Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
The reason why you need to alter what I said when responding is because you keep telling me I'm wrong and that you dsagree but then you restate what I said in your own words.
Capitalism is not defined by market forces. You can look it up, or you can figure this out for yourself by realizing that a market exists in any economy. The difference is that the actors come to the market with the assets they personally own--capital. Owners own the means of production and workers own their labor power.
|
Markets are not found in every economic system. In socialism, there is no market. That's one of the main problems with that system-without markets to determine prices and supply, the economy breaks down. The result-"black markets" where goods that are needed can be purchased.
Quote:
|
It's not a semantic argument. The defining characteristic of capitalism is personal ownership and personal accumulation of capital. You are incorrect that most economists would argue that capitalism has been pretty much the same for the past 200 years. I would hope that no economist believes or states this as fact because that would fly in the face of contemporary proof that various forms of capitalism exist on the planet right at this very moment. The way the US practices capitalism is very different from the way other capitalist nations practice it.
|
It could be argued that the other nations aren't as purely capitalistic. The usual difference is just in the amount of gov't control that is put in the system, not the system itself.
Quote:
|
I'm not trying to redefine greed as a socially repugnant value. You stated in your own reply that people often won't mention this valuable quality because of it's negative connotations. The reverse is true, you are trying to redefine it as a necessary component of capitalism. How does your repititon of this 'fact' rebut my contention that capitalists believe people are greedy (the statement you keep telling me I'm wrong about)? It appears to me that you're validating my commentary. I was mainly speaking of the capitalists who respond to these kinds of threads. I know a much broader variety of capitalists in the real world, but the people here often seem to feel the need to disagree simply for the reason to disagree--even when they are going to state something that doesn't mesh with their own assumptions or when they aren't going to write something different from what they disagreed with.
|
But without greed, there can be no capitalism. Without people striving for more, capitalism falls apart. How does repetion of any of your opinions rebut anything I've said? You can't assume your opinions are fact, and that anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.
Quote:
|
I already explained to you that production isn't more efficient now. You can argue on the basis that more units are being made now, so that is better. But your original argument was that we are more efficient now. We aren't and this isn't something that needs to be hashed out based on your presumptions because empirical data exists demonstrating this fact.
|
More units are being produced per hour of labor. That's more efficent. You didn't explain anything, you threw out a statement that you expected to be accepted as fact. Those are two different things. How do you say we aren't more efficient now? Take agriculture for one. One of the major problems facing the ag industry is that we are TOO efficient. The same with manufacturing-we are able to produce so much with so little labor, that many people now are finding jobs being phased out. You just stating something repeatedly doesn't make it true-you aren't Dorothy and you aren't in Oz. If you want to "explain" something, it is usually necessary to provide some facts other than "because I said so". Just saying that people worked less before doesn't prove anything. If I work 20 hours, and produce x goods, and someone else works 40 hours and produces 3x goods, they are more efficient. Efficiency has nothing to due with just time, it's also a measure of production during that time.
Quote:
|
I think it's bizarre that you are hinging our current greatness on our pooling of resources and division of labor and the cooperation of individuals rather than eliminating the competition. All of those are social behaviors--not individual behaviors. But I guess you've told yourself I'm wrong because I'm not an individualist and then defining all of our social behaviors as ultimately better for the individual...so they make sense to an individualist like yourself.
|
Didn't you notice where I said earlier that we were probably more interdependant now than in previous times? Or are you so worried about proving something wrong, you don't have time to waste actually reading things you think disagree with you. If it makes sense personally, a person will cooperate. If it doesn't, they won't. This isn't a hard concept, it comes up repeatedly in history, economics, and game theory. You making some artificial division between "individualists" and... well, you never named this other mythical group is really irrelevant.
Quote:
|
But the point that I made originally, that you so much want to rebut yet remains firmly standing, is the notion that humans aren't innately individualistic (primarily concerned with their own self-interest, or greedy, or any other way of describing the selfishness we witness in US society). It's drummed into our heads from birth and permeates our social reality despite the historical and modern evidence that humans are social creatures. We have to reaffirm that selfishness is necessary to growth or even the best way to exist because once that idea is problemetized, capitalism starts to lose its luster to the far, far, far numerous people who dont get shit by working hard their whole lives except a hard life of work. Lots of people in lots of places don't believe that selfishness is best and they are just as productive, and some moreso, than people who are individualists. The empirical evidence is that US workers are falling behind the curve--we work more and we are less productive than other workers. The fempirical evidence appears to support my position whereas your facts aren't even internally consistent.
|
What evidence have you given? Are you just making stuff up? Where are these mythical, socialist paradises that you seem to believe in? Can you show one modern example of a country where "selfishness" isn't present, or where that selfishness hasn't propelled the country forward more? You keep talking about some collectivist ideal as if it really exists. You state I'm not internally consistent, whereas you can't even give any examples of what you believe being put into practice.
Quote:
|
BTW, your recollection of Weber's position is incorrect. He didn't sate that capitalism was unnatural. I don't know who you're thinking of, but it wasn't him. In fact, his position on the (hu)man rationality and drive to accumulate affluence mirrors some of your statements in these replies to me.
|
This is the first thing you've gotten correct. I was thinking of Karl Polanyi, who relied heavily upon Weber.