children of Sam Walton who now own more wealth than 50% of the US population combined without ever having to lift a finger to do it. And we call people like these our heros and leaders. Yuck. As far as im concerned, they are elitist scum, and the world would be a much better place without them and their bourgeois protectors in DC.

Right, because you entirely missed the fact that Marxism has to do just what you say religion does. That it, "convince their followers that their particular doctrine is the right way of life" Because people are just flocking to the stupendous Marxist system... Right? And... While you might find value in having the world described scientifically, that doesn't mean those that describe it unscientifically do not similarly find the same value. For most people it matters very little if we described gravity scientifically as a force of attraction, or mystically that the Earth just loves us and refuses to let us go. Either way, we're all just stuck here.

Yea, because the bourgeois goes to extremely great lengths for good reason, to demonize, misrepresent, and in general, slander Marxism because it presents a multiplicity of real problems with the capitalist system. The easiest thing to do is sweep anything under the rug that is contrary or inconvenient to the interests of the ruling class, which Marxism is. And its pretty easy to do, since they control the schools and dictate what agenda is up for discussion in the media, etc. What do you expect us Marxists to do? Just go along with everything capitalists say about Marxism and socialism, and say "yea, uh huh, the capitalists are right and we are wrong".....come on man, use your common sense here. I know you have some, even if some of your thoughts about things are a bit wacky to me.

I say Marxism has no frame work, and you claim "stupendous and logical system of analysis for understanding ". Right. So it has no framework by which to run a society. Just a way of analysing things which pretty much always results in the answer being "Capitalism Sucks!" Why doesn't this work? We are trapped in our fetishes! We must cleanse ourselves of our Capitalist thoughts. Say three hail Engels and four comrade Marxs... Then, essentially you cave to "the future is too hard to predict" What? What will we eat tomorrow? Whatever we planted last month. Not really hard. Not really.

Marxism indeed doesn't have a framwork, because it IS a framework, and it is that framework that serves as a guide for those fighting for socialism. You want it to predict EXACTLY how socialism will look, and that is impossible because it depends entirely on the material conditions of the time, should socialism become a reality. Artisans (who ultimately became todays capitalist class) during the feudal era could not predict exactly how capitalism would work, just socialists cannot predict exactly how socialism will look. We each have our own set of values respectively and society will be setup to reflect those values as they have been in prior epochs of history. Your notion is almost as absurd as asking a biologist to predict the evolution of a particular species of insect. Predicting the future of history depends on way to many interacting factors, much in the same way predicting the course of evolution does. Modes of analysis are used to understand current conditions to show which futures are possible and not possible. We'll leave it up to religious fundamentalists to make bold predictions like The Rapture being inevitable outcomes of our social existence, or capitalists who predict this system is the be all end all despite its countless contradictions, inefficiencies, and the fact it creates the very seeds of its own destruction (as all class based systems before it did). At the end of the day, Marxism is perfectly honest (and brutally so) in its analysis and its intentions. Capitalism on the other hand, is a complete sham, that so desperately relies mystification, fancy slogans, propaganda, manipulation, and religious-like overtones (the "invisible hand") because it is constantly fighting for its very survival.

I say, "people like to own stuff" and you ignore that and point out the inequity. But, let me just hop on your straw man for a minute. Show me where any non-capitalist system has generated wealth for the workers.

Impossible, since capitalism has not yet been destroyed. People liking to own stuff or not is irrelevant to the objective laws of motion that govern capitalism as an economic system. If indeed people do like to own stuff, then capitalism has done a piss poor job at meeting that demand, and it continues to do a piss poor job. And naturally so, because it is only efficient at creating profits. In terms of actual use, its extremely inefficient, wasteful, misuses peoples abilities and potential, and drives down wages by making labor more simple and demeaning. These are cold hard facts that you have yet to acknowledge, regardless of whether people like to own stuff or not.

I say, "coercion is bad", and you ignore that every attempt at communism so far has resulted in repression and coercion. Is coercion bad? I'd say yes. Even in the system we are in now.

And that is because the international bourgeois has done a wonderful job at destroying every opportunity for an international proletarian movement to be realized, then they turn around and say "see communism doesnt work!!". Its like beating a child with a stick than saying "see, he/she is nothing but a crybaby!!"

At least you recognize that capitalism is indeed coercive and oppressive, thats about the most reasonable thing you said in your entire post.

I say "illiterate people don't read or understand Marx". You blame that on all the capitalist schools... wait. They're government run. "The U.S. average per student expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools in 2011–12 fall enrollment

Hmmm, I think we were referring to two different things here - you with enrollment/access to education, and me with the context of the curriculum. There are certainly problems with both though. The fact they are government run at the primary level doesn't really change anything however.

The state is an organ of class oppression, designed by its very nature to legitimize and keep capitalist social relations intact. As I said a couple posts ago it doesn't matter if industries are owned by private individuals or by the state - they are capitalist either way, and therefore the institutions (schools included) within a capitalist society naturally promote bourgeois ideology and values.

And, where oh, where did Marx ever explain how his workers paradise would resolve the exploitation of nature?

And thus why there were many Marxists after Marx himself, and in fact Marxism as a system was not developed until after he died. There were many things Marx didnt touch on, such as cultural hegemony within capitalist society, and that is why many Marxists after him built upon his theories, to make the analysis more concise and comprehensive....nevertheless, it was he (and Engels deserves equal credit here too) who laid the foundation for Marxism as a system to become as prominent as it has. If you are so interested in the socialist view of the environment, why don't you go over to revleft.com and read some of the discussions on that topic?

Anyways, I doubt either of us are going to budge from our respective positions regardless of how this discussion turns out: You very clearly like capitalism and I am long disillusioned with it. I suppose I'll end it here and let you have the last word. Have fun in your capitalist dystopia.

[LennyLen]

Yea, you try oppressing me, and see what happens

I was a bouncer for a while, so I'm quite good at oppressing people.

[kandrathe]

It's not bewildering at all that people haven't figured it out. Considering the bourgeois shoves pro-capitalist ideology down our throats at every turn.

Ummm, we were here first.

This isn't socialism - this sounds like forced child labor to me. Of course you and your wife do the harder jobs, as YOU SHOULD. What are you gonna do, put your kids in a coal mine and tell them to start shovelin' or else? Cause thats what it sure sounds like to me.

Right. Doing dishes and cleaning out their pets litter box is like child labor, and akin to coal mining. Did you ever have to clean your room, or make your own bed? Did you ever cook, or do the dishes? Or, did mommy wait on you hand an foot?

The free rider problem may well exist in a socialist organization of society, but it would be no worse than it is now, and I would argue that it would be drastically reduced. Right now, there is limited management in every place of business, so it is pretty difficult if not impossible to tell who is actually slacking or who is just slower or less abled to accomplish a task.

Not really. You may not know in a week, and a month, but over time you'd know who is productive and who's sandbagging.

The whole point that people can be fired for slacking or otherwise though is the very essence of why capitalism is a shitty system

Ergo, you are implying that in your system no one would get fired.

- people need to work to some degree to survive (yes, even in a socialist society) to produce the things they need to survive,

Let's hold this thought until we get down to where you suggest hunter-gatherer societies for the model for a new system.

...and to fire them is to take away that very livelihood....its most dehumanizing for sure. All because we have a few nitwits that own private property and get to make all the decisions. Why should we have to model our lives around the demands of capitalism and our bosses?

That would be like 100% of people who own some private property and get to decide what happens to their property?

The answer is that we shouldn't have to, but as long as this system exists, we are coerced into doing so. Besides, one of the purposes of socialism is so that we DONT have to work as hard. Right now we have work everyday doing the same old menial jobs for paltry wages. We work so we can pay rent and squeek by, and if were lucky, or maybe get ahead if we have that opportunity (much less likely). We aren't motivated to make good widgets or a lot of widgets because we don't then get any of the benefits of creating the better widgets, we just get paid the same wage and we don't get to decide if these are useful or desirable widgets or if we are producing them in the best and most efficient way.

Coerced as in "you are fired", not as in "I'll break your knee caps." How do you define paltry compared to what? In most companies I've seen, the "owners" are the many thousand stock holders, including pensioners. A profit margin of 5-10% is decent these days, meaning 90% of the gross revenue is expenses, of which labor is usually to largest cost. Doubly so, in non-capital intensive companies, like services. So, then the thousands of owners split up the 10% profit of the gross revenue in dividends, and the hundred or two workers split up say 50% of the gross revenue as wages. There is the valid point that some executives earn multiple times more than the lowest paid workers. But, overall, who does well? Everyone, and even more so when the workers get stock as a profit sharing bonus. If every job is valued equally, and rewarded equally, then can I please be the mattress tester?

You are making people out to be lazy and that we don't like to do things. This is a pretty warped perception. In hunter/gatherer societies, did anyone have to motivate us that we had to go out and get food, find better shelter, learn to make better tools, and so on? No, they didn't. We figured it out on our own.

So, in essence we have gone nowhere. When I am a hunter-gatherer, and I take down an elk, who gets to eat the elk? Me, and my family, then my extended family, then my friends. If there is any remaining, I would jerk it and store it for a hungrier day. If your tribes warriors came to take some, we'd kill you then we'd go find your village and burn it down. Starvation and tribal survival is a brutal society.

Contrary to what you WANT to believe, people are relatively intelligent and know how to adapt to a wide variety of environments.

Meaning what? If we drive them from the city, Khmer Rouge, Pol Potts style, they'll figure it out or die?

Humanity needs bosses and capitalists about as much as we need cancer. The whole notion we need some boss telling us what to do, how much to do it, and when to it is nothing more than bourgeois great-man theories rhetoric.

How do you feel about http://www.kickstarter.com ? Isn't it the democratization of capital? It allows almost anyone with a good idea a way to raise funding without selling your soul to the bankers.

There was an old joke some Anarchist told me, "how many capitalists does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: none, because we don't need capitalists to do anything that can be done. Not a funny joke really, but a very true one nonetheless.

Q: How many Marxists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: None, the light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution. Funnier -- see cuz it revolves on its own...

Maybe YOU think you need someone telling you what your strongest abilities are, what YOU are good at, what you should produce, how to produce it, and when to produce it. I sure as hell do not.

But, in your idea of a society, who drives the bus? Who gets to be trained as the school teacher? Who gets stuck with cleaning the toilets? If we all just get to pick our jobs, then I'd like to travel around the world and write travel guides, ok? Will you fund it?

This logic is nonsense. So lets pretend for a moment, I'm the boss, you are the worker. You pick fruit for 12 hours a day in the hot blazing sun, and I am willing to pay you $1 per hour. Therefore, your labor is worth a dollar an hour. Do you not see the absurdity in this, and in the whole rationality (or irrationality I should say) of the capitalist system?

Well, the going rate for picking fruit is $8.70 per hr. for up to 56 hrs per week. So, I'd tell you to take your slave wages and shove it. S & H Farm Labor pays better, provides housing, health insurance, and free bus transportation to and from the work site.

The whole concept of supply and demand is folly, because the purpose of capitalism is to maximize profits. To do this, you have CREATE demand to get people to buy shit they otherwise wouldn't, outside of what they need to survive.

This is not true. Once people have taken care of their needs, they then focus on their wants.

This of course, results in an over abundance of goods, which in turn creates the so-called 'poverty in the midst of plenty' since people do not have the purchasing power to obtain many of these goods or services.

No. It drives down the price of those abundant goods until people can afford them. This is why producers are keen to not build up excess inventory.

Thus the capitalists begin to experience a falling rate of profit after awhile and that is when unemployment increases and wages go down, exploitation goes up. I think you not only do not understand socialism, you don't get capitalism either.

And, when it comes to economics, you've utterly failed. Labor is a commodity. If you have more of it the wages fall, when there is a shortage, wages go up. The key to being well paid is to have a skill that is rare, and in demand.

That's because the cultural hegemony of capitalism has done an outstanding job at denying that class struggle somehow doesn't exist anymore (it does, or the ruling class wouldn't require a state to protect itself),

Which culture is that exactly? How can capitalism have a culture? Capitalism, as an economic system, has been an aspect of western European culture since the middle ages - probably centered on the Netherlands.

and I would even go farther to say that we don't like to talk about class anymore because it goes against the whole idea of the Horatio Alger myth, that we can go from rags to riches and to talk about class at all is not on the agenda of capitalist interests. Massive mobility? LMAO...where is this massive mobility you speak of? How can I account for that which does not exist? And even if there IS some mobility, this doesnt change the fact that capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, and we shouldn't have worry about mobility in the first place.

No. No. That's right. We'd just have to worry about elk hunting, and gathering berries. Let's ask the mythical Oprah how she did it? Ragged Dick is a myth --

This chart; is not.

Indeed, it takes a very substantial amount of labor exploitation of MANY, MANY workers, to make one man very, very rich.

Let's ask the mythical man Oprah, how many workers she exploited.

The fact Apple's products are made in factories of oppressed Chinese workers that are paid a dollar a day really shows Steve Jobs worked his ass off

How much did they make planting rice in the paddies before China built the plant with Apples money?


Again, your butt must be sore with all these facts you pull from there. My research shows that Foxconn, Apples China supplier, pays between $375 to $450 per month, which is about 20% higher than the median wage. Leave it to the Chinese Marxists to screw over their own workers... But, that insight aside. You know nothing about how Jobs made his fortune. It was Pixar, which he bought from Lucas, while he was trying to build Next. 10 years later, Apple bought Next, and Jobs returned to Apple. So, to imply that Jobs built his wealth on the backs of China's workers is just downright false.

or that the children of Sam Walton who now own more wealth than 50% of the US population combined without ever having to lift a finger to do it. And we call people like these our heros and leaders. Yuck. As far as im concerned, they are elitist scum, and the world would be a much better place without them and their bourgeois protectors in DC.

So, where do you find your facts? In 2011 six members of the Walton family have the same net worth as the bottom 30% of American families combined. But, considering that most people start out after college, in debt with a negative self worth, 30% is surprisingly low.

Yea, because the bourgeois goes to extremely great lengths for good reason, to demonize, misrepresent, and in general, slander Marxism because it presents a multiplicity of real problems with the capitalist system. The easiest thing to do is sweep anything under the rug that is contrary or inconvenient to the interests of the ruling class, which Marxism is. And its pretty easy to do, since they control the schools and dictate what agenda is up for discussion in the media, etc. What do you expect us Marxists to do? Just go along with everything capitalists say about Marxism and socialism, and say "yea, uh huh, the capitalists are right and we are wrong".....come on man, use your common sense here. I know you have some, even if some of your thoughts about things are a bit wacky to me.

Right. And, that you've no good examples of a working system in the hundred and sixty five years since the publication of the communist manifesto. It's.... Just... That... Capitalism.... Won't.... Fricking.... DIE!!!!! If only people would stop doing what they do, and start doing something undefined then we could figure out how to make a system without bosses, where we all get to do what we want. Woohooo! (If what you want to do is to hunt elk, and gather berries.)

Marxism indeed doesn't have a framwork, because it IS a framework, and it is that framework that serves as a guide for those fighting for socialism. You want it to predict EXACTLY how socialism will look, and that is impossible because it depends entirely on the material conditions of the time, should socialism become a reality.

No, really. If this were socialism, you'd give me food, and housing, and health care, and clothing for me and my family, and I'd get to do whatever I want right? Ok, I'd work. I'm very, very good at making garnishes.

Artisans (who ultimately became todays capitalist class) during the feudal era could not predict exactly how capitalism would work, just socialists cannot predict exactly how socialism will look.

Not really true, either. "The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development." - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto.

So, not artisans. Investors in sea voyages.

We each have our own set of values respectively and society will be setup to reflect those values as they have been in prior epochs of history.

I imagine at this point you just whacked yourself in the head with a hammer, and this crap poured out of it though the keyboard. Yes, we each have mores and values, and collectively we comprise a society...

Your notion is almost as absurd as asking a biologist to predict the evolution of a particular species of insect. Predicting the future of history depends on way to many interacting factors, much in the same way predicting the course of evolution does.

No. I'm asking very simple questions. What job will I do? If you supply me my housing, food, clothing, and medical care, ostensibly, you will need to coerce somebody to build my house, grow my food, make my clothing, and tend to my medical needs. How will you do it? How do you make it any more equitable than what we have now?

Modes of analysis are used to understand current conditions to show which futures are possible and not possible. We'll leave it up to religious fundamentalists to make bold predictions like The Rapture being inevitable outcomes of our social existence, or capitalists who predict this system is the be all end all despite its countless contradictions, inefficiencies, and the fact it creates the very seeds of its own destruction (as all class based systems before it did).

No. No. I just want to not die of starvation, while we all become ballet dancers, and rock stars.

Impossible, since capitalism has not yet been destroyed. People liking to own stuff or not is irrelevant to the objective laws of motion that govern capitalism as an economic system. If indeed people do like to own stuff, then capitalism has done a piss poor job at meeting that demand, and it continues to do a piss poor job. And naturally so, because it is only efficient at creating profits. In terms of actual use, its extremely inefficient, wasteful, misuses peoples abilities and potential, and drives down wages by making labor more simple and demeaning. These are cold hard facts that you have yet to acknowledge, regardless of whether people like to own stuff or not.

Ah, yes. You can't tell me what it looks like until we abandon the system we have, and magically, this next one with arise eliminating all the issues we have now.

And that is because the international bourgeois has done a wonderful job at destroying every opportunity for an international proletarian movement to be realized, then they turn around and say "see communism doesn't work!!". Its like beating a child with a stick than saying "see, he/she is nothing but a crybaby!!"

So, then obviously the international bourgeois is the dominant social philosophy, rendering international proletarian movement its weaker, dead prey. Social evolution in action!

And the state is an organ of class oppression, designed by its very nature to legitimize and keep capitalist social relations intact. As I said a couple posts ago it doesn't matter if industries are owned by private individuals or by the state - they are capitalist either way, and therefore the institutions within a capitalist society naturally promote bourgeois ideology and values.

Compulsory state funded k-12 education is one of the more socialist endeavors in our society. How would your system differ, other than obviously forcing them to study Marxism? Anarchy-education? I can teach you how to hunt elk if you like. I only know a few of the berries though.

There were many things Marx didn't touch on...

Yes, I know. I've lived for a pretty long time. I first read about Marx with my beret wearing friends in 1973.

Bottom line: Marxism is based on the false premise that a bureaucrat with absolute power to seize and distribute resources will do so impartially - or competently.

[LochnarITB]

more quotes than I've ever seen in a post...

Kan, your post left me with a very important question. How did you get that post to work without barfing on so many quotes?!

[eppie]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.
The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.
We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

[FireIceTalon]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.
The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.
We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

As of a 2008 report, an average of about 25,000 people per day starve to death or die from malnutrition (global). The UN has been keeping track of roughly how many children under the age of 5 die per year due to starvation and preventable diseases, since 1991, and the total is about 9 million per year. Hmmm, so that right there, is roughly 198 million deaths for that demographic in the last 22 years alone, thanks to capitalism. So much for the logic of supply and demand, aye? Capitalism is an epic failure on every level, and such statistics as this are self-evidence of it. In short, FUCK THIS SYSTEM.

I live in the US. I own a laptop (i forget what my internet connection is at the moment but its quite good enough overall). And compared to many of my fellow workers, both here and abroad (especially in places like Greece, which definitely has the makings of the possibility of a socialist revolution), I have it fairly good. But that doesnt matter, it of course goes without saying that I am anti-capitalist, much less happy and smug about it. I have nothing but pure contempt and venomous hatred of this system, to the point where the word "hate" is not strong enough to accurately describe how I feel about it. That said, I can't let that get in the way of providing a proper material analysis of the system, no matter how much people like Shoju and Kandrathe troll. I just finished my spring semester and have a few months off now, during this time I wish to delve more into Marxian Economics and get a sharper understanding the materialist dialectic (and tackle at least part of Capital Vol.1 finally), since I have a pretty solid understanding of Marxism the socio-political system by now.

I could take the time to post a well thought out reply as I have done earlier in this thread; and destroy the many half-truths, falsehoods, and meaningless idealistic analysis that fails to separate appearance from essence nonsense (all wrapped up in your prototypical capitalist folklore and mythology) in Kandrathe's last post relatively easily, but he clearly lives in his privileged little bubble, so I won't waste my time anymore.

[shoju]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.
The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.
We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

And on the contrary, we can't say that capitalism doesn't work, because a select group of countries have starving people.

To do so, would be to isolate capitalism as the reason for the problem, and ignore anything else that could possibly be the problem.

I would argue that capitalism isn't the problem, or at least isn't the sole problem with hunger in capitalist based countries. If it was the problem, then how is it that with the distribution of wealth that the US has, we don't have an "africa-esque" starvation problem, with people dying in the streets en masse?

Could Capitalism be a contributing factor? Absolutely.
Is Capitalism the sole factor? Not even close.

[eppie]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.
The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.
We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

And on the contrary, we can't say that capitalism doesn't work, because a select group of countries have starving people.

To do so, would be to isolate capitalism as the reason for the problem, and ignore anything else that could possibly be the problem.

I would argue that capitalism isn't the problem, or at least isn't the sole problem with hunger in capitalist based countries. If it was the problem, then how is it that with the distribution of wealth that the US has, we don't have an "africa-esque" starvation problem, with people dying in the streets en masse?

Could Capitalism be a contributing factor? Absolutely.
Is Capitalism the sole factor? Not even close.

You have national solutions or arguments for a global issue.

The lack of wealth, and the poverty in Africa is for a large part caused by their international relations. We take their resources using capitalist systems (also china and russia do this) and they are left with nothing.

Of course this is caused by the lack of rules and regulatory affairs, but this is the reason why we live in so much wealth. Why we can have people on the other side of the world make our cloths for costs that make it possible for us, to wear things ones and then throw it away.

That you don't find the distribution of wealth in the US a problem is a whole other discussion.


Capitalism works for us because people are not free to play the game (such as the Bangladesh workers) and we up till now have never included sustainability in the price of goods.

So just like a real communist state has never had the chance of evolving, a real capitalist free society has also never been reality.

[kandrathe]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.

Probably true in part, but I also look at demographics for the world.

Hans Roslings TED Talk

To play with various data of the world -- http://www.gapminder.org/world

The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.

Ok. What do you mean by that? Whose poverty line? What do you mean by poverty, and how does their standard of living now compare to the past? Why are they at risk of starving? Is it logistical, or political? For example, the people in DRC are starving due to the conflict disrupting the distribution of goods.

TED Talk - Josette Sheeran: Ending hunger now

We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

I'm not smug about it. I'm trying to be rational. If someone says we should leap into the darkness, then I either want enlightenment, or some assurance there is something firm on the other side. I see niether, and the available evidence indicates that what we have (which is free market capitalism, with potential abuses moderated by regulations, and some socialism for key societal factors like education and healthcare) seems to be working marginally well in improving peoples standards of living.

From a pragmatic point of view; What I worry about is killing the golden goose.

That can be done with:

• excessive restraint on entrepreneurship through regulations,
  
• excessive drains on available investment capital through taxation,
  
• excessive waste of natural resources and efforts over producing things that are pretty unnecessary,
  
• or, by over burdening the environment with waste from the production process, thereby damaging the population.
  

From a philosophic point of view; I wonder if this system allows us to flourish in all aspects we might wish (e.g. artistically, spiritually, intellectually). Or, more simply, does it help us to be happy?

...he clearly lives in his privileged little bubble, so I won't waste my time anymore.

Thank God. Even in the bubble, you need to worry about bird poop (and sharp objects).

Kan, your post left me with a very important question. How did you get that post to work without barfing on so many quotes?!

Very, methodically. I'm still a programmer at heart, so I'm very careful with parentheses, braces, tags, etc.

So just like a real communist state has never had the chance of evolving, a real capitalist free society has also never been a reality.

There was pre-capitalism, before y'all in the Netherlands invented it. Before the "Age of Capitalism", there was mercantilism (or, bullionism), and pre-mercantilism. Before that, it was a barter system.

Once you have the exchange of value of goods or labor into money, and you have more money than you need to survive, then the opportunity exists for investment. Once you have a system supporting investments, you could develop capitalism. Capitalism relies on freedom to own and transfer property, contractual exchange of labor for money, and on the respect of lawful contracts.

So, yes, I do see the potential for a post-capitalist world; It would require the elimination of concerns from needs, like energy, food, water, health, housing, clothing. These things would be so freely abundant that they would have no relative value. This is a Star Trek like world where products are produced instantly as needed from basic atoms, but while a fantasy for me, may be possible for future generations. But, when basic necessities are scarce, we will value them, and negotiate with whatever means we have to get what we need in competition with other individuals. There will be "have" and "have not" until we figure out how to get everyone all that they need. And, therefore, inequality is a matter of where you are born, what physical traits you were born with, and how well you are nurtured, with a modicum of influence by circumstances.

[shoju]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.
The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.
We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

And on the contrary, we can't say that capitalism doesn't work, because a select group of countries have starving people.

To do so, would be to isolate capitalism as the reason for the problem, and ignore anything else that could possibly be the problem.

I would argue that capitalism isn't the problem, or at least isn't the sole problem with hunger in capitalist based countries. If it was the problem, then how is it that with the distribution of wealth that the US has, we don't have an "africa-esque" starvation problem, with people dying in the streets en masse?

Could Capitalism be a contributing factor? Absolutely.
Is Capitalism the sole factor? Not even close.

You have national solutions or arguments for a global issue.

The lack of wealth, and the poverty in Africa is for a large part caused by their international relations. We take their resources using capitalist systems (also china and russia do this) and they are left with nothing.

Of course this is caused by the lack of rules and regulatory affairs, but this is the reason why we live in so much wealth. Why we can have people on the other side of the world make our cloths for costs that make it possible for us, to wear things ones and then throw it away.

That you don't find the distribution of wealth in the US a problem is a whole other discussion.


Capitalism works for us because people are not free to play the game (such as the Bangladesh workers) and we up till now have never included sustainability in the price of goods.

So just like a real communist state has never had the chance of evolving, a real capitalist free society has also never been reality.

I NEVER said that I don't have a problem with the distribution of wealth in the US.

I have a HUGE problem with it.

But, we are able to get by with our incredibly batshit insane distribution of wealth under a capitalist system, meaning capitalism isn't the cause of the problem.

You just listed the other causes of the problems. Their relationships with other countries. The problems that have arisen, because other countries have taken advantage of them. The fact that they live in a society that doesn't make an attempt to keep people at a living wage.

Unfortunately, No system can solve things on a global scale unless it's applied.... globally, along with other systems that will allow it to work. Why does capitalism suck for the average person in China? It's not capitalism, it's the rest of the policies of their government.

Taking advantage of countries isn't strictly a capitalism problem. It's a wider politics problem.

And it's not why "we" live in so much wealth. It's why the top end of the spectrum live in so much wealth.

It's why the top 1% of the wealthy in this country have more wealth than the rest of the country.

[FireIceTalon]

so just like a real communist state has never had the chance of evolving, a real capitalist free society has also never been reality.

This is sort of a false dichotomy though, eppie. For the communist part, only Stalinists (and I suppose Maoists) want a "communist state", because they believe that the philosophy of 'socialism in one country' works. For pretty much every other communist, the word "communist state" is an oxymoron and implies that capitalism still exists. Communism is intrinsically an internationalist ideology - Stalinism not withstanding. For the capitalist part of your statement, I assume by "capitalist free society" you mean a completely unregulated market system, am I correct? If so, you are mostly correct, though Somalia comes damn close (minus its extreme religious fundamentalist overtones). And such a system never could work, despite what Tea Party idiots and wacky anarcho-capitalists and libertarians will tell you. Any system that consists of a ruling class and a subordinate class requires a state for that system to exist for any meaningful length of time, by default. Of course, most neo-liberals, despite what they spout off, REALLY do want regulation - but only when it benefits them (for example when they make risky bets on Wall Street and lose, then have the state socialize their losses with workers dollars). Additionally, the functions of a capitalistic economy need an instrument of some sort (that instrument being the state) to sign corruptible deals with sponsoring dictators, controlling the money supply, finding new markets by investing a shitload of money into research and development, throwing a trillion or two dollars at the banks when capitalism kicks the bucket for the umpteenth time, and then investing in new war machine technology to conquer resource-rich countries markets. All of these things are required for the expansion of international markets, accumulation, and profits. Capitalism without a state is far more utopian (or dystopian, depending on which side you are on) than any form of socialist thought, and it will never happen - at least I hope it doesn't because it would look like something out of Mad Max III, most likely....'two men enter, 1 man leaves".

[FireIceTalon]

Well Kandrathe, you are looking at things very much form your local perspective.
The capitalist world (yes also China, Russia, India behave capitalist) contains a billion people who are at risk of starving and even a few billion below the poverty line.
We can't conclude that capitalism 'works'. Maybe we will in the future, maybe it is the best system possible, but there is absolutely no reason to be smug and satisfied about it. Well unless you live in the US and have a nice laptop with a 100MB internet connection of course.

And on the contrary, we can't say that capitalism doesn't work, because a select group of countries have starving people.

