Stranger: No one has mentioned the definition of capitalism used in the original debates between Marx and the early austrians. Capitalism, as defined by Marxism and Bohm-Bawerk in his refutation of Marxism, is a social organization where laborers are isolated from the risk of a capital investment by being paid fixed wages whatever the outcome of a production process, the capitalist assuming all the risk, earning all the profits if profits are to be made, and suffering the whole loss if he has been mistaken.
No one has mentioned the definition of capitalism used in the original debates between Marx and the early austrians. Capitalism, as defined by Marxism and Bohm-Bawerk in his refutation of Marxism, is a social organization where laborers are isolated from the risk of a capital investment by being paid fixed wages whatever the outcome of a production process, the capitalist assuming all the risk, earning all the profits if profits are to be made, and suffering the whole loss if he has been mistaken.
Yeah, they don't want to hear how it is completely illogical for a 'man of science' to come up with a term that is inherently pejorative in nature to classify an economic system as they always try to claim.
This has to be at least the third flamefest over the meaning of 'capitalism'.
Stranger:Capitalism, as defined by Marxism and Bohm-Bawerk in his refutation of Marxism, is a social organization where laborers are isolated from the risk of a capital investment by being paid fixed wages whatever the outcome of a production process, the capitalist assuming all the risk, earning all the profits if profits are to be made, and suffering the whole loss if he has been mistaken.
This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. Laborers have the greatest risk. They are subject to layoff at any time. Their wages are eroded by inflation. Laborers are at risk for their skills becoming obsolete, especially in the area of software (my specialty).
Capitalists have no risk. They will usually receive a bailout. FRE and FNM received a State guarantee of their loans. The financial industry is being bailed out by inflation and interest rate cuts. A CEO who does a bad job will usually find another high-paying job easily, due to his connections. A hedge fund manager who loses billions of dollars can usually start a new fund.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk:This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present.
No, this is proof that capitalism isn't implemented in the present.
Anonymous Coward: fsk:This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. No, this is proof that capitalism isn't implemented in the present.
Proof that a certain definition of capitalism has not been implemented. But to most people, intellectuals or not, this is what capitalism means. The word can't really be justified except by reference to a handful of economists and even then only occasionally. It's use by libertarians is largely an accident, and we should realise it's as pointless to appeal to people with 'capitalism' as it is to start calling our beliefs 'socialism' because the State is anti-thetical to civil society. Whether it's use can be justified in some form does not mean it makes sense to use it at present.
Brainpolice:This post was an unecessary attack or flame.
It was. I went to sleep last night regretting I posted it. I apologize.
Brainpolice:I believe you attack what you don't understand.
I believe you're consistently taking liberties with redefining and predefining every conversation.
Brainpolice:I never recall promoting the political left or stating that I do. You have a misconception of me.
Very clever. "political left". I don't think Ego was wrong when he had you pegged as a leftist. I thought his arguments with you were an enormous waste of time, his obsession with which eventually drove him to leave the forum, and now I have put myself in the same trap. The test will be whether I can develop self control in the absence of an ignore function.
You're a skilled debater. As long as no one looks for the man behind the curtain.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Nitroadict:Or some people use various labels to try & more honestly describe various stances, opinions, & concepts their hold to be logical or true, despite the obvious difficulty in trying to concretly describe to another person exactly what you think, especially when what one may think evolves over time due to the assimilation of new information and/or the organizing of previous information. Some people just love flipping around things when it suits their purposes.
I think it's a defense mechanism. The self-alignment with groups and terms, it's a person seeking to define himself by the standards of others.
It speaks to a mindset of trying to rationalize the irrational.
Nitroadict:As for the later non-sequitor about "angry nerds" & "women", the last time I checked, this forum wasn't The Breakfast Club :\.
No, it really isn't. The nerd in that movie wasn't very angry.
fsk: This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. Laborers have the greatest risk.
This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. Laborers have the greatest risk.
Always interesting to see the complete economic ignorance underlying the "capitalism is statism" crowd.
fsk:They are subject to layoff at any time.
Reward is the other side of the coin of risk. Wage laborers get paid even if the product they make does not sell, they can also be fired even if the product does sell.
fsk: Laborers are at risk for their skills becoming obsolete, especially in the area of software (my specialty).
This is a risk faced by owners of human capital.
fsk:A CEO who does a bad job will usually find another high-paying job easily, due to his connections.
A CEO is not a capitalist, he labors for the shareholders who are the capitalists. The fact that he gets paid regardless of how the company ends up is an example of labor being isolated from risk.
