Eran wrote:I'm sorry. You provided a number of examples in which government forces intervened to maintain oppressive systems in foreign countries. This is an undeniable part of our human history. But it sheds absolutely no light on the inherent contradictions of capitalism.
Are you asking how government forces being used to maintain a system designed not to use government forces be a contradiction?
Admittedly, this is a rather big item contradiction, but one that highlights smaller ones as has been repeatedly mentioned. In this example, the capitalist—an idealist newly emancipated to practice his ideas by the repeal of the Corn Laws—has two venders to buy from. He can pay top wages to the most developed portion of the planet, making profit difficult; or he can get rock-bottom prices by shipping in cheap material from abroad. The laws of capitalism, the material reality, is absolute in whom the capitalist should buy from. He buys from the society that has slaves.
You yourself advocate sweatshops as better than the alternative, and were in not for American slavery giving Africans in the Americas value, perhaps this capitalist sees the African as being worse off in Africa—a common view at the time for anyone willing to be sentimental.
The capitalist now, like every other, is buying supplies from slaves while the workers that had been producing supplies for trade are starving to death and being driven from their homes as property prices go up, raising rent, and allowing the land to be bought by the extra money our capitalist produces in the process.
Already we see several contradictions that develop on top of each other; the capitalist arguing for freedom promotes slavery; the increased wealth and efficiency causes the majority to have nothing; the attempt to rid power from the state becomes the empowerment of the state over people as slaves; none of these are the distinct contradiction within capitalism, but systems based in capitalism that all—like everything—have contradicting forces within them. We will boil this down to capitalism's contradictions as a whole:
The more things produced, the less people have.
The farmer in Scotland loses three sons when driven from his land, one of which now goes to a factory in London. Here he is paid in capital to do work. The capitalist gets labour out of the worker, for as little as possible and gains a profit from this. In other words, the worker inherently is not paid the value of his labour, and the worker takes what he is given in wage in order to live—losing the bulk of his pay at the onset. So begins
alienation—a further contradiction in that what the worker creates every day is alien to him (Within this seemingly simple exchange are other assumptions that come from our relation to property that continue to underline contradictions. Our worker building gears is not creating gears; he is ultimately creating capital. Should half the gears be thrown into the ocean, the only thing that comes from it is a shift in capital itself); the worker is alienated from himself through his production (literally making himself capital that is given to the capitalist); and is alienated from others (in more obvious ways) as a result of the exchange related to our interpretation of the material world that results from this system.
This is simple enough, but also underlines another contradictions. In being compelled to accept this there's a certain alienation from reality by all parties in exchange for how we interact with these things. Capital must have labour, and so it creates labour. But labour needs capital and must increase capital. And this is ultimately the answer for one of the points I'm sure you're waiting to comment about: "But things for the worker are better today in Britain than ever before!"
In the first case, this does not diminish Marx's argument in the least, and in fact was an early and crucial part of it. In honesty, he can explain it better than me. I know people hate the dreaded "wall of text" and I'll summarize at the end and edit where I can, but here is the bulk of the argument in the near:
Marx wrote:And so, the bourgeoisie and its economists maintain that the interest of the capitalist and of the labourer is the same. And in fact, so they are! The worker perishes if capital does not keep him busy. Capital perishes if it does not exploit labour-power, which, in order to exploit, it must buy. The more quickly the capital destined for production – the productive capital – increases, the more prosperous industry is, the more the bourgeoisie enriches itself, the better business gets, so many more workers does the capitalist need, so much the dearer does the worker sell himself. The fastest possible growth of productive capital is, therefore, the indispensable condition for a tolerable life to the labourer.
But what is growth of productive capital? Growth of the power of accumulated labour over living labour; growth of the rule of the bourgeoisie over the working class. When wage-labour produces the alien wealth dominating it, the power hostile to it, capital, there flow back to it its means of employment – i.e., its means of subsistence, under the condition that it again become a part of capital, that is become again the lever whereby capital is to be forced into an accelerated expansive movement.
To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the workers are identical, signifies only this: that capital and wage-labour are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other.
As long as the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer, his lot is dependent upon capital. That is what the boasted community of interests between worker and capitalists amounts to.
If capital grows, the mass of wage-labour grows, the number of wage-workers increases; in a word, the sway of capital extends over a greater mass of individuals.
Let us suppose the most favorable case: if productive capital grows, the demand for labour grows. It therefore increases the price of labour-power, wages.
A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.
An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.
But wages are not at all determined merely by the sum of commodities for which they may be exchanged. Other factors enter into the problem. What the workers directly receive for their labour-power is a certain sum of money. Are wages determined merely by this money price?
In the 16th century, the gold and silver circulation in Europe increased in consequence of the discovery of richer and more easily worked mines in America. The value of gold and silver, therefore, fell in relation to other commodities. The workers received the same amount of coined silver for their labour-power as before. The money price of their work remained the same, and yet their wages had fallen, for in exchange for the same amount of silver they obtained a smaller amount of other commodities. This was one of the circumstances which furthered the growth of capital, the rise of the bourgeoisie, in the 18th century.
Let us take another case. In the winter of 1847, in consequence of bad harvest, the most indispensable means of subsistence – grains, meat, butter, cheese, etc. – rose greatly in price. Let us suppose that the workers still received the same sum of money for their labour-power as before. Did not their wages fall? To be sure. For the same money they received in exchange less bread, meat, etc. Their wages fell, not because the value of silver was less, but because the value of the means of subsistence had increased.
Finally, let us suppose that the money price of labour-power remained the same, while all agricultural and manufactured commodities had fallen in price because of the employment of new machines, of favorable seasons, etc. For the same money the workers could now buy more commodities of all kinds. Their wages have therefore risen, just because their money value has not changed.
The money price of labour-power, the nominal wages, do not therefore coincide with the actual or real wages – i.e., with the amount of commodities which are actually given in exchange for the wages. If then we speak of a rise or fall of wages, we have to keep in mind not only the money price of labour-power, the nominal wages, but also the real wages.
But neither the nominal wages – i.e., the amount of money for which the labourer sells himself to the capitalist – nor the real wages – i.e., the amount of commodities which he can buy for this money – exhausts the relations which are comprehended in the term wages.
Wages are determined above all by their relations to the gain, the profit, of the capitalist. In other words, wages are a proportionate, relative quantity.
Real wages express the price of labour-power in relation to the price of commodities; relative wages, on the other hand, express the share of immediate labour in the value newly created by it, in relation to the share of it which falls to accumulated labour, to capital.
The relation to production remains the same, with the same problems. You may point out that Marx only saw the appalling situation in Britain and failed to see the rise of the Middle Class where these contradictions and their relation to capitol should be broken. This is, again, fundamental to the idea of Marxism. There are far more people on the planet working in far worse conditions with which to move the worker in Britain into a different perceived condition. The laws of production still hold true.
These contradictions that lead to these things (and there are several others) are what lead capitalism to have inherent contradictions.
Eran wrote:The reference is great at explaining dialectics, but not its relevance to economic systems.
Again, I think it should be noted, all systems have inherent contradictions. We are not saying that capitalism is a bogey-man unique for this. Feudalism relied upon merchants that were a vary contradiction to its system, in the same way capitalism relies upon workers that are a vary contradiction to its system. Any system is based on the material; the material and how we organize it is dialectical in nature. You can't simply say, at least for a materialist, that something is great about explaining the physical—but what does that have to do with the intangible concept because our understanding of the intangible concept only comes because of the physical. The dialectic is a concept that helps us explain this.
I think really everything else has been covered, with the great assist from ingliz in pointing out Marginal Revenue Product in monopoly or imperfect competition.
And so far as the big questions are concerned, fuser nailed it again.
I can already see the failure of this post is going to be, "But not every single system is exactly like the example you gave." And we can go down the drain of analyzing these new situations over again we're asked for the big answer as to what God intends for us only to be mocked for not having a fantastic reality. And this, really, underlines the entire problem with the thread again. We don't sit there and day dream with flowers in our hair about how wonderful pretend reality is. We look at how things are and come to conclusions based upon what we know. You seem to find this as a weakness.
Even the way you ask the terms be discussed is hopelessly utopian and childish. For a while we had to boil things down to what specific person used what specific term in a way you like in order to deflect the fact that we are materialists. I note that since I wasted my time going down this rabbit hole, it is no longer relevant and can be shunned away in exchange for bringing up things long since discussed in the thread. You ask:
Eran wrote:What makes you think that a communist society will be better even than the current mixed one, let alone the very different one libertarians call for? Note, to answer this question, it isn't enough to point out faults in the current society. You'd have to explain why it is you believe things can be done better.
Absurdity upon absurdity. Perhaps for the starry-eyed idealist this is fair. For a materialist this is what you are asking:
"What makes you think that attempting a more efficient relationship to our production will be better than what we have now, or a system that has already failed so badly that it broke? Note, to answer this, you can't point out anything wrong with the system we have now or the system that has failed. You'll have to imagine some fantasy land where you're not trying to create a more efficient relationship to our production."
It's a patently absurd question to ask, but I'll answer it.
I want to live in Star Trek. If you want me to imagine fantastical ways without using anything in the real world to get to this point, and go into why this would be great, we can talk about that in another forum—because that has nothing to do with explaining communism aside from a crude example.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
- By Tainari88
- By wat0n
- By Rugoz
- By Bill_Nye