[Someone5]

Argh, planned obsolescence is fucking hateful! We're in a weird situation where one can almost expect that the newer a product is, the sooner it will break.

You can usually buy high quality anything, it just costs far more than the disposable ones.

For example, computers are radically more durable today than thirty years ago. The folks who insist that computers have gotten less durable today only seem to have experience with cheap consumer products. For example, industrial process controllers are radically more durable today than they were thirty years ago. A modern industrial process controller has a fairly good chance of remaining functional for the life of the equipment it was designed to control; because it has been reduced to entirely solid state components (often entirely on a single chip) without much to go wrong.

Modern systems are not, however, repairable. If a component dies, there is no choice but to replace it in the vast majority of situations. That is not true of very old computer systems, which can (with a lot of labor) be manually repaired in many cases. There is no way to repair a damaged SoC process controller other than simply replacing it.

This sort of tendency has stretched across other industries too. A car of today, for example, is a lot more durable than an older car. But it is much less user repairable. What has changed is the economics of repairing things--as prices for goods drop, the economic sensibility of fixing something rather than replacing it changes. When something is very inexpensive, it becomes disposable and it is not worth the labor cost of trying to fix it. There are also things that are durable enough to exceed consumer demand for it; consumer electronics are an example of that. When I replace my cell phone, it's not because the old one broke, it's almost always because I want a feature in a newer phone--or because the programs I want to use won't run on the older one.

[Someone5]

In fact, I know of no evidence for "planned obsolescence".

It exists within platforms of related products; in a sense this is a peculiarity of computer systems. This does actually exist. For example, motherboards are designed to use a particular socket type for the CPU. The CPU manufacturers regularly change to new socket designs, often without any real technical reason--it has almost no objective other than requiring people to replace motherboards in order to upgrade processors. Intel plans this out years in advance--they state this publicly in their design roadmaps. Apple also does this with their machines--they plan out when machines will no longer be supported by current software. Microsoft does this for Windows too, by giving a date when patches will no longer be issued.

There are a few other uncommon examples, but in most cases there are functional reasons for it (like making sure that people do not continue to use products that become unsafe beyond their rated lifespan).

[Eran]

Modern systems are not, however, repairable. If a component dies, there is no choice but to replace it in the vast majority of situations. That is not true of very old computer systems, which can (with a lot of labor) be manually repaired in many cases. There is no way to repair a damaged SoC process controller other than simply replacing it.

Modern systems are often less repairable (though more reliable) than old ones.

This is because manufacturing sophisticated components (or even whole replacements) is much more cost-effective than repairing a faulty system.

In turn, this is a reflection of the great productivity of assembly-line manufacturing, as compared with the time of skilled technicians.

It is, in other words, a good thing.

[Someone5]

Modern systems are often less repairable (though more reliable) than old ones.

This is because manufacturing sophisticated components (or even whole replacements) is much more cost-effective than repairing a faulty system.

In turn, this is a reflection of the great productivity of assembly-line manufacturing, as compared with the time of skilled technicians.

You say it's a good thing until your production line has to go down for a week while you wait on components to get delivered. It has advantages and disadvantages.

[Eran]

I was thinking specifically about consumer products.

Obviously, if you run a production line (or other sensitive operations), you would be well advised to keep spare components at hand.

Overall, modern production lines run at higher capacities (less down-time) than those of the past.

[anticlimacus]

Producers cater to consumer preferences. Those who don't, disappear from the market.

There is no doubt that producers depend on consumers. But there is something wrong with this model if we equating this dependence with consumer power. Producers do not simply "cater" to consumer preferences--they also manufacture consumer preferences and limit them. Social conflict is in the middle of this picture, and it is something that you continually neglect, making the model much more benign and happy than it historically has been.

We can take an example also from the conflict between labor and capital: there is also little doubt that most capitalists need labor, nevertheless labor--particularly today--has little power against capital. Labor is fragmented, divided, and spread out across the globe and faces a more or less unified front of capital in major international corporate markets. In the abstract we can always say, "labor has the choice to take this job or that, and therefore labor has just as much power as capital"--however anything could be further from the truth as capital has become more concentrated in the hands of a few than ever before and labor has become globally increasingly weaker.

So what is the problem with this model that says that capitalists need labor and labor is free to go or stay therefore it has just as much power; or producers need consumers and consumers can go or stay therefore producers have most of the power? The problem is that it totally ignores the social divisions produced within the capitalist system and the inherent conflicts that come with it as a result of the antithetical distribution of power coupled with the conflicting interests. Allow me to illustrate. A capitalist does not simply need a worker. A capitalist needs a profit and seeks to use a worker in order to get that profit. The worker is a mere means to an ends and is of no real concern of the capitalist and can therefore be manipulated, abused, threatened, starved, payed less and less, given worse working conditions, etc.--just so long as the capitalist can get away with it and make a profit. And I think that even you, Eran, will admit that capitalism has been ridden with conflicts between labor and capitalists.

There is a similar conflict between capitalists and consumers (who are also workers!). Capitalists seek to gain more surplus value from consumption, and they will do whatever it takes in order to accomplish that goal. So, for instance, massive marketing campaigns are utilized, which (ironically) do everything except trying to sell a product based on its own merits. Instead techniques, sometimes subtle (such as "priming" in a movie) and sometimes blatant ("drink this and have sex!"), are employed and strategically used depending on the demographic in order both to produce wants and to get people to buy things. A capitalist is not necessarily thinking, "I've got such a great product that I think reasonable people would be able to use." A capitalist is thinking, "I've got some stuff that I think I can get consumers (workers) to spend their money on, whether or not they need it. And if not, I have the means to make stuff that I can get people to buy, whether or not they need it or want it." Moreover, products, like capital, can be moved from place to place at a drop of a hat. If the standard of consumption is higher in one country (or region), products can be moved to a different country where higher quality is not required--thus creating more surplus value for the capitalist. Credit also comes into play, as borrowing money for interest is a market in and of itself encouraging workers to continue to consume and consume and consume--even though they are economically weaker and weaker and weaker (for instance, people who go bankrupt ironically often get more credit card deals). At any rate, there clearly is no black and white picture where consumers simply have all the power. There is conflict, and that makes a much more dynamic and socially divisive picture than you are willing to describe.

[Someone5]

I was thinking specifically about consumer products.

Obviously, if you run a production line (or other sensitive operations), you would be well advised to keep spare components at hand.

"If you live in a flood plain, you would be well advised to build your home on stilts." People don't always follow sensible advice. Neither do corporations.

Overall, modern production lines run at higher capacities (less down-time) than those of the past.

Eh, more like there are a greater number of suppliers to make up for delays in any particular facility.

[Eran]

Producers do not simply "cater" to consumer preferences--they also manufacture consumer preferences and limit them.

Of course individual procedures try to impact consumer preferences. But they do so against competitive attempt by other producers (and non-producers like governments and non-profit organisations) to impact consumer preferences in their own direction.

Possibly the strongest brand in the world - Coca Cola, failed miserably to "manufacture" consumer preference for New Coke. Microsoft today appears to be failing, despite an incredibly strong market position, to "manufacture" consumer preference for Windows 8. To give just two examples. More generally, turnover in the corporate world is a clear proof that even the strongest corporations are unable to "manufacture" enough consumer preference to keep themselves alive.

And, by the way, there is nothing particular to corporations in attempting to influence consumer choice. All organisations do, including labour unions, environmental advocacy groups and, of course (and with much more power) governments.

As for limiting consumer choice, this is exclusively government privilege. No corporation can stop its competitors from offering alternatives to its products (though many would love to) without relying on their friends in government.

We can take an example also from the conflict between labor and capital: there is also little doubt that most capitalists need labor, nevertheless labor--particularly today--has little power against capital.

This entire "labour vs. capital" argument is completely off. First, "capital" isn't a person or even a group of people. It is a label for productive resources. It has no will, interests, or even power. You might as well talk about "labour vs. steel", or "management vs. electricity".

Second, your are confusing capital owners, management, capitalists and entrepreneurs, all different (and simplistically grouped as "capitalists"). More often than not, an entrepreneur "hires" both capital (in the form of a bank loan) and labour. In many small companies, labour is management, whereas "capital" is hired.

Third, labour has exactly as much power as management, seeing as they both need each other, and both have significant range of alternative opportunities. In specific cases, an individual labourer may have more or less options open to them.

Finally, legislation is vastly biased in favour of labour. Individual workers are always at liberty to leave their place of employment for any (or no) reason. But most countries have rules that severely restrict the similar freedom of the employer to terminate the employment relationship.

The main problem for labour isn't being exploited by employers directly, but rather having their alternative productive options (primarily for self-employment or starting a small business) curtailed through government regulation, often at the behest of employers.

capital has become more concentrated in the hands of a few than ever before

This is totally false. People wishing to hire capital have literally hundreds of banks and various funds to choose from. If you are worried about concentration of power, "capital" isn't the place to look. Government is.

