- Capitalism and Alternatives -

You conflate social relations with mode of production

Posted by: Stoller on January 13, 19100 at 11:18:54:

In Reply to: Our goal should be to REVERSE the misery caused by capitalism, not so supercede it. posted by Nikhil Jaikumar on January 12, 19100 at 15:34:14:

: Barry I agree with Lark. Why must the socialist future be built on the basis of the crimes of capitalism? Our goal should be to REVERSE the misery caused by capitalism, not so supercede it.

You conflate the social relations of capital (hierachy, inequality, alienation, anarchy of the market) with its mode of production (rationalized, centralized, industrialized, abundant).

: The reason that cars weren't available to the people before Fordism is because production was Capitalist, not vbecause it was artisan.

Nonesense. Cars are available to almost all Americans now---and capitalism is still here, it's Fordism that has since happened.

: Incidentally, did the East Germans and teh Yugoslavs use assembly line labor when they made cars for the people? I have a hard time be;lieveing that they would use dehumanizing Fordism.

Of course they did. Do you think they made cars by hand?

: Barry, you criticize, quite correctly, teh capiatlist system for dispossessing peasants, driving towards efficiency at all cost, etcetera. But then you argue that we must incorporate such features into the socialist future. No way. Dispossessing peasants is wrong, and good thngs can't be built on the basis of it. Socialism should give the land back to the peasants...

What a reactionary sentiment, 'give the land back to the peasants.' Only large-scale, mechanized agriculture can feed the world's poor; only industrialized high productvity can create the surplus necessary for socialism. You argue for some kind of feudal socialism; if such was possible, then socialism would have sprang FROM feudalism (instead of capitalism). Each mode of production carries the seed of the next---this is the lesson of dialectical materialism you ignore.

: You argue that pre-assembly line production allowed goods only for an elite. But if that was so, then capitalism would have decreased inequality, amking the standard of living fro workers better, vbecause now they could afford to buy cheap goods. But that's simply not true. Teh standard of living fro workers was higher in the pre-industrial age, when there was a lot less inequality and a fairer society.

Arguing for feudalism again? Idealizing the primitive? The standards of living for feudal serfs was MUCH LOWER than the standard of living is for workers in developed capitalist nations. Who are you trying to fool?

: If pre-capitalist production only allowed teh needs of the wealthy to be satisfied, while industrial production allowes for mass production (according to you) then teh implication is that inequaity must have been rampant in all pre-capitalist societies. Hwoever, that just isn't true.

Then the French Revolution must have been about raising hell. Where does your history come from? Feudalism better than capitalism? Are you crazy?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup