- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( si ) on June 04, 1999 at 16:25:32:

In Reply to: Magpies! posted by Red Deathy on June 04, 1999 at 14:39:42:

: But thats restating a totality of production, an obvious fact, yes, its a totality, everyone s necessary, however, only some actually create, that is add,value, we are looking at where in the system value is added. Its not that important, because the Management are working class (mostly, the very top aren't). Capitalists don't do *any* work within the socialised system of production.

I have already said that if a worker saves up his value, passes it on, saves in banks & investments he may unwittingly transform from lovely worker (poor=lovely ive been told) to savage evil capital owner (rich=evil, not a belief held with you perhaps but its a laughable belief in some) who then uses what is his to invest elsewhere. he exchanges his saved value with others. The size of the saved capital is not important the principle is. A small investor who buys an empty shop, then buys all the gear and supplies and then starts selling is presumably as 'evil' as any so called tycoon and would have only been 'good' if he had done no such thing - if he had not saved at all but frittered or refused his value.

: And so we vote on it, but simple choices such as that do not express your own interests- and the only way any of you is getting a car, boat, plane, is if they are built communally.

Hence people offer something in return so that the building of a boat is made worthwhile for the builders, not decided by 50.1% votes regardless of making it worthwhile to anyone except the 50.1% (or 33.4% if its 3 prods?)

: No, because the parent would add 100 units to communal production, thus ensuring that their, and their childrens take, can increase,

The best way for a parent to gain is to calculate the amount they would get if the pot was filled, compare it to the amount he could get via his own effort. If the amount he would get was less by potting it then he would be shooting himself in the foot - no amount of 'but its for the good of all', 'but think of the benefits of being in the community' is going to persuade him to tolerate a big inequitable difference between what he puts in and what he gets out.

Such relies on very equitable input, the lowest common denominator being the most equitable (and in state run economies the tendency).

: Organised and built by workers, who were paid to do so for a capitalist- and its creation is irrelevent, the current owner had no part.

: Indeed, but the community needs the factory.

The 'community' is not a blob, some may benefit and others may
disbenefit from the existence of the factory. I looked at capital in the first point.

: I'd agree with that one, but I'm loooking forwards forty years to my Allotment... ;)

Seriously, here is an idea - if you really find the idea of private owenrship and free trade so abhorant (and thats fine) then why not join one of the existant collectives or set up your own. Your last heinous act could be to collectivise your capital, and if you cant raise enough for land then there are communes already running - some may even be to your liking. Youve only got the one life to live. If you think the notion of having to perform one last 'filthy capitalist act' to get a commune going is bad then may i suggest that the two alternatives ; a) violently throwing others off land and ending up in jail, b) waiting forever as a tiny minority for a global change that wont happen, are much worse.

: We could, and I would counter that as prices fall wages fall as well. I would also demonstrate falling employment,

Compare the basket now with the one 50 yrs ago. I presume you deny the figs on this released in the UK then?

: food stamps.

Fascist statism.

: But the utility is only utility on the part of a gaze of an Other, If I want a fast car, that is because in my eyes, I see myself in an Other's gaze as one who owns a flash car- the only people with a utility justification for a farrari are racing drivers on the track.

If that explains your only possible motivation to own anything other than basic needs then dont expect it be universally true. Utilitarian arguments like that are very dubious. There is no way to demonstrate that only race drivers could gain utlity from a ferrari, its a presumption

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup