- Capitalism and Alternatives -

A Response

Posted by: nat_turner ( USA ) on January 05, 1998 at 11:00:33:

In Reply to: To Nat Turner.... please read... posted by Comrade October on December 30, 1997 at 21:00:44:

I'm glad to welcome a fellow American to the board. If nothing else, our participation shows that the most Capitalist nation in the world has not only the greatest variety of consumer goods but a great diversity of ideas as well!

In the future, it would probably be best to relegate each counter-argument to it's own topic. This post mixes topics such as advertising, the envrionment, incentives, etc. into a single paragraph. This makes it difficult for others to follow the debate. For simplicity's sake, I'll try to answer each of your questions in this single reply. Perhaps new topics should be created afterwards.

To begin, let me state my position. I believe that it is better to reform Capitalism than to impose Socialism. When we consider an issue such as advertising, pollution, freedom, etc., we should ask "is it better to modify the system we have, or do we need a new system?". I feel that after carefully considering all of Capitalisms many flaws, we'll find that the former option wins in the vast majority of important cases.

Lastly, I have not read the Communist Manifesto. There are so many variations on Communism, Socialism, Leftism, that it would be too-time consuming to attack them all. Instead I choose to *defend* Capitalism. Many of October's responses say "the CM didn't say this" or "the CM didn't say that". However large numbers of people who call themselves Socialists *have* said these things. True, the words of a few cannot prove all Socialists wrong. But the course of History (as well as the title of this forum) clearly place the burden on Capitalists to defend their system, rather than to attack and disprove every twist and variation of Leftism.

Let's look at the issues.


: (1)D, 297'Nat had said in reactions to forms other than capitalism "Why not consider ways of making the current system more fair, rather than some mad revolution, peaceful or not? Wouldn't it be possible to restructure taxes and prices in such a way as to smooth out some of the system's rough edges?" The fact of the matter this "mad revolution" has no merit in the Communist Manifesto. (to make it easier the 'CM') I have read the CM and nowhere does it suggest a "mad revolution" would occur. Also to "Wouldn't it be possible to restructure taxes and prices in such a way as to smooth out some of the system's edges?" the answer in yes, this is what the CM suggest in less words than 23 pages.

*** The theoretical writings of a century ago may not have seen the need for a "mad revoloution". But History has taught us better...change usually comes through the spilling of blood. Before risking the live of millions of people (most likely *other* people, as the battles will be fought in the Third World), before taking up the sword, I'd like proof that modification isn't a better option.

: (2)As I read his writings I noticed he thought in terms of Capitalism and Non-Capitalism. That is the same as saying there is only two forms of government; Democracy and Non-Democracy. Throughout his writings he would constantly do this.

*** As I've stated before, I am defending Capitalism against it's "alternatives".

: (3)D 8, 97' Nat said "Zeus does admit that Eastern Europeans overthrew their Communist master in an attempt to gain democratic freedoms. Many of these Eastern Europeans sacrificed their lives.

: If this does not speak in favor of Capitalism, I'm not sure what does." Well, as Comrade Zeus and I have recently sent strat, according to the CM Democracy and Communism are to fit with each other, and are not counterpart governments. Just because they "over threw there communist masters" does not mean this speaks for Capitalism.

Why then, did not these Eastern Europeans form workers committees and begin to live according to Marx and his Manifesto? It is very interesting that having won a war, having gained the power to choose a system, that they did *not* choose Socialism!

Instead, it seem that they are anxiously inviting the good jobs, high quality goods, and multinational corporations into their countries. Who, if not the people of Eastern Europe, are buying the consumer goods being sold in these countries today?

: (4)D 8, 97' Nat said "Even Socialists who advocate seizing factories have offered no new technology that would enable us to exist without factories." I give your one example; Morris, the man that invented the telegraph. Which is what this Internet is based on, was a socialist in England. The telegraph has greatly contributed to the reduced need for factories.

Of course, the telegraph requires forests to be cut for poles, copper to be mined for wire, and rubber to be tapped for insulation. But that's not the point. Did Comrade Morris make his invention under a Socialist system? Did a Socialist system lay the Transatlantic Cable? Did a Socialist system give us HTML or the Pentium processor?

Innovation will not be nonexistent under Socialism, it will simply be less. And with the problems facing our world, we cannot afford less technology!

: (5)D 8, 97' Nat said "In Socialist economies, the environment doesn't fare much better." The truth is that even the Soviet Union had a better record on environmental matters. In fact the Russian counterpart of the Mississippi, the Volga, is clean enough to use as a beach. The Mississippi is not. In fact the Volga is one of courses the Russian cruise ships take.

