[anticlimacus]

So in the context of "quality is often compromised" the best you can come up with is the financial crisis, demonstrably caused by, and under the noses of, government regulators?

What about consumer products, the actual topic of conversation?

Banks and Financial institutions do offer consumer products, and these were compromised; and so are the major media outlets (Disney, Viacom, News Corp, etc). But fine, so too mass meat production is often compromised without the consumer knowing about it, this includes both how animals are treated in the meat industry and the quality of meat mass produced, which often runs major health risks, such as E Coli. But we could also look at health insurance, another consumable product, whose quality is very suspect. At any rate, the point is I don't think there is any transparent link between making quality products and cutting costs. It's a conflict of interest, and if a major corporation can get away with it, quality will be compromised for the sake of cutting costs.

If the process of electing politicians (the democratic system) is as bad as the capitalist system (in terms of the role of deceitful PR campaigns), what do you have in mind by way of a superior alternative to the current politician-regulated-capitalism?

I am in favor of deliberative democratic processes, particularly as advocated by Habermas, but with institutional means that buttresses deliberation and participation--and part of those means is the socialization of production and democratization of the work place. But deliberative theory reverses the kind of democratic process we currently have which centralizes voting on preferences (regardless of social inequalities and social positions and the choices being offered) over authentic deliberative practice and participation by citizens (which gives consideration to distribution of power, diversity, adequate information, and substantive argumentation as the bases of outcomes).

The standard which you deem "dignified and rightful" isn't deemed as realistic by workers in other countries. In brief, they simply cannot afford this "standard".

How would you respond to a suggestion to raise minimum wage in the US to $250/hour? Or to require that all employers provide employees with 10 weeks of paid vacation a year, with a working week of, at most, 20 hours? Or to insist that all employees should be provided free meals? Those conditions sound great, but do you really think ordinary American workers would benefit from the legislative imposition of such terms?

Yes, but my point was that the inequality in the distribution of power (both globally and locally) is exploited by the system in order to maximize profit. The inequality is both created and necessitated by the capitalist system.

Actually, capitalist production is greatly superior, both in practical and ethical terms, to the democratic (or any other government) practices.

Ethically, the capitalist production is, in principle, entirely voluntary. No person can be forced to work under any terms against his will, nor to spend one penny on products he isn't interested in. By contrast, government rules and regulations apply to all under threat of force.

The authority of authoritarian workplaces is accepted by workers in their voluntary choice of employment. Workers always have alternatives, albeit typically inferior ones, including becoming self-employed, joining other workers in a co-op, moving or taking employment with one of many potential employers. The authority of government leaders (whether democratically elected or not) isn't accepted voluntarily by those subject to it (with the possible exception of immigrants). Rather, it is imposed on anybody wishing to live and work within a large geographical territory.

In practice, in capitalist production, consumers get refined choice of which products they want. They can choose company A for their food purchases, and company B for their electronics. Actually, they can switch suppliers (for most products) every day. In the political system, people can, at best, make one formal choice every few years. They are then stuck with the same political leaders making decisions on a wide range of topics.

Further, consumers who benefit or suffer directly as a result of their own personal consumption choices are much more likely to invest time and energy in making the correct decision (for them) than are voters whose lives are unaffected by their personal choice.

Furthermore, consumers can typically choose between two concrete offerings, often relying on their personal experience, that of friends and family, or a growing range of review and commentary web sites. Voters, by contrast, can either compare promises made by politicians, or compare the actual performance of the outgoing government against a hypothetical, unknowable alternative reality in which the other party was ruling.

Thus in practice, capitalist production provides a much more refined, timely and accurate feedback on popular demand than does the democratic system.


The main argument against capitalist production and in favour of democratic process is that in the latter system we have the famous "one-man-one-vote", while in capitalist production, different people obviously have different means.

But to counter that argument, we must keep in mind what it is that each system purports to control. In the democratic system what is chosen is the government that rules over the entire country. In the capitalist production process, on the other hand, all that is chosen is what each consumer chooses to buy (or worker chooses to sell his labour). Thus a wealthy person's choice in the capitalist production process makes very little difference to a person of lower means. What do I care whether Bill Gates purchases a private jet or not? On the other hand, the choices of complete strangers in the democratic system can radically impact my life, whether I want to or not.

There is a lot here to respond to. But first, we must state that democratic systems need not depend on a centralized government. For instance, anarcho-syndicalism (which I favor), which strongly supports the kind of democratization I've been referencing, is highly critical of centralized government and would rather see a federation of communities without any centralized authority running everything (particularly by the facade of cheap "votes"). Second, it is misleading to suggest that the capitalist system is "voluntary". To be more precise, it is voluntarily only on a formal level--and that is one of the major criticisms, particularly of libertarian ideology. It is precisely the utter and complete neglect of substantive participation and equality that makes the libertarian notion of "voluntary" seem odd (and ahistorical for that matter). It reminds of me St. Augustine's notion of free will: of course we have free will, as fallen beings we can choose any evil act we desire. Well, under the laissez-faire system we can choose any evil we desire (e.g. starve, or submit to wage slavery).

Capitalism offers feedback, relatively quickly, on whether or not a corporation's (or capitalist's) tactics to get people to buy things is working or not. It does not necessarily reflect what people want out of society and whether or not people feel that their communities and their society is going the direction they want it to go. It does not reflect whether or not people feel like they are relevant participants in a society, whether they feel their quality of life is increasing or not, whether or not particular needs (say environmental problems, fairness in the workplace, wages and income stagnation etc.) are being met adequately etc. Market places for buying products is no substitution for a market place within which ideas can be exchanged relevant to people's interests in their everyday lives. This seems like the same kind of fallacious equivalent that people often make between government and business: i.e. the suggestion that the government should be run like a business, even though the two are qualitatively different. Just because business men and women get a good idea of what people will buy (and how to get them to buy certain things), does not mean that everybody is working together in order to produce a better society (directly or indirectly through an "invisible hand"). Rather knowledge is being put to the use of creating more profit for those very same business men and women, regardless of the social outcome.

[Red Barn]

Capitalism offers feedback, relatively quickly, on whether or not a corporation's (or capitalist's) tactics to get people to buy things is working or not. It does not necessarily reflect what people want out of society and whether or not people feel that their communities and their society is going the direction they want it to go.

I agree.

And, ironically enough, it doesn't even provide particularly accurate information on what people actually want in terms of goods and services. It only provides information on what consumers have already selected from among the few available options - which are, of course, determined by the preferences of the capitalist class in the first place.

So, say I want to buy a simple, rugged, easy-to-repair tractor as indestructible as my 1945 Ford. Say every farmer in my entire community wants one of these. Well, tough; every one of us is shit out of luck, because tractors of that type are no longer made - and they're no longer made entirely by design. There's too much profit (in warranties, replacement parts, service fees and in all-new tractors) to make it profitable to produce the kind of machine we actually want, so only less durable, less fixable, more contract-dependent options are available to us.

And this kind of thing happens over and over and over again, in every area from tractors to light bulbs to breakfast cereal.

[anticlimacus]

So, say I want to buy a simple, rugged, easy-to-repair tractor as indestructible as my 1945 Ford. Say every farmer in my entire community wants one of these. Well, tough; every one of us is shit out of luck, because tractors of that type are no longer made - and they're no longer made entirely by design. There's too much profit (in warranties, replacement parts, service fees and in all-new tractors) to make it profitable to produce the kind of machine we actually want, so only less durable, less fixable, more contract-dependent options are available to us.

Well put Red Barn. Istvan Meszaros also talks about this as one of the major mechanisms of waste in the capitalist system: the inner cyclical production of superfluous goods for the sake of making profit, often under the guise of "innovation".

[Rothbardian]

I agree.

And, ironically enough, it doesn't even provide particularly accurate information on what people actually want in terms of goods and services. It only provides information on what consumers have already selected from among the few available options - which are, of course, determined by the preferences of the capitalist class in the first place.

So, say I want to buy a simple, rugged, easy-to-repair tractor as indestructible as my 1945 Ford. Say every farmer in my entire community wants one of these. Well, tough; every one of us is shit out of luck, because tractors of that type are no longer made - and they're no longer made entirely by design. There's too much profit (in warranties, replacement parts, service fees and in all-new tractors) to make it profitable to produce the kind of machine we actually want, so only less durable, less fixable, more contract-dependent options are available to us.

And this kind of thing happens over and over and over again, in every area from tractors to light bulbs to breakfast cereal.

I'm sorry but this strikes me as a tall drink of crazy.

There are currently enormous barriers to entry into the car market. Do you really believe that, with these barriers removed, if an ENTIRE market wanted the same product that there wouldn't be someone willing to sell it to them? Apparently man's greedy nature only exists in your world to the extent that it justifies your preconceived notions.

[Eran]

And, ironically enough, it doesn't even provide particularly accurate information on what people actually want in terms of goods and services. It only provides information on what consumers have already selected from among the few available options - which are, of course, determined by the preferences of the capitalist class in the first place.

Capitalists aren't a class. Every person with any invested savings is a partial capitalist. Most importantly, capitalists are much more likely to compete with each other than to act together as a class.

The role of identifying unmet consumer demands is that of the entrepreneur (not the capitalist). In a free market, entrepreneurs are incentivised to act on identified unmet consumer demands. So while there is no guarantee that such action will take place, it is more likely to (because of the correct incentives and lack of artificial barriers) than under any alternative system.

So, say I want to buy a simple, rugged, easy-to-repair tractor as indestructible as my 1945 Ford. Say every farmer in my entire community wants one of these. Well, tough; every one of us is shit out of luck, because tractors of that type are no longer made - and they're no longer made entirely by design. There's too much profit (in warranties, replacement parts, service fees and in all-new tractors) to make it profitable to produce the kind of machine we actually want, so only less durable, less fixable, more contract-dependent options are available to us.

Warranties cost manufacturers money. A truck maker who created an indestructible tractor would be able to sell them at a higher price, offer longer warranty, and thereby acquire market share away from its competitors. If you are not unique in your preference for old-fashioned reliability, it would be more, not less, profitable to create such a tractor.

It is very possible that you are simply not aware of the various factors that impact such decisions. For example, consumers today might value certain technological innovations which are inherently less robust.

Or perhaps using cheaper materials allows a significant drop in the price of a tractor, and consumers who regularly replace their tractors every 10 years (because of the pace of technological innovations) are unwilling to pay extra for a tractor that will last 20 years.

These are idle speculations, intended merely to illustrate alternative considerations potentially taken by tractor manufacturers.


My main point, however, is that having to choose between available choices is not a peculiar characteristic of the market. It is also a feature of democratic politics. Let's say that 90% of voters want law X to be repealed. If a politician ran with that promise, he would be elected in a landslide. Still, voters have to choose amongst available choices, and if nobody is willing to run on this promise, voter preference is frustrated.

In fact, in a world in which most of us cannot self-produce tractors, there is absolutely no mechanism that will guarantee that your desires as a consumers are, in fact, met. The free market comes closest.

[Nunt]

Say every farmer in my entire community wants one of these. Well, tough; every one of us is shit out of luck, because tractors of that type are no longer made -

You start by assuming arbitrary consumer preferences, and then conclude that your invented consumer preferences are not met in today's market. Well no suprise there! Today's market caters to the actual consumer preferences and not to the consumer preferences you just invented.

Besides, if there is one thing that the market delivers then it is a great variation in products.

[SolarCross]

^^ Exactly right. In Europe we have a number of mass production car maunfacturers and the most successful of these manufacturers is Volkswagen, whose cars carry the well deserved reputation of being reliable, robust, long lasting automobiles...

[anticlimacus]

Capitalists aren't a class. Every person with any invested savings is a partial capitalist. Most importantly, capitalists are much more likely to compete with each other than to act together as a class.

A capitalist's primary function within capitalism is as a vessel of private capital accumulation--their personal compensation (as salary or from the market) is not what makes them a capitalist. Workers (who still have no say over capital regardless of their meager "investments"!) trying to save for their personal retirment through investment is not the same thing as capitalists expanding their capital both by controling the means of production and beneffiting most from the financial capital and using it to expand their capital. It does so happen, however, that capitalists tend to become uber rich while workers become economically less powerful.

As far as capitalists competing with each other, there is nothing new there. A class does not necessarily have to be unified. Traditionally, it is simply defined according to economic position. The capitalist class is defined by their control over capital and the function they have within the capitalist system, i.e. accumulating capital through profit by exploiting labor. Labor also competes, particularly when they are thoroughly dominated by capital and fractured: thus labor in the US competes wiht labor in, say China. This works to the benefit of capitalists. Capitalists competing with each other over control of capital benefits the capitalist class, it does not show weakness in relation to labor.