To do so, would be to isolate capitalism as the reason for the problem, and ignore anything else that could possibly be the problem.

I would argue that capitalism isn't the problem, or at least isn't the sole problem with hunger in capitalist based countries. If it was the problem, then how is it that with the distribution of wealth that the US has, we don't have an "africa-esque" starvation problem, with people dying in the streets en masse?

Could Capitalism be a contributing factor? Absolutely.
Is Capitalism the sole factor? Not even close.

You have national solutions or arguments for a global issue.

The lack of wealth, and the poverty in Africa is for a large part caused by their international relations. We take their resources using capitalist systems (also china and russia do this) and they are left with nothing.

Of course this is caused by the lack of rules and regulatory affairs, but this is the reason why we live in so much wealth. Why we can have people on the other side of the world make our cloths for costs that make it possible for us, to wear things ones and then throw it away.

That you don't find the distribution of wealth in the US a problem is a whole other discussion.


Capitalism works for us because people are not free to play the game (such as the Bangladesh workers) and we up till now have never included sustainability in the price of goods.

So just like a real communist state has never had the chance of evolving, a real capitalist free society has also never been reality.

I NEVER said that I don't have a problem with the distribution of wealth in the US.

I have a HUGE problem with it.

But, we are able to get by with our incredibly batshit insane distribution of wealth under a capitalist system, meaning capitalism isn't the cause of the problem.

You just listed the other causes of the problems. Their relationships with other countries. The problems that have arisen, because other countries have taken advantage of them. The fact that they live in a society that doesn't make an attempt to keep people at a living wage.

Unfortunately, No system can solve things on a global scale unless it's applied.... globally, along with other systems that will allow it to work. Why does capitalism suck for the average person in China? It's not capitalism, it's the rest of the policies of their government.

Taking advantage of countries isn't strictly a capitalism problem. It's a wider politics problem.

And it's not why "we" live in so much wealth. It's why the top end of the spectrum live in so much wealth.

It's why the top 1% of the wealthy in this country have more wealth than the rest of the country.

Yea, its the fault of a couple regimes or institutions - they are the root cause and if we can just change them, these problems can go away or be mitigated. Capitalism isn't the root cause of any of these problems . *Sarcasm mode off* As usual, you are wrong on all accounts. Hint: Eppie didn't list the causes, he listed the EFFECTS (of capitalism, the root cause of the problem[s]).
You have absolutely zero understanding of how the capitalist system works.

[kandrathe]

You have absolutely zero understanding of how the capitalist system works.

Nice selfie.

[FireIceTalon]

Yea, right

Because we all know Anarcho-cappies provide the most objective, material analysis of capitalist social relations, as seen in books like Atlas Shrugged. I personally don't claim to be an expert (there are plenty of comrades with more knowledge than me) but I certainly have a better and more realistic understanding of it than either you or Shoju.

[eppie]

You have absolutely zero understanding of how the capitalist system works.

Nice selfie.

The big issue with u to capitalism is that it requires increasing consumption. Capitalism requires you to buy a stereo which brakes down after 2 years after which the best (cheapest) option is to buy a new one.

So weird, Japan has gotten so much shit over it because there was no economic growth, even though the country was wealthy enough.

Anyway, this is the reason why I am always in favor of a mixed system where the government has the power to steer things which it thinks are important.
Of course, you can run into problems here when eg your government thinks it is a good idea to spend billions of dollars to invade Iraq because it says that the 9/11 terrorists were supported from there, but it will probably be better than the choices the market makes.
The market as it is now will not include costs of natural resources or environment in its cost calculations.

The market will solve things in the end is not good enough for me.
If we now know for example that people in Africa are dying while we buy their agricultural lands by paying money to some high officials who put most of this in their own pocket and we see the market doesn't do anything about it or when we know we are warming up our planet to dangerous levels because we are not willing to invest more in alternative energy sources we can safely say the free market is not able to solve things.

Going green or saving Africa if we knowingly let things get out of hand must be enough for us to say, let's stop this now.
But if you very sec just look at the economy the market works fine of course. Economist are the most powerful people on earth, the pity is only that they are pretty ignorant when it comes to things outside of their expertise area.

[shoju]

No, I understand how capitalism works. I didn't say that Capitalism wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't the sole problem.

I would argue that capitalism isn't the problem, or at least isn't the sole problem with hunger in capitalist based countries. If it was the problem, then how is it that with the distribution of wealth that the US has, we don't have an "africa-esque" starvation problem, with people dying in the streets en masse?

Could Capitalism be a contributing factor? Absolutely.
Is Capitalism the sole factor? Not even close.

Thanks for the visual though. Since we're getting all juvenile,


You just keep spewing the same thing over and over and over and over, fingers in your ears.

God why did I even come back to this thread.

[kandrathe]

The big issue with u to capitalism is that it requires increasing consumption. Capitalism requires you to buy a stereo which brakes down after 2 years after which the best (cheapest) option is to buy a new one.

Well, sort of, but...

