This is why I really don’t understand modern day US political discourse from the right side. What’s with people thinking Biden is going to instigate a Marxist plot when it’s guys like him who are more interested in military spending than infrastructure — Albero

Got me. He is doing them a favor.. During COVID, you need exactly someone liberal enough to be a release valve..It's exactly crises like these that are cause for the percolations of a revolution otherwise.

All these people working in thousands of companies possess a vast pool of knowledge about how to run things. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, but I think this is leaving out something major.. That is to say, small businesses at their early phases are run a lot by the owners (though not always). So what Marx is leaving out is the incubation period of small companies that then make it to behemoths.. It seems like Marxian economic theory always figures the company at its height rather than its birth. What about the very beginnings of small companies, or the companies that really don't grow that much. Think of the hot dog vendor out there everyday slinging 100s of hotdogs daily. He is content with his cart. You can say that he will be left alone, but then you are conceding some form of capitalism, it's just where to draw the line once a business is mature enough to be run by a board of directors and managers.

Gulags? But also, really, what would that look like? — schopenhauer1

Management can get away with being total assholes in workplaces that are without organized workers--unions who stand up for the workers. In a socialist economy, with the workers owning and running the operations, the management-line worker antagonism can be minimized.

Socialism will not eliminate assholes, alas. For that you will have to wait for the Kingdom of Heaven or evolution, whichever comes first. Don't hold your breath.

this is leaving out something major — schopenhauer1

Marx didn't leave it out, I did. I can't represent all of Das Capital here. Full Disclosure: I have not read all of Das Capital. Entrepreneurs are engaged in the act of 'original accumulation': It's the news stand owner who eventual becomes the owner of the New York Times. It's the tailor making clothes for a few minors who eventually becomes LEVIS. It's the garage tinkerers who eventually becomes Microsoft and Apple.

@schopenhauer1 When we get into debates about capitalism vs. socialism we are often, under cover, debating essentialism vs. constructivism. "Man is essential competitive, greedy, power seeking ... or man is essentially cooperative, compassionate, generous. Pro-capitalists and pro-socialists can take either position.

I tend to think that people are more alike than they are different, and that social influences determine a lot of our character. It matters a great deal how one is raised up from childhood.

There isn't any final answer here. Individuals have managed to flourish, and have failed to flourish, under all sorts of arrangements. For instance, I tend to be a loner; I do not like intense complicated social engagement. I am not usually ambitious on a sustained basis. I live fairly simply. Under which economic system would I most effectively flourish? I can imagine being unhappy in a socialist society, and I have certainly been unhappy at times in our capitalist scheme.

People find arbitrary and capricious control very unpleasant. It is also the case that most of us are perfectly capable of being arbitrary and capricious, and cruel in unusual ways. Only one snake was required to ruin paradise.

He is content with his cart. — schopenhauer1

How do you know he is content with his cart? He may be cruelly forced to sell hotdogs.

Besides, I don't think selling hotdogs or popcorn on the street is particularly capitalistic in nature. If it is, it is a very primitive sort of capitalism. [Homer Simpson asked Apu about the hotdogs turning in a heated display on the counter. Apu discouraged Homer, telling him the hotdogs were there for decorative purposes only (and the same ones had been there for months). Homer ate one anyway.]

It could very well be that the hotdog cart is one of a fleet of hotdog carts owned by the mafia-controlled cart cartel. What looks like individual entrepreneurial activity might actually be an egregiously exploitative form of retail drudgery. I never buy anything a la cart. It's disgusting. Car exhaust falling on the wieners; flies and people buzzing around breathing on the merchandise. Everybody knows pickle relish is made from the pickles that fell on the factory floor. As for then buns, they are ancient rolls loaded with preservatives so they can not mold, however much they might want to. As for wieners-- even Nathan's kosher all beef version -- there's a reason sausage [and laws] aren't made in public.

In a socialist economy, with the workers owning and running the operations, the management-line worker antagonism can be minimized. — Bitter Crank

How so? Look at Chernobyl.. Eek.. Comrade.. do this..Should we? I don't know how? Comarade, do it or else...

Socialism will not eliminate assholes, alas. For that you will have to wait for the Kingdom of Heaven or evolution, whichever comes first. Don't hold your breath. — Bitter Crank

Haha very true!

Marx didn't leave it out, I did. I can't represent all of Das Capital here. Full Disclosure: I have not read all of Das Capital. Entrepreneurs are engaged in the act of 'original accumulation': It's the news stand owner who eventual becomes the owner of the New York Times. It's the tailor making clothes for a few minors who eventually becomes LEVIS. It's the garage tinkerers who eventually becomes Microsoft and Apple. — Bitter Crank

Ok, so what does he say about this? Simply that they are necessary but will be discarded? Again, what about the hot dog seller?

I tend to think that people are more alike than they are different, and that social influences determine a lot of our character. It matters a great deal how one is raised up from childhood.

There isn't any final answer here. Individuals have managed to flourish, and have failed to flourish, under all sorts of arrangements. For instance, I tend to be a loner; I do not like intense complicated social engagement. I am not usually ambitious on a sustained basis. I live fairly simply. Under which economic system would I most effectively flourish? I can imagine being unhappy in a socialist society, and I have certainly been unhappy at times in our capitalist scheme.

People find arbitrary and capricious control very unpleasant. It is also the case that most of us are perfectly capable of being arbitrary and capricious, and cruel in unusual ways. Only one snake was required to ruin paradise. — Bitter Crank

Right, but I guess what would socialism have to do with that? It wouldn't solve it. It's simply interpersonal stuff.

It could very well be that the hotdog cart is one of a fleet of hotdog carts owned by the mafia-controlled cart cartel. What looks like individual entrepreneurial activity might actually be an egregiously exploitative form of retail drudgery. I never buy anything a la cart. It's disgusting. Car exhaust falling on the wieners; flies and people buzzing around breathing on the merchandise. Everybody knows pickle relish is made from the pickles that fell on the factory floor. As for then buns, they are ancient rolls loaded with preservatives so they can not mold, however much they might want to. As for wieners-- even Nathan's kosher all beef version -- there's a reason sausage [and laws] aren't made in public. — Bitter Crank

Hehe, but you are evading.. That guy wants to make a buck on his own, that's all. It is primitive capitalism but would the comrade societies really confiscate his cart, crusty buns, and animal byproduct meat? I mean you are implying it is a nebbish industry, but it represents a lot of small sole proprietor industries.. the self-made donut shop, etc. Would he have to give the cart and materials to Hot Dog Comradeship Coop and be doled an income from them instead?

@Bitter Crank @Hanover @Maw @Xtrix
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/business/bernie-sanders-warren-buffett-steelworkers-strike/index.html

Thought this was somewhat relevant.

Ok, so what does he say about this? Simply that they are necessary but will be discarded? Again, what about the hot dog seller? — schopenhauer1

You know, Marx was a political economist, we'd say. He described how individuals (who are not at first even petite bourgeoisie accumulate wealth. The do this by extracting 'surplus value' from their workforce. A worker may produce $1000 worth of goods in a day, but be paid $300. $700 (less overhead and raw materials) is the surplus value.

The hot dog man might be able to generate a profit above and beyond what it costs him to support himself and buy supplies and pay for the cart. IF (unlikely) he produces a lot of profit, he could finance a second cart and a second hot dog seller who would be paid a modest wage. If the second hot dog cart was profitable, he cold add a third, and so on. He might be able to establish a hot dog monopoly in Gotham, and with the steady income buy and sell real estate, eventually becoming rich.

That, dear Schop, is the :party:AMERICAN :sparkle: DREAM:party:

Many dream it, 99% wake up to live another day working hard to keep a roof over their head and bread on the table. Then they die relatively poor.

Right, but I guess what would socialism have to do with that? It wouldn't solve it. It's simply interpersonal stuff. — schopenhauer1

If anything is political, it's the interpersonal stuff. A lot of interpersonal static stems from the stresses of life as we know it, under capitalism.

Hot Dog Comradeship Coop — schopenhauer1

turns out to be the old criminal cart cartel doing business under a new name.

Look, gardeners, hot dog vendors, artisan needle workers, sculptors, weavers, artisan paper makers, occasional cooks and bakers, etc. are no threat to socialism. There would be room for some of those. In a socialist economy accumulation of capital would be difficult--not because a heavy state fist would come down on the wiener wrangler, but because the economy wouldn't support individual capital accumulation above and beyond self-support.

In a humane society, there could/would/should be room for at least some individuals to work by themselves, for their own good and the good of society. I'm probably one of those people. Are you?

Bershire Hathaway is probably in no position to intervene in a strike. A guy who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Dairy Queen both, and more--much more--probably isn't in a good position to intervene in local labor issues. The people running the steel operation should deal with the workers, and of course grant them everything they ask for.

Agreed. But sometimes regional management makes the wrong decision. Then what? He can still override. Regional managers can tell people to come into work who can work from home because he has more control. Why does being closer to the workers make them better decision makers? As long as you have compliant workers, it works. Not so much with unions.

then a wrong decision is made and we live with the consequences.

Warren Buffet might make the same wrong decision.

↪Bitter Crank
Agreed. But sometimes regional management makes the wrong decision. Then what? — schopenhauer1

Then what? — schopenhauer1

I have to go to the grocery store. Suppose they are out of bananas. Then what? What if somebody bought all my favorite flavor of ice cream, Then what? Suppose I get run over by a bus. Then what?

Then life goes on, or it doesn't.

Warren Buffet might make the same wrong decision. — Bitter Crank

True enough. Alabama made wrong decisions in 1952. Took US government to make right decision in 1964.

Then life goes on, or it doesn't. — Bitter Crank

Im just surprised you wouldn’t be for a higher authority stepping in with socialist tendencies.

Yes, it turns out you can do pretty well economically if you employ slave labor, suppress free trade, steal innovations from freer countries, and exploit your citizenry. — NOS4A2

I know— that’s why I said the United States does well.

I think we are confusing corrupt capitalist practices or capitalism with bad loopholes and lo — schopenhauer1

What is “capitalism”? I told you how I define it, and I think it fundamentally illegitimate. It’s not simply a matter of bad loopholes and loose regulations.

Im just surprised you wouldn’t be for a higher authority stepping in with socialist tendencies. — schopenhauer1

Your higher socialist authority has revealed the future: You will sell vegan hotdogs on stale sugarless gluten free buns with ersatz condiments from a cart at a slaughter house. Yes, of course there will be a 5 year plan for you to follow and a daily quota to keep you on your toes, lest you fall into old fashioned capitalist sloth.

Your higher socialist authority has revealed the future: You will sell vegan hotdogs on stale sugarless gluten free buns with ersatz condiments from a cart at a slaughter house. Yes, of course there will be a 5 year plan for you to follow and a daily quota to keep you on your toes, lest you fall into old fashioned capitalist sloth. — Bitter Crank

Excellent comrade...

What is “capitalism”? I told you how I define it, and I think it fundamentally illegitimate. It’s not simply a matter of bad loopholes and loose regulations. — Xtrix

Being able to own the capital to make products to sell.

Being able to own the capital to make products to sell. — schopenhauer1

Worker co-ops do the same thing. Ownership and private property doesn’t define capitalism— that’s existed for millennia. Neither does making profits.

So I reject that definition— it’s not describing what makes capitalism unique. It’s a hierarchical power structure, a system— one which is organized different from, say, feudalism.

What a surprise a capitalist suck-up can't even minimally define the term.

What a surprise a capitalist suck-up can't even minimally define the term. — StreetlightX

How would you define it? Copy paste Wikipedia? It can have many aspects, but a defining one is private CAPITAL.

Nah, I'm not wasting my time with you. I'm just quite happy to point out that your understanding of a socio-economic system is limited to "hur-dur word is same".

Every definition is a variation of the same thing. Private ownership, free markets, etc. Just because you have a pet definition, doesn’t change the general one.

Every definition is a variation of the same thing. Private ownership, free markets, etc. — schopenhauer1

:rofl:

Ah yes, please enlighten me on your obviously objective version of a definition that is inherently a whole litany of aspects.. private ownership of capital, profit-oriented, free market exchange, etc.

You're right that "free markets" (notice the quotation marks), private property, capital, profits, etc., play a role in the system we're referring to, given the name "capitalism" (in today's world, state-capitalism). But I was asking you what, in practice, makes this system unique from other socioeconomic systems in history. That's why I mentioned feudalism. Were there markets under feudalism? Of course there were. Ditto with profits, property, etc.

So I mentioned the relationship of employer and employee. I think this is what stands out when we look at how things are arranged today. It's a power structure, like master-slave and lord-serf, but unique in its function. There is a "contract" involved in this relationship, where the worker/employee is hired, by the employer, to use his brains and muscles to produce goods and services. In exchange, he or she receives compensation in the form of a wage or salary. (You're not selling yourself, you're renting yourself.)

If you go further than that, and look at how private capital has organized itself, you arrive at the corporation. Again, in today's terms, that's multinational corporations. These are the most powerful.

How are these corporations organized? The same relationship: owners/employers (in this case the major shareholders, board of directors, and executives) hire workers/employees. The workers generate profits. What happens to those profits? Where do they go? They go to, essentially, the "owners" -- the board of directors, who decide what to do with the money. Since the board directors are chosen by major shareholders, they usually do the bidding of the major shareholders -- and we see that demonstrated today with stock buybacks and dividends, which accounts for 90+% of profit distribution (please see the links I provided earlier, or google it yourself, as this should be a stunning statement).

This is how business functions in the world today. This is capitalism (again, more specifically, a variant of state-capitalism: neoliberalism). It's completely undemocratic, it's exploitative, and I would say fundamentally illegitimate and unjust. But even if one conceded that, one may still argue about its results.

Yet look at the results in today's world. Look at the level of inequality, to take one obvious example. It rivals the time of the Pharaohs. People have dubbed it the "New Gilded Age." So what is left to say about this system? Does what I describe strike you as a just system (assume for a second that my description is accurate, even if you disagree)?

Every time someone equates capitalism with "free markets" - usually an American - a capitalist laughs at having successfully propagandized yet another moron into completely ignoring the issue of property rights and the means of production.