Is Full Employment Possible in Capitalism?

PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore. We’re continuing our series of interviews
with Bob Pollin about his new book, Back to Full Employment. And he joins us again from
Amherst, Massachusetts, where he is codirector and founder of the PERI institute. Thanks
for joining us again, Bob. ROBERT POLLIN: Thank you very much, Paul,
for having me again. JAY: So if you haven’t watched part one, go
watch part one. Part two, the question is: is full employment under capitalism possible?
So, Bob, some people would suggest the answer to that question is: if full employment under
capitalism was possible, they wouldn’t be capitalists. In other words, if they did implement
the kind of policies you’re talking about, it would just go against their nature. And
so how do you answer that? POLLIN: We have evidence that full employment
has operated under capitalism. It certainly operated, as we talked about in the last segment,
briefly in the United States in the late ’60s and late ’90s. It certainly operated in Europe
in the early period after World War II. We have a lot of evidence, for example, in the
Nordic countries. Sweden is a really good example of–because
the unions in Sweden had a lot of political power, they were able to do some very interesting
experiments to push the economy toward full employment and stay there. The unions had
enough power that they could think about macroeconomic policies to push the economy to full employment,
while the unions themselves were focused as well on inflation control, restraining inflationary
pressures, so that you could actually sustain the full employment that would be good for
workers over time. And so we do have experience that this has happened. It is a different kind of capitalism. It is
a capitalism in which workers have more power, unions have more strength, the concern for
the well-being of working people is much higher than it is today. And that’s the kind of society
I think we need to move toward. Where we go after that, okay, we can talk about where
we go after that, but just to get to that point in which public policy is genuinely
focused on providing a maximum amount of job opportunities and well-being for people, to
get to that point in our policy debates would be a major achievement. JAY: And we’ll get into that, how you think
we get there, a little further in this series of interviews. But let’s kind of go step by
step here. So give us–trace us a little bit about the
history of this debate. As you said in part one, Marx says it’s in the interest of capitalists
to have a certain level of unemployment because it controls wages, and then Keynes kinds of
counters that argument to some extent in terms of the role government could play. So give
us a bit of the historical background here. POLLIN: Alright. Well, I go through what I
think are the four major thinkers on the theory of unemployment. The first is Marx, and it
was Marx who said that having a reserve army of labor, a lot of unemployed people, is necessary
for the functioning of capitalism, because if you had no unemployment, then workers’
bargaining power would go up, workers’ wages would go up, capitalists’ profits would get
squeezed. Okay, that’s Marx. Now, Keynes came in with a different view.
Keynes was thinking more as a technician within the framework of capitalism. And he said,
if you do not get to full employment through private investment in the economy, then the
government should step in and engage in public investment. His term, Keynes’s own term, was
“somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment”. And if the government did this somewhat comprehensive
socialization of investment geared towards creating maximum job opportunities, that would
be a better society, a different kind of capitalism. But technically, he said, it could be done. Moreover, the central Keynes point was that
actually this could be good for capitalists as well, because even though workers would
have more bargaining power, you would also have the economy expanding more rapidly, the
markets would be more buoyant, there’d be more opportunity for new business investment,
just because workers would have money in their pockets and they could buy things, just like
Henry Ford was famous in recognizing that if you paid workers decent wages, well, then
workers might actually be able to afford to buy Ford automobiles. JAY: Right. And this Keynesian idea’s heavily
influenced this act that we talked about earlier, the Humphrey Hawkins Act, ’cause if I understand
correctly, in that act it actually says if the private sector can’t create enough jobs
to get unemployment at 4 percent, then the government should use public works to do it.
I mean, it was in the legislation; I don’t think it was ever really enacted, ’cause five
years later, unemployment’s at almost 10 percent. But the ideas were very influential. POLLIN: Right. So you have Marx and Keynes,
and those are also reflective of different notions about how capitalist economy functions.
Keynes was much more in the social democratic tradition, operating within the institutions
of capitalism. Now, the third great thinker to mention was
a contemporary of Keynes named Michal Kalecki. He was a Polish Socialist who was influenced
both by Keynes and Marks and had some ideas, obviously, of his own. And what Kalecki said
was, okay, Keynes has now shown us how we can utilize the technical apparatus of economic
policy to achieve full employment under capitalism, but what Keynes neglects is the change that
it would create in terms of political dynamics, that it would give workers more bargaining
power, and that the capitalists don’t want the workers to have so much bargaining power.
It would squeeze profits. Kalecki acknowledges all this. And therefore, he says, though we
have the technical tools to achieve full employment under capitalism, we don’t have the political
force, and it would be a clear challenge to the prerogatives of the rulers of the society,
the capitalists, to do this. So he laid out the real tension there. But within Kalecki there is still the point
that if you get a bigger market, then capitalists can benefit from a more buoyant market, even
if the wages are higher and the capitalists’ share of the total market, the income coming
back to them, is lower because workers have more bargaining power. That’s the tension. And so the fourth major thinker, most influential
thinker, I would say, on the issue of employment is the leading neoliberal economist, Milton
Friedman. And Milton Friedman actually said that we have a natural rate of unemployment
under capitalism which would be full employment–that is, anybody who wants a job would get a job–if
we only didn’t have government policies that created barriers to workers and businesses
working things out on their own. The example he cited–one of the big examples
cited by Friedman is minimum wage laws, because he said–and unions. Unions, minimum wage
laws get in the middle between the workers and the owners. The workers and the owners
keep bargaining till they got a wage that everyone can agree to, and then you would
have full employment. You just don’t want to have these institutional forces like minimum
wage laws, like unions, telling the bosses that they have to pay workers more than the
workers deserve. So that kind of sets the whole scene of the debate. Unfortunately, the winner of the debate over
the last generation, not just in the U.S., throughout the world, was clearly Milton Friedman,
and so that what we have under neoliberalism for essentially the last 40 years is an abandonment
of any attempt by government policy to sustain full employment, to use government policy
to soak up people that are having a difficulty getting jobs and creating job opportunities
for them. JAY: You can almost say the objective of government
policy was the opposite, was to make sure that unemployment never fell below a certain
level, because that would, they would say, instigate inflation, their code word for higher
wages. So if anything, government policy was the opposite. They wanted what–quote-unquote,
this natural level of unemployment. POLLIN: Right. Well, that’s certainly–you
know, Milton Friedman was certainly the leading figure in advancing this view in the economics
profession, and it spilled into policymaking. And the view was, right, actually, the government
is incapable of achieving full employment anywmay; in fact, government is a barrier
by, for example, setting up minimum wage laws; but that the government can do one thing,
and that is to control the inflation rate, and so that’s what macroeconomic policy should
be focused on. Now, it turns out the way you control the
inflation rate is by keeping the unemployment rate higher, because, precisely, if the workers
get too much bargaining power, then that enables them to push up their wages. That then means
that businesses will try to pass on those wage increases in terms of price increases
to consumers. And that’s how you get inflation. So you have this notion of the tradeoff between
inflation and unemployment. JAY: But that tradeoff is, you know, if you
look at the period we’re talking about, essentially from 1960 forward, the big spikes in inflation
didn’t have anything to do with high unemployment. Like, the biggest periods of inflation were
actually periods of, also, high unemployment. POLLIN: Right. And that was–as we talked
about in the last segment, that was due to the oil price shock. So the initial theory
of the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment completely ignored the fact that there could
be other majors sources of inflation. It was very convenient, by the way, because, okay,
you get an oil shock, inflation goes up, you have a recession, and then the Friedmanites
of the economics profession say, a-ha, there is no tradeoff; in fact, what we see is government
efforts to reduce unemployment are just making inflation worse and aren’t reducing unemployment
anyway; so let’s abandon the whole thing; the whole Keynesian thing was wrong. And that’s
how we got the macroeconomics that we have now, which brought us to the Great Recession. JAY: So in the next segment of our interview,
we’re going to pursue this discussion. So please join us for the next segment of our
series of interviews with Bob Pollin on The Real News Network.

100 Replies to “Is Full Employment Possible in Capitalism?

  1. Marxism is 0.0000% practical – it requires a violation of all human freedoms, all economics and all safety and everyone must be caged to be equal slaves for the smallest inequality from one being born smarter or stronger or learning with better opportunities INSTANTLY destroys communism completely – all Marxism is communist failure

  2. Zeitgeist & Venus Project are frauds. They pay attention to nothing and demand central-control ownership over all global resources. They don't even understand that resources ARE MONEY – instead they pretend central control over all resources & denial of all ownership & trade is "RBE" the resource-based economy
    It is not
    GOLD AS MONEY, OIL AND FOOD AS MONEY, capitalist trade of all – that is real RBE.
    Technological abundance is the biggest fraud of all. If it was real we'd have it now

  3. the truth of technological ANTI-abundance is that THE INSTANT you have to meter it and to divide it, it isn't abundant, and that's the sole purpose of Zeitgeist "technological abundance" fraud. In any true abundance ownership is 100% usage is 100% and sharing is 0%. By definition of sharing is used, and is forced, abundance can not exist – especially using computers & techno-dictatorship (Venus Fraudject) to force it all (it will). It is not inevitable. We can destroy it and we MUST destroy it

  4. we ALREADY have resources limited only by our need. By definition the need of one is to deny another. ALWAYS. That's what creates markets automatically. It is impossible for me to need a resource you do not need and vice versa. We always need the same resource-types at the same time. Need is always-competing and effectively endless across all society. Resources are FINITE, never able to meet all needs.

  5. working people ARE capitalists – trading capital (machines, programming, materials, skills at production) for other goods & services. There is no "capitalist class". Worker = capitalist = not a class
    "popular gains" are wrong-headed
    only PERSONAL material gains matter.

  6. actually no, the value of each person's work will be augmented by automation as each person can now do much more work with less energy input and less complexity of mind & body as the complexity is embedded into the tools. All you need to do to deny your work to be ripped off (you are underpaid) is to refuse to do the work at all.
    Today employment is transferred, not automated – Chinese workers, not robots, replace your workers.

  7. actually a lot of people are no good at using machines to save time or reduce errors. A lot of people are really dim, barely able to operate these machines, and most competent operators have NO idea how to design or repair any computing or industrial automation. A basic income is not earned or deserved. They are not shareholders, there are no shares to hold. I am not a share & no one owns me so no one can get a dividend off my work. I refuse to ever consent.

  8. the state can never resolve finite resources – all states have failed so far.
    Massive public investment is always poorly aimed & causes massive national poverty. That digs everyone's grave. Capitalism always does the opposite – money goes only to the proven winners of thought, mind and body, inventors. Automation causes MORE employment, not less. For every computer & robot there are dozens of programmers, designers, testers and millions of products which reduce the work-load of every person

  9. central control is KEY to the ruling class. Many varieties of socialism require central control. Only through CAPITALISM can you have NO central controllers, that's why today there is no capitalism in any major country. Central banks printing money for governments IS SOCIALISM (one variety) and bankrupts NATIONS. Central banks printing money for CORPORATIONS is FASCISM and BANKRUPTS GENERATIONS.
    Both are evil.
    Only de-centralized socialism layered with CAPITALISM can create freedom & life

  10. You are a complete idiot if you think the current system is 'socialism'. That is utterly laughable, and you would be ridiculed if you said such a thing in a real debate. I don't have time to listen to nonsense like this.

  11. capitalism needs to exist – without it everyone dies because no one has any idea what resources to produce. Food will be chronically under-produced and people will starve. Risk-aversion and risk-measuring behaviour will cease to exist because only capitalism creates such measures.

  12. zeitgeist has no Resource Based Economy. A true RBE is that every person is uncontrolled by any central controller and uses resources like gold, silver, honey, water, gasoline as money. Venus Fraudject /Zeitgeist is the opposite: we are all banned from trading & ownership and must obey the Central Dictator using their "advanced" global computer (slave-system). That's like saying stealing from everyone's home is RBE. It is not. Gold as money is RBE.

  13. imperialism is anti-capitalism, capitalism is anti-imperialism. You can't say "capitalist/imperialist" – they are precise opposites.
    Capitalism needs no excuses to defend it – it is the right and proper way of life. Capitalism is owning your own food & land, capitalism is having a right NOT to work for someone else as a slave or to lose all your stuff.
    Any removal of your rights to ownership and rights to freedom is instantly anti-capitalist.

  14. NOTHING will or should bring about the end of capitalism. No matter how hard governments & dictators try, we all want the right to own our own things & to trade them & our services FAIRLY. The instant we do this we create capitalism again no matter how many times the slave-masters try to wipe it out. The act of consenting trade in the face of personal ownership IS THE SOURCE of all capitalism.

  15. Workers ARE CAPITALISTS – as long as they are not SLAVES. Workers own their own services, skills & often their own property (North America) which means you're a capitalist if you're a worker – no one is chained to work-areas & unable to go home. We are IN absolute facism already (merger of state & corporation), there is no more descent. We're IN IT now.
    A unified working class is A UNIFIED CAPITALISM

  16. You have no idea what socialism even is then! COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BY THE PEOPLE, an extension of which IS THE GOVERNMENT. I would be hailed as the KING OF ALL TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE by saying so in a debate. ONE variation of this is GOVERNMENT INDUCED CURRENCY to BUY ALL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION for THE PEOPLE. This DOES HAPPEN NOW. That IS SOCIALISM. However, when the assets of the people are then GIVEN to the big banks that becomes FASCISM as they are CORPORATIONS.

  17. You need a proper education on what is Socialism and what is Fascism. You have no idea. You probably don't even know what Capitalism is.

  18. are you mentally deficient?
    No one's work NEEDS to create natural resources, only extract & improve them.
    The state is a creation of MONARCHY and CRIMINALITY. It must be revoked completely by force. The origin of all TITLE TO THE LAND IS LIVING ON IT from THE START OF CIVILIZATION in that area. No state has any authority. Unworked land often has no value, HUMAN IMPROVEMENT even of farmland is what gives it FULL value as a NATURAL resource.
    You demand my enslavement. I demand your death for it

  19. Under no circumstances can you, via the state or any other means, force me to work for your meal. I must kill everyone who does this and I must use violent force to ensure any attempt to take my work against my consent is met with death.

  20. you do suffer from verbal diarrhea. The Pentagon paid PRIVATE capital using STOLEN tax dollars. The touchscreen was discovered quite by accident from internal infrared interference and anyone could have done it from there. It's actually not even as hard as polarized glass and that's pretty damn easy.
    The computer was NEVER developed at the Pentagon.
    The Computer was actually invented more than 150 years ago by the loom-weaving industry.
    The pentagon is driving UP costs.

  21. Each and every one of these materials and products costs 10x what it needs to cost because of government interference. Computers could be had for $50 10 years ago without government interference in materials and work regulations. We could be making them OURSELVES from printers in any room of the house any time.
    Your fraud & verbal diarrhea is dismissed as the natterings of a child with a tantrum & heavy brainwashing. Silence, now, young child.

  22. Well in a capitalist economy the interest of the system is to keep unemployment the highest possible to lower the price of your workforce lowest as possible.
    Capitalism from its first manifestations to a century ago showcase this very well and communism as an alternative to this foul system is an idea that come directly as a response. Again communism wouldn't have been so widespread in the 20th century if not for capitalism so brutal on the working people…

  23. And a good example of how capitalism in a pure form is not something we (99%) want are the company towns whose workers lived in where all was owned by the CEO from the bakery to the houses. people worked and spent all their wages in these town's shops and rents.
    They were self sufficient so from the CEO's pov the town was a black box in which he poured materials and finite products would come out of it for free. From a communist pov there is no need for a leech if the town is self sufficient…

  24. From what I understand the total amount of gold on earth would fill two Olypmic swimming pools, now how the fuck is 7 billion people going to use gold as money when there is such a small amount, and that isn't even considering that central banks. Soverign nations have most of the gold.
    You moron.

  25. I got some ants in the bathroom-they look like dots-like a moving period at rhe end of a sentence. That is how small gold most of us would have-itty bitty little gold.

  26. I'm 1 trillion times smarter than YOU, fucknut, you shut your insolent mouth.
    Here's the TRUTH ABOUT MONEY: food, gold, silver, water and fuel ARE ALL MONEY. ALL OF THEM. Sovereign nations DO NOT have the most gold – the most gold is hidden beyond their known locations.
    The truth is that 1 small gold ounce will buy a full YEAR of food very soon. That's plenty of money for 7 billion people.
    Once fiat paper is removed & it WILL BE, silver, gold, water, food will all be traded as money.

  27. 2 wrong errors made constantly: error #1 the amount of gold matters. IT CAN NOT MATTER. Only the ratio of purchasing power. #2 the number of people matters: IT CAN NOT MATTER. The amount of gold, silver, etc., CAN NEVER be compared to any number of people, only the number of GOODS. A world with "too little gold to spend" is a world overflowing with cheap goods, too cheap to even have a price. Such a world is impossible. Has never existed, can never exist.

  28. Now you have been schooled by the teacher it's time for you to do your homework and research how the last 5000 years of economic history has TRULY worked – it's gold.

  29. the wealthiest often don't have "dead money" they have live assets which are debts and useful commodities which are cycled off at a useful rate since warehousing costs money and gains nothing but a secure supply for emergency need. The wealthy don't keep 50 years supply of grains, coal, copper, etc,. they keep what they need & keep the rest moving for further leveraged acquisition.
    SOCIALISM is held back by ONE BARRIER: it MUST FAIL under a central Controller yet idiot sheeple DEMAND a leader

  30. in actuality the only survivable society is one that refuses to permit leaders. Leaders are destructive to society. Followers without leaders may be dim but that can be removed over time. Leaders who need followers are sociopaths destroying everything. Central control is suicide for civilization. Inorganic top-down control can't adapt to rapidly changing climate, societal needs or economic realities & kills the people every single time.