The problem is that it totally ignores the social divisions produced within the capitalist system and the inherent conflicts that come with it as a result of the antithetical distribution of power coupled with the conflicting interests.

What social divisions? I don't know that it was ever possible, but today, it is certainly impossible to even tell which person is "labour" and which is a "capitalist". Not only do those people not belong to different social divisions, they routinely change roles through their careers. A man might start as an inexperienced worker, later start his own little business, perhaps subsequently get hired as middle management, and end his career living off a retirement portfolio - i.e. become a pure "capitalist".

A capitalist does not simply need a worker. A capitalist needs a profit and seeks to use a worker in order to get that profit. The worker is a mere means to an ends and is of no real concern of the capitalist and can therefore be manipulated, abused, threatened, starved, payed less and less, given worse working conditions, etc.--just so long as the capitalist can get away with it and make a profit.

A worker does not simply need a job. A worker needs a salary and seeks to use an employer in order to get that salary. The employer is a mere means to an end, and if of no real concern of the worker and can therefore be manipulated, abused, threatened, given less and less work, or perform work of lower and lower quality, etc.--just so long as the worker can get away with it and earn his salary.

A consumer does not simply need a supermarket. A consumer needs food and seeks to use a supermarket in order to get that food. The supermarket is a mere means to an end, and if of no real concern of the consumer and can therefore be manipulated, abandoned, paid less and less, etc.--just so long as the consumer can get away with it and get his food.

In fact, the worker cannot be paid less and less, or given worse working conditions, because the worker can always leave. And in fact, workers are being paid more and more, and work under better and better conditions because of that.

And I think that even you, Eran, will admit that capitalism has been ridden with conflicts between labor and capitalists.

Every system has some conflicts. My marriage has conflicts. My relations with my parents and children have conflicts. So what?

By and large, capitalism has been an incredibly successful system from the perspective of workers.

Just consider - the holy grail of politicians and workers alike is JOBS. What is a "job"? It is an opportunity for a worker to convert his labour to a useful, desirable product (private sector jobs, that is). And while (particularly in an unregulated market) workers can certainly convert their labour to products (including services) without an employer, most workers (for a very good reason) find what an employer has to offer - a job - to be very valuable.

Now normal people, when offered a very valuable thing, tend to be grateful and appreciative. Most workers, indeed, tend to be grateful and appreciative of being offered a job.

A capitalist is thinking, "I've got some stuff that I think I can get consumers (workers) to spend their money on, whether or not they need it.

Indeed. But not whether they want it or not. A capitalist (actually, an entrepreneur, whether or not he actually owns any capital!) is at the complete mercy of his consumers. At any moment and for any reason (without even owing him an explanation), consumers can decide they no longer want his product, and years of work can go down the drain.

A consumer always has a wide range of options (again, setting aside the effect of government compulsion) to choose between. Consumers shamelessly play producers and retailers against each other. Shopping around for the best possible deal. Sometimes negotiating, sometimes simply abandoning their previous supplier.

And if not, I have the means to make stuff that I can get people to buy, whether or not they need it or want it."

Please explain what means are available to capitalist to get people to buy stuff they don't want, and why so many corporations fail so miserably in getting people to buy their stuff that they go out of business.

Moreover, products, like capital, can be moved from place to place at a drop of a hat.

Very few products can be moved "at a drop of a hat". Some products (houses, for example) cannot be moved at all. Some (personal services) can only be moved at great expense.

If the standard of consumption is higher in one country (or region), products can be moved to a different country where higher quality is not required--thus creating more surplus value for the capitalist.

But also where prices that can be charged off consumers are lower, often causing a previously profitable line of production to become unprofitable.

More generally, you make it sound like it is easy to make a profit by being a capitalist. In fact, it is very difficult (which is precisely why the services of a successful entrepreneur are so handsomely rewarded).

Credit also comes into play, as borrowing money for interest is a market in and of itself encouraging workers to continue to consume and consume and consume--even though they are economically weaker and weaker and weaker (for instance, people who go bankrupt ironically often get more credit card deals).

This is absurd. Nobody makes money by lending to people who cannot repay the loan.

There is conflict, and that makes a much more dynamic and socially divisive picture than you are willing to describe.

As I mentioned above, there is conflict (or, at least, potential conflict) in every single human relationship. However, unlike relationships based on force (e.g. between government and its subjects), relationships based on voluntary cooperation (such as between producer and consumer, or between employer and employee) are always beneficial (a-priori, from the subjective perspective of the participants).

[anticlimacus]

And, by the way, there is nothing particular to corporations in attempting to influence consumer choice.

Of course they do. But there is a difference between attempting to convince another party based on the merits of a product, an idea, a system, etc. and simply not talking about the idea, product, system, etc. at all (except by name, perhaps) and appealing to some other desire (sex, popularity, wealth, etc.). Corporations are rarely selling products, they are spending billions of dollars trying to sell various urges wrapped up in their products.

This entire "labour vs. capital" argument is completely off. First, "capital" isn't a person or even a group of people. It is a label for productive resources. It has no will, interests, or even power. You might as well talk about "labour vs. steel", or "management vs. electricity".

Second, your are confusing capital owners, management, capitalists and entrepreneurs, all different (and simplistically grouped as "capitalists"). More often than not, an entrepreneur "hires" both capital (in the form of a bank loan) and labour. In many small companies, labour is management, whereas "capital" is hired.

Third, labour has exactly as much power as management, seeing as they both need each other, and both have significant range of alternative opportunities. In specific cases, an individual labourer may have more or less options open to them.

Finally, legislation is vastly biased in favour of labour. Individual workers are always at liberty to leave their place of employment for any (or no) reason. But most countries have rules that severely restrict the similar freedom of the employer to terminate the employment relationship.

The main problem for labour isn't being exploited by employers directly, but rather having their alternative productive options (primarily for self-employment or starting a small business) curtailed through government regulation, often at the behest of employers.

Capital is money put into a commodity for the production of more money (surplus value). It can be frozen (i.e. banks and corporations sitting on capital because of the state of the economy), it can be contracted--what makes it capital is that its sole purpose, it's raison d'etre, is to produce surplus value.

Capital gets personified in capitalism because it is the essence of the system--the accumulation of capital. Capitalism is a system. As a system it takes a life of its own, it runs itself. Capitalists are not free from it anymore than workers. Actually, capitalists are less free from the logic of accumulation because they never resist it.

I'm not confusing capitalists, management, etc. What makes you say that?

I'm not sure what you mean by labor having as much power as management. For, although I've never seen that to be the case, what I said was that labor has a disproportionate relation to capital, where it is dominated by capital.

And legislation is not vastly in favor of labor. Labor, in wealthy capitalist countries like the US, is weaker now that it has been since before the Great Depression--and in other parts of the world labor has little to no rights at all. The US government has sided with capital in most of the major battles between labor and capital over the past forty years. The US cannot even get EFCA discussed in the public sphere let alone passed, which would really be a push forward for labor to unionize. Instead, we see unions continually being busted. So I'm not sure what grounds we have to say that legislation favors labor.

The main problem for labor right now is that they are dominated by capital. They have little to no power to unionize, capital is more concentrated, wages continue to stagnate, and capital continues to become freer to go where it pleases. One thing you are correct about is that our current state of corporate capitalism has infiltrated the government--which is often little more than a tool for capital, at the its wielders behest.

This is totally false. People wishing to hire capital have literally hundreds of banks and various funds to choose from. If you are worried about concentration of power, "capital" isn't the place to look. Government is.

The distribution of wealth and power is thoroughly concentrated in the hands of a very small few, and I think this is undeniable. Corporate wealth is also thoroughly concentrated in the hands of a few--often they are both part of the same group. The government in our current phase of capitalism is little more than an operative of its corporate donors. In other words, it too is controlled by capital.

What social divisions?

See the above comment. But you honestly cannot imagine any social divisions within the history of capitalism?--let own today when inequality is at historically high levels?

A worker does not simply need a job. A worker needs a salary and seeks to use an employer in order to get that salary. The employer is a mere means to an end, and if of no real concern of the worker and can therefore be manipulated, abused, threatened, given less and less work, or perform work of lower and lower quality, etc.--just so long as the worker can get away with it and earn his salary.

A consumer does not simply need a supermarket. A consumer needs food and seeks to use a supermarket in order to get that food. The supermarket is a mere means to an end, and if of no real concern of the consumer and can therefore be manipulated, abandoned, paid less and less, etc.--just so long as the consumer can get away with it and get his food.

In fact, the worker cannot be paid less and less, or given worse working conditions, because the worker can always leave. And in fact, workers are being paid more and more, and work under better and better conditions because of that.

Everything is correct, and describes the inherent conflicts within capitalism (the division between capital, which seeks self-expansion, and labor which works against capital for its own well-being), except for the last part. Workers can be paid less and less, and often are--and their working conditions can be made as bad as possible--and they often are. The mere formality of being able to leave does not necessitate the substantive capacity to do so. Also capital has a much easier time with flight than labor--and it has historically used this leverage against labor.

Every system has some conflicts

Sure. But not every system necessitates conflict as its structure--capitalism does. We also have to be careful not to conflate issues. A friendship or marriage is no the same thing as an economic system. The random conflict between conflicting interests is not the same thing as systemic conflicts inherent in the system that always play out in various degrees depending on context.

By and large, capitalism has been an incredibly successful system from the perspective of workers.

Historically, workers have not wanted to leave their capacity to provide subsistence for themselves. Historically they have had to be forced to do so.

What is a "job"? It is an opportunity for a worker to convert his labour to a useful, desirable product (private sector jobs, that is).

No. A job for professionals is an opportunity. A job for workers is a monotonous and continuous giving of oneself to the orders of management, employers, and ultimately to capital for its own self-expansion. A job, for most, is slavery without the whip--a necessity because people don't have the resources to live without dependence upon alienated capital.

Please explain what means are available to capitalist to get people to buy stuff they don't want, and why so many corporations fail so miserably in getting people to buy their stuff that they go out of business.

What do you mean what means? They control all the capital! Corporations go out of business for a multitude of reasons, sometimes because of crises within capitalism, sometimes because of competition and domination by bigger corporations (which are also trying to manipulate consumers and produce wants), sometimes it is because capital has effectively monopolized such as in our current stage of capitalism. Needless to say, it rarely has to do with the power of consumers.

This is absurd. Nobody makes money by lending to people who cannot repay the loan.

I'm sorry to say--but capitalism is absurd. This is a fact, and it in fact is desired by capitalists--the more payments you miss, the more you will have to pay later in interest and the more dependent you will become on the capitalist, i.e. the more labor be exploited.

unlike relationships based on force (e.g. between government and its subjects), relationships based on voluntary cooperation (such as between producer and consumer, or between employer and employee) are always beneficial (a-priori, from the subjective perspective of the participants).

When capitalism is not busy using explicit all out force to exploit labor, it is busy using what Marx called the "silent force of the market" to exploit labor. It's a famous criticism of capitalism (not coined by Marx, but by the early anarchists) that what capitalism gives formally (freedom), it precludes substantively.

[Eran]

Of course they do. But there is a difference between attempting to convince another party based on the merits of a product, an idea, a system, etc. and simply not talking about the idea, product, system, etc. at all (except by name, perhaps) and appealing to some other desire (sex, popularity, wealth, etc.). Corporations are rarely selling products, they are spending billions of dollars trying to sell various urges wrapped up in their products.

As do, for example, political parties and environmental groups (remember those Polar Bear pictures?)

Each of those organisations try to influence people's behaviour, and appealing to emotions is the most effective way of doing that.

Capital is money put into a commodity for the production of more money (surplus value). It can be frozen (i.e. banks and corporations sitting on capital because of the state of the economy), it can be contracted--what makes it capital is that its sole purpose, it's raison d'etre, is to produce surplus value.

Capital is resources put into capital assets for the purpose of improving the production process. It cannot be frozen - when financial resources are held in unproductive forms they aren't capital yet, but merely reserve resources. And yes, the purpose of capital investments is making the production process more efficient (which, in turn, allows higher wages, lower prices and, in the short-term, higher profits).

Capital gets personified in capitalism because it is the essence of the system--the accumulation of capital. Capitalism is a system. As a system it takes a life of its own, it runs itself. Capitalists are not free from it anymore than workers. Actually, capitalists are less free from the logic of accumulation because they never resist it.

Capital is no more the essence of the system than is any other resource used in the production process. There is no difference between capital, labour, land, marketing, quality assurance, reputation, management, etc.

If there is a "raison d'etre" it is profits, not capital. Profits are re-invested only to the extent that doing so is deemed to support future profitability. That is why, for example, Apple isn't investing its past profits as capital - it doesn't see sufficient benefit in doing so. Additional profits can also be used to hire more labour, buy more land (or land services) or invest in additional marketing, QA, etc. In every case, decision-makers (management/owners) decide whether to reinvest past profits (or borrowed capital), and if so, where.

I'm not confusing capitalists, management, etc. What makes you say that?

Because you first personify capital (why not land, for example?) and then posit an inherent conflict between personified productive resources and labour, as if there is a conflict between machines and people. When you personify capital, you call it "capitalists" even though, technically, conflicts are between workers and management, rarely share-holders (the actual capitalists).

And legislation is not vastly in favor of labor. Labor, in wealthy capitalist countries like the US, is weaker now that it has been since before the Great Depression--and in other parts of the world labor has little to no rights at all.

True, legislation isn't quite as pro-labour as it used to be, but it still is. The bottom line is that in the relation between employee and employer, the former can decide to terminate the relation at will, while the latter is bound by a web of regulations. The former are allowed to unionise while the latter are bound by anti-trust legislation. Even on the question of unionization, union advocates can lobby as they wish, while employers are forced to remain silent.

Labour in other parts of the world have the only right that matters - the right to quit. That, after all, is also the only right employers have - to terminate the employment relationship.

The US cannot even get EFCA discussed in the public sphere let alone passed, which would really be a push forward for labor to unionize. Instead, we see unions continually being busted. So I'm not sure what grounds we have to say that legislation favors labor.

EFCA ("Employee Free Choice Act") is mislabeled. Employees have always had free choice - they could always decide not to work except under terms negotiated by their union. The employers, of course, no longer have the same free choice.

Compare EFCA to a law that would prohibit supermarkets selling to individual consumers, and requiring them to sell exclusively to consumer unions, based on a majority vote of consumers living within the area of the supermarket. Would you call such a law the "Consumer Free Choice Act"? Of course not. Consumers have free choice when they can buy from the supermarket of their choice. Employees would have greater choice without all that labour legislation, which takes away the choice of individual workers to negotiate with employers on their own.

The distribution of wealth and power is thoroughly concentrated in the hands of a very small few, and I think this is undeniable.

The relevant operational question is whether any such concentration impedes the ability of people who so desire to obtain the capital required for their projects. The answer is obviously not - if you have a credible project for using capital, you can choose amongst hundreds of institutions (banks and various types of funds) that compete for the privilege of handing you their money to use as capital.

But you honestly cannot imagine any social divisions within the history of capitalism?--let own today when inequality is at historically high levels?

Every society has some social divisions. Slavery and feudal societies had them, of course, but so have socialist ones (we shouldn't, of course, be fooled by the fact that those divisions couldn't find a voice in totalitarian states). Social divisions today are probably lower than they have ever been, going along with greater social mobility than ever in history.

Workers can be paid less and less, and often are--and their working conditions can be made as bad as possible--and they often are.

But as a matter of fact (rather than theoretical potential), labour until capitalism is being paid more and more, and their working conditions are getting better and better. Labour is better off now than it has ever been under capitalism, and better off under capitalism than under any other system of production (including socialism).

But not every system necessitates conflict as its structure--capitalism does.

No, it doesn't. The most common state of affairs under capitalism is one in which labour and management/owners (I am still confused as to which one is "capital") happily cooperate. Only under free-markets are all interactions guaranteed to be mutually beneficial (as all interactions are voluntary). In any other system the potential (often realised) for coercion means that many transactions are win-lose, rather than win-win.

Please explain why conflicts are more systematically part of capitalism than in any other system of production (you pick your favourite system, from hunter-gatherers to state socialism to syndicalism).

Historically, workers have not wanted to leave their capacity to provide subsistence for themselves.

Historically, workers have shifted from one employer to another on a regular basis. They changed jobs within an industry, changed occupation, became self-employed, or moved to other countries. The one things workers have never done, btw, is move from capitalist to socialist societies. Never.

What do you mean what means? They control all the capital!

You wrote: " A capitalist is thinking, ... I have the means to make stuff that I can get people to buy, whether or not they need it or want it."
I am asking you to explain how a capitalist (who, by definition, controls the capital, but nothing else) can get people to buy stuff they do not want.

Needless to say, it rarely has to do with the power of consumers.

Actually, there are only two reasons a corporation can go out of business. Either because government prohibits it from doing business (not very common) or because consumers decide to stop buying its products.

No corporation has ever gone out of business for any other reason. Competition and domination by larger (and often smaller - the largest corporations die as well) corporations is also down to consumer choice - the "winning" corporation wins because consumers choose to buy its products.

the more payments you miss, the more you will have to pay later in interest

Unless, of course, you are unable to pay, in which case your lender has lost.

When capitalism is not busy using explicit all out force to exploit labor, it is busy using what Marx called the "silent force of the market" to exploit labor. It's a famous criticism of capitalism (not coined by Marx, but by the early anarchists) that what capitalism gives formally (freedom), it precludes substantively.