[Eran]

Workers trying to save for their personal retirment through investment is not the same thing as capitalists expanding their capital both by controling the means of production and beneffiting most from the financial capital and using it to expand their capital.

What's the difference? Workers saving for retirement often invest their funds in the equity of public corporations, with the explicit hope and expectations that this invested capital will be expanded.

The mythical capitalist is a person living off profits from his capital. A retired worker fits this description much better than those actually making important production decisions, people who tend to be hard-working (if senior and well-paid) employees.

[mikema63]

which often runs major health risks, such as E Coli.

I want to comment on this line regarding government regulation of food safety, the government in the US is in the dark ages on this particular issue. They still spot check the meat visually, the company actually does bacterial examinations to test for the presence of E. coli.

The government doesn't modernize well.

[Red Barn]

You start by assuming arbitrary consumer preferences, and then conclude that your invented consumer preferences are not met in today's market. Well no suprise there! Today's market caters to the actual consumer preferences and not to the consumer preferences you just invented.

There's nothing "arbitrary" about my example at all; in fact, it's taken from real life. (We're not all flabby desk jockeys glued to their cell phones, you know.)

Mr Red Barn and I have not one, but two Ford tractors from the 1940s - one kept strictly for parts. We have a mechanical manure spreader from the 1920s, and various rakes and harrows that are a hundred years old.

Ask any small farmer in Maine, and they'll tell you the very same thing: the new stuff is crap in comparison.

[Eran]

I don't share your specific experience with vintage farming equipment.

My personal experience is with ordinary cars, and, without a doubt, modern cars are much more reliable and have much higher quality, safety, features, comfort and efficiency than vintage cars.

The same holds for any type of consumer product I can think of.

[mikema63]

Furniture, most of the pressed cardboard crap they make now breaks within a month.

[Red Barn]

Yes, it does.

Stockings run the first time you wear them. Cheap polyester sweaters pill after three washes. You can barely even find new shoes that can be re-heeled at all.

Or compare a cast iron frying pan that lasts generations with a crappy Teflon skillet that belches toxic fumes. Compare a locally grown tomato with a gassed, refrigerated, supermarket tomato. Compare a skirt made by exhausted Bangladeshi wage slaves in 2012 with a skirt made by the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union in 1966.

Honestly. It's a no-brainer.

[The Clockwork Rat]

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.

[mikema63]

I believe that fashion and design were origionally invented to increase turnover.

[Red Barn]

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.

Pretty much.

I believe that fashion and design were origionally invented to increase turnover.

I think it might be fairer to say that the hugely accelerated turnover rate of fashion and design were invented for this reason.

So instead of fashion and design evolving over generations, and actually expressing something coherent about the culture that produced them, we now have meaningless fashions that exhaust themselves in mere months, and are recycled and regurgitated again and again. That's why it feels like we're living in a PoMo sludge of incoherent style memes that don't actually add up to anything at all.

[anticlimacus]

I believe that fashion and design were origionally invented to increase turnover.

Absolutely--and just look at the entertainment industry too, it's a perfect example of this. New intertainment (particularly movies and music) is produced primarily to increase turnover: The quicker we consume and get boared with, say, one stupid pop song the more quickly we are ready to go crazy over the next. I mean damn...how many "American idols" can we possible have? The more time you have to spend thinking about and digesting your entertaiment (because it was well thought out and very substantive) the less time you are spending money mindlessly on consuming the next entertainment commodity. So much for the "rational consumer"--that's bad for business!

It's everybody jump start
It's every generation throws a hero up the pop charts

[Eran]

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.

Nonsense.

Cars, white appliances, electronic devices, are all much more reliable than they used to be.

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

Rather, consumers are (rationally) unwilling to pay the extra cost associated with a long life product when it is cheap and easy to replace, and when they expect to want to replace it for a higher quality version with more features in just a few years.

Moreover, consumers today have much greater choice. You can still buy a higher-quality, longer-lasting shirt, and pay as much as your parents would have. But today, you also have the option of buying a cheaper alternative.

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

[Nunt]

I agree. I didn't replace my durable consumer goods because they broke. I replaced them because replacements were available at a low cost with much better features.