*** Because the Volga has no outlet to trading routes (only to the frozen Artic and landlocked Caspian), it's not useful as a waterway. Russia's rivers are unpolluted because they just aren't as economically useful as those in North America. For an example of state-controlled environmental management look no further than Chernobyl.

: (6)D 8, 97' Nat said "Yet another bloody revolution followed by years of experimentation under a socialist system doesn't seem like a wise gamble to make with Earth's five billion lives." The CM does not suggest a "bloody revolution" at all. And "experimentation" with new forms of government is precisely what America did, and it is obvious that you would not disagree with that "experimintation".

*** Yes, and America's experimentation was costly, bloody, and took centuries! Now we have a system that works. Why should we pay those prices again?

: (7)D 8, 97' Nat said "Remember that nobody has ever seen this Socialism thing work before." Well, there are many tribes of people in the Amazon and other places that do live by the guide lines the CM sets out, but never even have heard of the CM.

These tribes have very low lifespans and are subject to all manner of diseases. They have developed almost no technology (there is no incentive for them to do so). They also require huge amounts of land to support their population...there is not enough room on Earth for all of our five billions to live the jungle life. We need technology to feed people, and no system promotes technology better than Capitalism.

: (8)D 8,97' Nat said "Capitalism on the other hand has a good track record." (the subject of the posting was on the envirernment) He never goes on to describe to us how he came to this conclusion. It is a known fact that Capitalism is one of the worst forms of economy on the environment. It creates a train of thought that convinces each person that he must do whatever in his/her power to provide the most amount of capital that is possible. Unfortunately the train of thought that follows that is that just because I pollute doesn't mean the world will end. All I need to prove this is to look at the . Chicago river, Mississippi, Black Forest, and the grasslands formally known as England's forest But what it appears Capitalist want a world of capitalist economies, and this, based on their "track record" will certainly not be very peasant for the future.

*** I pointed out in other posts that the environment is one of the biggest challenges Capitalism faces. Fortunatley, we can use market-based solutions that give the people incentives not to pollute. I believe that modifying Capitalism in this way is much better than risking all of the other gains Capitalism has brought about.

: (9)D 8, 97' Nat said "Goods are produced, people are employed, and most people in the world favor it." Weather or not people "favor it" is not saying much. Consider Nazi Germany. Most people in Germany believed in Nazism, but that was mainly on the word we Communist know and hate, Propaganda. Propaganda can convince "most people in the world" to do nearly anything. But Democracy (most of the time) allows people to go out and find this propaganda and show it to the world. For instance I know of a company that is currently looking at "Gulf War syndrome." They have found that (most likely) "Gulf War syndrome" is trace to vaccinations given in anticipation to the use of chemical weapons. Well, the vaccines did not work as planed. Also a poll taken by the government to see the opinions of the American people found that about 75% of people would support the Gulf War if there were casualty less than 1000. (it was 56% in England) Considerably less would support the war if there were over 1000 deaths. And so it appears started a large campaign to convince the world that the Gulf War had very few deaths. 131 on the 'coalition' side, and 250,000 on the Iraqi side, only 100,000 were military. This is just too out of hand. (sorry I got off subject)(also, you will note that once my friend Comrade Zeus had said 5,250,000 persons died. He had accidentally or intentionally done this. And this is adding a UNICEF estimate on future deaths of children (5,000,000) and the actually death rate.(250,000)

*** Many Capitalists claim that socialism is "contrary to human nature". In response. the Socialists replay "Well, we need a new human nature!" Perhaps this is so. But without some sort of public information "propaganda" campaign, how could this come about?

At least under Capitalism, individuals are free to own television networks and printing presses. Divergent views, like those you yourself post, can be heard.

: (10)D 8, 97' Nat said "When the price of butter goes up, farmers step up their production to meet demand. If the farmhands object, they will strike and force the farmer to pay better wages (note that the right to strike is essential to capitalism)" First off, when the price of butter goes up farmers do not allow increase butter production, in fact very often the American government will pay off farmers not to grow to keep prices down, this is not what you consider capitalism, this is a group of government workers thinking of the future, trying to keep the prices down. In the case of Tobacco $50,000,000,000 a year goes out to farmers not to grow. (this according to Bill Clinton in a speech on teen smoking)

*** Government subsides and intervention, such as you described, are anti-Capitalist. I believe they should be used sparingly, if at all.

::Second the "right to strike is essential to capitalism", although it is not "essential" to communism, it is not stopped, in fact the CM supports trade unions forming.

