Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it’s a tool. Capitalism selects for those that can best get the most profits, ergo power is useful in achieving those ends. It isn’t about making “good” decisions, but profitable ones.
Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.
This is a cop-out answer. People don’t have a natural desire to “rise in hierarchies.” If that’s the best way to improve your material conditions then people will desire to rise, not for an obsession over power or domination.
How to settle among different classes of workers?
If you mean between the peasantry and proletariat, the answer is to industrialize agriculture and fold everyone into the proletariat gradually (alongside collectivizing production and distribution to erase class). If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.
Utter fantasy. UBI is just a form of social welfare, but with capitalists in charge of the state UBI will only exist in a manner that benefits capitalists. The state isn’t above class struggle, but within it. Further, capitalists do not labor. The day to day management of companies is done by workers, capitalists contribute nothing but the fact that they legally own the tools.
No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It’s liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.
Profit comes from underpaying workers. Profit is made by selling commodities for their value, which is made up of raw materials, tool usage, etc called “constant capital,” and for wages, called “variable capital.” Constant capital is crystallized prior labor, the profit comes from paying a worker for only a small portion of their labor time, regulated around cost of reproduction of labor (ie, minimum customary living standards). Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit, which is why companies try to seek monopoly, but they also need competition in order to keep circulation of commodities flowing for their own valorization of invested capital.
Capitalism kills itself, it’s a contradictory system.
Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.
Think of it this way: If a single capitalist owned everything, then cost of goods collapses. There is no circulation anymore, only planned production and distribution, and absolutely no organized class for protecting said single capitalist. Capitalism would cease to function. Company towns only “worked” because they existed in the context of a grander market that the capitalists could get all that they wanted from.
If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain under it. That’s why I’m saying that this hypothetical is impossible and would collapse immediately, just like anarcho-capitalism. It fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works.
No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don’t see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.
This is a very western viewpoint, and one that is increasingly incorrect. As capitalism decays, class awareness is rising alongside class struggle.
Maybe some other reader can chime in? I still believe people seek power, (*if only as a tool for self actualization.)
If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
How should they settle wages?
but with capitalists in charge of the state
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
Further, capitalists do not labor.
That’s a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit,
Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.
The following parts are essentially all the same:
Capitalism kills itself, it’s a contradictory system.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
no organized class for protecting said single capitalist.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
Company towns only “worked” because they existed in the context
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Why would they need profits?
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn’t have to collapse.
class awareness is rising alongside class struggle
Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.
Per wikipedia the link you gave: Although widely used and researched, the hierarchy of needs has been criticized for its lack of conclusive supporting evidence and its validity remains contested. There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives. Power doesn’t foster a thirst for power.
How should they settle wages?
In a socialist economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Wages are more strongly controlled via the administration, but until we get to a point where we can distribute according to need, we will distribute according to work, including variance for skill, danger, and intensity. See how socialist countries already settle wages.
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Any social reforms gained by the working classes in the context of an economy dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish. Democracy is only compatible with socialism and communism, for the most part.
That’s a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
They don’t even need to do that, they pay people to do this. No value is created via ownership.
Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.
Workers are the buyers, except for luxury goods which are targeting capitalists, as well as industrial equipment, etc. Workers cannot be paid the full value of their labor and still have the capitalists profit. Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn’t created by ownership, nor by charging monopoly prices.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
This doesn’t follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
Administration is not a distinct class, you’re trying to conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad, to better paid workers and other capitalists, as well as purchasing goods from outside of the company town. Company towns weren’t selling purely to their own workers.
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn’t have to collapse.
It has to collapse if it is to remain capitalism, because the idea of a system where a single mega-capitalist owns everything in a closed system is one that has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.
Workers have already successfully established socialism for billions of people, and as capitalism decays the suffering comes with it. Imperialism is collapsing and the rate of profit is falling.
There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives.
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
controlled via the administration,
dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish.
Isn’t that the same concentration of power?
Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn’t created by ownership
Only in global communism. The charged workers don’t have to be the same as the producing workers.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
This doesn’t follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It’s like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get’s more than everybody else.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Why is that inevitable?
capitalism decays the suffering comes with it
Why rely on it instead of building a ‘we’ on its own?
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
That’s true of any society, for the most part. Socialist countries do end up doing this much better than peer countries though. Also, in socialism, the working class is in power. Administrative positions exist, but they aren’t unaccountable or anything.
Isn’t that the same concentration of power?
Not at all. Collectivization of production and distribution into one democratically run system does naturally follow from the groundwork paved by late stage capitalism, yes, but this collectivization also brings with it democratization of power.
Only in global communism. The charged workers don’t have to be the same as the producing workers.
I don’t see how this relates to communism, moreover the working class as a whole is the class that produces and consumes. The company towns only worked somewhat because the commodities they produced were sold outside, making everything a company town wouldn’t work.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
Still don’t see your point.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It’s like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get’s more than everybody else.
Not at all. Buying goods with money earned isn’t the same as circulation of capital. Capital transmogrifies from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism, and prices collapse. This “mega-capitalist” would be overthrown instantly and socialism or barbarism would take its place.
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
There is for profit. You’re trying to create a weird utopian mega-capitalism that would, the instant it existed, collapse into socialism or barbarism.
Why is that inevitable?
A single person can’t actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly. This is the same kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
Why rely on it instead of building a ‘we’ on its own?
We don’t, we rely on organizing. Capitalism’s decay speeds up that process.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
Still don’t see your point.
I don’t understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.
A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
and prices collapse.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don’t have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
This “mega-capitalist” would be overthrown instantly
Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.
A single person can’t actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly.
Make it a hundred.
kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
In which way? Wiki couldn’t help me.
We don’t, we rely on organizing. Capitalism’s decay speeds up that process.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
I don’t understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.
A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
You’re confusing the ability for non-capitalist systems to function without circulation of commodities as their basis with the ability for capitalism to do so. Capitalism functions by this, it’s how capital is valorized.
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
A “capitalist” system where you have a single person that owns everything is both structurally impossible (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and also not capitalism. You’ve gone beyond the relations of bourgeois and proletarians into a system owned by a single autocrat, which would immediately cease. Capital isn’t circulating, and it isn’t being valorized, and this one person could not possibly get everyone to go along with treating them as god-emperor.
These kinds of hypotheticals will never come to pass, and thus it’s pointless to discuss beyond entertainment value.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don’t have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
Market efficiency doesn’t exist here, there isn’t a market for labor. It’s one capitalist. Prices don’t come from thin-air, and the capitalist has no use for money because they own literally everything. Systems of accounting would not work here.
Make it a hundred.
A hundred competing mega-capitalists would still be close to collapse, but could feasibly exist. They would compete and actually be able to valorize their capital, the way capitalists exploit workers today.
In which way? Wiki couldn’t help me.
Simply imagining a society doesn’t mean it can actually exist. Anarcho-capitalism can’t exist because the state is what legitimizes property relations. Same with your example, both would fall apart into something new.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
Humans naturally do cooperate, and we’ve seen workers organize to establish socialism. Further, fascism doesn’t really stabilize anything, and neither does war, it only temporarily buys time while accelerating revolutionary fervor.
Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it’s a tool. Capitalism selects for those that can best get the most profits, ergo power is useful in achieving those ends. It isn’t about making “good” decisions, but profitable ones.
This is a cop-out answer. People don’t have a natural desire to “rise in hierarchies.” If that’s the best way to improve your material conditions then people will desire to rise, not for an obsession over power or domination.
If you mean between the peasantry and proletariat, the answer is to industrialize agriculture and fold everyone into the proletariat gradually (alongside collectivizing production and distribution to erase class). If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
Utter fantasy. UBI is just a form of social welfare, but with capitalists in charge of the state UBI will only exist in a manner that benefits capitalists. The state isn’t above class struggle, but within it. Further, capitalists do not labor. The day to day management of companies is done by workers, capitalists contribute nothing but the fact that they legally own the tools.
Profit comes from underpaying workers. Profit is made by selling commodities for their value, which is made up of raw materials, tool usage, etc called “constant capital,” and for wages, called “variable capital.” Constant capital is crystallized prior labor, the profit comes from paying a worker for only a small portion of their labor time, regulated around cost of reproduction of labor (ie, minimum customary living standards). Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit, which is why companies try to seek monopoly, but they also need competition in order to keep circulation of commodities flowing for their own valorization of invested capital.
Capitalism kills itself, it’s a contradictory system.
Think of it this way: If a single capitalist owned everything, then cost of goods collapses. There is no circulation anymore, only planned production and distribution, and absolutely no organized class for protecting said single capitalist. Capitalism would cease to function. Company towns only “worked” because they existed in the context of a grander market that the capitalists could get all that they wanted from.
