Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> [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 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.  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.  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.  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.

> 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.

> 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.

i'm not going to respond to the rest of this, since it doesn't relate to
your point about the definition of capitalism.
thanks,
ben