Ben Russell wrote:


>my complaint is that the ruling class gets to use capitalist propaganda
>to justify a system which is clearly not capitalism.

>under the capitalist model, production is carried out to satisfy
>demand.  that's the way the theoretical argument goes.

If I was a capitalist I wouldn't produce something just because there was a
demand for it - I'd want to see a profit. In fact I wouldn't give a toss if
there was a demand or not - just as long as there was a profit. Am I right
to interpret your argument, that our present economic system is not
capitalism, and that capitalism is impossiible, as being based solely on
the premise that capitalism theoretically sets out to satisfy demand?

If my understanding is correct I must say your argument is a wee bit
pedantic. If not you'll have to spell it out because you've lost me.

capitalism,
>however, as has been CLEARLY demonstrated, CAN NOT exist, because it's
>too stupid, for several reasons.  if capitalism was ever established,
>the capitalist class would quickly use their power to establish a more
>profitable state economy.  this seems to have been understood by those
>who established our system.

>> 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.

>> On the other hand the worker is generally unable to accrue a surplus to
>> turn into capital because he is paid only enough on average to keep him
>> economically  useful to his employer. Naturally this results in capital
>> accumulating into fewer and fewer hands, resulting in MONOPOLY. Monopoly is
>> the aim of all capitalists, since it frees them (temporarily in most cases)
>> from the unwelcome restrictions of the FREE MARKET.

>all of this is a fine description of our system, some characteristics of
>which are shared by capitalism.  nothing you have typed has convinced me
>that our system follows capitalist doctrine.  write a brief message,
>please, on how our system is capitalist, not on the failures and
>shortcomings and abominations inherent within our system.
>thanks,

You're being cruel now, you know perfectly well that that's what I set out
to do. Except of course I couldn't leave out capitalism's shortcomings,
that would render it a thoroughly misleading description of capitalism.
Perhaps that's the sort of definition of capitalism you are relying on as
the premise of your argument? Anyway I'm not sure *I* can do any better,
unless you help me out a bit. Which part of it don't you believe applies to
capitalism?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.