Hi everyone,
This is my first post and figured this might be an unusual first post, but there's substance to it and hopefully I can learn from this. I have always been left leaning in my thinking anyways. Maybe it has partly to do with the fact that I live in Canada which is becoming more like a welfare state every year, maybe it is due to the fact that I believe that humans can all live as one class. Capitalism promotes two classes. The owners and the owned. Wage labour (ie Proletariat), who are those of us whose only means of living is to sell our time and physical labour; and the Capitalists (ie Bourgeoisie), who own the means for us to use our labour in production.
I have been spending day and night reading as much as I can on Socialism, and then I do more reading, not only straight Marxist but of other authors, blogs, etc in an effort to expand my knowledge and grasp a better understanding of all sides.
I came across a thread on this forum I navigate that left me quite annoyed. It was about trying to follow a particular members Lassez-Faire approach to life and him justifying why Capitalism is the right way to go.
Now, a major reason why my beliefs are so connected to Socialism has to do with my family. My grandfathers, uncles, some aunts and my dad have always belonged to a union, always to a trade union of one sort or another. I have worked a little in Unions and been involved with those unions because I still believe that without them, and without the Labour Laws set down by the gov't, that the wage labourers would be rendered as so much animals. Without certain controls in place the laws of supply and demand might not work in the best interest of the masses as a whole.
So, with that being said I was presented with this argument after stating some of my beliefs and thoughts. And now I am left feeling defenseless because I don't know as much as I will someday.
This is where I hope someone can offer insight into the debate, hopefully explain or even criticize the argument of the other guy (my thoughts will be in [QUOTE]) & [/QUOTE} :
[QUOTE]
I have always been left leaning in my thinking anyways. Maybe it has partly to do with the fact that I live in Canada which is becoming more like a welfare state every year. Maybe it is due to the fact that I believe that humans can all live as one class. Capitalism promotes two classes. The owners and the owned. Wage labour (ie Proletariat), who are those of us whose only means of living is to sell our time and physical labour; and the Capitalists (ie Bourgeoisie), who own the means for us to use our labour in production.
[/QUOTE]
In a truly free market, you work where you choose, you're not "owned", and please, someone, define how you're "owned".
There aren't "two-classes", as though each, by law, is perpetuated. Rich men have become poor, and before our eyes the converse true.
Are all "capitalists" born holding land. As for your "only means of living", do, this, tell me:
How can any system promote a state where you sit on your ass, still receiving all the goods as would you wish.
[QUOTE]
A fabulous quote that sticks with me and proves that capitalism permeates all levels of society with its greed is thus...
"No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc." - Karl Marx
[/QUOTE]
You'll need more than a quote to prove anything, let alone this.
Again, has the "landowner", in a truly capitalistic society all ever have truly started off as holding land. The "shopkeeper", etc, and again, how we expect such goods to come about.
[QUOTE]
Essentially, from what I read and interpret, I believe thus. Throughout history there has always been capitalism. From basic bartering to the modern day credit card evils. (That's another topic entirely) Someone is always going to get screwed.
[/QUOTE]
There hasn't always been (Laissez Faire) Capitalism. There has been privilege by political decree.
As for credit cards, even those aren't inherently evil. You're allowed to consume goods ahead of (by you) production. There's always a limited amount of goods in contrast to infinite want. Interest rates are a guage of consumer time preference---the closer you are to living hand to mouth, the higher the interest rates, as we're here, then, putting consumption far before production.
If the opposite to hold, again, in Laissez Faire, then the converse true, as credit is a commodity, and is subject to supply and demand. Objects of consumption are limited, our wants are not, hence forth from this born, interest rates.
But, anymore, fiat money (attempts) to supplant this via inflation, but even that forever cannot last.
[QUOTE]
It is usually the blokes like me. Guy's who just want to earn the money to afford to live. Everyone wants to be rich though. That's human nature. Good old fashioned "**** you Greed!" Pardon my french. Under true captalism there are no laws to prevent the abuse of wage labour by the capitalists. That is where trade unions and government intervention come in.
