Why is it?

[ReillyT]

Capitalism is "exploitation" only in the sense of seeking profit. Profit is a powerful motive which leads to lots of progress that winds up actually helping the "proletariat". Just look at the shining example of the United States…our poor are considered rich in other countries....we're not exactly an "exploited" people in the negative sense.

Socialism is more exploitive than capitalism because the state forcibly takes from one to give to another....forced exploitation is far worse than profit-oriented exploitation.

I don't think he is talking about Western European socialism. He is discussing socialism as envisioned by Marx.

Capitalism is exploitative because a small group own the means of production and extract the surplus value of the workers to accumulate capital. That is its function.

Socialism (as envisioned by Marx) would involve the workers owning the means of production themselves and enjoying the profits of that production themselves. There is no need for state redistribution in this model, although presumably there would be some.

However, taking your interpretation of socialism as a starting point, what is normatively worse about exploitation from the state than exploitation from the factory owner? Does the worker feel less pain when the factory owner takes his productivity than when the state does?

I don't disagree that capitalism functions better as a system, but other than that, I don't see one form of exploitation as being any better than another.

I was actually wondering what kind of theoretical model he's referring to that would be implemented after the Marxist revolution....

Marxist communism (or socialism). Marx theorized about a social model after the revolution where the workers own the means of production.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't think he is talking about Western European socialism. He is discussing socialism as envisioned by Marx.

Capitalism is exploitative because a small group own the means of production and extract the surplus value of the workers to accumulate capital. That is its function.

Socialism (as envisioned by Marx) would involve the workers owning the means of production themselves and enjoying the profits of that production themselves. There is no need for state redistribution in this model, although presumably there would be some.

However, taking your interpretation of socialism as a starting point, what is normatively worse about exploitation from the state than exploitation from the factory owner? Does the worker feel less pain when the factory owner takes his productivity than when the state does?

I don't disagree that capitalism functions better as a system, but other than that, I don't see one form of exploitation as being any better than another.

The difference between the two systems is democracy and a free market. When the State is in control there is little freedom. Under capitalism it's one's choice to work for a factory owner. If one doesn't like it, in a free democratic market the factory worker can quit the job and seek or create another job...even start one's own factory. That is far more difficult to do under socialism...which stifles entrepreneurial efforts. So, yes, there is less pain when the factory owner takes his productivity than when the state does.

Marxist communism (or socialism). Marx theorized about a social model after the revolution where the workers own the means of production.

Yet those models have failed time and time again. I thought he had some new model.....why else would people in their right minds continue to pursue socialism?

 

[manifold]

You know how the old saying goes...

If at first you don't succeed, give it up douchbag, it ain't gonna work!

 

[Ravi]

Socialism (as envisioned by Marx) would involve the workers owning the means of production themselves and enjoying the profits of that production themselves. There is no need for state redistribution in this model, although presumably there would be some.

I've never heard it explained quite that way. It actually sounds like a plan. I believe our local Native American tribes run themselves under a similar model and they seem to be thriving, if not well on the way to rolling in dough.

 

[ReillyT]

The difference between the two systems is democracy and a free market. When the State is in control there is little freedom. Under capitalism it's one's choice to work for a factory owner. If one doesn't like it, in a free democratic market the factory worker can quit the job and seek or create another job...even start one's own factory. That is far more difficult to do under socialism...which stifles entrepreneurial efforts. So, yes, there is less pain when the factory owner takes his productivity than when the state does.

Marx would say that the freedom a worker has to choose to work for the factory is largely illusory (and to some extent this is true). Marx thought that capitalism made men into robots or cogs of a machine (more true in his day than ours) and stifled creativity, which would be unleased under a socialist system where workers own the means of production.

Marx (as far as I remember) was no fan of free markets and conceived of central planning, but I don't think he disagreed with the premise of democracy.

I still don't see how having your productivity siphoned off by the state is any better than having your productivity siphoned off by a rich guy (the rather obvious benefits of capitalism aside).

Yet those models have failed time and time again. I thought he had some new model.....why else would people in their right minds continue to pursue socialism?

I agree, but in the defense of his adherents, Marxist socialism has never really been tried. He thought it was the next stage following advanced capitalism (which he thought was also a necessary and progressive stage in development) and would have shrieked that it was attempted in Russia or China, and would have lamented the path that it took.

** I should point out that I have only rudimentary knowledge of Marx. I am pretty sure that all of this is accurate, but Diuretic seems to understand it better than I and may be able to address some of these issues better.

 

[manifold]

I've never heard it explained quite that way. It actually sounds like a plan. I believe our local Native American tribes run themselves under a similar model and they seem to be thriving, if not well on the way to rolling in dough.

I can't tell if humor was your intent, but that's some mighty funny shizzle right there!

 

[ReillyT]

I've never heard it explained quite that way. It actually sounds like a plan. I believe our local Native American tribes run themselves under a similar model and they seem to be thriving, if not well on the way to rolling in dough.

It does sound awful sweet, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work on any large scale, although hippie communes seem quite happy. That could be the pot though.

 

[Ravi]

I can't tell if humor was your intent, but that's some mighty funny shizzle right there!

Why? If it's a choice to group together and own an enterprise and use the profits as you wish, it seems vaguely democratic, IMO. I'm not about to turn into a socialist but I do know that socialism isn't the boogeyman you panty waists think it is...it's never been tried on a country wide scale so it's hard to make a valid judgment on if it works or not.

 

[Ravi]

It does sound awful sweet, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work on any large scale, although hippie communes seem quite happy. That could be the pot though.

T

 

[manifold]

Why? If it's a choice to group together and own an enterprise and use the profits as you wish, it seems vaguely democratic, IMO. I'm not about to turn into a socialist but I do know that socialism isn't the boogeyman you panty waists think it is...it's never been tried on a country wide scale so it's hard to make a valid judgment on if it works or not.

I was hoping to just play the role of board jester today but now you're gonna make me get all seriously and stuff aren't you?

Simple: They enjoy a government protected monopoly on the casino operation. Not exactly a scalable model.

 

[ReillyT]

I was hoping to just play the role of board jester today but now you're gonna make me get all seriously and stuff aren't you?

Simple: They enjoy a government protected monopoly on the casino operation. Not exactly a scalable model.

You just have to crash every party, don't you?

 

[Ravi]

I was hoping to just play the role of board jester today but now you're gonna make me get all seriously and stuff aren't you?

Simple: They enjoy a government protected monopoly on the casino operation. Not exactly a scalable model.

I'm pretty sure ours don't, at least not until very, very recently.

 

[manifold]

You just have to crash every party, don't you?

Yeah, but its all good as long as I'm holdin right?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Marx would say that the freedom a worker has to choose to work for the factory is largely illusory (and to some extent this is true). Marx thought that capitalism made men into robots or cogs of a machine (more true in his day than ours) and stifled creativity, which would be unleased under a socialist system where workers own the means of production.

Marx (as far as I remember) was no fan of free markets and conceived of central planning, but I don't think he disagreed with the premise of democracy.

I still don't see how having your productivity siphoned off by the state is any better than having your productivity siphoned off by a rich guy (the rather obvious benefits of capitalism aside).

Marx never did show how to solve anything in real life.

I understand the illusion and your question. Works both ways however. Workers still work and don't get rich under both systems. At least under democratic free market capitalism there exists an "out" for those with the will and determination. Under socialism/communism no significant "outs" exist.

I agree, but in the defense of his adherents, Marxist socialism has never really been tried. He thought it was the next stage following advanced capitalism (which he thought was also a necessary and progressive stage in development) and would have shrieked that it was attempted in Russia or China, and would have lamented the path that it took.

** I should point out that I have only rudimentary knowledge of Marx. I am pretty sure that all of this is accurate, but Diuretic seems to understand it better than I and may be able to address some of these issues better.

