Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[Traitorfish]

I'll just point out that having a central bank is a plank of the Communist Manifesto.

And I'll point out that Fry's Turkish Delight is suitable for vegetarian consumption because it's made with pectin and not gelatine, because it's about as relevant.

I will defer to Dr. Thomas Woods on the concept of "real capitalism", he explains it much more brilliantly and succinctly than I. Please do watch the video, its not your typical boring lecture, he's a very entertaining and substantive speaker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g

You shouldn't need a lecture, this is very basic stuff indeed. Capitalism, following Marx, is a system of generalised commodity production, yes? And yet you're claiming that what we have isn't "real capitalism", which would suggest that it isn't "real" generalised commodity production. That either means that we're not "really" producing commodities, or that this production isn't "really" generalised. It should be quite straightforward to demonstrate either of these things.

But,

Capitalism ought to be called free enterprise because it covers what it stands for: Free Enterprise.

Is what you actually mean when you say "capitalism", because you're not using the term to signify a discrete economic formation with any identifiably generic characteristics, but as an inherited Cold War label for a favoured political-economic arrangement. So I hope my point is becoming clearer.

Did Marx oppose money altogether? Or is it other communists who believe in that? Kinda pointless to have a central bank without money.

Marx opposed money, yes; the central bank was a proposition for the transitional revolutionary period, and one which is non-integral to Marxist communism, having been abandoned by later schools such as Council Communism, Autonomism, etc. The retention of money under the Marxist-Leninist regimes long after they had supposedly entered "socialism" is one of the many symptoms of their capitalistic character (and I say that without meaning to derail this thread into another extended squabble about which of a five-hundred option long list of labels best described the USSR ).

 

[Tahuti]

Is what you actually mean when you say "capitalism", because you're not using the term to signify a discrete economic formation with any identifiably generic characteristics, but as an inherited Cold War label for a favoured political-economic arrangement. So I hope my point is becoming clearer.

Well, the generic characteristic of free enterprise is the private property, which is the legal framework for being allowed to operate businesses.

Usually this private property is used for making profits, though historically and even today, this does not always have to be the case. I don't really think your point is becoming clearer, and I still tend to think that Communism will either inevitably revert to Capitalism or adopt the authoritarian approach of the USSR because free enterprise seemingly can never be nullified by peaceful means.

Unless that Communist society of yours exists alongside a Capitalist economy while being perfectly isolated from it (economically at least) since it wouldn't be fully Communist otherwise, but that would be ridiculously difficult if not impossible. Few would voluntarily be in for this you know.

Funny thing is, those who oppose what they call Capitalism stress the profit aspect that does not always necessarily need to exist, while those that support it stress property rights instead of the profits that one can extract from it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, the generic characteristic of free enterprise is the private property, which is the legal framework for being allowed to operate businesses.

"Free enterprise" isn't a discrete social condition, though, just a vague, largely rhetorical category. Private property is certainly a condition of this category as usually understood (although I'm sure that Proudhon would have some opinions on that), but that hardly constitutes a discrete state of being- they had private property in a lot of the Eastern Bloc, after all.

Usually this private property is used for making profits, though historically and even today, this does not always have to be the case. I don't really think your point is becoming clearer...

What point needs clarification? My claim so far has been that capitalism, if we accept it as referring to a discrete economic formation, must have some generic form- either the positive "private property" one or the negative Marxian one- while Cryptic_Snow's "real capitalism" offers no such opportunities, instead merely representing the recession of the right of state interference to a state which he considered preferable, better termed as "free enterprise".

...and I still tend to think that Communism will either inevitably revert to Capitalism or adopt the authoritarian approach of the USSR because free enterprise seemingly can never be nullified by peaceful means.

Unless that Communist society of yours exists alongside a Capitalist economy while being perfectly isolated from it (economically at least) since it wouldn't be fully Communist otherwise, but that would be ridiculously difficult if not impossible. Few would voluntarily be in for this you know.

A Marxian understanding of communism isn't just state ownership, or even collective ownership, but the dissolution of market relations themselves. If Marx is correct, then it would be impossible for a post-market society to revert to capitalism, because it would not contain the social antagonisms necessary for an epoch of social reconstitution, i.e. a revolution to occur (or, at least, for an historically regressive revolution). (This historical occurrence is another symptom of the essentially capitalistic nature of the Marxist-Leninist regimes.) I know that's a bit of an axiomatic answer, but I don't want to derail this thread by diving too heavily into Marxist bletherhaiver, so if you want me to elaborate, I'd be happy to do so in the Ask a Red thread.

 

[amadeus]

To put it simply, as long a resources are scarce, there needs to be a mechanism to distribute those resources most efficiently. Eliminating market relations eliminates the mechanisms so the system breaks down. Even if communists could address the incentive problem (they can't), there's no way they can overcome the problems associated with scarce resources.

 

[Takhisis]

How on Earth can you put in an option for Ron Paul to be too far left and expect he poll to be taken seriously?

 

[Traitorfish]

To put it simply, as long a resources are scarce, there needs to be a mechanism to distribute those resources most efficiently. Eliminating market relations eliminates the mechanisms so the system breaks down. Even if communists could address the incentive problem (they can't), there's no way they can overcome the problems associated with scarce resources.

As I stated, if you have any questions on that matter, please as in the Ask A Red thread, linked in my signature. We don't need to have this discussion here.

 

[amadeus]

As I stated, if you have any questions on that matter, please as in the Ask A Red thread, linked in my signature. We don't need to have this discussion here.

I asked those questions and didn't get an answer. That's why I left the thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

I asked those questions and didn't get an answer. That's why I left the thread.

Good for you.

Edit: Ok, that was rather passive-aggressive, and I should really know better. Instead what I will say is that, as I recall, you left because your axiomatic claims of the natural superiority of market mechanisms were not accepted as such. I answered your last battery of questions in what I considered a fair manner; it's not my fault if you interpreted this as reflecting an inability to answer your questions.

 

[RedRalph]

And I'll point out that Fry's Turkish Delight is suitable for vegetarian consumption because it's made with pectin and not gelatine, because it's about as relevant.

Wrong. Fun fact: Turkish Delight is made by rubbing dog<snip> on leather.

Moderator Action: Crude language removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889