If not capitalism then what exactly?

[vimothy]

It makes great reading, but again, it doesn't even touch on "Kapitalism" as an economic model, or how communist economics might work - how would we live practically, to support the new free constructivist libidinal-cultural production of the future?

Don't we already know the answer to this one? There have been numerous examples of communist states with communist economies. All you need do is look at them: that's how it "might work". If all the left can do is endlessly recycle its fatal communist delusions, then we're nowhere near discovering a truly viable alternative to capitalism.

 

[borderpolice]

Can anti-capitalists come up with any form of post-capitalism (communism/syndicalism/what) that includes an economic model that sounds viable? Or are they only talking about political and psychological forms of cultural production and subjectivity?

People have been asking this ever since the death of marxism -- circa the stalinist purges of the 1930s -- as a serious form of investigation into the socio-economic foundations of our society and its alternatives. Nothing has been forthcoming, as far as i can see. This is not to say that marxist-inspired analyses and political movements have been ineffectual, but serious social and economic thinking/theorising has moved elsewhere.

This is a shame.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Vot iz viz zis trent off spellink Kapilal viz a K, hmm?

 

[vimothy]

K-Punk

I think there's a CCRU thing going on there. I'm sure there are people who know more about it than me, though, so I'll let them fill you in. It's also German for Kapital (EDIT: I mean Capital! Damn, this is too much...)

 

[Mr. Tea]

t's also German for Kapital (EDIT: I mean Capital! Damn, this is too much...)

Keine Scheiße!

 

[vimothy]

What about this? Somthing a bit more specific...

The chief problems that a new economic system must seek to address are the global division of labour and the management and allocation of resources. Are there any leftist solutions or ideas?

 

[noel emits]

Why do we have this global division of labour? I'd say mostly it's for economic reasons arising from the existing economic environment, and for the (manufactured?) demand for certain exotic and 'luxury' goods. Most parts of the world could be happily self sufficient. The UK, Europe and the US certainly could, so it's all unnecessary really. I'm not including oil in this because mostly a fair price is paid for oil (for now, and excepting invasions...), and the demand is also an artificial one created by the lack of economic pressure to look elsewhere for equivalents.

Perhaps globalisation will provide the solution is the form a of a one-world currency?

 

[adruu]

I think people should always refer to Usenet before wasting their time on these arguments.

First, you will get some perspective on their value, and the energy wasted.

Two, I hope you will realize that these arguments belong in The Real World, where you can actually walk up to a guy cleaning or living on the street and say "Hey thanks for helping eradicate poverty in our lifetime" while you walk by.

 

[vimothy]

I think people should always refer to Usenet before wasting their time on these arguments.

First, you will get some perspective on their value, and the energy wasted.

Are these debates without value? Don't you think we should be discussing these issues?

Two, I hope you will realize that these arguments belong in The Real World, where you can actually walk up to a guy cleaning or living on the street and say "Hey thanks for helping eradicate poverty in our lifetime" while you walk by.

Why, would that be a stupid thing to do?

 

[vimothy]

Why do we have this global division of labour? I'd say mostly it's for economic reasons arising from the existing economic environment, and for the (manufactured?) demand for certain exotic and 'luxury' goods. Most parts of the world could be happily self sufficient. The UK, Europe and the US certainly could, so it's all unnecessary really. I'm not including oil in this because mostly a fair price is paid for oil (for now, and excepting invasions...), and the demand is also an artificial one created by the lack of economic pressure to look elsewhere for equivalents.

That's a bit naive. More than a bit, in fact.

And "a fair price is paid for oil"? The price of oil is set by a cartel. Fairness has nothing to do with it whatsoever .

EDIT: Missed this bit, "the demand is also an artificial one created by the lack of economic pressure to look elsewhere for equivalents". That's not true either.

Perhaps globalisation will provide the solution is the form a of a one-world currency?

Unlikely until we get a one-world state.

 

[noel emits]

That's a bit naive. More than a bit, in fact.

And "a fair price is paid for oil"? The price of oil is set by a cartel. Fairness has nothing to do with it whatsoever .



Unlikely until we get a one-world state.

Maybe not entirely true about oil, but I don't imagine the arab oil workers are doing quite as bad as garment makers or farmers.

How is it naive? Why do we have to exploit people in other countries? Is the UK seriously lacking in some essential resources, or money to pay for them?

Are you saying we can't have a single currency without a one-world state? Or that it won't make any difference unless we have a one-world state? I'd say all that's needed is the currency. Of course it depends massively on what type of currency

 

[vimothy]

Maybe not entirely true about oil, but I don't imagine the arab oil workers are doing quite as bad as garment makers or farmers.

If by "Arab oil workers" you mean "the owners of nationalised Arab iol industries (i.e. autocratic Arab governments)", then you're absolutely right. Meanwhile, we know that possession of oil correlates with stagnant levels of growth and poor economic performance. Oil is a curse.

How is it naive? Why do we have to exploit people in other countries? Is the UK seriously lacking in some essential resources, or money to pay for them?

If we were to revert to subsistence economies, lots of people would die. It's not a question of not "exploiting" the developing world, but how we manage our ultimately limited set of resources.

Are you saying we can't have a single currency without a one-world state? Or that it won't make any difference unless we have a one-world state? I'd say all that's needed is the currency.

An international currency without an international government would never be implemented, and if by some miracle it was, it would be a disaster. Just consider, what's the difference between the US dollar and the Russian rubble? Anyway, why do you think a one-world currency would solve any of our problems?

And what do you mean, type?

 

[noel emits]

If we were to revert to subsistence economies, lots of people would die. It's not a question of not "exploiting" the developing world, but how we manage our ultimately limited set of resources.

Yeah, people might die because they didn't know how to grow potatoes or fish, but otherwise that sounds like nonsense. There's no global 'management' of resources, there's only exploitation and imperialism.

But then I never said revert to subsistence economies at all. We have everything we need, and so do most places. It's cool to trade for other stuff, but there's no need to do it at everyone's expense.

An international currency without an international government would never be implemented, and if by some miracle it was, it would be a disaster. Just consider, what's the difference between the US dollar and the Russian rubble? Anyway, why do you think a one-world currency would solve any of our problems?

And what do you mean, type?

The difference between currencies that matters is simply in their comparative value.

What type? Well I think a workable currency would have to based on something more tangible than loans from a central bank, for instance.

 

[noel emits]

Vimothy you really help to make gek-opel / k-punk / hmlt's argument for them in as far as demonstrating that options other than Kapital are literally 'unthinkable'.

 

[vimothy]

Yeah, people might die because they didn't know how to grow potatoes or fish, but otherwise that sounds like nonsense. There's no global 'management' of resources, there's only exploitation and imperialism.

*sighs*

This isn't an argument. We don't only have a global divison of labour to make unnecessary goods. We have a global division of labour because its more efficient. This is why people shouldn't trust leftists. You can't even see the that problems that you would need to solve are problems.

But then I never said revert to subsistence economies at all. We have everything we need, and so do most places. It's cool to trade for other stuff, but there's no need to do it at everyone's expense.

No - you want to make everything locally. Resurrect all our old industries and go back to the 19th C? Give me a break, of course we don't have everything we need, and trade isn't something that happens "at everyone's expense". I don't see the "Arab oil workers" complaigning that we're buying their oil, for e.g. Nor do I see Taiwanese engineers telling us to stop buying microchips.

The difference between currencies that matters is simply in their comparative value.

Exactly - and you would need global governance to sort that out.

What type? Well I think a workable currency would have to based on something more tangible than loans from a central bank, for instance.

Are you talking about a gold-peg?

 

[vimothy]

Vimothy you really help to make gek-opel / k-punk / hmlt's argument for them in as far as demonstrating that options other than Kapital are literally 'unthinkable'.

I rather think that's your (and their) problem, don't you?

 

[noel emits]

We have a global division of labour because its more efficient.

Sorry I didn't realise that 'more efficient' actually means 'cheaper for us'.

No - you want to make everything locally. Resurrect all our old industries and go back to the 19th C? Give me a break, of course we don't have everything we need, and trade isn't something that happens "at everyone's expense". I don't see the "Arab oil workers" complaigning that we're buying their oil, for e.g. Nor do I see Taiwanese engineers telling us to stop buying microchips.

1. Yes, we do have everything we need.

2. Sellers of oil and microchips aren't doing so bad.

3. We use oil and source microchips from the far east because those are the cheapest easiest options, at the moment. It's not about management of resources, necessity, practicality, or any of those things, it's about the cheapest option.

4. We could quite easily make microchips here if we needed to and it wasn't so easy to get someone else to do it cheaper.

Exactly - and you would need global governance to sort that out.

Really? So how do we have agreement on the value of currencies now?

Are you talking about a gold-peg?

No, any number or combination of commodities will do.

 

[noel emits]

I rather think that's your (and their) problem, don't you?

Because we are trying to look beyond it and you refuse to admit that even trying is possible?

 

[vimothy]

Because we are trying to look beyond it and you refuse to admit that even trying is possible?

I don't refuse to admit that it is possible. I don't think that you're reading what I've wrote in this thread. Of course its possible. Why else would I have asked a question abhout it at the top of the page? I just don't think you've got any good ideas.

 

[noel emits]

Basically if efficiency = cheaper then in terms of humanity you are putting the cart before the horse. That is what's wrong with capitalism. I would not define myself as a leftist just because I find that to be self evident.