Ah, the elusive utopia of Marxist socialism….gee I wonder why hasn't it appeared by now...it's not from the lack of trying...

It does sound awful sweet, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work on any large scale, although hippie communes seem quite happy. That could be the pot though.

Definitely the pot....the 60s communes by and large are long gone....they failed miserbly.....

 

[mattskramer]

At least under democratic free market capitalism there exists an "out" for those with the will and determination

and are not mentally retarted or severely physically handicapped – or make a few bad mistakes, falling on hard times, and wind up starving to death on the streets.

Under socialism/communism no significant "outs" exist.

Except that those who are incapable of being productive are taken care of through forced wealth redistribution.

Ah, the elusive utopia of Marxist socialism….gee I wonder why hasn't it appeared by now...it's not from the lack of trying...

Definitely the pot....the 60s communes by and large are long gone....they failed miserbly.....

There has never been a full-fledged attempt to create pure socialism at the state level. We do not need to have an attempt at pure socialism. We have just about enough capitalism to encourage productivity and just enough socialism to help those who fall on hard times or who can’t be self-reliant.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There has never been a full-fledged attempt to create pure socialism at the state level. We do not need to have an attempt at pure socialism. We have just about enough capitalism to encourage productivity and just enough socialism to help those who fall on hard times or who can’t be self-reliant.

Then I assume you are voting republican this fall?

 

[mattskramer]

Then I assume you are voting republican this fall?

No. Yet, the Democrats are not calling for absolute socialism in everything. They advocate more socialism than des the Republican Party.

 

[Diuretic]

So what makes you think socialism is the answer?



Why do you equate capitalism with "exploitation" and not socialism?



What "theoretical model" is that?

I think socialism is the answer because when our natural resources aren't as plentiful as they are now that the use of them will have to be based on need and not on exploiting them for profit. That's not a value judgement, I'm not condemning the profit motive because it's worked so far, but when we get to critical stages with our resources we'll have to find another way to use them and hopefully do so in a sustainable manner. Capitalism won't work in that environment. I suppose I'm conscious of this because I can see it happening where I live where water is becoming very scarce and is probably the number one domestic political issue.

By "exploitation" I mean exactly that, taking full value and compensating for only part of the value, eg regarding labour. Capitalism works by exploiting the old idea of surplus value that goes back well before Marx.

The theoretical model is the model developed by Marx and Engels. It's been worked over by others but the original theoretical model is my reference.

 

[Diuretic]

Marx would say that the freedom a worker has to choose to work for the factory is largely illusory (and to some extent this is true). Marx thought that capitalism made men into robots or cogs of a machine (more true in his day than ours) and stifled creativity, which would be unleased under a socialist system where workers own the means of production.

Marx (as far as I remember) was no fan of free markets and conceived of central planning, but I don't think he disagreed with the premise of democracy.

I still don't see how having your productivity siphoned off by the state is any better than having your productivity siphoned off by a rich guy (the rather obvious benefits of capitalism aside).



I agree, but in the defense of his adherents, Marxist socialism has never really been tried. He thought it was the next stage following advanced capitalism (which he thought was also a necessary and progressive stage in development) and would have shrieked that it was attempted in Russia or China, and would have lamented the path that it took.

** I should point out that I have only rudimentary knowledge of Marx. I am pretty sure that all of this is accurate, but Diuretic seems to understand it better than I and may be able to address some of these issues better.

No, your knowledge is excellent, I'm no expert in the theory, only have a rudimentary idea but I'm learning.

 

[Detmurds]

How come Liberals are afraid to admit they are liberal? We have a bunch on this board that are far left and keep claiming they are moderates or "middle of the road" types. I do not hear many Conservatives ever make the claim, "hey I am a moderate".

If your political belief is so bad you can not even own up to it on a message board, that should tell you something.

How can one admit being about nothing? If that can be answered,..there is your answer!