Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> (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.

are you under the impression that there was once a free market, before
the great depression, that caused the great depression?  help me out
here.

> 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."

you're right.  intel isn't making any money.
>
> 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?

my complaint is that the ruling class gets to use capitalist propaganda
to justify a system which is clearly not capitalism.
>
> >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 that such POTENTIAL can never be actually
> realised under capitalism, because under capitalism production is carried
> out for PROFIT, not to satisfy need.
>
under the capitalist model, production is carried out to satisfy
demand.  that's the way the theoretical argument goes.  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.

> >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?

what i'm saying is that when it grows fur and nurses its young it
becomes corporatist plutocracy, or something like that.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >what you've described here is not capitalism.  capitalism entails more
> >than accumulation.  everything you've listed loosely describes most
> >large-scale precapitalist economic systems.
>
> Not at all. Pre-capitalist, class based, economic systems were based on
> control of territory or enslaved population, not capital. There is a big
> difference, not the least being that capitalism enables the rapid
> development of innovative tehnologies because they are more efficient.
> Feudal relations were not based on production for trade at all, and so
> discouraged such developments. In a feudal economy control of territory
> gave a prince the power to bleed traders, under capitalism control of trade
> gives capital the power to bleed nation states. You seem to be arguing that
> if they exercise that advantage they forfeit the right to call themselves
> capitalists.
> >
yeah, that's fine.  i was drunk off my ass when i typed that part.  but
not the rest, mind you.

> >> 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.

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,
ben
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >i'm not going to respond to the rest of this, since it doesn't relate to
> >your point about the definition of capitalism.
>
> ?? I thought it related directly to your argument that monopoly is foreign
> to capitalism, demonstrating the reverse.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas.