General Discussions

**Elvin** · 10-20-2007, 01:18 AM

Everyone knows, we are living in capitalist system. We and our society facing lots of problem, on every step we are in problem. What do you think our society is running well or there is need to some changes or other things?

**stOx** · 10-20-2007, 02:28 AM

Society is in a terrible state, It's on the verge of collapsing. I'm quite looking forward to it.

**JeremyMiller** · 10-20-2007, 04:40 AM

Your first assumption is false. We are not living in a capitalist system. We are living in a political system with a capitalist facade. The facade is there as a smokescreen to what the politicians are really doing. Look closely and you'll find that most of the downfall of society comes from religion. Not because religion exists, but because some with power who are religious have convinced themselves that they have the right to force others to think like them. Take 2 examples: Iran on it's own people and the US on the Iraqi people. So long as religion is the dominating factor behind force, we can look forward to days reminiscent of the dark ages. The problem is that those who are religious often believe the machinations of those in charge who tell them that they are doing god's work. It is this blind belief in whoever has power that has created a world where the person in charge has all the authority of god on earth.

Watch and see as our world implodes upon itself. Consuming itself. Starving itself to death. Depriving itself of all resources. We will single-handedly destroy ourselves. And, in so doing, there will be a scapegoat: "capitalism" Capitalism is the one savior that can bring us back from the dead. Unfortunately what many do not understand is that laissez faire capitalism includes redundant terms. Capitalism can only be successful without government interference. Capitalism, by my definition, does not allow a situation where a business owner is allowed to use their resources and power to harm others - individual rights must still be protected. I don't, honestly, hold out much hope for mankind's reasonability, but reality cannot be escaped and in the absence of reasonable actions in serious situations death is most likely to follow.

All is not lost, however. The success or failure of each individual is on the shoulders of that individual. I choose success. I will let the mindless choose failure. Both of us will be subject to the consequences of our actions. The difference is that my consequences will be considered benefits and those others' consequeneces will be considered ... divine punishment? A title which screams "poetic justice."

**daniel#** · 10-20-2007, 04:52 AM

The essential condition for capitalist production was the separation of the direct producers from ownership of the means of production on one side, and the concentration of all the raw materials and instruments of production in the hands of a few rich capitalists on the other. It was this separation of the majority from ownership of land or tools that created the basis of our modern system of wage labor--where the vast majority of people are forced to sell their labor power to survive.
In the early stages of feudalism, the vast bulk of production was directly for use, rather than exchange--whether it was grain produced for the peasants’ subsistence, or the extra surplus that went to the lord or king. Peasants were tied to the soil, and artisans owned their own tools and workshops.
But as peasant agriculture became more productive, the market economy began to increase in size and importance. Households increasingly turned to the market to buy the things that they no longer produced for themselves. This meant a growth of artisans in the towns and a bigger market in turn for agricultural commodities.
This market economy grew up not only in Britain, but also in the Netherlands, and in Italy, Portugal and Spain. A new merchant class, increasingly rich and powerful, emerged with an interest only in ways to make more money through trading.
But there was a problem with merchant capitalism. Though a merchant could make a quick fortune through buying and selling, market fluctuations could destroy their profit margins.
One way that merchants got around this was by conquest. By seizing control of India, for example, British merchants could simply steal--or at the very least extort at a below-value price--goods produced in India, which they could then sell in England for a handsome profit.
But an even more surefire way to guarantee sustained profits would be to control the production of the goods themselves. At first, merchants used the "putting-out" system--in which they would loan raw materials to workers, who would then turn out the product and receive a small part of the proceeds. From here, it was a small step to bring the workers together under one roof, where they would produce products for a wage.
With new capitalist enterprises developing in the towns, there was a growing need for a labor force that was wasn’t tied to the land. Over a period of a few centuries in England, peasants were driven off of their land, and artisan production was broken up in villages. This created a class of propertyless vagabonds whose only choice would be to seek work as wage laborers in the towns.

This violent wrenching of millions of peasants off the land was a necessary condition for the development of wage labor--which is the essential condition of modern capitalism.

**JeremyMiller** · 10-20-2007, 05:16 AM

You have greater knowledge of history than I. I am focused more on the philosophical points. Let me address some:

The essential condition for capitalist production was the separation of the direct producers from ownership of the means of production on one side,

I am an individual business owner. Is that not a contradiction? I work for no one and have no employees. If the condition is essential then a contradiction must not exist without express exclusion and justification.

