|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atlas Shrugged | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Crashfrog writes: I work and spend money on things just like the rest of us, and I like that I live in a place where if I have the money I can have nearly anything I want. But that's no reason not to find something better, is it? I may be wrong, but the problem as I perceive it is that we as American working class are already at an artificially inflated economic position on a worldwide scale...Thus we almost have to keep the system that we have in order to maintain the slowly shrinking standard of living that we enjoy. Am I right, Contra? There is no way that any sort of socialist system would help the average middle class American is there? It may help people in Niceragua but not Newark!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes - barter between direct producers in a local context. A central feature of the crticism cash raises is the DETACHMENT of the capitalist retailer, the economically empowered actor, from the process of production. By contrast, where primitive societies trade directly, face to face, and producer to producer, not only is there an economic trnasaction but also a social one that has to do with pride, self-expression, self-sustenance, mutual recognition, and the reification of cultural norms. It would be absurdly stupid to practice the form of transaction that Crash, accurately, describes as kleptocracy. Becuase failing to be a good trade partner simply makes you an ex-trade partner; your own status is on the line in every transaction. Note how completely different this is to the idea that a suitabole price is "as much as you can get". Wwhat pertains in this system instead is a form of mutuality; and whats more, becuase each producer is intimtaely familiar with the product they produce, the value of that product, which they seek to exchange, is known to them in an entirely tangible way. Not only does capitalism alienate the producer from the product, it also argues that there is no such thing as society and that these very social aspects of the transaction should be superceded by the merely procedural format of the transaction. This is especially the case with modern bandit capitalism, that no longer even possesses the social conscience the Adam Smith thought was inherent to the capitalist as good citizen. What Crash describes as kleptocracy is a necessarily emergent property of Capitalism, and it arises oprecisely becuase capitalism is not an economic system qua economic system, but a political-economic system for the maintanance of class rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
contracycle writes: Yes - barter between direct producers in a local context. Sorry, I keep my David Ricardo doll, but it is interesting to see this type of transaction is actually increasing through sites like Craig's list, etc. The big problem with a strict barter system, and the reason it was immediately abandoned once people realized how convenient currency was, is that it starts to break down when I don't have a product or service of value to the person I want to trade with. I'm not going to find too many grocers who need new software platforms when it comes time to do the food shopping, so what do I do now? I guess I can go work for Joe who needs a new software for his paper company and take payment from him in reams of paper in hopes that I can trade those for something else the grocer needs? Talk about a royal pain in the ass.
Note how completely different this is to the idea that a suitabole [sic]price is "as much as you can get". Is that what you guys think capitalism is? Trying to get as much as you can get? It isn't. The market determines the value of goods and services, not just the seller - there also has to be demand for the seller's product. The buyer and seller negotiate to come up with a price that is acceptable to each of them. If either one of them doesn't like the terms of the exchange, it doesn't happen. Where free market capitalism breaks down is when there is collusion and monopolies - which is exactly why there are controls in place to prevent that from occurring and to promote as much competition as possible. More competition = better prices/quality for goods and services for the consumer. Come on guys, this is Econ 101.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
contra writes: What Crash describes as kleptocracy is a necessarily emergent property of Capitalism, and it arises oprecisely becuase capitalism is not an economic system qua economic system, but a political-economic system for the maintanance of class rule. What the heck does Crash know? He already admitted in this thread he doesn't know much about economics. And I'm sorry to knock you off your Worker's Unite! soapbox, but capitalism is NOT a political system.Capitalism is: quote: Economic system <> political system. Economic systems are not inherently good or evil, they simply are. And I hate to break it to you, but EVERY political system exists to maintain class rule. It's just that individuals have more opportunity to move from one class to another depending on the system. This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 05:00 AM This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 05:03 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Not at all. Remember that that the economically active element in socialism is the individual proletarian producer, rather than the controllers of capital, but it is also not peasants, whom you may be thinking of in Nicaragua. But there is a cogent argument that the Western working class - there is virtually no western middle class by historical standards, capitalism has wiped them out - has effectively been bribed, a process termed in marxist terms "superexploitation". That is, nationalist identities serve to unite the western working class in supporting the capitalist class in its exploitation of external entities - in this case the Third World. The superexploitation of the third world relieves much of the direct and immediate exploitation of workers in the Western states themselves, nad places the human cost out of sight and out of mind. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Western workers are NOT exploited, it merely means the coercion is primarily ideological rather that physical or military. Western workers are still engaged in an economic relationship that alienates the producer from the product and privileges the owners of capital over the producers of commodities. This fact is directly observable in the increasing gap that appears between the wealth of rich and poor - quite observably, the systematic action of domestic economics remains the extraction of wealth from those who produce and its redistribution to those who merely own. Superexploitation merely ameliorates the effects of that exploitation, but that situation depends on the succesful maintanenance of superexploitation. If there is ever any disruption to superexploitation, or the economic system in general, all the pressure on the western working class will immediately appear in full force. It is because this relationship is still exploitative that despite their status as the "labour aristocracy", Western workers still stand to gain from a liberation of economic praxis. Not only is there the human economy on offer, the reintegration of the worker and their work as economincally and socially satisfying activities, but also the actual material wealth that in present society is directed toward the cultivation of the powers that be. The allocation of this material wealth can be seen in the rise of marketting as a major economic praxis. Marketing directs an increasingly sever proportion of all turnover toward the cultivation of consumers purely as consumers. It does not ionnovate, or engineer, or develope, or invent, commodities or products in their own right. more and more capital is expended chasing after a relative static degree of buying power - all of which makes the passing of costs on to the consumer an even more pressing issue. Thus increasingly, consumers pay not only for the goods produced, but also for the privilige eof being persuaded to buy this product over the other, AND for all the other persuasion attempts that failed. Thus, even though the western worker is the recipient of the benefits of third world superexploitation, that worker remains exploited in their domestic capital economy, and if freed from that exploitation would have substantially more disposable wealth at their command. As Marx points out, the tendency in in capitalism is for capital to accumulate; that accumulation of capital then requires the services of further, fluid capital, to maintain itself. Accordingly, more and more productive capital is directed to non-productive purposes, and the economy stultifies, stutters, and eventually collapses. Despite superexploitation, the Western working class remain in a preilous position as the objects, rather than subjects, of economic action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Snort - more than you, apparently. Like any human being, he is capable of observing or commenting - rather better than spouting dogma in my eyes.
quote: ... a political system. Yes, this is the central point of difference between capitalist and marxist analyses. You see, your definition is wholly inadequate - it can be applied equally to feudalism. In feudalism, the means of production (land, ploughs, mills) are privateley (aristocratically) or corporately (trade guilds, political abstractions such as fiefs) owned and eveleopement is proportionate to the accumulation (by taxation, frex) and reinvestement (via assarting, frex) of profits in a free market (being primarily a market between free aristocrats).
quote: Thats merely an appeal to mysticism. As I often point out, Capitalism is a Utopian ideology, not really a materialist system at all. Can you think of any economic system anywhere in the history of the world that was NOT linked to political interests? No you cannot, you admit this yourself by your very next statement that:
quote: Yes exactly so - now you are agreeing with Marx. The history of all civilisation to date HAS BEEN THE HISTORY OF CLASS STRUGGLE. And that class struggle and relationship, as you acnkowledge, is invariably expressed through the economic system. Which is precisely why Marxism proposess THE ELIMINATION OF CLASS, the liberation of economic praxis to do what it really should be doing: making people better off, NOT mediating social relationships. Once again Custard, you cannot merely recite the dogma of bandit capitalism and expect to be convincing. I'm well aware of what capitalism SAYS about itself, but it is my OBSERVATION (and that of Crashfrog apparently) that the facts and the rhetoric do not match. And that is a perception we two share with the millions of people in the developing world whose economies are being systematically raped by the west. Furthermore, I have a systenmatic and materialitic criticism of these claims which you appear simply unwilling to engage, unable to even consider the dogmas of capitalism as open to question or challenge. The division of society into "economic" spheres and "political" spheres is ahistorical, obfuscatory, and purely ideological. It is merely one of the rationalisations that capitalisms Utopianism falls back on for the lack of a sufficiently materialist argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Right - just as Marx predicted, the steady improvement of the technological base by dynamic capitalism brings about a market condition that makes direct relations between producers viable on a global scale. Thus, the economic relatinship bewteen producers that pertained in the neolithic can be reproduced in the high tech modern world BECUASE it is high tech.
quote: Sure. But then again, what has changed? If I don;t have the skills that a capitalist employer wants to pay for, I'm stuffed, desppite the presence of currency. In fact this is a distorion of the scenario - becuase OF COURSE anyone who produces a product for which there is NO DEMAND has no right to expect compensation for their labour. This is irrelevant to currency. Currency allows for the mobility of capital, it does NOT affectd the relationship between actors in the marketplace. Currency also presumes, and depends upon, a highly developed, diversified marketplace in which you can reasonably expect to find a buyer for your product even if not locally. But currency also raises a further challenge to your claim that economic and political systems are divorced - becuase currency is one of the primary means by which iron age polities establish themselves as politically potent entities. Currency is, first and foremost, a SYMBOLIC relationship with the economy rather than a direct one, and that symbolism is a perfect vehicle for political propaganda and identity construction. Thus, Athens deployed currency succesfully in the development of its anti-Spartan league.
