Post #133,198
1/2/04 1:11:39 AM
|
Is Marx coming to pass?
Is capitalism consuming itself?
-drl
|
Post #133,204
1/2/04 2:22:31 AM
|
possibly
Capitalism has an inherent flaw caused by the fact that those with large amounts of capital are better able to draw more capital out of the system. This implosive pressure results in more money in the hands of fewer people over time.
Since Reagan the barriers to that accumulation have been steadily lowered. And thus we end up with a handfull of people holding the vast majority of the money. But it's very hard to say at what point the system actually becomes unstable. I suspect that it won't collapse from internal failure, but will become increasingly fragile to external shocks.
Jay
|
Post #133,245
1/2/04 12:01:03 PM
|
My remarks aside, why it may not come.
Marx himself once observed that "revolution may not be necessary in England because of the Anglo-Saxon sense of fair play." While I agree that our famous "send of fair play" has been greatly diminished over (especially) the last 25 years, I also have the nagging feeling that revolution never comes unless enough of the People are hungry. We, due to our geographic position, have an abundance of food. I doubt that enough of us will ever be hungry enough to mount a revolution.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #133,246
1/2/04 12:04:47 PM
|
Not quite
The way I heard it is that revolution comes from the middle class. The poor are too busy trying to find their next meal. The rich like things how they are. Revolution comes when the middle class realize that the rich are trying to turn them into the poor.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #133,250
1/2/04 12:09:43 PM
|
Proletariat != middle class.
An argument heard often is that Marxism failed because in the West because it failed to predict the rise of the middle class. But, in the new millenium, perhaps equality will hold and you'll be right about the revolution.
When I think of the "worker's class" I think of what is called "the working poor". We may well be on the rapid path to turning the middle class into the working poor - and that, I grant you, would cause a revolution.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #133,244
1/2/04 11:57:42 AM
|
You heard it here first.
The 21st century will be the century in which Marx is vindicated.
I said that, what? a decade or so ago?
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #133,254
1/2/04 12:30:55 PM
1/2/04 12:34:16 PM
|
Vindicated in what sense?
Marx has been proven time and again in terms of his descriptions of the problems inherent in capitalism. Marx has yet to be vindicated in terms of any solutions to said phenomena.
So, is your proposition that Marx correctly describes capitalism? Or is it that Marx correctly describes a better solution than capitalism?
Edited by ChrisR
Jan. 2, 2004, 12:34:16 PM EST
|
Post #133,291
1/2/04 5:01:38 PM
|
Me @ 20, Both. Me now, perhaps only the former.
Going to school (college) in North Carolina I was the token lefty. I used to say, "I'd be a Communist, but I'm not a good enough person to be an honest one." And there is the flaw, at least for me. To be a good Communist requires an altruism that few possess - an opinion it took me years to come to. In my youth I believed people were all generally good - that virtually all bad behavior (and the worst: greed) was learned. I now hold that some level of greed may be inherent in the species. Left to their own devices I'd say that greed is overwhelmed by a sense of community.
The nastiest part of a capitalist society is that it very carefully feeds and rewards greed - at the expense of altruism. In an advanced capitalist state (such as ours) you have not only the death of altruism, but of most things that make us human: like compassion, love, etc. Captialism horribly corrupts its citizens, turning them from human beings into consumers.
Aside: I recently heard a story on NPR about a young man, who after graduating from college, spent a year in a "never to be developed" country. He said the most remarkable thing about his experience was that the people he lived with were so isolated - no tv's, no radios, etc. He said that the year without any sort of advertising at all had done him a lot of good. I suspect it would do all of us a lot of good - perhaps even making us all good Communists.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #133,300
1/2/04 5:51:17 PM
|
Agree wrt marketing pressures
The constant din of advertising invading all senses and inputs begins to lower the ability to focus. A bit like the intellect averaging earpiece that Vonnegut wrote about in his short story in which all people were handicapped to a suitably average level (forget the title, can find it in Welcome to the Monkey House).
Visiting a foreign underdeveloped country can be highly restorative. You don't realize you are in a noisy place until the noise is stopped and the volume of the newly emtpied void makes itself felt.
"I believe that many of the systems we build today in Java would be better built in Smalltalk and Gemstone."
-- Martin Fowler, JAOO 2003
|
Post #133,371
1/3/04 10:28:45 AM
|
In the End, Communism and Capitalism end up Same Results
That is,
If the elite of a society decide to make themselves the ruling class, win at all costs, including cheating, lying, stealing, and even kililng.
Then, the result is that the power of the society will concentrate into those people's hands (Communism OR Capitalism) Until an angered majority removes them from power.
The more concentrated the wealth, the more violent and bloody the revolution will be. And for those attempting to stay in power, the more brutal the repression must be.
It's exactly why the U.S. can't win in Iraq without occupying it for 40 years.
It's not about Communism or Capitalism, it's about the wealthiest in a society deciding to share with those less fortunate.
If you mandate sharing, as does Communism, then the wealthy will create party and power structures to ensure that everyone has an "equal" allocation. Some more "equal" than others.
So the answer is that we need to remove those from power who would "hoard" wealth and power itself. That's why I hate our political system now, Abraham Lincoln could never be elected in 2004.
Glen Austin
|
Post #133,597
1/4/04 10:46:32 PM
|
The Gods must be Crazy...
A movie about a relatively undeveloped culture/tribe in Africa.
For years, the society is isolated from the world and they give in a closed society where all share equally and the society is basically communist.
Then, a Coke bottle falls from the sky one day, a gift from the Gods. (Actually, a careless airplane pilot disposes of his empty.)
All heck breaks loose in the tribe. Everyone is doing anything and everything to "get" the bottle. All covet it. Fights break out.
The tribal leader declares, "The Gods Must Be Crazy".
The reason I bring up the story is that communism and sharing work in small/closed societies where everyone shares, where there are relatively few (or no) opportunities for people to make themselves more "important" than others. The Bible speaks of this kind of society in Acts 2 among Christian's after Jesus' ascension into heaven. It worked in the small. But, even in the Christian community, right after Jesus ascended, (by the 4th or 5th Chapter of Acts), even Christians were arguing about the "allocation of food".
My point is this, communism would work if we all were Jesus Christ, with perfect and true motivations. But, we are not perfect people, but selfish people who want the absolute best for us and our kind, and the rest can "get their own".
On the other hand, capitalism works when there are a large number of small merchants, and works as the number of vendors for a single product consolidate. Once the number of vendors for a certain product (the number of substitutes) falls below 5, then capitalism stops working. The number of vendors becomes small enough, that one vendor actually ends up with at least 40% market share. Once a single vendor has above 30-35% market share, then the party's pretty mucn over for capitalism.
My problem with capitalism is that is assumes that everyone knows everything, ie. perfect information and perfect economics from perfect information. However, as the market consolidates below 5 vendors, the vendors begin to "collaborate" (even though they aren't supposed to), and they offer less information to the marketplace, instead of more. They charge more, and begin monopolistic practices.
Thus, neither solution works in the large. People are wicked, inherently, and thus the government needs to be involved in ensuring fair competition in capitalist countries, and in ensuring fair resource distribution in communist countries.
Either solution "could" work if everyone were honest and altruistic in their motivations. But we aren't. We're evil people.
Glen Austin
|
Post #133,599
1/4/04 10:57:24 PM
|
There are no laws on oligopolies
The threshold of 5 firms holding 80% of the market - which IIRC is the usual definition of oligopolies - is not part of the Sherman Antitrust Acts. Only monopolies, which I think kicks in where a single firm holds 80% market share, is the only time the government steps in - and there's been only a handful of these cases - the breaking up of Standard Oil into the Seven Sisters is the only case of substance.
I'd agree that government has a place in preventing excessive market concentration by a small number of firms (both Monopoly & Oligopoly), but using that to justify the intrusiveness of government in business is a bit disingenious. Government not only does not regulate the market share of these companies, but nine times out of ten, government policy has the effect of entrenching these big interests even further.
|
Post #133,602
1/4/04 11:15:40 PM
|
If I recall correctly . .
. . judgement of monopoly status doesn't depend on having a specific percentage of the market, but on the degree of control the company has over the market. The percentage of market can be much lower if the company substantially controls what its competitors can do.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #133,603
1/4/04 11:21:19 PM
|
Sounds about right
But it still relies on a single company being in control.
|
Post #133,615
1/5/04 12:40:25 AM
|
Cartels
An oligopoly can be construed as a cartel, which would be a violation of Sherman if it is deemed that the companies have organized and agreed not to compete. Price fixing, market sharing and other types of anticompetetive behavior are covered by these sections of antitrust law.
This section of the law was used in the early 90's against the airlines.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
It goes in, it must come out.Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #133,734
1/5/04 7:26:14 PM
|
[Something] must be Crazy... (new thread)
Created as new thread #133733 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133733|[Something] must be Crazy...]
Mother Forgive Them, for they Know Not What They Do
(but never lack for opinions direct-from-God. You needn't even ask: They'll TELL You: WHO God Is! and what She ate for breakfast.)
|
Post #133,275
1/2/04 3:17:19 PM
|
More like a fusion of Capitalism and Socialism
in Organizational Management. Classical Management is going away within the next 20 to 50 years.
Read "Stewardship":
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1881052869?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...81052869?v=glance]
It has concepts like working in teams, which reduces competition and encourages people to work towards a common goal. It has empowerment, where management gives subordinates a certain amount of power to make decisions. It has sharing the wealth, where if the company does well everyone gets a share of the profits, and if an employee comes up with an idea that saves a million, they get 10% of it. It is more people oriented, and follows ethics and morals.
I am learning all this in college, but we are using a different book that takes parts out of other books like "Stewardship".
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
