This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Communism - can it work? A mature discussion on improving the welfare of all.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
You are leaning towards a supply side argument, that as long banks and corporations have money available to invest, we all benefit.
The financial crisis of 2008-2010 would suggest that it's absolutely correct, as the lack of bank funding during this period led to a cut back in loans, development projects not commencing, staff in all parts of the economy being laid off, and a general fall in the ability for people to meet their needs and wants.
If what you say was true, then increases in corporate profits and the huge increases in the income of the 1% over the last 20 years would therefore be increasing bank funds, and we would all be benefiting as the banks invest all of that wealth in companies, innovation and people.
But it hasn't worked out that way at all, the profits of those investments go disproportionately to those who already have the money to reinvest.
Between 1993 and 2010, the incomes of the top 1% have increased over 58%, while the other 99% have only increased 6.4%.
Not quite - you're twisting my words. I said that we all benefit. I didn't say that we all benefit proportionally. Neither, is income a reasonable measure of 'benefit'. Income is a relative measure. What you should be looking at is the absolute increase in the level of needs and wants being met. Income may have increased by 6.4%, but the level and quality of food, the improvement in telephone and internet services, the enhancement of transport, both public and private, are all measures of 'benefit'.
Think about what $30 got you in terms of internet service in 1993, and compare that to what $30 gets you in 2010. The fact that income is more unequal does not change whether or not society has significantly benefited from the system.
Now on another front, mechanisms for innovation are changing as well. With crowd-sourcing and the increasing availability of maker spaces, the focus is shifting from large single donors, public grants, or single VC or hedge-style investing, to a multitude of smaller private donors.
With this model going forward, then putting more wealth in the hands of more people absolutely drives more innovation.
We haven't seen that this is a sustainable model yet. In fact, most of the significant innovation that has occurred has been due to the VC community, that might take a promising crowd-sourced product, but fund the millions of dollars required to take it to commercial production. Can you point to a single example of commercially viable innovation or even just a commercially viable new venture that has been purely crowd-sourced?
Also, can you demonstrate that $1m of crowd-sourced money generates more innovation than $1m of VC money?
To this argument, we need more than just rhetoric to demonstrate your point.
Post by
Skreeran
The fact of the matter is that Capitalism will consume the ground beneath its feet. Even if we don't dig up ALL the oil, coal, and valuable minerals, we'll make them so scarce that no one but the shrinking class of the Ultra Rich will be able to keep affording the yearly iPad update and latest car model. The middle class, that is rapidly deteriorating and falling into the lower class will be relegated to serfs who work and work every day to keep paying their rent and put their food on the table, but forever out of reach of the technological splendor of the First Class Citizens.
And that's assuming the system holds together at all. I don't think it will. I think the increasing price of food (thanks to the increase in the cost of shipping as fuel becomes scarce), electricity, gas, the increasing unfairness of the current economic system that leaves so many poor at the bottom, and the increasing use of force by the state to hold it all together and preserve the current order is going to tear this global economy apart.
So I'm still going to a university where I intend to Major in economics and break out of the lower class myself, but I'm also staying well connected to my family and community out here in my rural valley, and I'm focusing more on self-sufficiency so that when it all does come down at least my family will be safe. I really want to prevent the collapse of this increasingly top-heavy economy, but I'm also preparing for my failure.
Post by
Squishalot
See, I actually think you're a good example of capitalism at work. As the cost of food rises, you seek alternatives and produce it yourself. Others will do that only once the price rises further. You switch from being a consumer of a good to being a producer of it.
Long before stuff runs out, corporations will be innovating and finding ways to reduce their dependence on scarce resources, so they're not paying as much. It's not in their interests to let the price go out of control in the way you describe.
Post by
Skreeran
I don't believe they can do anything else. It's most definitely not in their interest to deplete all the earth's resources, but that's what they're doing anyway, because Capitalism seems to lack long term ability to prepare for the future. Everything seems to be so wrapped up around this quarter and next quarter, but I can't think of any real examples of corporate Capitalism successfully preparing for the kind of crisis we're facing. Rather than get us off oil, there's a massive amount of money being poured into making sure that we keep drilling, drill more, drill faster.
I don't think we're going to creep up on this cliff, wisely observing it from a distance and preparing for a time of scarcity, but rather I fully expect us to tumble blindly over the edge, too focused on profits and too blind to the fatal flaws of a model of endless growth.
It reminds me of the story of Joseph, when Pharoah's dream revealed the seven years of plenty and the seven years of want. We're living in an age of plenty, and yet I predict and upcoming age of want. Yet rather than ration out the last of these precious, irreplaceable resources, we seem to be intent on consuming at an even faster rate. We're like the old model of an ecosystem, where we wolves eat up all the rabbits and then starve because we were too effective as predators. Perhaps its foolish to hope that we, unique among the animals for our ability to predict the future, might not fall into that classic evolutionary trap, but I want to believe that we're wiser than that.
Rather than continuing to consume and grow endlessly, I think we're on the edge of a period in which we'll be forced to stretch the resources we have out as much as possible. I just don't think the greed-driven money pump that is global industrial corporate Capitalism is equipped to take us safely into that next phase of our existence as human beings. Rather than actually fixing any problems, they only thing they seem interested in fixing the problem of too much money flowing downward instead of up.
Post by
Squishalot
Rather than get us off oil, there's a massive amount of money being poured into making sure that we keep drilling, drill more, drill faster.
...
Rather than continuing to consume and grow endlessly, I think we're on the edge of a period in which we'll be forced to stretch the resources we have out as much as possible.
Skree, I work for a company that works with a lot of banks, large multinational corporations and small companies that invest in projects of all sorts. I can safely say that there is significantly more activity and more money being thrown around into the areas of renewable energy and long-term social and public transport infrastructure than there has been in the past. Globally, new mining projects have basically been at a standstill for the last two years. In the meantime, there has been record after record getting smashed for 'largest wind farm in Europe' / 'largest solar farm in Japan' / 'largest renewable energy project in the world' projects getting funding and commencing construction and development.
While it might not be immediately visible to people who aren't directly involved or if you don't have contact with these projects, there are huge efforts going towards doing exactly what you would want people to do - stretch the resources we have out as much as possible. Investment into renewable energy, development of bio-waste power generation, there are hundreds and thousands of projects around the world working towards that sort of end already, and all being funded by multinational corporations which see that as being the long-term money making opportunity.
Post by
Skreeran
Well you should come on over to America for a look at our situation, then, because whenever the subject of climate change or depletion of resources comes up, the suits come out to parade again, to call it a myth, to debunk it, or to explain why really we should be focusing on clean coal instead of alternative energy or more efficient cars.
There is a massive amount of political drive going towards flat out denying that anything is ever going to change, and that we can keep living our current lifestyle forever and ever. In my experience here, the attitude most commonly held seems to be that we should focus on building our own economy back to World War 2 levels, by whatever means necessary. So there's a lot of dangerous offshore drilling and fracking (my god,
fracking
... That's a big part of why we left Texas), and a lot of waste of clean water means that the Ogallala Aquifer is draining faster and faster.
I mean, I would still hate Capitalism, even if it were the most resource efficient economic system in the world, but the fact is, at least in America is it extremely wasteful, and I don't think it will successfully cope with the years of scarcity ahead of us.
Post by
Monday
Well you should come on over to America for a look at our situation, then, because whenever the subject of climate change or depletion of resources comes up, the suits come out to parade again, to call it a myth, to debunk it, or to explain why really we should be focusing on clean coal instead of alternative energy or more efficient cars.
Not necessarily. There's been a lot of backlash against climate change and Obama has been pushing heavily for investment into renewable energy.
He's not getting far, yet (yay gridlock), but it's not like the entire country is ignoring it.
Post by
Skreeran
Well you should come on over to America for a look at our situation, then, because whenever the subject of climate change or depletion of resources comes up, the suits come out to parade again, to call it a myth, to debunk it, or to explain why really we should be focusing on clean coal instead of alternative energy or more efficient cars.
Not necessarily. There's been a lot of backlash against climate change and Obama has been pushing heavily for investment into renewable energy.
He's not getting far, yet (yay gridlock), but it's not like the entire country is ignoring it.Not the entire country, but as far as I can tell, most of the people with money seem to be. Either ignoring it, or actively working to suppress anything that might impact their profits, for example, car sales, gas sales, electronics sales, imports, cheap shipping, and so on.
