BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
ynh
19:33 / 18.07.01
quote:OP by Ever Perez
We have established social legislation like welfare programs, antitrust laws, and a social security system. We are not flawless, but we are flexible enough to try to fix flaws when we see them.

I'm genuinely confused. The very programs listed above are being blatantly dismantled: antitrust laws have been eroded since the eighties, and Microsoft may even be getting off, welfare programs are being hemmed in or canceled outright, and social security is on the way to privatization - guaranteeing that when times get rough, they'll be rough even for the old folks.

Capital(ism) is neither inherently nor necessarily flexible; America even less so.

Then you mention the negative effect of Affirmative Action, without even suggesting what they are; another program which is being cancelled outright even in university admission policies.

The majority of American workers are poor and disenfranchised, Ever, regardless of how often or by how much the range of "middle class" is expanded in order to foster the illusion of classlessness in the US. Currently, it's somewhere areoun 20-150k annual income. Strange, then, that 20k is right around the poverty line, and the SoL within that range varies dramatically. You may know some of these folks who are apparently doing fine, but chances are they lack retirement benefits, insurance, and job security. As others have noted, even these folks are doing a lot better than the majority of people across the globe; and those two facts are inextricably linked.

As synaesthesia notes, capitalism itself can be associated with what a fair number of people would call fascism. It's a mistake to assume that since America evangelizes coincident capitalism and democracy that they are inseparable.
 
 
synaesthesia
20:04 / 18.07.01
<observation>
Your views are virtually lifted from John Locke. Not surprising since they had a profound influence on Thomas Paine.
quote:Originally posted by Ever Perez:

Competition inspires productivity, and invigorates markets, but unchecked competition will eventually lead to monopolies and or stagnant markets devoid of creativity.
Competition can inspire productivity similarly it can ruin all of the participants involved including companies, customers, nations and the environment.
If a market is unable the support the competing companies there is no reason why any of the companies will survive.
Competition can also mean that companies cut corners which includes salaries.
If I can remember my stats workers in the US have to work many more hours to keep thier income (as in purchasing power) on par with what it was in the early 70's. If it wasn't for increased equality for women and work many more families would be collecting welfare. Is it 1 in 3 people in the US don't have private medical cover because it is too expensive? Or is it only 1 in 3 who can afford it? I can't remember. Incidentally the WHO rates the US medical system is in 12th position with France at the top.
Unchecked competition does not mean monopolies. A company with unfair and/or disproportionate advantages in a market has a monopoly. Like Microsnot. Many analysts believe they have significantly stifled creativity. Competition can also damage greativity because of corner cutting too. The irony is that you need well-considered tough legislation to minimise monopolies. Microsnot should have been tackled by the courts much sooner.
quote:Ever Perez:
...In a free market the consumer gets the types of products he wants in the market because he more or less votes for that product by giving a dollar amount for it. Products get better because one company wants to make sure that their product is better than another company's so it will sell better.
Your idea about dollars equalling votes has an unintended strong ring of irony. How much did corporations and the affluent pour into the last Presidential election? But I digress.
The market is littered with products that actually would have made things better but never made it to the top. Apple vs IBM, Betamax VCRs vs VHS to name but two.

quote:Ever Perez:
We do not live under the tyranny of an elitist monarchy--we are governed by ourselves or at least by the representatives we choose for ourselves who still remain accountable to us.
Just because you live under a monarchy doesn't neccessarily mean it will be elitist tyrrany. Monarchies such as Denmark's live almost like everyday Danes. The UK monarchy is elitist but is effectively powerless.
Didn't only about 40% vote in the last Presidential election? Half of those didn't vote Bush. Therefore 1 in 5 of those eligible to vote chose Bush. 4 out of 5 didn't.

quote:Ever Perez:
The problems with economic and governmental systems that do not at least hold some capitalist ideas is that their power base eventually will erode through rebellion of some kind. Capitalism may not be the only way, but I believe that it is the best way we have.
Just because there is a past trend doesn't mean it will be the same in the future. Value systems have changed. However if you look at the way men have dominated cultures in almost every age doesn't mean it will be the same forever. But men have generally dominated over the last few millenia.
The USSR adopted free market capitalism to a point where most Republicans would fill thier trousers. It doesn't look to healthy.

quote:Ever Perez:
The injection of democratic or rather capitalist ideals into the economic & governmental workings of nations like China & Japan [in my mind at least] have helped to further those nations towards the universal goal of prosperity.

Japan was also flourishing capitalist economy well before WW2. On par with the US maybe a tad higher. China certainly hasn't improved its democratic views since they adopted capitalism.

[ 19-07-2001: Message edited by: synaesthesia ]
 
 
Dharma Bum
09:10 / 20.07.01
Just out of curiosity-- can someone with more economic understanding than I answer me this:

Is it possible to distinguish between a "free market" system and a "capitalist" system? I mean, I say it's good to allow the market to determine the prices of goods and allow supply and demand to control what is produced and how much of it is produced. Certainly works better than the government deciding.

But at the same time, I'm opposed to the specific setup of our society and economy wherin the majority of the profits made from selling goods go not to the people who manufactured them (ie, the workers) but merely to the people who hold the deed to the factory, who "own" the capital that is required for the worker-- that, in my mind at least, and from my understanding of Marx, is capitalism.

For example, Nazi germany was a capitalist society, but not particularly a free market one (the factory owners were in control, and they set prices). Soviet Russia was neither strictly capitalist nor a free market. America is very capitalist and has a regulated free market. A lot of socialist democracies, like Western Europe and Japan, are free market without being very capitalist. I think.

Is this a correct understanding of the terms being used?

Okay, my other point was that (relating back to the original question of this thread) perhaps one of the faults of the free market, as good as it may be, is that there is no value OTHER than the market value. There is no value given to something that cannot be sold-- being moral or environmentally friendly or just aiming for fulfilling human happiness may not be cost-effective. It's the old case of curing a disease or just providing expensive treatments for it... if you let the free market reign unfettered, while it has many benefits, you're also going to lose a lot.

Okay, admittedly, this is all a lot more from a social standpoint than an economic one.
 
 
ynh
09:51 / 20.07.01
Thanks for asking Dharma Bum.

Shorthand for capitalist:

Labor produces; Capital appropriates and distributes. Capital distributes only a portion of the wealth appropriated back to labour, therefore labour is exploited.

The free market is the imaginary playing field in Smith's laissez-faire land of opportunity system.

The USSR was a state-captialist system (so was Nazi Germany). Labour produced; the State appropriated and distributed. Labour remained fundamentally powerless. The social democracies of Western Europe and Japan are capitalist.

It's theoretically possible to have a free market communist environment: one in which labour produces, appropriates and distributes while competeing within a market. Mind you this situation only existed for like a year under in the small, isolated Soviet factories that the Bolsheviks nicked the term from. In this scenario, the environment is likely to be ruined all the same, as individual units scramble for profit. ?

Supply and demand can inform production in a constrained market as well; and perhaps do a better job of "giving the people what they need (and want)."

synaestyhesia: 1 in 3 can afford private care in the most generous assessments. As a student, I'm required to borrow almost as much for care as I do for tuition; and that places me in the lucky 30%.

I've got sand in my shorts over the suggestion that capitalism is the only moral system in history. As others ijn other fora have discussed, the indivdual so quoted wrote from a specific though perhaps misinterpretted context.
 
 
synaesthesia
09:51 / 20.07.01
Ever Perez
Hope you don't think I'm anti-capitalist (I'm not) but it has produced real problems that can't be swept under the carpet.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply