It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by DINSTAAR
So what exactly what your communicating to me is since capitalism gives profits and losses to the shareholders. Then in light of recent events the banksters are capitalists that capitalized on the shareholders but since they are one and the same. Why did millions to billions of others pay for it, since they have no stake in being poor and broke. Who's money was it.
In regards to the socialist factory, so what exactly what your communicating to me is since socialism gives profits and losses to the workers. Then in light of recent events the banksters are socialists that were socializing with the workers but since they are not one and the same. One group doesn't have to pay millions and billions to trillions for it. Its not there money. But here is the kicker none alive today will have to pay for it, but mayby the next generation will, or the next after that, or the next after that, ad infinitum.
Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by ANOK
Its worth exactly what you get paid for it. That is the beautiful thing about price.
Wouldn't you also be taking advantage of the capitalist? Its not your factory, you didn't build it. You didn't bring in the materials. The point is, all parties benefit from the trade.
Profit is turning 12 units into 15. It cost 12 units to produce, leaving 3 profit. All parties profit from trade. The wage earner trades something (labor) to get something else (money, etc) worth more to him than the labor. Without profit from the bottom all the way to the top, people will never be able to raise their standard of living. Look at China compared to during the Great Leap Forward.
Unless you make the capitalist see the error in his ways and repent, it would necessarily have to be violent.
Its not a system. Government is a system. Capitalism is a business strategy.
Don't make this comparison unless you are willing to admit that it was socialists who caused massive wars, genocides, and famines during the 20th century. Mao was no more a socialist than Bush is a Capitalist.
Are the workers capable of running a factory, making a long-term business model, and executing it with the same ease as a capitalist? I think not.
Or maybe to a party boss.
Socialism and capitalism are strategies. Both can work without the use of violence as a means to control.
They would also be stuck in the 19th century.
Yes.... it is the very problem with the world. Everyone expects to solve their problems with violence. From the founding fathers of the USA to the 'workers' in your factory... people wish to use violence for their own selfish ends.
Because socialism is not a good model for prosperity. Price is impossible for a system without constant competition of market forces to calculate. Socialism is about maintaining. Capitalism allows anyone to invest in the future of all humanity.
Besides the fact that this model calls into question the ability of the factory to make a profit, how would the factory get built? The entire point of capitalism is a motivating factor to go forward, to do research and development, and to make a product that even your employees can buy. Socialism is, relative to capitalism, stagnant.
Which factory would be relevant in 10 yrs? The factory investing its profits into future with the profit motive would easily overshadow the socialist factory in a few years. Factory workers, by and large, do not possess the ability to make savvy investments over a long period of time, capitalists do. Thats why they make the big bucks.
You own your body, thats the point. If you want to sell your labor, its your right to.
Even in the anarcho-socialists wet dream none of the means of production are under any control by oneself. It is under control of everyone. You have very little control of anything but your own labor.
I don't either. A free market is a lack of a system, and capitalism is not a system. One is a means for how everything works, the other is a means for how certain human exchanges are made.
"Forced by whom? I guess you can say that I am forced to provide sustenance for my body or air for my lungs. If you expect to take ownership of your own body, expect to provide for it."
The whole 'by whom' is the entire difference I am making. No one is forcing you besides nature or circumstance.
And neither does Capitalism.
Virtually all.
So the reason everyone does not live in a giant beach-front mansion, drive a Koeniggsegg, and have a puppy is simply because we haven't made enough of them?
This is what any economic planner thinks until they realize they can't plan an economy. It is simply impossible. Productivity is not something that occurs through random chance because all people own the factors of production, but through forward-looking investors who see a future that could have better, cheaper widgets.
mnemeth and yourself have the same problem. One can't stand socialism because they don't understand its voluntary, and the other can't stand capitalism for the same reason.
Capitalism works as a way to promote growth through investment in the future. Socialism seems to try to promote growth through economic equality.
won't work on me. I know all about socialisms history. I know Marx hijacked it and made it a state cult thing. I cannot see how you can still see capitalism as the problem though. I understand you would prefer socialism on your own grounds, but that is a minor detail between two people who have fairly similar beliefs.
Do you think a state is necessary for human prosperity?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Producers don't have more power than consumers.
As we can see, American productive capacity has imploded due to the credit expansion brought on by the federal reserve.
Of the mega-corporate producers left, most are either bankrupt OR they are funded by tax dollars.