Profits comes first. Profits always come first.
IF
profits conveniently line up with resource conservation, then perhaps corporations may avoid depleting our planet of everything we need to preserve out present civilization, at least until it doesn't suit their purposes anymore. However, I remain convinced that in this case profits are in direct opposition to resource conservation. Demand for oil and rare earth elements is going up, not down.
Just as
an example
, China is one of the only places on earth that we can find many rare earth elements, but it's looking like they could run out within just a few years. In 2010, China announced plans to reduce exports in order to conserve resources. The United States, ever pawns of the rich corporate overclass, pressed the World Trade Organization into forcing China to resume exports so that we could keep making electronics.
Post by
Squishalot
Profits comes first. Profits always come first. IF profits conveniently line up with resource conservation, then perhaps corporations may avoid depleting our planet of everything we need to preserve out present civilization, at least until it doesn't suit their purposes anymore. However, I remain convinced that in this case profits are in direct opposition to resource conservation. Demand for oil and rare earth elements is going up, not down.
It sounds like you're not hearing what I'm saying. Capitalism dictates that the multinational corporations are the ones who are going to bring change about. If government jumps on the bandwagon and speeds that up, so much the better. Yes, completely agree that profits always come first, and the market will be what shows the conservation approach to be more profitable than the slash and burn approach.
If you want to look at countries, consider that in Australia, we just
removed
a tax on carbon that would discourage coal mining and coal power and encourage renewable energy. However, that's not stopped large companies like GE from getting involved and continuing to partner and build renewable energy projects throughout Australia, because it's still profitable to do so.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not sure that how much I can actually respond to any of that, because it's line after line of rhetoric, and I've already addressed the general scarcity argument.
The only thing I would say is that it's a perfectly good business model to saturate a market and maintain it, a la Microsoft. You might always have exponential growth, but that's because the demand grows exponentially, due to population, wealth, etc..
I'd also note the following:
Water scarcity is a problem in areas that don't actually have much capitalist exploitation. Most water/food security issues are due to population growth, not capitalism.
I'm still waiting to see any evidence that would suggest the world would suddenly come to a collapse due to the depletion of scarce resources, rather than a slow decline with shifts in behaviours to compensate commercially (as I suggested to Skreeran, and as the existing real-world economic data would suggest is happening).
Just my thoughts.
Post by
Skreeran
Profits comes first. Profits always come first. IF profits conveniently line up with resource conservation, then perhaps corporations may avoid depleting our planet of everything we need to preserve out present civilization, at least until it doesn't suit their purposes anymore. However, I remain convinced that in this case profits are in direct opposition to resource conservation. Demand for oil and rare earth elements is going up, not down.
It sounds like you're not hearing what I'm saying. Capitalism dictates that the multinational corporations are the ones who are going to bring change about. If government jumps on the bandwagon and speeds that up, so much the better. Yes, completely agree that profits always come first, and the market will be what shows the conservation approach to be more profitable than the slash and burn approach.
If you want to look at countries, consider that in Australia, we just
removed
a tax on carbon that would discourage coal mining and coal power and encourage renewable energy. However, that's not stopped large companies like GE from getting involved and continuing to partner and build renewable energy projects throughout Australia, because it's still profitable to do so.Of
course
huge corporations are going to be the ones changing anything in a Capitalistic system. My point is that what is good for corporations and what is good for everyone else are two entirely separate things, and they don't often line up. As I already stated, the case with Rare Earth Elements in China shows that when given the choice between preservation of a resource and total consumption of it, a corporation and the many agencies that they have in their power will always stand on the side of profits. In China's case, when given the options of paying a higher price for an export because of its scarcity, reducing use of that resource because of its scarcity, and using the US Government and the World Trade Organization to force the continued export of a resource in
spite
of its scarcity, Capitalism took the latter option because that was what kept profits the highest.
Post by
Squishalot
Ok, you've brought this up twice now, so I feel compelled to respond to your specific issue. Do you honestly believe that China want to set limits on rare earth exports in order to help protect the world because of its scarcity? That, to me, is like believing that the US sets limits on nuclear weapon exports to help protect the world. Of course that's false; nuclear anti-proliferation treaties are to help protect themselves, to keep the US and other current nuclear powers in their position of strength.