quote: Come on Custard, yes this IS Econ 101. If you like, I shall rephrase: "as much as the market will bear". The point is the denial of intrinsic value and the resort to ideological subjective value as a means of obfuscating the material facts of the transaction. It substitutes a mechanistic relationship for a human social one, despite the fact that it is actually negotitaing a social, political, transaction.
quote: Sure - but the point is, both buyer and seller are alienated from both the product and the process of production. As a result, neither of them can negotiate on an informed basis; the material basis of the exchange has been obfuscated into invisibility. The negotiation, then, can only be stylised and abstracted - it cannot be a real *exchange* between economically competent actors. It is instead a form of blind manipualtion in which the only relevant fact is the precedent established by prior nbegotiations, rather than the actual value to either participant of the goods in question,.
quote: Except that there is necessarily such collusion at all times and places within capitalism. Because the monopolisers of capital always have the option to walk away from the proposed exchange, while the worker negotiating for the very necessities of subsitence CANNOT walk away. This collusion is both tacit (that is, market mediated, the actors being alienated) and overt (such as when capitalist bodies such as the Confederation of British Industry publicvly lobby against a minimum wage). ALL wage labour in capitalism is first controlled by this monopoly on capital itself. And as a result, ALL labour contracts under capitalism are exploitative - becuase one party MUST make a deal, and the the part is free to refuse, that second second party holds an overwhwlming dominance in this SOCIAL relationship. And even worse, that capitl to which capitalists lay claim was itrself produced by the labour of workers. All property is theft; all wage labour is slavery; all capitalists are parasites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Footnote: I argued above that superexploitation works as a bribe only as long as it can be maintained. This shows exactly why the US, for example, is loathe to engage in actual free trade with the developing world. If the US lowered its trade barriers to third world goods, or dropped the practice of debt-farming and forced "developement" loans, superexploitation of the third world would become steadily less efficient as a displacement of domestic political-economic tensions. But that relationship can be maintained by, for example, being extremely militarily "persuasive" such that the economic demands you place are effectively non-negotiable. This is precisely why, As Lennin argued, Imperialism is the highest form of capitalist exploitation: superexploitation depends upon military dominance. And as one might predict from this argument, a state dependant on superexploitation to win the consent of its domestic workers must continually invest in the military in order to maintain this happy status quo. Therefore, it is entirely predictable in MArxist terms that the modern Us should be spending such an absurd proportion of its GDP on the military, and why such political fictions as "the war on terror" have a very specific role to play in capitalist states.
[military spending has a nother "virtuous" effect on the structure of capitalism, but I won't go into that here; suffice to say "beware the military-industrial complex"]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1718 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Shouldn't one usually have some sort of familiarity with the subject matter one is attempting to criticize? Never seems to bother you any.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
I'll admit it. I too started rambling and now we have a runaway topic! So I'm calling Phatboy on the carpet as well!
Lets limit this one to Ayn Rand, everyone! Maybe one of us can start a topic on economics! This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 02-24-2005 09:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Lets limit this one to Ayn Rand, everyone! Works for me since I actually read the novel. I still contend that the overriding theme of the novel is not one economic system vs. another economic system, but something more along the lines of Nietzsche's "Will to Power" concept. Atlas Shrugged's overriding theme is that the John Galts of society are being held back by the masses of people who have neither the talent nor inclination to achieve greatness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Yes, that is correct - that is Rand's theme. Rather like Neitzches theme, and Hitlers theme. However, it is precisely because it is not methodologically sound that it can be dismissed - it is an apologetic, not even an argument. It is a paean to the romance of the aristocrat - indeed, to a superior CLASS of people.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 02-25-2005 05:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
It is a paean to the romance of the aristocrat - indeed, to a superior CLASS of people. I couldn't disagree more, it is, in fact, quite the opposite (as I have stated). The ubermensch concept isn't what she is touting in this novel. And pretty much anyone who has read Neitzche or taken philosophy 101 knows that Hitler's ideas are a pathetic corruption of Neitzche's ideas. The fact that you'd even associate the two, and then throw Rand into the mix, demonstrates either severe bias or sheer ignorance on your part - or both since I suppose they aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22940 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
contracycle writes: It is a paean to the romance of the aristocrat - indeed, to a superior CLASS of people. Not to the aristocrat, a largely hereditary status, but to a self-defining class of people characterized by their energy, ambition, creativity and achievements. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: But are the John Galts of society really being held back by the masses of people who neither have the talent or inclination to achieve greatness? What does "being held back" mean, anyway? I read a story once where alien conquerors used humans as incubators for their eggs. A serious problem, but I wouldn't base a philosophy on it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024