[/QUOTE]
How is there abuse. I want this defined before I go on. And, also defined, do I wish to know how capitalists are inherently evil, the labourers inherently good.
If any of us, perspicacious, have ever worked in any corporation, many instances can we cite of wage labourer greed, that is, the indolent, still wishing for their mouths to be fed if even destruction of said corporation to that they contribute.
[QUOTE]
Now, a major reason why my beliefs are so connected to Socialism has to do with my family. My grandfathers, uncles, some aunts and my dad have always belonged to a union, always to a trade union of one sort or another. I have worked a little in Unions and been involved with those unions because I still believe that without them, and without the Labour Laws set down by the gov't, that the wage labourers would be rendered as so much animals. Without certain controls in place the laws of supply and demand might not work in the best interest of the masses as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
How would supply and demand not work, in a fully free-market system.
Unions raise wages above free-market levels, to the detriment of others. So if your argument is "we need what's best for the masses as a whole", then there goes the union argument.
[QUOTE]
For example, a friend works as a welder @ $10.05/hour (this is true btw) and he belongs to a union which, through fighting, has guaranteed him a yearly raise, full benefits and certain protection from unreasonable discipline from the capitalist employer. Now without that union I know he would have NO benefits and be making Minimum wage in Ontario, Canada. On top of this the employer would be able to increase demands of him and he would have no means of defense. This is a prime example of why I think that a true Lassez-Faire capitalistic system should not exist.
[/QUOTE]
Question:
In a fully free-market system, the worker essential, is there, or is there not an incentive to properly comport oneself when dealing with employees.
Question, another:
Does every industry, job, have the same earning potential. Does every worker contribute to the same end, in the same capacity. If I'm a cashier at McDonalds, should I earn the same, as say, a Doctor.
And don't say "but I should earn enough to live", as again, production precedes consumption, and to no such surprise should it be that, like all commodities (and that you are, in a non-pejorative sense), there's supply and demand, and the greater your (perceived) capacity to produce, that however rare, the greater, generally, your earning potential.
And even this is based upon the "common man", He, as do we all so much always sing our vaunts for.
[QUOTE]
Under a true capitalistic system there would be no controls for the protection of the basic human rights of the workers and the fair trade of our labour and your means of production. Already in today's society we are seeing a slide backwards for basic worker rights, basic living conditions. In Ontario they recently de-regulated our oil, gas and hydro companies and privatized them. The annual cost of these ESSENTIAL services for workers, retired or not has increased up to 300%. THIS IS IN LESS THAN A YEAR! Is this what your precious lassez-faire is all about?
[/QUOTE]
Artificially lowering prices eventually leads to scarcity. In an industry is truly privatized (not like in California, where you can't expand your plants, and have price-caps, to some extent always above your head looming), then prices will have to match demand.
Don't first you wonder if this is a failure of your system. What are basic human rights in the context of employment.
If prices are artificially lowered, this do tell: will the object itself still be abundantly available.
I gather when we wish for cheap gas, we're not implicitly stating "I want my gas to cost one-dollar per gallon, even if it's not available, even if it's rationed so that I couldn't consume as much as would I wish".
[QUOTE]
We are a civilized nation. We don't have the option of violent revolution. Under a capitalistic system we basically have to starve or work until we die. Work is not a part of life. Life begins when we are outside of work. At home, at the pub, with our family. Under a Marxist system we are all protected from these types of abuses.
[/QUOTE]
So under a Marxist system, all those amenities of life as do we so enjoy, will just "be", and so to song, dance, and brew, to that we can finally take, oh mirth, always abounding.
The essential problem of the Communistic utopia: You put consumption ahead of production, with your eyes stare now at the world, at its goods, its factories, and then assume them to always be there, a product born of the environment.
"Work to die", whenever you seek to consume, you first must produce. Marx couldn't change this "essential" quandary.
Well, that's it for now, I thank you in advance for the time and help with this.
Peace and Chickenwings,
D.B.
|