Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Defiant47]

The capitalist requires labor for the task. The capitalist cannot supply such sufficient labor, and thus, as you provide later, the worker has that advantage in counter-balance. Not employing workers in the immediate future means the capitalist does not receive the benefits that would have come from that endeavor in the immediate future either. Time is also a resource, which would be wasted for the capitalist at least. Not all workers have equal ability, and the capitalist's goals may require higher quality or production, so qualification is only a minimal requirement, and may not be sufficient serve the desired purpose.

In an ideal case, there is sufficient work available that a worker's primary concern is who to work for, not whether the worker works at all. In this case, the capitalists must also compete (in good faith) to get workers to work for them instead of someone else.

Yes, I already considered the issues, yet the overall analysis stands. Despite this pull of the two forces, the game is still heavily weighted in favour of the capitalist.

In a world of 10,000 employers and 1,000,000 workers, the employers have greater leniency and leverage over choosing workers, than the workers have over choosing employers, by numbers alone. And then there are all the other factors I mentioned.

In the ideal case, I do not think it is that obvious. It's not necessary for the business's role to be profit generation. The business may want to assemble some great artwork, for instance. The role of making certain parties accountable is held by the counter-parties that ideally would not fail to fulfill that role.

The entire thesis of free market capitalism is of profit, the idea that the best thing any company should do is pursue and enjoy profit, because it means optimizing efficiency of resources and opportunities through entrepreneurship.

1) No, the capitalist's need for labor would be contested (by other capitalists). The capitalist needs to win the contest, which balances the laborer's position.

And this contest doesn't pull comparatively as much weight to the labourer's benefit as does the entire layout of the situation (as I outlined in the earlier post).

2) If we assume deceptive practices of a member of a capitalist society, we need to make a similar assumption in communist interactions (or show how communism actively mitigates its effect). It hurts both, not surprisingly. As for education about the value of the work, laborers in the same field of work have an incentive for cooperating in the negotiation, which means sharing what they know. Unions might exist in our ideal capitalism.

I have assumed no necessary "deception". Merely a goal sought out by corporations to maximize profit. If the corporation can pay less for a worker because the worker is uninformed, then it will do so, because its incentive is to maximize profits.

Unions are a necessary step towards fixing the lack of bargaining power on the part of labour, and brings us closer to a better, socialist, system, but it's not all the way yet.

3) These malicious organizations would have been allowed to grow to that size. That's a weeding problem, and the prescription is to stop feeding it. Ideally, they did not start in such a position, nor would they be able to maintain such a position without support from laborers and consumers. This problem is sourced outside Capitalism to boot (desire for power), and would have another remedy entirely in reality (revolt/ French-style execution). Then we have 4.

Again, you assume maliciousness when it is only necessary to assume a profit motive and incentive; that is, the entire idea of free market capitalism.

They gained such a position through superior appropriation of resources, and are now able to hold on to their position using undue power inherent in the oligopoly.

If a corporation is doing well and achieving profits, should it not be allowed to grow - should we instead stunt their growth and unfairly bolster less effective corporations? If a corporation discovers a method of maximizing profits (free internships a requirement for employment), would it not pursue it?

All of these are inherent in capitalism and a necessary conclusion of it. Ways they are fixed are through government regulation, which again, brings us closer to socialism (i.e. the fact that energy companies in Canada can only charge at pre-determined rates... why do you think they put in all those "extra fees"?).

4)The laborers and consumer-base also have a say. Ideally, they would not support capitalist entities that operate counter to their interests.

And their power in this matter is lacking. Add in the effect of media manipulation and advertising proliferation, and you have a society in which consumers/workers believe is in their best interests, and who will gladly "support" the overlord corporations because they want the new iPhone.

It's telling that you have yet discuss the underlying ethical stances responsible for 3 & 4, and how those stances would corrupt communist economic structures

Greater civilian oversight and a democratic involvement on the part of workers of a corporation would come closer and give a better chance of establishing better equity in the economy.

