[log in to unmask] (coaster Brake) wrote:

>it's a kick to hear people talking about how socialism has failed, or
>how capitalism will fail.  neither of these doctrines have ever been
>implemented.  the united states is far from capitalist.  where's the
>competition?  the free market?  why are there monopolies?  oligopolies?
>why does the state run the economy?  in what ways is the united states
>capitalist, aside from its cultural values?
>just some questions...
>ben

There is no agreement here even as to what CAPITALISM is? I expected some
debate about the nature of socialism, sigh, OK.

First, Ben confuses capitalism with concepts like "free market",
"competition". As Chomsky has noted quite often language is the most
sophisticated weapon in the arsenal of the ruling class, this is another
example.

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.

Another way to avoid the free market is to gain ascendancy in government.
GOVERMENT is, historically, the instrument by which the ruling class (in a
capitalist society that would obviously be the capitalists) control the
subject class(es). Almost all capitalist societies have laws to prevent
monopolies, but of course how effective these will be and which sections of
the capitalist class these are applied against is constantly shifting as
the competing capitalist interests fight for control of the apparatus of
the state. Political parties in a capitalist society usually represent one
or more capitalist sectoral interests. Non-capitalist political parties are
theoretically possible, but in practice are not tolerated.

To some extent it seems that the balance of power of competing capitalist
interests is itself the product of a sort of market force.

For example in countries where manufacturing is dominant, manufacturing
interests will often have the ascendancy, setting policies which favour
them and hence discriminate against other sectors, like agricultural,
mining and service sectors. Manufacturing interests will tend to favour
policies which protect them against competition. Manufacturing
protectionism however means higher costs to other sectors, who will
dismantle them if they can gain the ascendancy.

While this is all of some importance, it ultimately makes little difference
to the working class which capitalist interest rules us. SOCIALISM is the
only alternative which promises to free us from the fundamental problem.
The basis of capitalism being the private ownership of the means of
producing everything the human race needs, and consequent production of
goods for PROFIT, rather than USE, socialism is simply the abolition of ALL
private ownership of capital, and production for USE rather than PROFIT.

Then we start getting into the complicated stuff. But I've got to go now so
someone else will have to explain all that

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.