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain under it. That’s why I’m saying that this hypothetical is impossible and would collapse immediately, just like anarcho-capitalism. It fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works.
This is a very western viewpoint, and one that is increasingly incorrect. As capitalism decays, class awareness is rising alongside class struggle.
Top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is self actualization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs
Maybe some other reader can chime in? I still believe people seek power, (*if only as a tool for self actualization.)
How should they settle wages?
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
That’s a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.
The following parts are essentially all the same:
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn’t have to collapse.
Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.
Per wikipedia the link you gave: Although widely used and researched, the hierarchy of needs has been criticized for its lack of conclusive supporting evidence and its validity remains contested. There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives. Power doesn’t foster a thirst for power.
In a socialist economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Wages are more strongly controlled via the administration, but until we get to a point where we can distribute according to need, we will distribute according to work, including variance for skill, danger, and intensity. See how socialist countries already settle wages.
Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Any social reforms gained by the working classes in the context of an economy dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish. Democracy is only compatible with socialism and communism, for the most part.
They don’t even need to do that, they pay people to do this. No value is created via ownership.
Workers are the buyers, except for luxury goods which are targeting capitalists, as well as industrial equipment, etc. Workers cannot be paid the full value of their labor and still have the capitalists profit. Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn’t created by ownership, nor by charging monopoly prices.
This doesn’t follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
Administration is not a distinct class, you’re trying to conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.
Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad, to better paid workers and other capitalists, as well as purchasing goods from outside of the company town. Company towns weren’t selling purely to their own workers.
It has to collapse if it is to remain capitalism, because the idea of a system where a single mega-capitalist owns everything in a closed system is one that has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Workers have already successfully established socialism for billions of people, and as capitalism decays the suffering comes with it. Imperialism is collapsing and the rate of profit is falling.
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
Isn’t that the same concentration of power?
Only in global communism. The charged workers don’t have to be the same as the producing workers.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It’s like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get’s more than everybody else.
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
Why is that inevitable?
Why rely on it instead of building a ‘we’ on its own?
That’s true of any society, for the most part. Socialist countries do end up doing this much better than peer countries though. Also, in socialism, the working class is in power. Administrative positions exist, but they aren’t unaccountable or anything.
Not at all. Collectivization of production and distribution into one democratically run system does naturally follow from the groundwork paved by late stage capitalism, yes, but this collectivization also brings with it democratization of power.
I don’t see how this relates to communism, moreover the working class as a whole is the class that produces and consumes. The company towns only worked somewhat because the commodities they produced were sold outside, making everything a company town wouldn’t work.
Still don’t see your point.
Not at all. Buying goods with money earned isn’t the same as circulation of capital. Capital transmogrifies from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism, and prices collapse. This “mega-capitalist” would be overthrown instantly and socialism or barbarism would take its place.
There is for profit. You’re trying to create a weird utopian mega-capitalism that would, the instant it existed, collapse into socialism or barbarism.
A single person can’t actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly. This is the same kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
We don’t, we rely on organizing. Capitalism’s decay speeds up that process.
I don’t understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.
A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don’t have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.
Make it a hundred.
In which way? Wiki couldn’t help me.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
You’re confusing the ability for non-capitalist systems to function without circulation of commodities as their basis with the ability for capitalism to do so. Capitalism functions by this, it’s how capital is valorized.
A “capitalist” system where you have a single person that owns everything is both structurally impossible (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and also not capitalism. You’ve gone beyond the relations of bourgeois and proletarians into a system owned by a single autocrat, which would immediately cease. Capital isn’t circulating, and it isn’t being valorized, and this one person could not possibly get everyone to go along with treating them as god-emperor.
These kinds of hypotheticals will never come to pass, and thus it’s pointless to discuss beyond entertainment value.
Market efficiency doesn’t exist here, there isn’t a market for labor. It’s one capitalist. Prices don’t come from thin-air, and the capitalist has no use for money because they own literally everything. Systems of accounting would not work here.
A hundred competing mega-capitalists would still be close to collapse, but could feasibly exist. They would compete and actually be able to valorize their capital, the way capitalists exploit workers today.
Simply imagining a society doesn’t mean it can actually exist. Anarcho-capitalism can’t exist because the state is what legitimizes property relations. Same with your example, both would fall apart into something new.
Humans naturally do cooperate, and we’ve seen workers organize to establish socialism. Further, fascism doesn’t really stabilize anything, and neither does war, it only temporarily buys time while accelerating revolutionary fervor.