You seem to be outlining ethical stances associated with real-world implementations with Capitalism instead of the system itself, which is more GIGO than fundamental flaw.

In my opinion, it is not necessary to assume any "ethical stances" within my analysis - merely the idea that in free market capitalism, the most moral thing for an entrepreneur to do is to seek a profit (I have read entire official essays on this matter, and that's the central thesis), and that corporations will seek a profit.

The rest falls into place as I have outlined.

This thread is concerned with comparing hypothetical communism with hypothetical capitalism, not the necessary transitions for converting a real capitalist system to a real communist one. So suppose there is such a communism as per the OP, and explain how it would be better than capitalism that is hypothetically under matching restraints (for capitalism).

Well, you will have to ease off your needlessly unwavering stance that I may not approach the issue gradually.

My point has not been of "transitioning" from a capitalist to a communist... it has been of transitioning the discussion from capitalist to communist gradually.

It is worth noting that it would not be possible to transform a society from capitalist to communist overnight. Socialism must occur in-between, for example.

 

[Rashiminos]

In a world of 10,000 employers and 1,000,000 workers, the employers have greater leniency and leverage over choosing workers, than the workers have over choosing employers, by numbers alone. And then there are all the other factors I mentioned.

Those workers should be employing each other, probably.

the idea that the best thing any company should do is pursue and enjoy profit, because it means optimizing efficiency of resources and opportunities through entrepreneurship.

Someone had to decide what constituted good resource use (and thus worth compensating). The people in business had the option of deciding what they were willing to do for compensation.

And this contest doesn't pull comparatively as much weight to the labourer's benefit as does the entire layout of the situation (as I outlined in the earlier post).

Based on reality constraints you insist on applying instead of keeping the thread on track. Re-read the original post.

I have assumed no necessary "deception". Merely a goal sought out by corporations to maximize profit. If the corporation can pay less for a worker because the worker is uninformed, then it will do so, because its incentive is to maximize profits.

If the corporation informs the worker..? (Not revealing this knowledge is deceptive, and you insist on it, so the charge stands).

Unions are a necessary step towards fixing the lack of bargaining power on the part of labour, and brings us closer to a better, socialist, system, but it's not all the way yet.

Unions: not anti-capitalist.

Again, you assume maliciousness when it is only necessary to assume a profit motive and incentive; that is, the entire idea of free market capitalism.

Assuming profit over honesty and benign behavior is malicious, at least from my POV.

They gained such a position through superior appropriation of resources, and are now able to hold on to their position using undue power inherent in the oligopoly.

If a corporation is doing well and achieving profits, should it not be allowed to grow - should we instead stunt their growth and unfairly bolster less effective corporations? If a corporation discovers a method of maximizing profits (free internships a requirement for employment), would it not pursue it?

If a corporation is unduly using its power, then by all just means we should stunt its growth and fairly bolster more responsible corporations. That this is not done is more of a testament to a lack of ethical backbone. Was my weeding example not clear?

And their power in this matter is lacking. Add in the effect of media manipulation and advertising proliferation, and you have a society in which consumers/workers believe is in their best interests, and who will gladly "support" the overlord corporations because they want the new iPhone.

Manipulation which would not be absent elsewhere.

Greater civilian oversight and a democratic involvement on the part of workers of a corporation would come closer and give a better chance of establishing better equity in the economy.

Agreed.

In my opinion, it is not necessary to assume any "ethical stances" within my analysis - merely the idea that in free market capitalism, the most moral thing for an entrepreneur to do is to seek a profit (I have read entire official essays on this matter, and that's the central thesis), and that corporations will seek a profit.

I believe those essayists to be in error about the value of profit for profit's sake. Short term excess profits are a hazard in finding a steady state. Avoiding profit generation just passes on the task of finding this state through some other means. Capitalism does not prohibit discrimination in and of itself, and I think individuals and collaborative groups are somewhat justified in bringing their ethics to the market.

