How do you free your life from capitalism?

quote:

---

Proaxiom: When I see someone talk about "freedom of compulsory markets" as an objective for those who don't like capitalism, I realize I'm not current in my definitions.

---

I think that's "freedom from compulsory markets" as an objection to capitalism. Sorry for being a spelling zealot and all, but let's be precise. I think, earlier in this thread, I tried to briefly outline that capitalism can be characterized by markets that are [i]compulsory[/i]. In particular, it doesn't matter whether you run a firm, and need raw materials, workers, and capital assets (factories, plants, etc.) or if you're just selling your own hide, you're still obliged to participate in the markets for these things. [i]You can't get away from them.[/i]

It's also pretty important to explain how it is that it came about that some people had nothing but themselves to sell and came to be obliged to sell themselves to the factory owners in exchange for a wage.

Again, this is history, not a thought experiment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]What's the difference between a capitalist and a free-market economy?[/b]

---

A truly free market economy would necessitate a balancing of power between workers and employers with a democratically-elected government acting as referee or iow's, free labour markets as opposed to captive labour markets where governments are really hirelings of big business and tipping the balance in favour of employers and capital.

I believe free markets can't exist where big business monpolies are the rule. If they become too big, they might as well be nationalised along with the profits for all the competition they've eliminated through predatory practices.

And there are some areas of our mixed economies(since the 1930's) which are natural monopolies and competition cannot exist or probably should not exist, like electricial power generation and distribution, water and sewers, education, health care, and several more areas important to vital functioning of civilized society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]

A truly free market economy would necessitate a balancing of power between workers and employers with a democratically-elected government acting as referee or iow's, free labour markets as opposed to captive labour markets where governments are really hirelings of big business and tipping the balance in favour of employers and capital.

[/b]

---

The very existence of "workers" and "employer" is the problem as far as I'm concerned. I don't see how their power can be balanced or how labour markets can be free as long as you have these two classes. And I object to the notion of a "labour market".

But, then again, as people have pointed out, I'm unfashionable and I dress funny [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]It's a contradiction to say state involvement is necessary for a free market, because the state can only constrain people's economic choices, which is the opposite of any normal definition of 'free'.
[/b]

---

You don't think capitalism constrains people's economic choices?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]
But 'free' in this sense tends to mean free of coercion by other actors. It seems that any system designed around a coercive entity -- even a benevolent one -- can't accurately be termed 'free'. I didn't say anything about capitalism except asking for a clarification of how it differs as an economic system from a free market economy.[/b]

---

Yes, I took it in that sense. But if you don't want to clarify your presuppositions, I'm not going to try to coerce you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]A fundamental difference in this regard, that can hardly be over-emphasized, is that Marxists view capital as a [i]social relation[/i] and not simply as a "thing". For example, owning a plant makes no sense unless I can command some workers to work at that plant. This ability to direct "free" labourers (i.e., workers that have to find some job somewhere) is a social power over others. This aspect of the definition is completely lacking in orthodox defintions of capital; the social power is assumed and taken for granted.[/b]

---

I'm not sure the social power is necessarily coupled with the economic mechanism. It exists so long as labour is abundant relative to capital, but if you reverse that -- so that there are a lot of factory owners, and not enough workers to work in them -- then the workers would indeed have power over the factory owners.

quote:

---

[b]Markets became capitalist when they became compulsory (in the view I am defending).[/b]

---

Again, is this in contrast to earlier 'opt-out' economic systems? Can you give an example of such?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Perhaps socialists should have a slogan something like, "Destroy the markets!" Heh. It's an interesting concept.

---

Then what?

Trade between governments is okay, but not between people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]I don't share Fidel's views as expressed here very much at all. This idea of the state as a neutral arbiter of conflicting social classes is, to my mind, a fairy tale which is, unfortunately, subscribed to by masses of people.[/b]

---

Oh I think it's a fairy tale, too. I was just trying to provide an answer to Proaxiom's question.

At the end of a sixteen year-long experiment in nouveau Liberal capitalism in 180's Chile, his peers said Milton Friedman's economics and democracy are incompatible. And further, bombing Iraq and then writing Iraqi energy policies in Houston Texas is neither democratic nor free and fair. Shock doctrinaire capitalism or socialism? Nouveau mafia supplies the muscle and neoLiberalizers the moxy, hand-in-glove.

quote:

---

Proaxiom: In the feudal system people were compelled to either grow their own food, build their own houses, and make their own clothes, or if they chose not to, then they had to provide some other good or service and trade for those things. Is this any different from today's economy, other than that today very few people choose self-sufficiency?

---

This is a misreading of history. The peasant didn't provide the lord with a cash payment; he provided corn, say, or a portion of a crop. The bulk of economic activity went on [i]outside the market altogether.[/i] Capitalism required the development of markets.

quote:

---

P: I don't think the market mediates all social interactions.

---

The most important activity of people is how they make "a living". That's mediated by the labour market. In order to live, people have to live [b]somewhere.[/b] That's mediated by the housing market, the real estate market. Then they have to feed themselves.

Shall I go on? The market dominates social life as in no other society. It is compulsory. Think of the market as the Borg.

quote:

---

Stephen Gordon: How about thinking of the market as a decentralised, consensual mechanism for arriving at collective decisions?

---

I dunno. One dollar one vote doesn't seem very consensual to me. And we really seem to have so many Global problems that, with the present system, we seem to be rushing headlong to a planetary precipice. I opt for door number 2 even if I'm not completely sure what's behind it.

Time for pizza and beer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]As I mentioned in my remarks to Proaxiom, some talk about "socialist markets". I'm not entirely clear what the hell is meant by that. My gut analysis tells me that markets need to be abolished, not transformed, for socialism to come about. Then you get into chicken and egg debates, much like capitalism and "free" markets in regard to the origin of capitalism itself. Which came first? and so on.[/b]

---

I think markets existed long before Smith and Hume and Locke. Market socialists and socialist intellectuals like Polanyi pointed out how unscientific the model for Liberal capitalism really was back then.

And I think that our choices within any future socialist society have become fewer and fewer with global warming and the overall effect of a globalizing economy organized around corporate balance sheets and short-sightedness of leave it to the market capitalism. Things should have progressed long before they did in the last century. The revolutions should have begun centuries sooner. We would be so much further ahead today if it wasn't for lingering imperialism and now predatory capitalism. We have to ditch this globalized lie that middle class consumerism is attainable for the other 85% of humanity.

I think that as it was during the cold war, socialism's appeal is to deliver the basics to as many people as possible: universal health care - universal education through post-secondary - access to decent housing - the dignity of having a job and participating in the economy. As simple and unremarkable as those things appear to be for some people, the U.S. CIA and Pentagon capitalists knew that those basics couldn't be allowed to get a toe-hold in Latin America and elsewhere out of fear for an idea. They did not want poor people to have the choice between basic socialism and a total lie that promised free markets but delivered cash crop, thirdworld capitalism in reality.

Contrary to popular claims, I think NeoLiberal capitalism has worked to deliver the opposites of those socialist goals, which has been to degrade Canada's socialized health care - create bubble economies and shortages of what we used to take for granted, like enough doctors to go around - increase isolation of people and increasing loneliness, especially for the elderly. Education has become increasingly a right of the well off and those who can afford to pay. We've never really had full-blown laissez-faire capitalism. But it hasn't stopped ideologues from trying it on wherever democracy was overthrown or natural disasters paved the way. The only viable answer to fending off nouveau capitalism is democracy, because they know that people will not choose it knowingly if put to a fair vote or referendum. Ideologues still rely on paternalistic fake demcocracy and one nuclear-powered vicious empire to push their agendas to the forefront. Without the necessary military muscle to enforce their version of free markets, it withers. Capitalism is not a very natural state of affairs if it requires force and a very outdated electoral system to prop it up.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

That's an astonishingly feeble and deeply insulting dodge.

Next time you try that sort of crap on me, I'll feel free to respond in kind.

martin, do go fuck yourself; there's a good troll.

And for the umpteenth time, LTJ decides to participate in a thread for no other reason than to bitch about me.

Colour me surprised.

quote:

---

I propose we think about slave societies in the same way. I'll even propose a slight modification to make it a more palatable: we'll allow slaves to move from master to master. The only proviso is that without a master, they starve.

---

Quite accurate except that capitalism has been quite effective at convincing slaves they are free.

Sam, you're giving too much to the class enemy. Shut the hell up. And delete that last post, will you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Until I see anything that suggests that these measures will actually reduce poverty and inequality, I'm going to dismiss all of the above as a sterile attempt to obtain points for style.[/b]

---

And since this was derailed by your usual disingenuous questions, I'll give you the usual social democratic answer. We don't want to buy too much from countries where the price scales are so vastly different we can't compete against them wage wise. Especially not for items we can produce ourselves. We might pay ten percent more per item but the average shmoe should start asking their politicians how much a ten percent savings on t-shirts or I-pods are worth compared to a ten to one hundred percent loss in wages. In the end it won't help the Chinese either if noone on either side of the ocean can afford them. That wouldn't be far from what Marx predicted, before Keynes stalled the process, except worker solidarity will be harder to build across oceans and nationalities.

That's a longer term struggle though, re the question, I could only say not to worry as much about what to buy if the choices just aren't there, but more about what we can do to change the overall dynamic. Then maybe there'll be better choices for everyone down the road.

[ 21 March 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]