Though a merchant could make a quick fortune through buying and selling, market fluctuations could destroy their profit margins.

True.

One way that merchants got around this was by conquest.

And it was there that they crossed the line and were no longer capitalist in nature. Of course, there were also government sanctioned business ventures (forgive me for not knowing their "official" name) and if not sanctioned, then they were heavily taxed or forbidden. It is when force is part of the equation that we are no longer speaking of capitalism.

The fundamental principle of capitalism is trade without coercion or force (coercion being a type of force, of course). In a truly capitalist system (never present in the recorded history of humankind) no one is forced to work for others and no one is forced to buy from anyone -- there is simply trade. If a worker, perhaps someone not naturally a leader or not keen to the other aspects of running a business, chooses of their own free will to work for another, another who finds the work to be done, another who takes care of securing a location, another who provides the materials needed to complete the task at hand; if that worker chooses to work for that person exactly how is that bad?

Let me illustrate. I had a business partner on a specific adventure once. The guy was absolutely brilliant in his field of knowledge. He was a ****ty businessman. He had no desire whatsoever to do customer support; provide quality documentation; address cc chargebacks and other issues; file necessary paperwork; ... none of that. He had his field and that's where he was comfortable. He tried to work for himself and failed miserably. He now works for another. Is that other person who pays him the salary he demanded and provides a proper working environment a bad person? Not everyone wants to be a leader. Not everyone wants to be a businessperson. Some people just want to raise cows; create shoes; milk goats; write computer programs; build buildings -- that is their singular focus and love in life. Some people want things to be given to them without the necessity of effort; to live off government subsidies; to live off of charity; to live off of ... the product of the work of others. It is those people who are despicable as their implicit policy is that of slavery: If you expect others to work to take care of your needs -- or worse, wants -- you are an agent of slavery and may you be damned! [I'm not Daniel, making that personal -- you could replace "one" for "you", but it's a bit less readable, so please do not take it personally (I don't even know anything about you!)] So long as every person has the ability to say "no" and walk their own path uninhibited by anything other than reality itself, we are speaking capitalism. Even the remotest, implied mention of force and you are not speaking of capitalism. Not, at least, in the way I speak of capitalism.

[BTW: These views are my own views and not those of TeraTask Technologies, LLC. I accept full responsibility for my views. I'm adding this b/c my sig references my company and they'd rather I not say political or philosophical things publicly on behalf of the company.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, we all work for ourselves within the company, sometimes cooperatively -- there are no bosses.]

**JeremyMiller** · 10-20-2007, 05:30 AM

BTW: Kudos to you. Relatively few on this planet could compose such a coherent, historically correct response in such a short time. That deserves a compliment.

**CSS4Life** · 10-20-2007, 05:33 AM

I wouldn't listen to what that Daniel guy said - it's a copy and paste reply to boost his post count I'm guessing:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-...pitalism.shtml

**CSS4Life** · 10-20-2007, 05:43 AM

As for my own response, I would say society is in a bad state - whether it is going to collapse or not is a different story. Organised religion isn't solely to blame though and religion as a whole SHOULDN'T be blamed. Religion/faith is an important aspect of many people's lives - something that some suffering under Stalinist regimes thirst for (hence why Churches are growing at incredible rates in China now). Personal faith is extremely important - organised religion though can be mixed with politics to deadly consequences (such as the crusades).

While I can see you support capitalism, I'm extremely negative of it. It eventually leads to companies having monopolies. Even if the monopolising company loses out, they are usually only beaten by other large corporations. This leads to a split between those who have money and those who don't. An example being that here in the UK, rich families are buying houses in areas with good schools, and poor families are being forced out as they can't afford the houses. Social mobility grounds to a halt and it's the rich who have power and the poor who don't.

**Galaxian** · 10-20-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stOx

Society is in a terrible state, It's on the verge of collapsing. I'm quite looking forward to it.

I like that!

You touch my anarchic side.

**athand** · 10-21-2007, 01:54 AM

at simple sight it´s getting worse and worse, .... divine solution: Gospel

human solution: keep trying...

**Elvin** · 10-22-2007, 12:29 AM

Replied well. The basic needs of capitalist system is exploitation of working people and to lead the society in trouble. No one society runs by religion. To run a society economic factor is base. So the systems in which we live is capitalist becouse the main purpose of production is get profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daniel#

The essential condition for capitalist production was the separation of the direct producers from ownership of the means of production on one side, and the concentration of all the raw materials and instruments of production in the hands of a few rich capitalists on the other. It was this separation of the majority from ownership of land or tools that created the basis of our modern system of wage labor--where the vast majority of people are forced to sell their labor power to survive.
In the early stages of feudalism, the vast bulk of production was directly for use, rather than exchange--whether it was grain produced for the peasants’ subsistence, or the extra surplus that went to the lord or king. Peasants were tied to the soil, and artisans owned their own tools and workshops.
But as peasant agriculture became more productive, the market economy began to increase in size and importance. Households increasingly turned to the market to buy the things that they no longer produced for themselves. This meant a growth of artisans in the towns and a bigger market in turn for agricultural commodities.
This market economy grew up not only in Britain, but also in the Netherlands, and in Italy, Portugal and Spain. A new merchant class, increasingly rich and powerful, emerged with an interest only in ways to make more money through trading.
But there was a problem with merchant capitalism. Though a merchant could make a quick fortune through buying and selling, market fluctuations could destroy their profit margins.
One way that merchants got around this was by conquest. By seizing control of India, for example, British merchants could simply steal--or at the very least extort at a below-value price--goods produced in India, which they could then sell in England for a handsome profit.
But an even more surefire way to guarantee sustained profits would be to control the production of the goods themselves. At first, merchants used the "putting-out" system--in which they would loan raw materials to workers, who would then turn out the product and receive a small part of the proceeds. From here, it was a small step to bring the workers together under one roof, where they would produce products for a wage.
With new capitalist enterprises developing in the towns, there was a growing need for a labor force that was wasn’t tied to the land. Over a period of a few centuries in England, peasants were driven off of their land, and artisan production was broken up in villages. This created a class of propertyless vagabonds whose only choice would be to seek work as wage laborers in the towns.

This violent wrenching of millions of peasants off the land was a necessary condition for the development of wage labor--which is the essential condition of modern capitalism.

**jamestl2** · 10-22-2007, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

I wouldn't listen to what that Daniel guy said - it's a copy and paste reply to boost his post count I'm guessing:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-...pitalism.shtml

Hahaha, what post count? (Nice work on finding the original article right away.)

**CSS4Life** · 10-23-2007, 02:24 PM

Whenever I'm suspicious of a post, I Google the first couple of sentences. If nothing comes up, it's probably legitimate. If not then.....you get my drift

**w3bmaster** · 10-23-2007, 06:13 PM

I just say just this We live in a sick world

**athand** · 10-23-2007, 06:18 PM

How could we improve it ?

**Elvin** · 10-25-2007, 12:10 AM

It is very difficult but we can do it. If we made a society which can full fill human needs then we can solve this problem. Present society all things produce for exchange value not for full fill human needs. Do you think it is possible?

**JeremyMiller** · 10-25-2007, 12:14 AM

To fulfill a need requires work. A "society" is not an entity which performs work -- it is the entities composing that society, namely humans, which perform work. Which humans should work to fulfill which other humans' needs? Be careful when you answer: If one person works to fulfill the needs of another under compulsion, we're talking slavery.

As Ayn Rand would remind us to ask anytime we decide someone is entitled to the product of someone's work, one should always ask "At whose cost?"

**CSS4Life** · 10-25-2007, 05:20 AM

Communism (the economic system) would obviously be more ideal than what we're under now, capitalism, as we all give what we can and take what we need. Sounds amazing doesn't it.... Sadly, I don't really think it works in practice But now we're going round in circles - we've discussed this before!

**Elvin** · 10-25-2007, 07:42 AM

If communism is in theory then can you tell me what system can be possible? There is need for everyone a another system Because the system can't remain no longer. Exploitation in its highest position. Working masses and whole people going in vain regularly. And for your kind information after great October revolution there was a society which proved that working class society, human society is possible.

**JeremyMiller** · 10-25-2007, 10:09 AM

The "secret" to making any economic system 100% functional is removing the power of the government to manipulate things. When force is obliterated from the conversation and it's you v. reality only, then you'll find that life becomes as easy as it was ever intended to be. Freedom dies under force.