One of the manufacturing companies I worked at had dominated their market having about 65% of the market share, and 3-4 other companies dividing the remainder. Their product was a vehicle, about car sized and about as complex. Their distinctive was quality. So, their products lifespan was more like 30 years, or more with good maintenance. The price was higher than their competition. They were founded in 1870, and most of their decisions are long term decisions. I think our poor consumer education and choices, glitzy marketing, and global wage differentials contribute to the product choice confusion.

34 years ago when I was single, and had the money pouring in from my first *real* job. I saved up money, and bought a reasonably good stereo. I still have it, although one component has problems. But it is also obsolete having no remote controls, no new technology, and no computer interfaces. I also don't have much use for the turntable anymore. A car might be a better example, since people often opt for the cheaper price point and sacrifice longevity. It is also not so prestigious driving around in an 10-20 year old car, even if it is in good shape and working order.

Growth doesn't always mean the waste or excess consumption of raw materials, it also can be achieved through non-physical products (services) and the quality of the product. Or, it can be achieved by replacement, that is by innovation, by building the better mouse trap. I think though that core to growth in our modern economies is access to abundant and cheap energy.

So weird, Japan has gotten so much shit over it because there was no economic growth, even though the country was wealthy enough.

Well, from an investment point of view, growth is necessary in order to realize any return on investment. That ROI depends upon convincing the consumer of the value of the thing you build, and that the consumer would be better off in buying your product. This is why borrowing too much is *really* dangerous. Yes, borrowing to build present capacity is good, if that capacity is needed, and that capacity will result in economic gains sufficient to justify it. Japan reached their debt crisis in 1989/90 and has suffered for two decades. The rest of the world has caught up. Total gross debt in Japan (government, non-financial corporation and consumer) is over 450% of GDP. The origin of their decline began with the Plaza accord in 1985, which caused their currency value to rise by 51%. In response to declining export pressure, the BOJ dropped interest rates. This cheap borrowed money was used for more than increasing exports, so the prices of stock and real estate skyrocketed (a bubble economy). In 1989, in an attempt to stop the hyper-inflation, the BOJ re-instated interest rates and they climbed eventually to 6%, and this popped the bubble. Hence, my concern about how the US Federal Reserve has intervened in the present crisis. Japan has suffered 20 years of a sluggish economy, with the BOJ selling JGB's, mostly held domestically, and rounds of quantitative easing. Sounds familiar. They are in a pickle, since their only abundant natural resource is their productive people which are in decline. They are experiencing the same post-WWII boomer problem, and have a declining birth rate.

Anyway, this is the reason why I am always in favor of a mixed system where the government has the power to steer things which it thinks are important.

The problem is when the government has the power. Really, I'd prefer the people to have the power, and check the government.

Of course, you can run into problems here when eg your government thinks it is a good idea to spend billions of dollars to invade Iraq because it says that the 9/11 terrorists were supported from there, but it will probably be better than the choices the market makes.
The market as it is now will not include costs of natural resources or environment in its cost calculations.

$810,718,615,300 give or take some millions. We should resolve to agree that the US did not attack Iraq because of WMD, or 911, or other nonsense. Those were sales gimmicks, and false advertising to sell the war. I believe the reason for the Iraq war was oil. But, not the pedantic simple notion of stealing it. It was that Saddam was causing price instability by selling too much Iraqi oil. This upset our friends in the region, and Wests multi-national oil companies. Iraq had the capacity to flood the market with oil, break the price, and reap big revenues. The war took Iraqi oil out of play, and kept the prices higher. Not only do governments control the value of money, but also the value of commodities we depend upon, like oil. Which is why the re-emergence of fascist (Government+Corporation) rule is so dangerous.

The market will solve things in the end is not good enough for me.
If we now know for example that people in Africa are dying while we buy their agricultural lands by paying money to some high officials who put most of this in their own pocket and we see the market doesn't do anything about it or when we know we are warming up our planet to dangerous levels because we are not willing to invest more in alternative energy sources we can safely say the free market is not able to solve things.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think we only differ slightly in the means by which that end is achieved. I would opt to keep the government bureaucracy out of it as much as is possible, and keep more of the decisions (power) with the people.

Going green or saving Africa if we knowingly let things get out of hand must be enough for us to say, let's stop this now.

I agree that we need a plan, a shorter term plan for food safety, and a short and long term plan for energy. However, part of the Africa problem is akin to the Balkans. They have political instability due to tribal conflicts, post-colonial dictatorships, and the Islamists versus the Christians all were frozen by the cold war. Our US/European response has been reactionary, sending in more military which is more driven by economics (protecting sources of natural resources), than a concern over helping the people of Africa amiably resolve their conflicts.

But if you very sec just look at the economy the market works fine of course. Economist are the most powerful people on earth, the pity is only that they are pretty ignorant when it comes to things outside of their expertise area.

Well, more like powerless. Many voices, often who basically say the same things, but half the people don't know what they are saying and the other half don't listen.

God why did I even come back to this thread.

For the witty repartee'?