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.