My point has not been of "transitioning" from a capitalist to a communist... it has been of transitioning the discussion from capitalist to communist gradually.

It is worth noting that it would not be possible to transform a society from capitalist to communist overnight. Socialism must occur in-between, for example.

Well, start in the right place. Start with a capitalism not unduly burdened by reality constraints as per the OP, unless you want make only that case, and then we can just point to the writers who have done far better a long time ago.

*** Meh, I'd trim this post a bit, but I don't want to lose the point-by-pointness of it. Apologies to those who don't like seeing mass quotage.

 

[kochman]

Ya, you won the war while Soviet soldiers were figuring out what to do with one rifle on a whole country. Right.

Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote...
"Ask the Russians and other Europeans...
We helped them against the Nazis..."
And, you are absolutely right if you think I mean the CCCP would have fallen without Western aid.

As regards "millions" in USSR there's no better source also.

Except all those survivors who documented the struggles. I have never even thought for a moment that someone would try to deny that Stalin killed millions, it's as bad as Holocaust Denial, and is shameful that one would do that in regards to denying the lives of all those victims. Terrible.

I consider myself rather altruistic, and I have no problem paying taxes on the premise that those taxes are helping my countrymen. In fact, I'm happy to do so. Does that make me a parasite?

I don't do what I do for a paycheck, necessarily, but because I want to do it. I'm what you might call "intrinsically motivated." So, living proof that what you're arguing is based on a false premise.

Ok, so, do you expect everyone to be intrinsically motivated? Not everyone has a job they love... if they did, no one would clean up elephant crap at the zoo or drive a dumptruck.
So, how do you handle those situations?

Who's going to be a proctologist?!

 

[REDY]

Communism, as theory, has some advantages. The problem is that it doesnt allow any compromise with capitalism (while communists in capitalism should have not problem as religious societiies havent). Therefore implementation and upholding communism on larger scale is possible only through violence and repression by ruling class. People become either unhappy or brainwashed puppets.

 

[Mise]

I haven't been following this thread since it moved on really, really quickly, so apologies in advance if this is way off base.

Crezth, if you're saying that there are enough altruistic, generous, charitable people in the world to voluntarily work solely for the benefit of others, who would voluntarily give their own resources to help other people and lift their standard of living, then surely this is an argument against state-funded welfare, and in favour of private charity? Surely what you're saying is that, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there would still be people who are charitable and altruistic, and therefore private charity would be an adequate substitute for welfare in the absense of the state. In otherwords, communism is unnecessary, because people are not inherently greedy; people are inherently altruistic enough that they would voluntarily ensure their neighbours's welfare.

Of course the flip-side is that Lord Rand would be forced to accept that anarcho-capitalism would, in fact, result in suffering on a massive scale, if he clings to his assertion that people are motivated purely by profit, and therefore there would be no altruism in a stateless society. His argument is that, since people are motivated by profit, there would be no incentive under a communist system for people to do any work; therefore Communism would fail. But he must also accept that, if people are motivated by profit, that charity in a capitalist system would be completely inadequate to provide sufficient welfare for its population; therefore, stateless capitalism would result in suffering on a massive scale.

 

[Traitorfish]

Communism, as theory, has some advantages. The problem is that it doesnt allow any compromise with capitalism (while communists in capitalism should have not problem as religious societiies havent). Therefore implementation and upholding communism on larger scale is possible only through violence and repression by ruling class. People become either unhappy or brainwashed puppets.

What "communism" has a ruling class to impose anything in the first place? Surely you're not actually going to trust a definition offered by the Soviets, of all people!

 

[Defiant47]

I think it would be easier to agree to disagree at this point. I still believe that in the whole context of the matter, workers are disadvantaged enough to lead to exploitative contracts. Not in small companies necessarily, but in large corporations, and in any logical end of the capitalist "train of thought".

Those workers should be employing each other, probably.

It's hard to do that when you lack wealth. The system is made so that the role of the bourgeois and the proletariat are entrenched, so the people without the wealth cannot easily and truly become capitalists, and will stay as workers. Unless they put in a huge amount of effort and also get a little bit lucky, but just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's balanced.

Someone had to decide what constituted good resource use (and thus worth compensating). The people in business had the option of deciding what they were willing to do for compensation.

I have addressed this, in that deciding which workers to use as a resource, is much easier than deciding which compensation to accept or negotiate, because the capitalist's economic stagnation is not as bad as the worker's economic paralysis.

Based on reality constraints you insist on applying instead of keeping the thread on track. Re-read the original post.

Again, I hold the idea that these concepts would apply in a hypothetical capitalism as well.

If the corporation informs the worker..? (Not revealing this knowledge is deceptive, and you insist on it, so the charge stands).

So are corporations supposed to provide weekly reports to workers as to the exact value of their wages and the prevailing market rate as well? I don't think it would work like that. What if the corporation decides that gathering this information will not produce any profit? Will we force them to gather it and distribute it, through some sort of socialist reform in our hypothetical capitalism?

Assuming profit over honesty and benign behavior is malicious, at least from my POV.

The issue is that the ideas I have presented can be easily justified. Going to India and enslaving the populace in your factory in exchange for feeding them is clearly wrong. But omitting the inner workings of your business can be rationalized under the profit motive.

If a corporation is unduly using its power, then by all just means we should stunt its growth and fairly bolster more responsible corporations. That this is not done is more of a testament to a lack of ethical backbone. Was my weeding example not clear?

It appears we are at a mismatch in identifying and defining capitalism. I define it as I outlined with that "thesis", since the forces of the free market and the profit motive will have an "invisible hand" that will ideally improve the lives of everyone in the end. You, instead, impose fairly fierce ethical standards, and I think even reject the thesis.

I believe those essayists to be in error about the value of profit for profit's sake. Short term excess profits are a hazard in finding a steady state. Avoiding profit generation just passes on the task of finding this state through some other means. Capitalism does not prohibit discrimination in and of itself, and I think individuals and collaborative groups are somewhat justified in bringing their ethics to the market.

It's not profit for profit's sake. It's profit for society's sake. The entire point of free market capitalism is that you should try to make as much profit as you can, because you are bettering society through efficiently creating goods and selling them to consumers. You might be made much better off comparatively than your workers, but they will also be made better off in an absolute sense.

Now what if collaborative groups believe that the ethical thing to do is for the corporation to share its profits to the ones who created the profit for it? We can grant capitalism a basic ethical framework, but can't extend that indefinitely, if we want to study hypothetical capitalism in its true form.

 

[Defiant47]

Therefore implementation and upholding communism on larger scale is possible only through violence and repression by ruling class. People become either unhappy or brainwashed puppets.

Or... it is democratically decided by the people. The only "force" that would be used is in the majority of the population overthrowing any non-compliant capitalist overlords, and this "ruling class repression" would actually be a "majority of the people's wishes repression". After all, it is the idea that workers are being exploited in the current system, and would prefer a better one.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think it would be easier to agree to disagree at this point. I still believe that in the whole context of the matter, workers are disadvantaged enough to lead to exploitative contracts. Not in small companies necessarily, but in large corporations, and in any logical end of the capitalist "train of thought".

Actually, small companies are quite often more exploitative than large ones, because they often work with such limited profit margins and such narrow markets that it's the only way they can stay afloat. "Exploitation" isn't to be conceived of some malicious crime undertaken only by moustache-twirling CEOs, but as an economic necessity placed upon capitalists by capitalism; capitalists don't exploit because they're bad or even misguided, but because the market leaves them no choice. The personable, well-meaning coffee-shop owner may well be twice as much as an exploiter as some callous Wall Street suit.

 

[Defiant47]

Actually, small companies are quite often more exploitative than large ones, because they often work with such limited profit margins and such narrow markets that it's the only way they can stay afloat. "Exploitation" isn't to be conceived of some malicious crime undertaken only by moustache-twirling CEOs, but as an economic necessity placed upon capitalists by capitalism; capitalists don't exploit because they're bad or even misguided, but because the market leaves them no choice. The personable, well-meaning coffee-shop owner may well be twice as much as an exploiter as some callous Wall Street suit.

I was thinking of asking this in Ask a Red thread, but since it's come up here...

Would small companies that do not turn a profit be exploitative of workers at all? What if the owners' and managers' salaries are close to their employees'? The entire inequity of capitalism is that simply from having the task of rearranging resources and capital in an efficient manner, the capitalist enjoys a profit (value excess) that the workers actually worked to create.

Where is the exploitation when both the company turns no profit, and the wages throughout the company are very close to each other?

(feel free to answer in that thread instead)

 

[Yeekim]

whether you think that living in a hypothetical communist society- a stateless, classless, post-market society- however utopian, unrealistic, or downright silly that may seem, would be better than living in a capitalist society.

Would there being a real communist society mean that these people have achieved post-scarcity? In that case, I could live there, yeah.

EDIT: @Mise: Excellent post, sir!

 

[Traitorfish]

I was thinking of asking this in Ask a Red thread, but since it's come up here...

Would small companies that do not turn a profit be exploitative of workers at all? What if the owners' and managers' salaries are close to their employees'? The entire inequity of capitalism is that simply from having the task of rearranging resources and capital in an efficient manner, the capitalist enjoys a profit (value excess) that the workers actually worked to create.

Where is the exploitation when both the company turns no profit, and the wages throughout the company are very close to each other?

(feel free to answer in that thread instead)

That depends on two sets of factors, the external and the internal. The external factors are those determined by the state of the market as a whole. In Marxian theory, the exchange value of commodities- goods and service- is not determined directly by labour-time, but by the "socially necessary labour-time", which is (give or take) the average labour-time needed to produce a particular commodity. As such, a failure to turn a profit might be because the enterprise is failing to produce at or below the socially necessary labour time, and are either forced to charge higher prices, reducing business, or reduce their prices such that they make no profit. In this case, exploitation is still occurring, it's simply that the employer is unable to realise the surplus value which he has appropriated. (It is instead redistributed through the market to a more efficient rival, who is able to produce at below the socially necessary labour time, and so lower his prices to increase business, or simply reap a higher per-transaction profit.) This would be the most likely reason for the circumstances you describe.
The internal factors are those derived from the relationship between the employer and employee. In this case, it may well be that every penny generated by the worker is returned to him in his pay-cheque, and so there is no exploitation occurring. I'm not aware of any situation in which this has actually occurred, but it is at the very least feasible. So, yes, it would be possible for a worker to be in non-exploitative employment.

However, this does not act as an argument against the anti-capitalist critique of capitalism, or reduce it to a specific criticism of a given enterprise rather than general criticism of capitalism, because the theory of exploitation is not actually the criticism which anti-capitalists make. Exploitation is an economic mechanism, dependent upon more fundamental relationships of production, and it is those relationship which actually constitute capitalism. Even if every second of the workers' labour-time is returned to him in his pay-cheque, he is still obliged to realise that labour as money through the capitalist. He is still dependent on and thus subordinate to the capitalist, trapped in an economic and social relationship not of his own making. (There's also some more philosophical stuff about alienation and what not, but that would involve an even more long-winded ramble than this.)

 

[Defiant47]

The internal factors are those derived from the relationship between the employer and employee. In this case, it may well be that every penny generated by the worker is returned to him in his pay-cheque, and so there is no exploitation occurring. I'm not aware of any situation in which this has actually occurred, but it is at the very least feasible. So, yes, it would be possible for a worker to be in non-exploitative employment.

Indeed, I was attempting to isolate the issue in a fairly abstracted manner. You are right in that the internal equity of the firm can still result in overall inequity.

However, if all businesses operated as such, would the exploitation dissipate? If no single company turned a profit due to an unrealistic state of perfect competition, and wage rates were fairly constant, would we be forced to dismiss part of the exploitation conclusion?

He is still dependent on and thus subordinate to the capitalist, trapped in an economic and social relationship not of his own making.

Yes, I considered this issue, but I consider it separate. A "pride" issue, if you will. In that, if all members of society receive the same treatment and assortment of value as appropriate, then who is subordinate to whom is a more minor issue. Naturally, subordination can lead to exploitation, but I'm still working within a very narrow hypothetical framework in which to delineate the issues.

 

[asbestos]

However, this does not act as an argument against the Marxist critique of capitalism, or reduce it to a specific criticism of a given enterprise rather than general criticism of capitalism, because the theory of exploitation is not actually the criticism which Marxists make. Exploitation is an economic mechanism, dependent upon more fundamental relationships of production, and it is those relationship which actually constitute capitalism. Even if every second of his labour-time is returned to him in his pay-cheque, he is still obliged to realise that labour as money through the capitalist. He is still dependent on and subordinate to the capitalist, and so deprived of true autonomy as a producer. (There's also some more philosophical stuff about alienation and what not, but that would involve an even more long-winded ramble than this.)

Is that necessarily always true though, if we assume that they're compensated for their full labor and that their job gives them a chance to develop what they see as their human potential? Aren't there people who'd rather have a subordinate role versus risking their own (or someone else's) capital to become self-employed?

Would a non-market oriented communist society even be constrained by the above dichotomy?

 

[Rashiminos]

It's hard to do that when you lack wealth. The system is made so that the role of the bourgeois and the proletariat are entrenched, so the people without the wealth cannot easily and truly become capitalists, and will stay as workers. Unless they put in a huge amount of effort and also get a little bit lucky, but just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's balanced.

I have addressed this, in that deciding which workers to use as a resource, is much easier than deciding which compensation to accept or negotiate, because the capitalist's economic stagnation is not as bad as the worker's economic paralysis.

Of course it's hard. That doesn't mean workers have to kneel. The goal is to have exploitative employers cut out of the loop by not finding a worker to hire. If those employers want back in the loop, they either need to bring fair dealing back to the table, or become workers themselves. Why do you think unions have some success? I disagree with the second quote on the grounds that workers should be exercising the right to not be employed in disadvantaged circumstances.

Again, I hold the idea that these concepts would apply in a hypothetical capitalism as well.

Stateless communism: Shatters at the speed of bullet.

So are corporations supposed to provide weekly reports to workers as to the exact value of their wages and the prevailing market rate as well? I don't think it would work like that. What if the corporation decides that gathering this information will not produce any profit? Will we force them to gather it and distribute it, through some sort of socialist reform in our hypothetical capitalism?

They aren't "supposed to do" anything. They have the option of attempting to do the right thing while not torpedoing the business into unsustainability. As far as we know, corporations would still have periodic worker evaluations. Ideally, wrongful corporations wouldn't be forced to gather such information. Instead, the workerbase and consumerbase would be allowed to lessen/remove their support. I'd suspect tanking into unprofitability will be the result.

The issue is that the ideas I have presented can be easily justified. Going to India and enslaving the populace in your factory in exchange for feeding them is clearly wrong. But omitting the inner workings of your business can be rationalized under the profit motive.

It appears we are at a mismatch in identifying and defining capitalism. I define it as I outlined with that "thesis", since the forces of the free market and the profit motive will have an "invisible hand" that will ideally improve the lives of everyone in the end. You, instead, impose fairly fierce ethical standards, and I think even reject the thesis.

It's not profit for profit's sake. It's profit for society's sake. The entire point of free market capitalism is that you should try to make as much profit as you can, because you are bettering society through efficiently creating goods and selling them to consumers. You might be made much better off comparatively than your workers, but they will also be made better off in an absolute sense.

Profit motive is part of the propaganda you mentioned. Some people do want to equate profiting oneself with profiting society, as it makes certain practices sound nicer than they would otherwise be. I'd personally maintain that self-profit* (to the extent that a corporation or similar body can be considered a self) is a distinct concept from profit for society's sake. Either goal can be applied in a capitalism. One may be better than the other. I don't think capitalism must have an ethical influence placed on it by design, but I identify an ideal capitalism as one where the participants bring their ethics (and other biases to some extent) to the market. Capitalism is a tool. The participants decide how it will be used.

*For example, assassination would be a service in a capitalist society unbound from the appropriate legal restraint. The assassin would no doubt profit from murdering some one else, but I doubt paid killings are profitable for society as a whole.

Now what if collaborative groups believe that the ethical thing to do is for the corporation to share its profits to the ones who created the profit for it? We can grant capitalism a basic ethical framework, but can't extend that indefinitely, if we want to study hypothetical capitalism in its true form.

Where does it stop, hypothetically?

 

[Defiant47]

Of course its hard. That doesn't mean workers have to kneel. The goal is to have exploitative employers cut out of the loop by not finding a worker to hire. If those employers want back in the loop, they either need to bring fair dealing back to the table, or become workers themselves. Why do you think unions have some success? I disagree with the second quote on the grounds that workers should be exercising the right to not be employed in disadvantaged circumstances.

The worker can't exercise the right to not be employed, because the worker is dependent on the employment income.

Needing a job so you can afford rent and food does not compare with needing a worker so that you're not wasting time in your factory.

They aren't "supposed to do" anything. They have the option of attempting to do the right thing while not torpedoing the business into unsustainability. As far as we know, corporations would still have periodic worker evaluations. Ideally, wrongful corporations wouldn't be forced to gather such information. Instead, the workerbase and consumerbase would be allowed to lessen/remove their support. I'd suspect tanking into unprofitability will be the result.

Perhaps... but bear in mind that the workerbase's ability to negotiate or affect the corporation is diminished, especially compared to the reverse side of things.

Profit motive is part of the propaganda you mentioned. Some people do want to equate profiting oneself with profiting society, as it makes certain practices sound nicer than they would otherwise be. I'd personally maintain that self-profit (to the extent that a corporation or similar body can be considered a self) is a distinct concept from profit for society's sake. Either goal can be applied in a capitalism. One may be better than the other. I don't think capitalism must have an ethical influence placed on it by design, but I identify an ideal capitalism as one where the participants bring their ethics (and other biases to some extent) to the market. Capitalism is a tool. The participants decide how it will be used.

No, the entire thesis of capitalism is that

Seeking profit for myself and my company is the most ethical thing I can do, because I will be bettering society by capitalizing on (immediate, short-run) inefficiencies or innovations, thereby improving overall productivity and raising the standard of living.

That's what the free market is supposed to achieve. Not just that there's profit and that there's ethics. But that seeking profit is the most ethical thing to do under this system, because it will better everyone.

Again, I have read entire essays and theses from official textbooks on this matter. If we strip down to the pure principles and ideals of hypothetical capitalism, this is what we are left with. I mean, we could get into entrepreneurship and all that jazz, but this is what's important right now.

Where does it stop, hypothetically?

Communism, which is the most truly ethical system for distributing goods and value amongst the population (that we know of).

 

[puttincomputers]

An utopia would not have a need for an economics system and as such the answer is neither.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is that necessarily always true though, if we assume that they're compensated for their full labor and that their job gives them a chance to develop what they see as their human potential?

Is that even possible on a large scale, though? I'm sure that there may be some tenured academics who could be so described, but that's not a form of employment which is easily replicated- or, recent trends would suggest, sustainable. They are very much the exception that proves the rule.

Aren't there people who'd rather have a subordinate role versus risking their own (or someone else's) capital to become self-employed?

Most likely. But what of it? Nobody ever said that the solution was to turn every into precarious small-business owners.

An utopia would not have a need for an economics system...

Why not?

Indeed, I was attempting to isolate the issue in a fairly abstracted manner. You are right in that the internal equity of the firm can still result in overall inequity.

However, if all businesses operated as such, would the exploitation dissipate? If no single company turned a profit due to an unrealistic state of perfect competition, and wage rates were fairly constant, would we be forced to dismiss part of the exploitation conclusion?

Well, just to throw another wrench into the works, perfect competition doesn't necessarily imply an end to exploitation. Unproductive labour, such as the production of advertising, would still need to be sustained, and so the labour of some workers still appropriated to sustain it.

But, if it were possible for such a situation to arise, then, yes, exploitation would not be a significant issue. But that doesn't tell us anything that we don't know anyway.

Yes, I considered this issue, but I consider it separate. A "pride" issue, if you will. In that, if all members of society receive the same treatment and assortment of value as appropriate, then who is subordinate to whom is a more minor issue. Naturally, subordination can lead to exploitation, but I'm still working within a very narrow hypothetical framework in which to delineate the issues.

I would consider that to be the primary issue. Domination is the precondition of exploitation, so it's not particularly informative to consider the latter in isolation from the former.

 

[Rashiminos]

The worker can't exercise the right to not be employed, because the worker is dependent on the employment income.

Needing a job so you can afford rent and food does not compare with needing a worker so that you're not wasting time in your factory.

It was my intent to suggest that the workers could feed and shelter each other instead of begging for it from the "employers," and force the employers to do without (the labor they won't hire non-exploitatively).

Perhaps... but bear in mind that the workerbase's ability to negotiate or affect the corporation is diminished, especially compared to the reverse side of things.

Primarily by their willingness to be exploited...

No, the entire thesis of capitalism is that

Seeking profit for myself and my company is the most ethical thing I can do, because I will be bettering society by capitalizing on (immediate, short-run) inefficiencies or innovations, thereby improving overall productivity and raising the standard of living.

That's what the free market is supposed to achieve. Not just that there's profit and that there's ethics. But that seeking profit is the most ethical thing to do under this system, because it will better everyone.

Again, I have read entire essays and theses from official textbooks on this matter. If we strip down to the pure principles and ideals of hypothetical capitalism, this is what we are left with. I mean, we could get into entrepreneurship and all that jazz, but this is what's important right now.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. This volume of essays and official textbooks is the result of an underlying problem that would still exist in...

Communism, which is the most truly ethical system for distributing goods and value amongst the population (that we know of).

We shouldn't expect everyone (anyone) to change just because we change the system. (I'd also like to tell you that I voted adv/dis to both).

 

[Richard Cribb]

Would communism be better than capitalism? By this I don't mean "do you think we should pursue communism", or "do you think that 'actually existing socialism' is/was better than capitalism", but simply whether you think that living in a hypothetical communist society- a stateless, classless, post-market society- however utopian, unrealistic, or downright silly that may seem, would be better than living in a capitalist society. It's a question about the "Idea of communism" than how this idea connects to political and social reality.

I'm not really interested out in hashing out any real political points here- there's plenty of that elsewhere!- but more in seeing how people orientate themselves on a more ethical or philosophical level, when removed a few steps from immediate reality.

Edit: As pointed out by Leoreth, "capitalism" is left unhelpfully vague, here, so let's just say that you compare it your own idealised capitalism, whatever form that may take. The point is really to compare the fundamental aspects of each, rather than to ask "would you like utopia?", which really isn't a very useful question to ask.

Nice Socratic thread. Yes I think a communist society will be preferable to the current capitalist one. I am too tired to elaborate on this now, but if somebody asks me polite I might do just that later.

I have more sympathy for Communism then Capitalism, but I don't feel Communism is the best system for our society right now. Things must take their course.

I agree. Just many of the reactions on this thread is enough evidence for that.