Individualism Is Stupid ( Or Why Libertarianism And Objectivism Is Stupid)

[shadow]

Why is capital necessarily a 'collective product'? Is this referring to how capital is produced or used?

Short answer: how it is produced.

Marx is criticizing the term "individual" being used as a euphemism for bourgeois dominance. He was just noting that it takes a "collective" of sorts to mass produce something. The capitalist is given "the credit" for the success of his company, but he needed a whole bunch of workers (including children, who worked in factories instead of being educated in Marx's day). On top of that, the capitalist needs roads, police to enforce laws, and all kinds of other infrastructure in order to do business. To Marx, capitalism itself is collectivism of sorts, and simply by being a wealthy business owner, one's livelihood is indirectly supported by a number of public ventures.

Definitely - capitalism is a system supported by a host of regulations that enable it. I'd say from a capitalist perspective, though, the ability to incentivize those workers to work for you is the individual aspect. Other people and governments are seen as... almost tools, not an entity that helps one out of the goodness of their hearts. I'd say a capitalist wouldn't expect these things to work in his favor if he hadn't duly coerced (through whatever means) the collective to support him.

[vulcanlogician]

Definitely - capitalism is a system supported by a host of regulations that enable it. I'd say from a capitalist perspective, though, the ability to incentivize those workers to work for you is the individual aspect. Other people and governments are seen as... almost tools, not an entity that helps one out of the goodness of their hearts. I'd say a capitalist wouldn't expect these things to work in his favor if he hadn't duly coerced (through whatever means) the collective to support him.

I think capitalism's greatest strength is that it is "self-correcting"... think of Smith's invisible hand. If a firm is not producing things efficiently, it will be put out of business by a firm that is. If we put the means of production into public hands, how will a public entity "go out of business" if it is inefficient? The right/libertarians have a valid point here.

The "incentives" argument you made was something that is a weak point in capitalism. Namely, capitalism treats people like commodities. It doesn't matter how hard they work or how valuable their work is to society-- they are paid the going rate for their labor in the marketplace. We're not talking about STEM fields or anything; we're talking about unskilled labor, something that every single society needs more than anything else (like Plato's City of Pigs). The problem is that most members of society need to do manual labor or the society will collapse, but each of these members is replaceable by any other person, thus making their market value low. Left to its own devices, capitalism will enslave 90% of the society (seeing no value in these people except to produce more and more goods).

Marxism values the individual. Marx thought that  capitalism would reduce 90% of the population to machines. He believed this 90% could and would be more productive to society, if only society valued them enough to contribute to their development as individuals (instead of reducing them to a cog in the clockwork).

[Amarok]

I think capitalism's greatest strength is that it is "self-correcting"... think of Smith's invisible hand. If a firm is not producing things efficiently, it will be put out of business by a firm that is. If we put the means of production into public hands, how will a public entity "go out of business" if it is inefficient? The right/libertarians have a valid point here.

The idea that a public entity should go out of business seems a bad idea rather then simply fixing it. I don't believe in treating critical things as a for profit notion . Nor do i view the idea of everything being a competition.And i think the privatization of most things is a serious problem .

[vulcanlogician]

I think capitalism's greatest strength is that it is "self-correcting"... think of Smith's invisible hand. If a firm is not producing things efficiently, it will be put out of business by a firm that is. If we put the means of production into public hands, how will a public entity "go out of business" if it is inefficient? The right/libertarians have a valid point here.

The idea that a public entity should go out of business seems a bad idea rather then simply fixing it. I don't believe in treating critical things as a for profit notion . Nor do i view the idea of everything being a competition.And i think the privatization of most things is a serious problem .

Yeah, but you're not factoring in corruption. Private companies as well as public entities suffer from it unilaterally. The right harps on this point ad nauseum, but (aside from the fact that they only point it out in the public sphere) they have a point. Desire is a driving force in a communistic economy just like capitalism. If we are going to put goods and services into the hands of the people, then we need efficient institutions. Capitalism does promote an atmosphere of competition (provided the government has antitrust measures in place etc.). This is why I think the public sector needs to play a substantial role in a Marxist economy, at least at first. Even Lenin had to admit this, though I don't think he "admitted it" enough.

Maybe, I'm splitting hairs here. We seem to agree on the main points. I consider myself a Marxist, but I don't chain myself to the "authoritarian parodies of socialism" (as Irving Howe called them). But we can still learn from the mistakes of these failed regimes. Centrally-planned economies fail in a number of ways. IMO it would be best for the Marxist economy to focus on basic needs while allowing the private sector to produce luxuries. When I say "luxuries" I don't just mean Lamborghinis and caviar; I mean simple luxuries, like good coffee. I like sumatra espresso, personally. Centrally planned economies have failed again and again to provide these things for citizens. Check out East Germany's track record here. Russia and China are utter failures because they barely kept their populations fed.

Look at it this way: when capitalism began to fail, governments started to implement socialism as a stop-gap measure, and it kept those economies afloat. Similarly, Marxists need to admit that their system fails and add capitalism until the society more-or-less fulfills its purpose. A marxist society, to me, would be ideal because it is built around the development and advancement of its citizens. If we were to somehow achieve full communism as Marx envisioned it, there would be no barriers to someone who wanted to develop himself through education and culture. He wouldn't "work himself to death" before ever having had a chance to advance himself. Capitalism prioritizes mass produced junk over the development of its citizens. (In fact, the mass produced junk is produced at the expense of ordinary citizens). The problem is that Marxism needs to work or it's no good to anybody. Like capitalism added socialism to fix itself, Marxism needs to be willing to revise itself, adding capitalism, libertarianism, and democracy until it has compensated for its shortcomings.

[shadow]

Definitely - capitalism is a system supported by a host of regulations that enable it. I'd say from a capitalist perspective, though, the ability to incentivize those workers to work for you is the individual aspect. Other people and governments are seen as... almost tools, not an entity that helps one out of the goodness of their hearts. I'd say a capitalist wouldn't expect these things to work in his favor if he hadn't duly coerced (through whatever means) the collective to support him.

I think capitalism's greatest strength is that it is "self-correcting"... think of Smith's invisible hand. If a firm is not producing things efficiently, it will be put out of business by a firm that is. If we put the means of production into public hands, how will a public entity "go out of business" if it is inefficient? The right/libertarians have a valid point here.

The "incentives" argument you made was something that is a weak point in capitalism. Namely, capitalism treats people like commodities. It doesn't matter how hard they work or how valuable their work is to society-- they are paid the going rate for their labor in the marketplace. We're not talking about STEM fields or anything; we're talking about unskilled labor, something that every single society needs more than anything else (like Plato's City of Pigs). The problem is that most members of society need to do manual labor or the society will collapse, but each of these members is replaceable by any other person, thus making their market value low. Left to its own devices, capitalism will enslave 90% of the society (seeing no value in these people except to produce more and more goods).

I agree it is a weak point of capitalism - but also a very very powerful one. My concern is even more that with automation the unskilled labour sector can be removed almost altogether and replaced by machines. The machines are simply factors of production owned by the wealthy, so there is literally no natural redistribution of wealth at that point. It's why I strongly advocate for something like a universal basic income right now. I've always hated the idea of not using machines to do work when we could: manual labour isn't fun and efficient systems are a beautiful application of science. That being said, if the benefit from those machines and technological advances goes solely to the wealthy... the gains are made from locking unskilled labour out of the system entirely.

Hmm... structurally it's a damn good business decision and it only fails, and it fails utterly, an ethical level. But sort of makes sense why we're in some of the mess we are today politically; people are desperate and I don't know if I can blame them. Only they thought that crony capitalism would be their savoir, when what they really need is a government with some sort of spine that isn't entirely bought and paid for by corporations.

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with the "invisible hand" is that it;s not so much invisible as it just doesn't exist.  Look around you, bad actors aren;t being put out of business by the government -or- the consumer.  Just a few months back, when products were spontaneously catching fire and banks were found to have defrauded their customers...their stock value was going up.

The notion is that it's just an effect of crony capitalism..but it isn't. An "efficiently" run business can crush it's competition, and the ability to do so is ethics-neutral. The invisible hand relies on every actor in a chain making the right decision on grounds of ethics. Not only has that never happened, it never will and it -can't-. The only situation in which people would have the type of freedom required to make the invisible hand work is if no-one in the chain needed money or the product itself in the first place........and there were tons of other ways to get it. At which point, there's no point to capitalism.

[Amarok]

The idea that a public entity should go out of business seems a bad idea rather then simply fixing it. I don't believe in treating critical things as a for profit notion . Nor do i view the idea of everything being a competition.And i think the privatization of most things is a serious problem .

Yeah, but you're not factoring in corruption. Private companies as well as public entities suffer from it unilaterally. The right harps on this point ad nauseum, but (aside from the fact that they only point it out in the public sphere) they have a point. Desire is a driving force in a communistic economy just like capitalism. If we are going to put goods and services into the hands of the people, then we need efficient institutions. Capitalism does promote an atmosphere of competition (provided the government has antitrust measures in place etc.). This is why I think the public sector needs to play a substantial role in a Marxist economy, at least at first. Even Lenin had to admit this, though I don't think he "admitted it" enough.

Maybe, I'm splitting hairs here. We seem to agree on the main points. I consider myself a Marxist, but I don't chain myself to the "authoritarian parodies of socialism" (as Irving Howe called them). But we can still learn from the mistakes of these failed regimes. Centrally-planned economies fail in a number of ways. IMO it would be best for the Marxist economy to focus on basic needs while allowing the private sector to produce luxuries. When I say "luxuries" I don't just mean Lamborghinis and caviar; I mean simple luxuries, like good coffee. I like sumatra espresso, personally. Centrally planned economies have failed again and again to provide these things for citizens. Check out East Germany's track record here. Russia and China are utter failures because they barely kept their populations fed.

Look at it this way: when capitalism began to fail, governments started to implement socialism as a stop-gap measure, and it kept those economies afloat. Similarly, Marxists need to admit that their system fails and add capitalism until the society more-or-less fulfills its purpose. A marxist society, to me, would be ideal because it is built around the development and advancement of its citizens. If we were to somehow achieve full communism as Marx envisioned it, there would be no barriers to someone who wanted to develop himself through education and culture. He wouldn't "work himself to death" before ever having had a chance to advance himself. Capitalism prioritizes mass produced junk over the development of its citizens. (In fact, the mass produced junk is produced at the expense of ordinary citizens). The problem is that Marxism needs to work or it's no good to anybody. Like capitalism added socialism to fix itself, Marxism needs to be willing to revise itself, adding capitalism, libertarianism, and democracy until it has compensated for its shortcomings.

I don't think competition is a very good way of dealing with corruption . As for central planned states . We can indeed learn what they did wrong . But i don't think that leads us in the direction of capitalism or privatization .

---

The trouble with the "invisible hand" is that it;s not so much invisible as it just doesn't exist.  Look around you, bad actors aren;t being put out of business by the government -or- the consumer.  Just a few months back, when products were spontaneously catching fire and banks were found to have defrauded their customers...their stock value was going up.

The notion is that it's just an effect of crony capitalism..but it isn't.  An "efficiently" run business can crush it's competition, and the ability to do so is ethics-neutral.  The invisible hand relies on every actor in a chain making the right decision on grounds of ethics.  Not only has that never happened, it never will and it -can't-.  The only situation in which people would have the type of freedom required to make the invisible hand work is if no-one in the chain needed money or the product itself in the first place........and there were tons of other ways to get it.  At which point, there's no point to capitalism.

I agree the invisible hand isn't real . And i do think capitalism leads to cronyism despite regulation and competition.

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think competition is a very good way of dealing with corruption . As for central planned states . We can indeed learn what they did wrong . But i don't think that leads us in the direction of capitalism or privatization .

The trouble with the "invisible hand" is that it;s not so much invisible as it just doesn't exist.  Look around you, bad actors aren;t being put out of business by the government -or- the consumer.  Just a few months back, when products were spontaneously catching fire and banks were found to have defrauded their customers...their stock value was going up.

The notion is that it's just an effect of crony capitalism..but it isn't.  An "efficiently" run business can crush it's competition, and the ability to do so is ethics-neutral.  The invisible hand relies on every actor in a chain making the right decision on grounds of ethics.  Not only has that never happened, it never will and it -can't-.  The only situation in which people would have the type of freedom required to make the invisible hand work is if no-one in the chain needed money or the product itself in the first place........and there were tons of other ways to get it.  At which point, there's no point to capitalism.

We can at least agree that all institutions are not created equal. A casual stroll through yelp confirms this. And I think the invisible hand does exist-- the problem is that an oligarchy of shady individuals have got their hands on a remote control which makes it do their bidding. 

Look at the USSR. Those faulty institutions were broken, and they remained broken for the 70-ish years that the regime remained in power. China became so broken that it began sucking corporate dick (hard!) just to make ends meet. I'm not trying to undermine Marxism by referencing Adam Smith, but one must recognize that certain  elements of capitalism work. And if including those elements into a Marxist society helps that society achieve its ideals, then we ought to revise the theory accordingly.

[Amarok]

Yes we agree that all are equal (that is you and i ) But i disagree that it indicates an invisible hand and that capitalism has elements worth adopting . Yes communism must avoid the examples of China and the USSR (thou i point out capitalist subversion  has a ton to do with why they failed ) But  not towards capitalism .

[The Grand Nudger]

We can at least agree that all institutions are not created equal. A casual stroll through yelp confirms this. And I think the invisible hand does exist-- the problem is that an oligarchy of shady individuals have got their hands on a remote control which makes it do their bidding. 

Certainly the case in some examples..but the oligarchy doesn't explain why the "invisible hand" doesn't appear where the oligarchy doesn't have theirs.  Notice we're talking about a novel interpretation of the invisible hand in the first place..something which no economist believes is actually thing that exists and effects markets (because the fundamental assumptions that must be made to reach such a conclusion are counterfactual), nor was it intended to mean as much by Smith.  It was a backhand reference made once in the context of how a person, seeking their own gain, might contribute to the wealth of their state.  

Capitalism is not self correcting in any non trivial way.  It may correct an inefficient flow of capital....may......but that means nothing at all beyond the confines of the system itself.  It's not necessarily connected to any real world tangible that you or I or any decent human being would consider a correction.  A "self correction" of capitalism could be, for example..moving production away from a cure and into treatment..because there's more opportunity to move money in the latter ergo the means of production are best put to that end.  

Look at the USSR. Those faulty institutions were broken, and they remained broken for the 70-ish years that the regime remained in power. China became so broken that it began sucking corporate dick (hard!) just to make ends meet. I'm not trying to undermine Marxism by referencing Adam Smith, but one must recognize that certain  elements of capitalism work. And if including those elements into a Marxist society helps that society achieve its ideals, then we ought to revise the theory accordingly.

Sure, capitalism works at moving capital.  It works as a means, but means have become ends and those with both have not so much tilted the table as they've flipped it over in the rest of the publics face and shat on it for good measure.  This is "the problem with capitalism", not that it "doesn't work".  It works -very- well for oligarchs. I could comment on the quality of that work, but ultimately my comments will reduce to a comment on means as ends.  In truth, and n reality, there's no such thing as an invisible hand or a free market...so if that's what people take "some parts of capitalism work" to mean, then they're just flat out wrong.

Private ownership and some sort of commerce between individuals is a great thing. It's a powerful inducement to produce, but only when the ends are realistically achievable. If they aren't, at some point, people realize they've been turned into mules and decide to stay home or phone it in on the job. This happens regardless of whether a society is operating on a capitalist or communist model. I also think, like we all think, that some combination of ideologies is the best way forward. I don;t thik people want to see things like national defense, police services, roads, or local government to become for profit entities under private ownership, and I assume that most of us would like to add to the list of things we already realize need to derive from or cater to public ownership and enfranchisement.

---

Here a favorite example of mine, it happens all over appalachia at present.  A county will spend an exorbitant amount of money creating an industrial complex, they will then lure in some business, say a toyota subsidiary..by offering them a tax free agreement for a period of x years.  They have even been known to facilitate said company in charging it's employees for the electricity the factory uses.  Sometimes they flat out hand them cash.  Ignore all of the handouts to preferred contractors inherent to this process..because I don't even need it.

In effect, the city (and it's citizens) have built and now maintain an industrial facility on their own dime.  They're simply asking the subsidiary to bring their product licensing and purchasing agreements to the building.  All too often, before the tax holiday wears off, the subsidiary suddenly realizes that they;re just not hitting their numbers..and they relocate to begin this scam all over again.  Migratory manufacturing.  Now, people say "why not put a lengthy clause in the initial agreement" - it's been done..the next county over decides not to include it and guess where the sub goes?  "Well, it boosts the local economy right?" No, not so much.  They aren't paying taxes and most of the wages go to franchised businesses with even lower wages.  The money leaves, and when the factory leaves the low wage capital exporting bubble bursts.  

So..if a county or ity was going to go through all that trouble anyway, and fuck themselves that hard anyway..maybe they should do what they were always going to do but use it for public access manufacturing?  Sure, sure..keep luring an endless procession of toyota subs in if we want...but there's always a park sitting idle due to the revolving door.  Even a small public space for rapid prototyping would be more useful and a much better longterm strategy.  It just sounds too much like communism for city managers to sell it in the kinds of places where predatory manufacturing is really digging in. Theres always somebody who wants to build something..and who knows, a local might have a good idea and simply lack the capital to set up their own shop. If a local guy or girl makes good on a limited prototype run...it would seem that they have a far stronger inducement to either remain loyal to the place they call home and set up a permanent line there..or hell, sell out the rights and come up with another idea. The only viable alternative for most wih the knowledge and idea but not the means..is to be complicit in the predatory manufacturing cycle and, most likely, leave when the company leaves (or simply be un/underemployed again). That's -exactly- what I did for as long as it took me to realize that I wasn't making upward progress as I was contributing to the downward spiral.

It's difficult, imo, to assert that the way we do things now doesn't leave a mountain of underutilized potential and wasted productivity to rot in favor of stuffing a select few assholes coffers. That is, however, capitalism working as intended. As most ideas (even good one..sometimes I think -especially the good ones-) will fail..and any profits, if any profits, are not as immediately realizable. The money moves more efficiently when we do things the way we've been them, even if the tangible goods we use to justify our actions in that regard commonly fail to materialize.