*** How would a Socialist system handle the following situation? The coal miners demand a tenfold increase in wages or else they will strike. The wage increase would nearly bankrupt the country. The lights in the cities begin to flicker as Comrade October decides what to do... (post reply to a different thread)

: (11)D 8, 97' Nat said "Sears, Roebuck is a giant American retailer. This firm once controlled an insurance, real-estate, credit card, and stock brokerage subsidiary. The conglomerate was too difficult to administer under a command system and had to be broken up – so the more efficient price system could take over.

: How productive would a single worldwide conglomerate be?"Please look at General Electric. The owner of Time-Warner, which owns CNN, TIME, NBC, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, And Waner Brothers, which owns several TV stations. (the WB network) Also GE owns the rights to several airplane companies that themselves receive billions yearly. This command system has no need to break up, but also is larger now than Sears, Roebuck ever was.

*** This is my point exactly. *Sometimes*, such as in your examples, a command system is efficient. Sometimes it is not. But Socialist want to put *all* industries under command systems!

*** In addition, you neglected to mention GE's famous divestiture poilcy. If they are not #1 or #2 in a given industry, they spin-off that division. This ensures that they only accumulate those activities that they are good at and not those that would be more productive under other roofs.

: (12)D 8, 97' Nat said "Even thought we would all be shareholders,(in Communism) our shares wouldn't be worth much. So much effort would be wasted on layer after layer of unproductive management" I don't know how shares of the companies creates "layer after layer of unproductive management", in addition, Capitalism it self produces "layer after layer of unproductive management", in the CM the Bourgeois (owners of factories and companies) are proven to be the producers of bureaucracy, and compel all net profits to be directed at the companies' executive board.

*** We find these layers of unproductive management by examining basic Management Theory. Consider a workshop with five workers and one supervisor. If there are fifty such workshops in the town, they might decide to merge. This would give us 250 workers and 50 supervisors. But we would also need 10 managers to coordinate the 50 supervisors...and one director to coordinate the 10 managers!

*** We began with 250 workers and 50 supervisors. After consolidation we now have 250 workers plus (50 + 10 + 1) nonworkers. We have increased our non-working population by over 20%!

*** If there are technological efficiencies from consolidation, (such as one big building being cheaper than 50 small ones) this might make sense. For Time Warner and General Electric it does. For AT&T and Sears, Roebuck, it does not. Capitalism allows mergers when it makes sense and forces divestitures when it does not.

*** But socialism would burden *every* industrial sector with an ever increasing pyramid of management whether they need it or not!

: (13)D 8, 97' Nat said "Capitalism is superior not only because it better reflects human nature, but because it better reflects to inherent difficulties in managing a global economic system." I must say that that statement would be 100% true if one added a 'not' right after "Capitalism is" The reason for this is because human nature is greedy, and capitalism reflects and personifies "human nature."(greed) Capitalism reflects and personifies the "inherent difficulties in managing a global economic system." (we will go over this later)

*** I anxiously await "later".

: (14)D 9, 97' Nat said "The 1987 Stock crash is a good example. Wealthy investors misread the economy and overbid the prices of capital (firms). They paid for their foolishness with their fortunes when the market fell." According to every source I have read or watched or listened to the crash on October 1987 (Black Friday) was not "foolishness" of "wealthy investors" but rather over eager software of Mutual funds etc. which were programmed to sell at a certain channel. Slowly the more "liberal" funds sold which brought the prices down to levels which make the "conservative" funds sell allowing the market to fall, not investors misreading.

*** Who programmed the computers? Wealthy investors (and their Mutual Fund managers and brokers). And if an investor sold a stock on Black Friday for $50 that rose back up to $60 three days later...can we call this anything other than a "misreading" of the market?


: (15)D 9, 97' Nat said "Titoism only solves part of the price problem. Breaking up the State in smaller firms my (may) make management easier, but where will these managers get their information?" The same place as now, simply lissoning to the people Viz. If they see a better price at another shop that is < profit the people simply shop for the item in question there. Nat also says "If consumers cannot signal their needs by bidding up prices on certain goods, the State will be forced to guess, or decide by fiat what they think the people "need". And if they are wrong, a recession will follow… or there will be too few pairs of shoes for the coming winter. (either that or people get an extra pair(I must agree, either way there screwed(sarcasm))). And about the "State will be forced to guess, or decide by fiat what they think the people "need". I previously proved that nowhere in the CM does it suggest that the "State" will be in charge o the prices of any one item.

*** I have not read the CM. But if the CM allows producers and consumers to mutally agree on a price, and to choose among several trading partners, then it sounds like an element of Capitalism to me. We should also remember that if individuals are not allowed to invest, then money (and hence prices) are meaningless. There is no point in serving the people cake and then restricting the ways in which they can eat it!

: (16)D 9, 97' Nat said "I can find nothing in any description of Socialism to suggest that it would be better at innovation and much to suggest it would be much worse." Nor can I find in any description of Capitalism that would show innovation would be increased, but to answer that, one merely looks at the past. And to contradict the said statement one merely looks at the past. Look at Nazism, one should call it sicialism, at least how the economy ran, but they still managed to get rockets into outer space. (V2) Although the first jet was invented in England, Germany perfected it as the modern (1945) fighter. So to the said statement, I have proven you (Nat) wrong.

Perhaps no nation in the world has so dismal a record in innovation as the Nazis. They had all of the best sctentists, a strong industrial base...and still failed to invent the atomic bomb. Innovation also includes the ability to effectivly *use* an invention. When it came down to actually mass producing these inventions, the US won hands down. Remember who actually won the war! (It should be noted that much of the US economy was state-controlled at the time, so the comparison may not be as pure).

: (17)D 9, 97' Nat said "My point is that only the incentive of profit can mobilize the best minds against the problems we face. Whatever new technology we develop well be directed towards the hungry people in the world." The first man was put in to space, the first Americans put into space, and the first people to break the sound barrier were not in the industry of making money. In fact most were payed simply military wages. G-10s etc. I, and I'm sure that most of my comrades would agree that the assumption that the only way to get things done is to put money on the table is preposterous, Sophist ideals. I for one would be happy to work in a state that is not based on greed and injustice. And to the statement that all new technology will be directed at hungry people in not imaginable, at least not in this time.

Once again, we find it easy to confuse innovation with effectiveness. Sending a single man to break the sound barrier might have been done by the State...but the Concord Jet is operated for profit. We have sent men to the moon...but our communications sattelites are operated for profit.

: (18)D 9, 97' Nat said "Earth has hundreds of millions of unemployed people… we need to get these people into the capitalist system so that they can start earning…and eating." This statement is just as true if one were to change the word 'capitalist' with the word communist. And to the fact of the matter is that many of the world's poorest nations, or 'third world' if you like, have been assimilated into capitalist systems long ago. Much of the US's products are created in the 'Third World' 'sweat shops' which are owned by Capitalist companies such as Macy's and Sears. In fact capitalism has been allowing 'Third World' despots like Pol Pot to thrive in capitalist economies. And force the proletariat citizens to poverty. Also, many times you say that the right to strike for better wages etc. is essential to capitalism. Well, in these 'Third World' countries their is no one, or few, to stop the strikers from getting killed, as they commonly do. In fact just this year a union organizer only 10 years old who helped start a union that was over a 100,000 strong, but he was killed by 'Third World' Capitalists, like Pol Pot.

*** It would be wonderful to spread the freedoms enjoyed by Americans to other parts of the world. I'm the strongest advocate of this. I know that America's foriegn policy is not the kindest. (Soviet Russia was no teddy bear, either).

*** We need to overthrow the despots and give the people of the world the same rights to organize, buy, sell, produce, and consume that Americans have. Workers getting shot for forming unions is no more a part of true Capitalism than the Gulags were a part of true Socialism.

: (19)D 9, 97' Nat said "It takes minds to invent machines and it takes hands to use them. These are the true means of production. Under Capitalism, hands and minds are owned by the workers" Well, to put it explicitly, the same is true in the CM.

*** OK.

: (20)D 9, 97' Nat said "In America, when workers with hold their labor, production stops. Witness the UPS strikes. While the system is not perfect, workers have a lot of negotiating power." I please ask you; where in the CM does it say any thing which would lead anyone to the conclusion that workers in Communism could not strike?

*** I'd really like to see an answer to the hypothetical coal miners strike I posted above.

: (21)D 9, 97' Nat said "In America, most of the factories and land are owned by a small number (20%) of the people, but the rest of the country still does very well because they always own their own labor…and can demand a fair price for it." In communism one can do the same. Also, if those 20% of people were only given the average salary and the rest of the capital went to taxes, or a form there of, there would be no more income taxes at all.

*** I challenge you to show numbers to support this.

: (22)D 10, 97' Nat said "It would be wonderful to begin each lunch with a glass of all-natural, fresh-squeezed, orange juice. But this product requires a lot of labor and environmental resources to produce. Until we get better technology, Earth can't supply this good to every body." Yet the day before he had said "I love to eat steak. It requires large amounts of resources labor to produce a steak dinner. I work extra hard so I can afford to have one every now and then. Under Socialism, who would determine how much steak I'm allowed to have? Who, other than myself, the chef, and the farmer has the right to make this decision?" Did you notice this contradiction?

*** No contradiction. There is a limited supply of orange juice, so those who work hardest for it will get it. Because I really like orange juice and steak, I work extra hard, harder than most Americans, for it.

: (23)D 10 D 9, 97' Nat said advertising is non-violent and non-coercive. You don't have to buy the stuff if you don't want to."…"Rather than lead over all of our labor to some central planner, we can choose to only work for what we want." Again, I see not where you get this information about a "central planer". I assure you no where in the CM does it state this. In fact that would create a bourgeois class, which is what the CM tries to stop. You sate that advertising is "non-coercive" but somehow you have found these capitalistic dogmas which have lead you to believe communism stands for "central planers". Call it 'Selective Education' when we were in grade school, or whatever, but your statement has no merit.

*** Other posters have also taken offense to my notion of "central planners". I'm open to learning. Under socialism, precisely who will make decisions which allocate labor and resources?


: (24)D 10, 97' Nat said "Rather than lead the world on some wild Socialist adventure, wouldn't it be better to just modify Capitalism?" "Socialist adventure"? Where does he get this? Also the same adventure that capitalism has lead us? We would not be here arguing you comrades if we thought capitalism was better. Also to the question; "wouldn't it be better to just modify Capitalism?" , I have found is your standard question, and I would have to answer yes, "modifying capitalism" is what communism wishes, but what should be obvious to anyone after one "modifies capitalism" it is no longer capitalism.

*** This depends on the extent of the modification. I'm open to debate on how much we should alter Capitalism.

: (25)D 12, 97' Nat said "Suppose we can only afford to give everybody "x" amount of goods? Why not make them happier by providing "x" in many colors, flavors, and brand-names? We can do this without using up more resources." Why would Nat assume that we would not providing "x" as many colors, flavors, and brand-names. Perhaps he assumes that in a Communist state individuality would be look down upon, and he might get this impression from the counties widely considered communist (Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.)were militant, which appears that everyone is the same in the exterior, because of training that taught them to be discipline. Well, no all communist counties were militant, and all don't have to be. So please don't think that we would not want people happier by providing "x" as many colors, flavors, and brand-names.

*** I've come to believe that Socialism is against brand-names because of the anti-cosumerist tendency of the McSpotlight board. In particular, objections to Advertising are often based on the idea that advertising "creates wants" by convincing people that colors, flavors, and brand-names will make them happy. I have assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that socialists would not use similar advertising.

: (26)D 16, 97' Nat said "My point is that a system of currency is meaningless unless prices are free to change" If one would assume that only a capitalist economy is the only place where "prices are free to change" one would be wrong. This is just another time when Nat has used his assumptions on other forms of economy. Once again making a mockery of what we hold to be true.

: (27)D 17, 97' Nat said in the question of what is communism; "Everybody works. All the goods are turned over to the government. The government decides who get how much of each good. the people elect the government." According to the CM all goods are not turned over to the State, but rather sold to businesses that buy the state produced goods, which intern sell those goods, just like in capitalism...

*** Perhaps it would be useful to post a description of a Socialist price system. I've gotten more disagreements over my conception of Socialist prices than over anything else. I am especially interested in finding out:

1) Who sets prices?
2) Who sets wages?
3) Are there restrictions on what people can buy with their wages?
4) Who determines what will be produced?
5) What happens to people who refuse to work, or who demand very large wages?
6) Who determines who will take unpleasant or dangerous jobs?

: (28)D 17, 97' Nat said (on how capitalism works in USA) "The government taks (takes) a third of the goods. You trade what's left with your neighbor to get what you want. The givernment (government) gives it's third to the people who still don't have "enough" after the trading is done." This is not so, trillions (more than half it's third) goes directly to the military. 100,000,000,000 goes directly to NASA, and the rest are spread throughout the other sub-agencies.

*** Of course, an "ideal" Socialist system doesn't exist either.

: As you can see, since Nat has been here, he has incorporated capitalist propaganda, his teachings under 'Selective Education', and petty inconsistencies. He is so consumed with finding what is wrong, when he finds something right he can only say "thing aren't prefect. But, I'm unwilling to scrap all we've gained so for and start from scratch" which itself is would be against the CM. If we wish to have a perspicacious debate on the subject of Capitalism, and it's Alternatives we must stop having the said actions embodying the debate. And I wish Nat would consider this argument on his ability to argue justly.

*** I think that we've managed to make a good start here.

- nat


Follow Ups:

None.

The Debating Room Post a Followup