(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 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.
>
>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.
>
>> 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.

?? I thought it related directly to your argument that monopoly is foreign
to capitalism, demonstrating the reverse.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.