Of course there is nothing wrong with having "connections", if my brother gets me a fabricating job whats the difference?
fsk:Capitalists have no risk. They will usually receive a bailout.
Some people have no risk. This class includes those people connected to the state, which isn't all capitalist.Tell a small business owner that the state won't let him fail.
It also include members of state sponsored labor unions.
fsk: FRE and FNM received a State guarantee of their loans. The financial industry is being bailed out by inflation and interest rate cuts.
A good example of how state-capitalism is easily distinguished from, and very unlike, market capitalism.
fsk: This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. Laborers have the greatest risk. They are subject to layoff at any time. Their wages are eroded by inflation. Laborers are at risk for their skills becoming obsolete, especially in the area of software (my specialty).
Any form of wage labour is an implementation of capitalism as defined by the Marxists and Austrians, since whatever a worker's productivity on the capital of the enterprise, only the capitalist is affected.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: fsk: This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. Laborers have the greatest risk. They are subject to layoff at any time. Their wages are eroded by inflation. Laborers are at risk for their skills becoming obsolete, especially in the area of software (my specialty). Any form of wage labour is an implementation of capitalism as defined by the Marxists and Austrians, since whatever a worker's productivity on the capital of the enterprise, only the capitalist is affected.
That doesn't describe the current system. It is absurd to say that the worker is not affected. It seems as if you conveniently switch between defending the concept of a free market and defending the effects of the current system that take place in the unfree market. Furthermore, if what you say is to be taken at face value, then your defense of "capitalism" must defend any involuntary "wage labor" involved. "Any form of wage labor" is quite vague and may include some things that are not reconcilable with individual liberty.
I fail to see why you can't admit that workers are largely screwed by the current system.
And yet you and your kind repeatedly defend the effects of state-capitalism that take place in markets in the name of free markets. It's you who is conveniently shifting in and out of making the distinction.
JonBostwick : fsk: They are subject to layoff at any time. Reward is the other side of the coin of risk. Wage laborers get paid even if the product they make does not sell, they can also be fired even if the product does sell.
fsk: They are subject to layoff at any time.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
http://www.threadless.com/print/1375/Nuts_Print
They're practicing socialism.
How so? I think Jon's argument makes perfect sense.
Right, but I think that wasn't the argument.
Stranger:No one has mentioned the definition of capitalism used in the original debates between Marx and the early austrians. Capitalism, as defined by Marxism and Bohm-Bawerk in his refutation of Marxism, is a social organization where laborers are isolated from the risk of a capital investment by being paid fixed wages whatever the outcome of a production process, the capitalist assuming all the risk, earning all the profits if profits are to be made, and suffering the whole loss if he has been mistaken.
The wage labourers are paid even if the company goes bust, the capitalist loses all of his capital and generates an enormous loss. And they can freely go to work for another company, a capitalist cannot necessarily so easily replace his capital losses. That is the difference. A wage labourer can work for a company that goes bust and break even. Rarely is that so for the capitalist.
Juan:If a business fails, both the 'capitalist' and wage laborers are out of work, so none of them are really insulated from risk
Incorrect.
The laborers have already been compensated for their labor. If the business fails they keep the money they earned and move onto a new employer.
The capitalist, on the other hand, can lose his capital.
Brainpolice:And yet you and your kind repeatedly defend the effects of state-capitalism that take place in markets in the name of free markets.
One more in a long line of unsupported acquisations. The beauty of ad hominems.
Brainpolice: Furthermore, if what you say is to be taken at face value, then your defense of "capitalism" must defend any involuntary "wage labor" involved. "Any form of wage labor" is quite vague and may include some things that are not reconcilable with individual liberty.
Furthermore, if what you say is to be taken at face value, then your defense of "capitalism" must defend any involuntary "wage labor" involved. "Any form of wage labor" is quite vague and may include some things that are not reconcilable with individual liberty.
You have the curious habit of confusioning your argument with other people's. You attack all "capitalism" but that does not automatically mean that Stranger defends all "capitalism".
Though I don't think I've seen many people use the term "wages" to describe slavery. If you could force people to work against their will why bother with wages? Wages exist to convince people to voluntarily work.
The laborers have already been compensated for their labor. If the business fails they keep the money they earned and move onto a new employer. The capitalist, on the other hand, can lose his capital.
Juan:If a business fails, both the 'capitalist' and wage laborers are out of work, so none of them are really insulated from risk. Even if a business doesn't fail, employees can be fired - risk again. Nothing is risk-free.
The workers never assumed the risk in the first place. They know when entering the contract that it must be renewed at every paycheck.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap