Show me where I said Smith defined capitalism. What I quoted was the tenets of capitalism, as DEVELOPED by Smith-- not the same as defined. Just as Christianity was developed from Christ's teachings; he didn't define his teachings as Christian.Originally Posted by J.T
I disputed your use of capitalism as lacking competition (Rockefeller example). This propensity for man to act in his self-interest is a common theme. Smith didn't invent it any more than Marx did, it simple is-- that's a fact! Capitalism describes the private and personal ownership of capital(commodity)--"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference..."(Capital)-Marx Marx and Engels noted the propensity for those who owned the capital to use it for their own self-interests; coercing those who produce to create items of greater exchange-value than use-value; generating a profit which the workers share, but don't fully receive. This is because the bourgeouis could gain more from exchange than they could use themselves. The observation of the worker making less than he produced is a valid critique, but did he still have more than if he produced only what he needed? The issue is, would the prolitariat, collectively and voluntarily, only produce something of greater use? Or would they, once there basic needs were met, produce something of greater exchange? Thereby undoing the purely marxist model, ie state socialism/communism like soviet democracy or single-party dictatorships like Maoism.
Socialism requires the elimination of mankind's individual feelings of want. Within a society this is accomplished either through destruction of excess production value, ie revolution, or through authoritarian means- thereby creating a class/power struggle and undoing the very essence of socialism. So socialism, therefor, must decrease the production of society to keep everything equal.
All theories aside, in practice the greatest production known has been through capitalism, not socialism. Of course this requires the quantification rather than qualification, ie goods vs happiness; no doubt a concept purported by capitalists to be the most efficient means of production. And that is a valid critique, which one is free to reject, as neo-marxists have in the commune lifestyles of the 60's counter culture. But what is required of one who rejects capitalism is a rejection of the feelings of want, not need. For as marx put it:that's all for now, what's your take?"A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling. But let a palace arise beside the little house, and it shrinks from a little house to a hut. The little house shows now that its owner has only slight or no demands to make, and however high it may shoot in the course of civilization, if the neighbouring palace grows to an equal or even greater extent, the occupant of the the relatively small house will feel more and more uncomfortable, dissatisfied and cramped within its four walls." Wage-Labour and Capital and Value,...)(
Reply With Quote
To claim that WWII led to our internal prosperity (while much of our wealth left our nation to rebuild Japan and Europe) is to claim that the increase in aggregate demand from government [military] spending led to our prosperity. If you accept this Keynesian principle, then the natural question which follows is why building bombs and killing our sons led to prosperity then but not now, during our longest war ever- and the next question is to ask why mass mobilization and production of consumer goods would not generate an even greater boost in prosperity compared to the squandering of those products produced by blowing them up.