Please tell me which production system gives more choice to workers than capitalism. Under slavery and feudalism, workers are bound to their profession and employer under threat of violence. Under socialism, more often than not, the same holds.

Only under capitalism do you see workers routinely change jobs, professions or even (to use your terminology) social class (e.g. by becoming self-employed).

[anticlimacus]

As do, for example, political parties and environmental groups (remember those Polar Bear pictures?)

Each of those organisations try to influence people's behaviour, and appealing to emotions is the most effective way of doing that.

Pictures of polar bears to illustrate the effects of global warming--even if exaggerated--is different from a commercial of, say, a car driving to the moon with a lady in a bikini drinking a Budweiser. What, at all, does that have to do with the beer? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that other organizations do not also attempt to manipulate--that was not the point. We are not talking about what other systems do, we are talking about what corporations under capitalism do, and that is certainly not simply a matter of "catering to consumer preferences". What I'm pointing out by referencing such commercials and all kinds of various marketing strategies is that, far from a simple benign "catering to consumer preferences", corporations are much more aggressive and active in creating preferences and markets within which they can manufacture consumers. They do this not only through massive advertising campaigns and other manipulative strategies, but market techniques, such as pulling products (even if people still want them!) so that people will eventually be forced to buy new products.

Capital is resources put into capital assets for the purpose of improving the production process. It cannot be frozen - when financial resources are held in unproductive forms they aren't capital yet, but merely reserve resources. And yes, the purpose of capital investments is making the production process more efficient (which, in turn, allows higher wages, lower prices and, in the short-term, higher profits).

I find this rather semantic. "Capital is a resource put into capital assets..." is redundant and presupposes a definition of capital. If it makes you feel better call it "reserve resources"--just so long as you don't skip over the fact that they are reserved precisely for creating surplus value, i.e. for making a profit (which is what capital does!). If they don't do this, eventually, there will no longer be a business. This is why we call it capital: these are all the means for producing profit. The fact that these means are doing that suggests that there is a current problem in the economic system (and today there is), not that these means have become something else.

Capital is no more the essence of the system than is any other resource used in the production process. There is no difference between capital, labour, land, marketing, quality assurance, reputation, management, etc.

This is why it's important to understand that the resources used in the production process, for the purposes of creating profit, are capital--the money put into the production for making a profit, which then, in part, goes back into the production process for making a profit.

If there is a "raison d'etre" it is profits, not capital. Profits are re-invested only to the extent that doing so is deemed to support future profitability.

Here you make my point: profits are re-invested...to support future profitability . The fact that there is reserve capital does not change this fact. What is it reserved for? For supporting future profitability. What is "profitability"? It is the money that is to be re-invested to support future profitability.

Additional profits can also be used to hire more labour, buy more land (or land services) or invest in additional marketing, QA, etc. In every case, decision-makers (management/owners) decide whether to reinvest past profits (or borrowed capital), and if so, where.

All of which goes towards creating surplus value, i.e. profit-- the very condition of capital accumulation. What you describe above is nothing more than the expansion of capital. The more profitable a company becomes, the more capital it accumulates, that is until it overaccumulates and has to contract.

Because you first personify capital (why not land, for example?) and then posit an inherent conflict between personified productive resources and labour, as if there is a conflict between machines and people. When you personify capital, you call it "capitalists" even though, technically, conflicts are between workers and management, rarely share-holders (the actual capitalists).

I personify capital because capital is the essence of the system. It's self-accumulation is its driving force. I do not personify land, because land by itself is "land". In a social system it might be personified as "The land of Nod" (in a nationalist or religious system), and Nod speaks for the land. Among other conflicts in the capitalist system, the most famous is that between capitalists (whoever they are at the particular historical time) and non-capitalists. This is precisely because they work against each other--capitalists to exploit non-capitalists for profit, and non-capitalists to resist exploitation. "Machines" are only capital, in capitalism, to the extent that they are the means to producing profit. It is that logic--Money invested for Commodity production for the creation of more Money (Thus the circuit M-C-M as the core of capitalist production)--which alienates labor from the means of production. That is the logic of Capital. A capitalist is somebody whose primary objective is profit, and thus the accumulation of capital, by, in one way or another, controlling the production process. He/she therefore is personified capital, because it is capital that he/she serves and acts on its behalf. Without the capitalist, we would not have capitalism. Management, generally speaking, works on the behalf of capitalists--that is when they are not the capitalists themselves. The fact that workers have conflicts with management is a result of the power structure creating through capitalism, where workers are to receive orders for the production of profit. Management, like the drill-sargent, merely oversees this process. Clearly there are several distinctions to make, and I believe I have made them elsewhere, but I don't think I've confused these different functions.

EFCA ("Employee Free Choice Act") is mislabeled. Employees have always had free choice - they could always decide not to work except under terms negotiated by their union. The employers, of course, no longer have the same free choice.

EFCA does not take away that free choice. Instead it makes it real. Currently, employers have all the advantage in curbing the formation of unions--hence their dramatic decline in the US. EFCA would change that and make it easier for workers who want to unionize to actually do that. What free choice don't employers have?

Compare EFCA to a law that would prohibit supermarkets selling to individual consumers, and requiring them to sell exclusively to consumer unions, based on a majority vote of consumers living within the area of the supermarket. Would you call such a law the "Consumer Free Choice Act"? Of course not. Consumers have free choice when they can buy from the supermarket of their choice. Employees would have greater choice without all that labour legislation, which takes away the choice of individual workers to negotiate with employers on their own.

Why would I make such a comparison? It doesn't make any sense. Now I am not against consumer unions, which seeks to protect consumers through testing products and informing the public. But employers do not hire unions anymore than individual supermarkets sell to unions. They hire employees who gain certain rights and more bargaining ground by being in a union. Otherwise, we are talking about the full force of Capital against the divided and fragmented forces of individual labor. Of course, however, it pisses the capitalist (and libertarians) off that that unions make it more difficult for them to exploit workers. This is beginning to sound like the whole basic conflict inherent in capitalism...

But as a matter of fact (rather than theoretical potential), labour until capitalism is being paid more and more, and their working conditions are getting better and better. Labour is better off now than it has ever been under capitalism, and better off under capitalism than under any other system of production (including socialism).

In some places this is true, although it always vacillates: labor in the US is not nearly as strong as it was fifty years ago. Labor under capitalism becomes dominated by capital. Thus the production capacity goes to the ends of capital accumulation. This creates pockets of wealth, and massive pockets of destitute poverty as well. It can lead to wars and even environmental catastrophe. I don't think this all spells out a better quality of life than ever before for labor, which would much rather produce under its own circumstances without being controlled.

No, it doesn't. The most common state of affairs under capitalism is one in which labour and management/owners (I am still confused as to which one is "capital") happily cooperate.

Yes, and the most common state of affairs when the lion is eating the gazelle is the gazelle "happily" laying there motionless, resigned to its fate. I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that labor and capitalists are most often happily cooperating, working hand in hand like peas in a pod. A capitalist is the owner of the means of production, or one who controls the means of production. A manager can be a capitalist or an employee, it doesn't matter.

Please explain why conflicts are more systematically part of capitalism than in any other system of production (you pick your favourite system, from hunter-gatherers to state socialism to syndicalism).

A hunter-gatherer society can often be fairly egalitarian. But I don't think it would come as any surprise that much of the dynamism of capitalism is the predication of the conflict between labor and capital--that capital must seek its own self-expansion, which comes at the expense of labor.

Historically, workers have shifted from one employer to another on a regular basis. They changed jobs within an industry, changed occupation, became self-employed, or moved to other countries. The one things workers have never done, btw, is move from capitalist to socialist societies. Never.

Workers, in fact, have fought to change their economic system away from capitalism--many times. Mobility of workers is relative and depends, usually, on their economic capacities. As I have mentioned before, this is an advantage capital has over labor: it's mobility is a thousand times that of labor.

I am asking you to explain how a capitalist (who, by definition, controls the capital, but nothing else) can get people to buy stuff they do not want.

Through marketing, through market manipulation, by keeping non-capitalists from self-subsistence, and more dependent upon the market to be consumers. Just because they are not putting a gun to your head does not mean that can't get consumers to buy their crap.

Unless, of course, you are unable to pay, in which case your lender has lost.

Credit card companies are multi-billion dollar organizations--I don't think they are losing much. At any rate, there are limits to how often you can file for bankruptcy. More often than not you get left in increasingly heavy debt to your lender for years--and that's even if the only debt you are paying off is interest and fees and interest on fees!

Please tell me which production system gives more choice to workers than capitalism.

Syndicalism and mutualism give workers, substantially more choice that capitalism. It is predicated on the means of production being socially controlled allowing communities and workers to decide what they will produce and how they will produce in consistency with their own values.