Socialism, capitalism

what's up faggots. lately, I've been making a point to talk to and hear out people that I don't usually agree with. since most political sites on the internet are never anything more than huge torture chamber echo chambers, I'd rather ask here.

I'm hearing a lot of "capitalism is bad" from lefties I know, but they're too retarded to make a coherent case, so I wanna hear it from an 8ch board. at the very least i can call you faggots

Other urls found in this thread:

4shared.com/rar/wYR868iUba/kapital.html
youtube.com/watch?v=eGOA2WedIQo
youtube.com/watch?v=hy8y2CCGcwo&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7&index=3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-form
8ch.net/pol/res/6461522.html#q6466481
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

What's the question?

Why is capitalism bad?
4shared.com/rar/wYR868iUba/kapital.html
Why is socialism better?

What?

It's not that capitalism is inherently "bad." Capitalism is inherently contradictory and sometimes inhuman, yes, but it isn't immoral in itself.

Marx understood clearly that capitalism (mode of production) is a necessary step in order to establish the proper infrastructure that could create conditions for post-scarcity. Once post-scarcity is achieved, socialism should then be implemented (probably by revolution).

Since there isn't really a question, I'll just post some videos.

youtube.com/watch?v=eGOA2WedIQo
youtube.com/watch?v=hy8y2CCGcwo&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7&index=3

OP here. yeah sorry, didn't really ask a question. i just wanted to hear the premise of socialism, the basic idea of the problems with capitalism, etc

I'll just reuse one of my older posts.

Socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production

"lol but what does that even mean xD?"

In any given society, you're going to have three basic groups of people:

Productive Labor - The people who directly produce the goods and services society needs though their work, they must necessarily produce more than they themselves use, creating a surplus

Unproductive Labor - People who's work is not directly involved in the production of socially necessary goods and services (eg - soldiers, lawyers, firemen, police, etc)

The Ruling Class - The people who receive the surplus created by productive labor and decide how it should be used and distributed.

Socialism is a relation of production where that third group has been abolished and its functions distributed to the former two groups, with special deference to productive labor.

The problem with capitalism is that it creates a class society that favors a small owning class we call the "bourgeoisie".

what constitutes as the ruling class in our current capitalist system? big CEOs? stock traders/investors? guys who run giant companies?

Oversimplification, but those who make money by exploiting the labour of others

I'm trying to better understand what you mean. Would you expand on that?

By your simplified example, does a man who seeks out big painting contracts, then hires other painters to do the work while making profit himself count? It's not very clear

Yes.

People who own means of production (and enjoy others to work them) and managers of capital.

Does he provide paint and other supplies? Are they being paid an hourly wage? Then the answer is probably yes, as the distinguishing feature of capitalism is the imposition of the commodity form via wage labour.

Not that user, but the production of profit is the kernel of exploitation. Socialists don't all agree on what's at fault here. Some blame the wage system and defend markets. Others are against markets inherently. There are other variations I'm forgetting as well.

As much as there is animosity against the ruling class in capitalism they are just products of a larger system of class divisions and, for socialism generally, the point is to destroy that inherently exploitative structure. Though, again, what this structure constitutes is not always agreed on.

I hope that's a fair summary.

Typically the customer pays for supplies with painting work, and yes they would be paid hourly.

And what's wrong with management? What often happens in these cases, in my example (which I'm using because I know of simple trades businesses), a usually older, more experienced painter is better able to secure bigger jobs for better pay, usually because they have past work references to vouch for the quality of their work.

That very experience also means they are better able to co-ordinate work amongst their hired painters, and give good criticism/amend any errors made.

None of those things could be achieved by less experienced, less reputed painters. How is that exploitation?

The most basic way to explain what's wrong with capitalism is this: because of where profit comes from, average wages always lag behind average prices, and there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall - which leads to periodic crisis caused by over production. This is all because of private ownership of profits.

If profits (or simply surplus value, as it would be called) were collectively owned, then it is redistributed into the community allowing for greater social good. Crisis would be avoided because over production is only a logical outcome in private profit seeking production. Production can be planned, by the community, and production can and will stop when necessary because there isn't a constant need to produce to keep the wheels of profit and wages turning.

But in a Capitalist economic system the Productive Labor forces, the Proletariat already control the means of production through demand. The Ruling Class cannot survive in an economic system unless they meet the demands of the Working Classes through providing goods and services. If a business refuses to follow these signals it will disappear thanks to the Darwinian pressures of a free market.

lel

...

Post-scarcity is not a thing. Humans are biologically wired to be stuck on a hedonic treadmill. Yes, this does not apply to all people but it does apply on average. Evolution does not give a fuck about happiness or bliss, so you do not have it just because you want.


How come are soldiers, lawyers, firemen and police not involved in the production of socially necessary goods and services?


Wages do not lag prices.

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is set by competition.

If profits are collectively owned, the pressure for the production processes to be efficient comes from a very large number of individuals who have a small stake on the success of said production processes. This happens, as it is not worthwhile to invest many resources (time, mental effort, get someone to do it, etc) on assessing what's being done. This is what happens when firms do not have major shareholders, btw.

It is exploitation because there are statistical differences between groups of people and customers do select based on those. These statistical differences are not based on the quality of work per se, but based on the accumulation of reputation, which is a form of social capital that is inherently private. It is the muh privilege of possessing this capital which makes the group of experienced workers exploitative.

They don't produce goods and services used on a day-to-day basis and thus must depend entirely on the surplus created by productive labor to exist.

So artists, journalists, sportsmen, doctors, pilots or shop assistants are unproductive labor?

And what about stuff some people use on a daily basis and some people don't, like cars? Is producing cars unproductive labor?

This sounds completely arbitrary.

Not so sure about pilots and shop assistants, but yes for the rest.

No.

I think you're confusing it for something like "important and unimportant labor".

Productive labor is labor that directly assists the production process of goods. Unproductive labor is labor that doesn't directly assist the production of goods, the idea being that a surplus of goods must be produced to sustain those jobs.

Whatever unproductive labor makes (I don't say produce because it would sound contradictory) also has to be made in surplus, as to trade with the productive laborers. I have no idea why these distinctions are relevant. That is, doctors "make" healing in excess of their current needs so that they can get what other "make" in excess of their current needs.

...

Doctors don't produce for themselves at all. That's the point. A doctor could, theoretically, operate on himself, but unless it's a very sickly doctor that's going to be far from a day-to-day need.

Let me explain it this way.

Let's say you have a village. In order for the villagers to survive, they need food, shelter and tools to produce it with. So you have farmers who produce food and may give a portion of that food to millers, bakers, brewers and other workers who create more prepared forms of food, you'd have lumberjacks who gather wood and give that wood to carpenters who turn that wood into usable products, and you'd have miners who find and mine ore to give to blacksmiths who would turn that ore into usable products. This is the village's productive labor force.

Of course, the village wants to do more than just survive, they may want teachers to educate their children, priests to oversee town festivals and rituals, doctors to tend to the sick, soldiers to defend the town from the rival village, so on and so forth. These people are important to the village, but they don't produce food, shelter or tools, so a greater amount must be produced to accommodate them. This is the unproductive labor force.

I already understood this distinction. I do not agree it is as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Still, most importantly, why is it useful? Categories justify their existence based on how they allow us to simplify reality around us.
Also, why the loaded terms?

It's just meant to demonstrate that productive forces need to produce a surplus in order for advanced, complex societies to exist.

holy shit

You don't really need to define productive and unproductive labor to say that but ok.

I think you understood what he meant. The "proletariat" is behind the majority of demand, firms want profits, firms control the means of production, profits are brought about when you sell stuff which people want. Therefore, what the means of production DO is ultimately controlled by demand.

No I don't understand what he means because what he said and what you say is complete incoherent nonsense.


Dude, are you seriously saying the proletariat creates a product, the firm sells it, and the proletariat buys it back? Are you brain damaged?

Demand does not control anything, it is the Capitalists who sells the commodities produced by the laborers surplus value according to supply and and demand. what supply and demand effectively means is that it is a variable over the "Exchange Value", not the laborers value put into making the commodities. The worker controlls nothing, because the investment, the rent, and the exchange of the commodity is done by the capitalists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-form

Please at least read, before you say tremendously stupid shit like that.

It is not "controlled" you retard. The workers can't tell companies to build shoes that last 10+ years or to sell food/housing at a much lower price. The free market prevents these things from happening because they don't as much of a profit, therefore they go out of business or keep raising the price and degrading quality.

The proletariat can give an idea of what they want but what they actually get and at what cost is almost totally out of their control. That is no way equivalent to controlling the means of production.

Demand for necessities is not a variable and is controlled only by the suppliers. Demand for luxuries is also fixed but by the purchasing power of the consumer base. Consumers may be able to pick between luxuries, but they will invariably consume everything that they are able to. Thus the concept of "voting with your dollar" is shown to be a myth.

Note that here is a significant contradiction built into the capitalist system. Employers are inclined to pay as little as possible for labor, which limits the laborers' purchasing power, but they require a consumer base that has significant purchasing power to consume the products that their laborers create.

That is actually an accurate assessment. Workers make a product that their bosses sell to other workers.

Calm down. It's a popular misconception. People misconstrue the ability to choose between Product A and Product B as having some measure of control over the market.

Technically it's true to some extent, but as says there is an inherent contradiction between buying luxuries with their limited buying power (since the worker only gains a marginal profit from his labor), but this contradiction resolves in Marx through market crises, lay offs and sometimes with falling rate of profits.

...

Thank for enlightening.

I will be sure to read about that convoluted theory full of arbitrary definitions with the main purpose of claiming my prior view that society is fucked, wrong and should change, and that everybody around me is a fucking idiot.

enlightening me*

I think goods should explode after 10 minutes of use. That way, they can't even be repaired.

A fellow cell phone industry exec I see

holy fuck why are there so many shit threads. it's like summerfag city in here.

nice bump you double nigger

...

absolute horseshit. go fuck yourself /pol

evolution? That process takes thousands of years.

8ch.net/pol/res/6461522.html#q6466481

Defining who produces the surplus and who uses it is always needed. It tells you a lot about how the society in question actually functions.