America has no productive capacity left, its all moved to China. The government figures of American productive capacity are a lie. We make nothing but bombs and bullets.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
This is why I'm, ultimately, an Anarchist... because neither Communism nor Capitalism can save us as they have proven ideologically insufficient to counter the tyrannies of nation-states, hierarchy, and civilization.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality, Mikhail Bakunin, known as the 'Father of Anarchism'
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
This is why I'm, ultimately, an Anarchist... because neither Communism nor Capitalism can save us as they have proven ideologically insufficient to counter the tyrannies of nation-states, hierarchy, and civilization.
Here's the thing though, I'm an Anarchist also obviously, but even Anarchism has to have some kind of economic system, unless you want communism which is when you have no economy and everything is shared freely and equally.
Anarchists have traditionally supported either socialism, (Mikhail Bakunin), or communism (Peter Kropotkin) as their economic systems and some variations of, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism (a way of creating socialism through collectivized trade unions).
People fail to realise socialism is not a form of control or social order so requires no state or government. It's what we make it.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality, Mikhail Bakunin, known as the 'Father of Anarchism'
Anarcho-capitalism is a recent invention and nothing to do with traditional Anarchism imo.
Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
Because you answered the question as someone like yourself would. You don't think people should make exorbitant amounts of money on their investments, whether they utilize the labor of others or not. This ideology is the sickness in the left. Wealthy people who have done something spectacular to earn their money are the enemy.
Slavery is an act of unwarranted violence, thus it is wrong. Violently controlling others behavior is wrong. If someone trades a slave, it isn't the trade that is evil. Its the premise that one is able own someone else that is wrong.
So how much one can make is the issue.
Because you answered the question as someone like yourself would. You don't think people should make exorbitant amounts of money on their investments, whether they utilize the labor of others or not. This ideology is the sickness in the left. Wealthy people who have done something spectacular to earn their money are the enemy.
Word are funny. Bird is word. Bird is funny.
So you must be the pot Capitalism allows for there to be long term investments. While the company is losing money in the first few years, workers are still getting paid. The company's risk and loses are given to the people with the most incite to make the investment worth while, the capitalist (they have the most to lose).
Emotional drivel.
You say it like it is a bad thing. To take care of oneself and to make ones own life better is the noblest of goals. The issue I have is when people try to do this by using violence. Whether in our corporatist system where corporation and state (violence) are virtually the same people, or in a Soviet system where violence is used to evenly distribute wealth, regardless of merit. Greed is good. Using violence for ones own ends is not.
The 'system' you are talking about is not capitalism. Capitalist ideas are perversely integrated into part of the system, but the system itself is not Capitalism.
...Profit is not essentially a measure of technical efficiency. It is sometimes argued that the market's "hidden hand" guides enterprises towards the most efficient allocation of resources by bankrupting those failing to respond appropriately to its price signals. According to this argument, resources are inherently scarce and the market provides the best, if not the only, available mechanism for ensuring they are not wasted (which would aggravate scarcity). But the yardstick of "efficiency" used here is not something external to capitalism but intrinsic to it. An enterprise is judged to be "efficient" to the extent that it is profitable.
That means its revenue exceeds its cost. However, this can create the illusion that profits are made in the market--by raising prices to more than cover costs. But capitalists cannot just arbitrarily raise their prices--that could mean losing business to their competitors. In any case, one enterprise's price increase would constitute another's cost increase (insofar as enterprises supply each other with the inputs they require), with the resulting reciprocal losses and gains balancing each other in the long run.
In fact, profits are made in the sphere of production (but only "realised" in the market). The source of all wealth is human labour applied to natural resources. Those who apply their labour to create this wealth today (the workers) are employed to do so by the owners of the means of wealth production (the capitalists). The value of the wealth workers create necessarily exceeds the value of their working abilities for which they are paid a wage (or salary)--the difference between these two values being "surplus value", the source of the capitalists' profit.
So profit depends on restricting workers' consumption to what is needed to develop and maintain their working abilities at the level required. More than that only adds to the wages bill without producing a commensurate increase in productivity. But what is so vital about profit that makes this necessary? Not only does it afford capitalists a lavish lifestyle; more importantly, it is the source of their capital. The more capital they can accumulate out of the profits accruing to them the more effectively can they compete--by investing in more productive technologies to undercut their competitors [not to better society-ANOK]--and thus claim a larger share of the market for themselves. If they did not do this then their competitors would, and could knock them out of business....
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
Lies and propaganda to conceal and justify the violence of the State.
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market...
private/corporate ownership does not involve state violence. capitalism does not involve or create monopolies.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
capitalism does not involve or create monopolies.
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.