Comment below that over production caused the great depression; correct.
More generally over production is the fatal flaw in capitalism, thus panics
recession crashes, depressions.  One aspect of this is automation.  Clearly
leading to large scale unemployment; and this can be averted only as in
France: reduce the work week at the SAME pay.

Incidentally, socialism is alive and well , socialists now run the government
alone, or in coalition of: Finland Norway, Sweden Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Luxemboug, France and England.  Yes
England: Blair : an excess profits tax, funding jobs for young unemployed
smaller school classes, joining the protocal in Europe to protect workers,
a minimum wage, and freeing Scotland and Wales.  This position is clearly
FAR to the left of Clinton's.
wcm

:q

> Bill - see below...
>
> ----------
> > From: Bill Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [CHOMSKY] definition of capitalism
> > Date: Wednesday, June 04, 1997 6:47 AM
> >
> > (apologies for re-posting a lot of my waffle towards the end of this
> post,
> > but it was necessary to make my final point)
> >
> > Ben Russel wrote:
> > >
> > >capitalism is a DOCTRINE (a non-viable doctrine).  that doctrine
> > >includes concepts like free markets and competition in order to
> > >establish its legitimacy.  i am not confusing capitalism with either of
> > >the concepts you mentioned; capitalism REQUIRES free markets and
> > >competition.  without those things it becomes something other than
> > >capitalism.
> >
> > Capitalism seems to lead inevitably towards monopolies, only artificial
> > restraints prevent that and it is probably better to have monopolies than
> a
> > totally anarchic free market. That was a big factor leading to the great
> > depression, ie. productive capacity outgrowing market demand, leading to
> > virtual cessation of production because competition had driven prices so
> > low there was no longer any profit to be derived from selling goods on a
> > free market. Thus it is that feirce competition leads to monopoly,
> > destroying all but the strongest. As Tresy Kilbourne says elsewhere:
> >
> >         "Computers are dirt cheap and getting cheaper. Profit margins
> >         for hardware mfrs are nothing to brag about, as the marginal
> costs
> >         of producing additional chips approaches the vanishing point and
> >         competition drives the price to zero."
> >
> > Unfortunately (and I hesitate to challenge Tresy again) this is not
> really
> > good news in the long term. When prices are forced below production costs
> > the inevitable result will be the withdrawal of weaker competitors,
> > monopolisation (or cartels) and ensuing higher prices, less choice and
> less
> > innovation. Unless of course the crunch coincides in many industries at
> > once and we sink into deep depression. It is still capitalism, even if it
> > doesn't have any of the redeeming features of capitalism, is my point.
> >
> > >if a doctrine is not legitimized, its uselessness to the
> > >majority will be obvious.  a doctrine is a description of the way things
> > >ought to be--it's a SHOULD-type statement.  when you describe the way
> > >that things ought to be, it's generally necessary to describe WHY they
> > >ought to be that way.
> >
> > Is your complaint that capitalism is not living up to its propaganda?
> >
> > >capitalism is legitimized (in some ways) very
> > >cleverly by adam smith, who claims that capitalism ought to exist
> > >because it will bring an end to material scarcity.
> >
> > Socialists agree that it is capitalism which has produced the material
> > conditions, that is the productive capacity, to end material scarcity.
> But
> > it sticks out like a dog's dick
>
> Is that a philosophical or historical "term of art"?
>
>  that such POTENTIAL can never be actually
> > realised under capitalism, because under capitalism production is carried
> > out for PROFIT, not to satisfy need.
> >
> > >what we've got isn't
> > >capitalism.  it shares many characteristics of capitalism, but lacks
> > >several characteristics which are necessary to legitimize the doctrine
> > >of capitalism.  to my knowledge, no attempt has been made to legitimize
> > >the corporate system.  it seems clear to me that this is because it
> > >CAN'T be legitimized.  that's why the ruling class calls it capitalism.
> >
> > If it walks like duck and talks like a duck, then it IS a duck. I agree
> its
> > an old duck, well past its prime - it doesn't lay any more and is too
> tough
> > to eat, (and of course it consumes all the tucker and stops its offspring
> > from maturing) but even without any of the redeeming features of a duck,
> > its still a duck, its just time we knocked it on the head and invested in
> > some new blood.
> >
> > What you are saying is that when it stops laying it becomes a DRAKE?
> >
> > >> Capitalism is quite simple really - if you own the means of production
> > >> (CAPITAL) then those who don't must work for you. You get to keep
> > >> everything they produce in return for paying your employees' keep (a
> wage).
> > >> You can then sell the goods produced by these wage slaves and keep the
> > >> difference between the cost of production and the sale price, reinvest
> it
> > >> in more CAPITAL etc. Thus, you can accumulate more capital.
>