China wanted to hoard the rare earths for themselves, to help drive an artificially high overseas price by creating artificial scarcity, thus benefiting their own economy, and ensuring that if a choice had to be made between assisting foreign corporations or assisting local ones, it's the local ones that would benefit who wouldn't need to pay the artificially high price (as local demand wouldn't be capped).
It's not about keeping profits the highest, it's about creating an even and fair playing field. As a supporter of Communism, surely you should see the motivation behind that.
Edit: To make it clearer, see this link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-china-wto-rareearths-idUSBREA2P0ZK20140326
China were not restricting
production
of rare earths, but only restricting
exports
. As such, overseas companies were paying more for a product that was much more freely available within China. If they had the level of altruism and conservation that you suggest they do, they would have capped production, rather than exports, which wouldn't have been a breach of the WTO regulations and would allow for a fair, free market solution to the scarce resources. However, it's plainly clear from the ruling that this was never their intention, and that they wanted to restrict overall global access to provide domestic companies with an international competitive advantage.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
But it sets a precedent of an industry forcing a producer to continue producing in the face of nearly exhausted resources for the sake of maintaining profits. China's motivations aren't important to me. The important issue is that our consumption of Rare Earth Elements is
growing
despite
an imminent shortage of the metals.
Rather than reducing dependence on those resources, we're instead squabbling of who gets the last of them. If the invisible hand of the market really were as wise and forward-thinking as you suggest, then we should be reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources, rather than pushing those industries all the way to the maximum amount of growth before shortage.
Mind you, this is not even mentioning the exploitation of laborers, pollution from mining, pollution from refinement, pollution from cars, the total corruption and perversion of the political process, and the increasing division between the rich and poor that are also the classic problems related to Capitalism. It's just that I think a resource crash is going to be what kills Capitalism. I'd really recommend reading Jerry Mander's
The Capitalism Papers
. He makes a very convincing argument.
Post by
Squishalot
You've completely missed the point of both my reply and the ruling. There is no requirement for China to continue
producing
. Show me what part of the WTO ruling would suggest that.
What you seem to consider to be an attack on conservation is merely an effort to stop one country from effectively imposing sanctions on the rest of the world. China has no intention on slowing down production, with or without the WTO ruling, so your argument about conservation is completely baseless. If the WTO didn't act, it just would have meant that China would have consumed all of the production, rather than the world consuming it. I'm not sure that you understand this.
As for the rest of your post, you're repeating your rhetoric which I have already refuted. Companies are becoming more efficient. Renewable energy investment is growing, as is its share in the global energy market. Car manufacturers are competing on fuel economy. So yes, it's all already happening and moving in that direction, because the profits are pointing companies that way already, and all I can conclude is that you're being willfully blind to it, since I've effectively been bashing you over the head with these points.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
PIkey, I'm not sure who you're preaching to right now. Neither of us are saying that China represents Communism and its ideals. We're disputing whether Capitalism will destroy itself, and the China / WTO ruling is just what Skreeran is trying to use as an example of why Capitalism it will.
To highlight the discussion:
Skree: Capitalism will destroy itself due to its never-ending demand for resources.
Squish: Capitalism has price measures to prevent scarce resources from being depleted, and incentivise sustainable development.
Skree: No it won't, here's an example from China that shows how Capitalism is steamrolling conservation efforts.
Squish: Those aren't conservation efforts, that's China trying to interfere with the market and trying to steal it all for themselves.
At the moment, we're dealing more with the question of whether or not capitalism can be a stable long-term system, rather than the question of whether communism is any better.
Post by
Skreeran
Even if it's a poor example, I think there's still ample evidence that corporate Capitalism, as a whole, has absolutely no regard for our planet, its inhabitants, or the common good. The only sustainability that Capital is interested in is sustainable profit. They'd sell our atmosphere if they could.
As for my other points, I don't feel "refuted" at all. In fact, I feel very strongly that Karl Marx was right and that Capitalism is destined to "endlessly accumulate" until either all the consumable resources have been consumed, or the total wealth is concentrated in so few hands that weight resting on the shoulders of the proletariat becomes unbearable.
I think the fact that Marx's assessment of Capital's future, while in its infancy in 1847, so closely resembles the world we live serves as a solid point of evidence that he was on to something. I've been reading the Communist Manifesto again, this time reading more closely, and Marx's description of the nature and directives of bourgeoisie society feels like looking into a mirror of the modern era.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls
It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeoisie class, and of the bourgeoisie state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overseer, and, above all, by the individual bourgeoisie manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer so far at an end that he receives his wages, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labour rest exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Let me assemble my main points in a coherent and logical fashion:
Capital, and Capitalism, are fundamentally opposed to the consumer, the worker, and anyone else outside the Capitalist class. The vast buying power belonging to the people and corporations who rule our lives is dedicated wholly and solely to the purpose of acquiring more capital for those same entities. Any good or benefit anyone outside that class receives is merely a byproduct, but far from the only byproduct.
By its own nature, Capitalism stands to destroy itself. Whether it be by using up more natural resources than it itself needs to survive--literally mining the ground out from beneath its feet--or by increasing inequality to the point that it becomes unbearable for the working class the system is built on, Capitalism will be the cause of its own destruction. Endless growth cannot possibly continue forever on a finite planet with finite resources.
Even if this weren’t the case, Capitalism SHOULD be replaced with a system of sounder structure and more concern for the common good of all the people. The future of the society we hold in common should not be dictated by a small minority of the very rich. Workers and Suppliers should receive payment for their work. The planet Earth, our only home, should not be so heavily taxed by human presence as it is under global Capitalism.
Communism, though its reputation has been tarnished by the legacy of Bolshevism and its children, is the economic framework that I believe best fits the idea of a post-Capitalist world. It is my goal that, in the future, history books will read “Though the first experiments with Marxism were spectacular failures, economists and leaders learned from these mistakes and developed a way to more properly incarnate the philosophy.”
The housing market is a good example of my first point. The bubble of investors seeking to capitalize on a building’s exchange value, buying with the use value in mind of selling for profit or earning rent, led to a market in which the exchange value on a house was far from equivalent to its use value as a dwelling, which the majority of people would need it for. Capitalism is devoted to the growth of exchange values. A commodity in raw form is purchased for less than it is worth, is refined by workers who are being paid less than their labor is worth, and then sold on the market for more than it is worth, as much as possible. Creation of use value is only a means to the end of acquiring the consumer’s money. How delicious a hamburger tastes is only relevant in regards to its ability to keep customers coming back. If a fast food company, through marketing, pricing, and convienience of location can keep customers coming back regardless of how good their food tastes, then they will have pressure to reduce their expenses in the area of food quality. Far from enjoying a product refined, polished, and sharpened by Capitalism, the consumer receives a product that is the minimum possible quality for the price he paid.
As to my second point, the simple fact that the Earth possesses a limited amount of resources is evidence against the idea that the eternal growth cycle of Capitalism can continue. Whether it be by process of global warming and climate change, caused by the burning of the millions of tons of fuel that Industrial Capitalism requires; or by the sudden absence of the cheap fossil fuels that it required to keep its commodities moving all over the world and to keep its power lines on; or by the increasing oppression and antagonism towards the worker and the working class that cannot keep bearing the unbearable weight of the aristocracy who grows wealthier and wealthier every day; or by crashing its own markets in another tremendous bubble; the current system of globalized Industrial Corporate Capitalism will be the cause of its own eventual, inevitable destruction. As the various possible causes of death pile up and the joints of the system groan in pain, I become supremely confident that it cannot last much longer without falling apart or changing itself so completely that it can no longer be called “Capitalism.”
Regarding my third point, I think that there is a case to be made that Capitalism should be replaced, even if it weren’t slowly poisoning itself already. Whether it should be for the sake of the worker, who finds himself in constant conflict with the upper class who owns him; or for the sake of human freedom, to not have our laws and national policies be dictated by the rich and their corporations; or for the sake of the planet, whom Industrial Capitalism has been consistantly poisoning with plastic, styrofoam, oil, carbon dioxide, pharmaceuticals, and so many more byproducts of industry. We’re in the middle of the sixth Major Extinction Event in Earth’s history, due to overuse by humans (as in the case of several types of endangered fish), destruction of habitat, pollution of the environment, and competition with invasive species, all owing ultimately to our current system of Capitalism and the lifestyle it’s built for us.
