Why capitalism?

Sorry, i forgot i was on this thread, so my responses are to things posted a while ago. First the bit about China and India being 2 billion people getting richer. While thes countries are both getting far richer this wealth is certainly not going to anything like the majority of the citizens. Like in the west it is going to comparatively few people. Interestingly Chinas huge maufacting capacity has been at the cost of the west manufacturing industries. Large areas of western europe have been driven into the ground by the loss of manufacturing. Capitalism is about survival of the fittest, take any product you like with a large production chain, the typical example is a can of coke. Only a few pence of this goes to the raw producers, transporters, can makers, secondary producers (thats processing of inredients). Most of the money stays with the production corporation. In every transaction that occurs there are a couple of winners and a host of loosers.

As to the amount of oil left, anyone who says they know is lying. As a percentage of total oil we have probably used a comparatively small amount, perhaps 2 hundred years worth is still under the earth in total. However the amount of useable oil is smaller than this. Of course where this percentage is really cut is when you consider what we can economically get. This alone is not a simple question because there maybe unknown reserves and any discussion has to accept this. However given the resources that the oil companies have put into exploration there are unlikely to be any huge undiscovered reserves. Looking at what we are currently exploiting and what we will exploit when current environmental restrictions have been removed we can begin to make some tenative guesses. In 50 years we certainly want to have our replacement for oil sorted however we may be able to go on using it for the best part of a century. Of course it will get progressively harder to mine and demand is increasing. This will mean the price is likely to continue to increase from here on. The perhelion of oil output is happening right now while its impossible to say exactly when the peak will occur in 10-20 it will be a slow decline for output from there on.

Of course the real debate is how much more of this abuse can our atmosphere take. While the general economic trend is upward the plant has a finite capacity and as the film 'The Matrix' observed our behaviour on the planet is more viral then mammalian in nature. This is generally a good feature, the virus is one of matures finest creations however the virus relies on a source of hosts as it tends to go through them quite quickly, we however are not so lucky. There really is a lot of carbon dioxide locked up in this oil, its gonna do a lot of damage. Shame that we wont do anything about it untill its too late.

 

Good Companiero, I also like to finish this debate which became to irrelevant for people who are outside our geographical region. Just the last observations.

I never said I feel no guilt about things my country did during the war. I think I mentioned in previouse posts, but if not I'll say it now. I feel guilt about the deportation of Basarabian Jews and Gypsies in Transdnister. I also feel guilt about some excesses of our ocupation in Transdnister (I doubt the whole ocupation was such a good idea). But, I DON'T FEEL GUILT WE ATTACKED COUNTRIES WHO AGRESSED US AND TOOK OUR LAND, whatever if we're talking about USSR or the third Reich!

What you fail to understand is that an agressor remains an agressor, whatever we are talking about a fascist power like the third Reich, a democratic power, like the US when they invaded Hawaii in 1898, or a communist power, like USSR. Ideology doesn't make the conquerer better or worse.

A democrat, a communist or a fascist is a liberator when he fights for its people who suffers under ocupation (and let me tell you, in Basarabia they were suffering; the Russians comitted mass killings like in Fantanile Albe near Cernautzi- today Cernovtzy, mass arrests, mass deportations in Siberia- june 1941, a few days before "Barbarossa"). What he is doing next qualifies him as good or evil. You blame fascism as an ideology and you're right, but you fail to see the flaws of communism. You see in Tito a liberator and I say the same. But after your own logic, he shouldn't be seen that way because he ended his liberation in blood, massacrating all the Croatian ustash he caught at the Italian border, and they were many, and also because he became a dictator who inslaved his people up to his death in 1980.

Also, you fail to see that fascism and communism, or what you call stalinism, are just the same thing in reverse, mirror images of basically the same historical nightmare who haunted the 20th century. But, if you will start looking deeper into them you will have the big surprise to see how striking resambling they are, not only as totalitarian dictatorships, but also as state control over economy, culture and society.

Finaly, your idea about liberal democracy just reproduces an old bolshevic slogan which is just that a slogan. How multi-party system is pure opression? First of all you have the almost total freedom of opinion, speech and media which lacked in marxist socialism. You have much more options about your way in life. Maybe you can speak about "opression", even if it's not the good word, when you have right wing governments supporting bussinesses. But who is the "opressed" when socialists or other left wing parties come into power and they increase taxation to the upper and middle classes to support all sort of social programs for the lower classes?

He, he, he, Gorbatchov mixing stalinism... Nice idea, but did you ever heard about 1956 and Hrushtchev destalinisation?

 

Fat Tony, I'm not so sure we will continue to burn oil as fuel for another 50 years. And don't forget, maybe we are a planetary virus, but a smart one. While viruses adapt only by mutating we find solutions, usualy before the final ireversible outcome.

 

We have the technology now. I did a report on alternative fuels for cars when i was a 1st year undergrad. Theres no shortage of candidate technologies. Companies like BMW have brought out prototype cars, however governemts are not supporting infrastructure (except Iceland I think) for new fuels. Power supplies are more of a challenge ultimately solar power and/or fusion will be the answer but in the short term nuclear is the only real alternative to fossil fuels. We could use things like wind and wave if we liberally covered the planet in them but that isnt seriously an option.

I have no doubt we will adapt, but I suspect we'll end up adapting to a new climate as opposed to adapting to prevent change. I dont think we'll render the planet unuseable after all there have been periods when there was was large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before. The last time being the last Ice age. Anyway this is starting to sound like it belongs in the environmental forum.

 

Maybe not everyone can become a 'winner,' but what can happen is that there can be many more winners, especially when there is a greater degree of freedom. For instance, in Hong Kong there was (at least until the Chinese took over) a great deal of personal freedom and with that came a great deal of prosperity. While there may have been problems they were few and far between. By contrast, India which as embraced more of a socialist agenda, has many more economic problems and a high poverty rate.

..And the power that these corporations exert over the government to pass laws to protect their own industries is by no means what a free market is all about! FTR, in certain cases, government will donate public (i.e. tax) money to these corporations. This is corporate welfare or corporatism! A true free market does not embrace these ideologies but instead is evident where there is a state of pure competition and the barriers (i.e red tape) to start a capital venture are few. Again, check out: www.spiritone.com/%7Egdy52150/corplaw.htm

Well said! Also, so long as there is opportunity to prosper in a society, the need for charity can be minimized.

 

And even more, if in capitalism you have winners and losers on some natural basis, in communism you only get very few winners, the people linked to the government, and they are selected not on free competitive but on servilism criteria like in a feudal society, and an overwelming majority of losers who can do shit to try to change their status.

 

Im not sure in communism there should be any winners. But communism does leave a power vacuum into which someone will step fairly quickly. Democracy doesnt leave a power vacuum you vote a group of people into power who instantly get bought by the people with the most money. Democray will stand the test of time not because its strong or even because its a particularly good idea but because capitalism thrives under it and lets face it when it comes to economic systems, love it or hate it capitalism is tough as old boots. AT least until people learn to work as a race not a person, then capitalism will die pronto.

 

What about the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Civil war or the Anarchist labour movement of Argentina? Both has proven that democratically run factories under common ownership increases efficency, worker moral and lowers the cost to manufacture goods (due to no owner). The idea that not only can factories run without bosses but they run better, puts the very idea of capitalism on shaky ground.

 

Where are they now?

 

Bought or out of business?

 

The Anarcho-Syndicalists was taken over by Nazi Germany and the Anarchist labour movement in Argentina has production problems due to the police preventing them from working due to the Aregentina goverment defending the intrests of Capitalist, they have legal ownership of the factories they abandoned and the workers are tring to claim these factories are a commoms and belong to the people.

So it is only a clash of ideology holding the movement back.

 

So infact it isnt strong enough to survive. If it had any potential it would be too strong to be put down. Thats like saying you only lost the war because more of your soldiers died.

 

Yet when they were running, they were out doing what capitalism could do with the same factories. Work conditions went up, worker moral went up, wages went up, employment went up, efficiency went up and prices went down.

They proved Marx right and workers could see that this was a workers paradise. At the same time they were proving Capitalism wrong, Capitalism in comparision is inefficient and leads to higer prices.

Yes the movement wasn't strong enough but it proved the idea is solid.

 

Well, fat tony, I agree with you in almost everything you said, but I think I can show better to you the difference between theoretical communism and real communism, to indicate you better what winners mean in communism.