And finally, I find that Karl Marx, the original decrier of Capitalism, who predicted all these things a century and a half ago, whose writings formed the foundation of hundreds of labor parties, and whose inspiration drives many of the authors and economists who I’ve read, provides the strongest foundation on which to build a post-capitalist world. I say “Communist” in the Marxist sense, rather than Lenin’s Bolshevik Party, though, as the first person to attempt to build a Marxist Society, I think that the Soviet Union is an excellent place to look for what worked and what did not work. Overall, though, I would make my theoretical Communism be fluid and capable of adaptation, rather than keeping a strict adherance to doctrine. It would ideally be democratic, though it might contain elements of a meritocracy, where an education at least would be required to ascend to leadership positions.
Post by
Squishalot
It's not a poor example - it's not an example at all. In fact, it actually shows the capitalist framework utilising its own mechanisms to protect the welfare of those who would otherwise not have access to resources.
Now, let me work through your main points.
If I look at the definition of 'capitalism', the first link comes up with the following:
"An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption."
The concept of private control is that people can choose what they produce and what they consume. If you want to work, and you are capable of doing so, you are freely available to. If you do not want to work, this is a choice that you are also freely available to choose.
The definition of economic capital is 'an input into the production process'. There is no such thing as 'the capitalist class'. Workers are a necessary input into the production of goods and services. In some industries, they provide the direct output (e.g. lawyers, accountants, any service profession). In other industries, they augment other inputs but still serve a primary role in the production process (e.g. chefs). In some industries, they provide a role that is starting to be replaced by other forms of capital such as machinery (e.g. manufacturing, agriculture, etc.).
In so far as workers provide a valuable input into the production process, they receive valuable compensation from the production process. If one worker provides a more valuable input than another worker, they will often receive more valuable compensation (higher wages, bonuses, overtime, etc.). You can talk about 'working class' and 'capitalist class', but at the end of the day, everyone provides their own input into the production process by contributing a combination of land, investment, and manpower, and one can't survive without the other.
It works as a balance because as more workers become available, the value of their efforts decreases as the scarcity of their work decreases. But conversely, as workers become less available, the value of their efforts increases as their work becomes more scarce. This can be seen in the Australian mining industry, where miners get paid 6 figure salaries and truck drivers are in the top quartile of income earners, because they represent working inputs that are relatively scarce, and are rewarded for it. Because it's a balance, sometimes workers think it's unfair, sometimes investors think it's unfair.
Either way, it shows that the capitalist system is capable of balancing the needs of both investors and workers.
Now, you say that corporations are designed solely for the purpose of acquiring more capital. That's not a definition that fits in with the notion of capitalism. You can't 'acquire capital', because capital is an input into production. It's like saying that you want more nostrils, rather than more air - capital is a means to an end, but not an end itself.
A better way of defining it is to say that corporations are designed solely for the purpose of increasing consumption. Remember - private control of production and consumption.
What a corporation is, both figuratively and technically, is a way for people to combine their resources, for the purposes of producing together, rather than separately. This provides them with a combined amount of wealth, for them to consume together, or to be distributed to consume separately.
Now, combining many corporations together, we end up with a case where people, via their corporations, are constantly demanding for more consumption. You talk of corporations like they are living people, whereas, they are simply the manifestations of the desires of their millions of shareholders. So if they are constantly looking to consume (through the mechanism of investing wealth capital in order to acquire more wealth), it is because that's what individuals want.
TL; DR: At the end of the day, what you're really railing against isn't capitalism, but human greed. Unless communism can set up a system to harness and rein in human greed, all of your criticisms will equally apply to it as well. In your theoretical world, you imagine a global community that sacrifices its consumption for the global collective. In a practical world, it would be a leadership group who would be trying implement environmentally sustainable sacrifices, in the face of infinite greed and desire, who would be overthrown when those desires aren't being met.
Population control would be far more effective at controlling inequality and the impact of humans on the environment, by a) reducing the number of 'workers' and increasing the relative bargaining power of their inputs into the production process, and b) reducing consumption more generally. But the desire to reproduce, unfortunately, is also a part of human greed.
Post by
cooly012
Capitalism is bull*!@#, its a way to keep the poor poorer and the rich richer. It's an Unequal share of blessings.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.