Theoretically, everybody should win in communism. In the early stages some inequalities remain but in the final communism everyone is equal and receives exactly what he needs. In reality, communists actualy tryed to equalize payments, but someone it's needed to run things: the governemnt assisted by the unique party and the state beaurocracy who was covering all administration and management activities, including of the entire economy. Also, because no polithical regim can exist without contestation, the communists, since the early days of the Russian revolution created repressive structures like the revolutionary army, the militia and the secret police. The members of all those structures started to act in a very selfish way, asuring a higher lifestyle for themselves and their families, more and more obviously distant compared to the average lifestyle of the socialist society. So the members of this party and state aparatus became the winers of the system. Even Lenin, when he was no longer in power and very ill, warned against them calling them the "red bourgeoise". But if you try to study a little the marxist model and make a projection of its implementation in real life, you will notice at some point that Marx's prediction is wrong and the "red bourgeoisie" birth it's unavoitable.

Another big problem which makes the "red bougeoisie" inferior to capitalistic upper classes is the totalitarianism of communism. Even Marx describes the beginning of his communist revolution through what he called the "proletarian dictatorship", the dictatorship of a class, which would be followed by a direct democracy. Well, this works only on paper because a class is not an entity which could lead directly, only through representation. Or exactly these representatives become the dictators and the members of the "red bourgeoisie". As a well known quotation says: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolute". So, the whole communist state structure becomes extremely resiliant to change, there is no natural evolution toward the final communism and the direct democracy, as Marx or Lenin assumed it'll be. In reality, the "red bourgeoisie" can become even more powerfull then the dictator himself. The case of Hrushtchev, who was overthrown to put an end to his reforms in 1964 is very relevant. Gorbatchov met the same faith in 1991, only the uprising of the people around Yeltsin stopped the putsch. Also interesting it's the case of Ceausescu in Romania. The regim crumbled confronted with a very large popular uprising, but in the confusion and power vacuum which followed the power was taken by a group of members of the "red bourgeoisie" lead by the former president Ion Iliescu (1990-1996; 2000-2004), who is directly responsable for the delays in Romania's evolution during the '90s. This group both ordered the execution of Ceausescu and also put a violent end to the revolution in June 1990. Why I say the "red bourgeoisie", the winers of communism, is inferior to capitalism's winers? In capitalism, especially if it's doubled by democracy, the access from lower to upper levels of society is possible trough work. Nobody is nailed down in its social status. Per a contrario, in communism since the beginning people were promoted on polithical criteria only. Later, the "red bourgeoisie" started to defend its position and having an absolute control over society it meant nobody can promote just trough his qualities. It was needed either family, either polithical connections to get into higher positions. Exactly like in a feudal society. But this means also a low quality upper class, compared to the winers of capitalism.

 

Psy Fox, you can prouve Marx right only on small scale and as long as everybody particpating is pleased living in such a system. But to the large scale of entire societies, it happenes what happened in the communist countries. Read also my previous post.

 

Im sure we'll get it sorted one day we're kinda in a catch 22 at the moment. Everybody wants freedom but only so they can get rich and do no work. Though lets be honest, ignoring small scale case studies just picture our world without some kind of structure. Go on, to make that work in my head id have to drink so much id get blood poisoning.

 

If there was no ideology clash the rules of the market, would have drivin the Anarchist labour movement of Argentina global. Why? Because the self run factories were able to out produce and under sell capitalist factories. What made Argentina different was it was the workers that changed, the consumer being a capitalist stayed the same and went for the best value thus supporting the anti-capitalist through capitalist logic.

Eventully you would have all of production under common ownership as the free market would demand it so there would be no need for a revolution as the the free market would reward their greater effiency and win a Marxist society through the markets instead of through political change.

 

Like what Ivan Illich said, you need the people to gain an awarness through questioning the reality that others take for granted, in order for them to understand Marxism.

There is structure there it is just most don't see it because they only see structure as a hierarchy, yet in the case of Marxism it is a flat network.

 

What a load of crap. They took over (stole) a factory and found that when a factory gets into your hands for zero investment, and you renounce all the debt used to finance the factory, you can be more "efficient".

How low can you set the standard for anarchist "successes"? Keep scraping that barrel Psy.

 

Stop spreading Capitalist propaganda, the Capitalist abandoned these factories as they couldn't make a profit even with huge goverment hand outs. When the Anarchist took over they found since they didn't have to pay an owner (that doesn't do any real work) 400 times the wage of a worker (that means they can pay the wages of 400 workers by just not having a owner leach wealth out of the factory) they had tons of money to raise wages, lower prices and re-invenst in the factories. Tax payers already paid for the factories many times over so the Anarchist saw it was theirs as they were tax payers.

Infact the capitalist only came back once the Anarchist reinvested in the factories as they want to steal the wealth that the Anarchist generated.