  31. leaders under capitalism are destructive, yes. But the concept of leadership itself is not a four-letter-word. Nor is governance. It is how these tools are used that determines such things.

    Would you say a gun is unconditionally evil? If not, then you are contradicting yourself.

  32. leaders under ALL systems are destructive.
    The concept of leadership & governance is a failure.
    People can be self-governing & do so with great morality & high efficiency.
    I am the opposite of all contradictions: a gun is HIGHLY moral for it is the tool of self-determination, the creation of self-freedom.
    It is the LEADER that is deadly – all failures in society come from all leaders in all economies at all times.
    Never in history has this been untrue.

  33. Capitalism itself is not destructive. Capitalism is the source of all creation outside of nature. To own your own property is capitalism. To trade it consentingly is capitalism. To reduce loss thereby to cause profit is ideal & to allow it is capitalism. Nothing else is capitalism. The destructive forces you see are 100% anti-capitalist not part of any capitalism.

  34. property is ONLY a relationship between people and things. At all times property is TANGIBLE AND OWNED. What is not tangible is NOT PROPERTY. Information is NOT PROPERTY, hence copyright is TERRORISM not legitimate. WHAT IS NOT OWNED IS NOT PROPERTY, hence mountains and the moon aren't property but they are tangible.
    The right to exclude others is the right to LIFE itself – you can not live if you can not exclude others from your food, clothes, home, bed, water – you will die with none

  35. I declare it is the right of all living things to kill at all times to protect survival and property. I revoke the state and invoke the power of the gun. It is the only truth ever to exist – tooth, claw, gun, poison, violent force. The state IS VIOLENT FORCE but badly abused. With PERSONAL force comes PERSONALLY responsibility. With STATE FORCE comes a NAZI MILITARY EMPIRE.

  36. history shows economies pre-date states except for new colonization / territory for which a state is the first arriving entity.
    Taxation is theft.
    Many soldiers in many nations STOLE rather than traded.
    Industrialization is a good thing: it makes us efficient.
    Debt is the opposite: it robs efficiency & integrity.
    Debt STARTS with fiat currency: it is the fraud that rules them all.

  37. you have no data yourself so why bother asking?
    look at fab @ home and see the prices, the items. That's your data. We can do this more without interference from governments inducing massive profits & materials ownership and copyright. We should obey no one's rules of information but our own. NO corporation should get tax-subsidy because tax-payers are FORCED (theft) to pay (jail otherwise, shooting if you resist jail)

  38. Providing jobs require human ingenuity.. not government help.. discovery of an oil source.. raw materials.. new necessity that needs labour force to produce is what is required.. with more efficient production and machinery, human labor is becoming less and less required… you need a new company, a new facility that requires man power to do the job.. or for individual to increase their worth and get educated so they dont get replaced by machines..

  39. no, it can't be verified. Much of the mainstream news about oil, gold and money is lies.
    I reject your claim.
    China is importing no oil from the USA, that is a fact.
    The state was never founded as an economic instrument. You have no facts to back your claim. History shows that states were founded by monarchies and oligarchs to extract tax from the people. States are against economies.
    The sole cause of capital devaluation is the State by money-printing & fiat currency laws.

  40. in all history not one state EVER has actually prevented mass unemployment, but instead states have CAUSED it by market MISALLOCATION by intervention. With high immigration & low taxes we'd have 0.01% unemployment not 16% today.
    Capitalism works WITHOUT states, states destroy capitalism when given the chance.
    States CAN NOT identify superfluous labour or markets, ONLY CAPITALISM can do that. States CAUSE superfluous labour training nonsense no markets need using stolen tax-dollars to fund it

  41. industry automation is a GOOD thing. This is a job CREATOR over-all because more people are working to maintain & design automation software & hardware while manual workers who are retrained get those jobs. Those who don't get retrained retire or seek better work suiting the market with their existing skills.

  42. most people will never own any property, you dumbass. That's capitalism. Marx out-argued you over 100 years ago…

  43. the role of the state is to DESTROY markets, to siphon off riches from productive work, to siphon off assets, to confiscate property and to change laws to give no stability for business to know which assets will be stolen or or what reason or when. The role of the state is always negative to the market. Establishing means of production is always OUTSIDE the state & always hampered by the state.

  44. rising weal wages can only happen when state intervention is stopped. State involvement of any sort in any market ALWAYS results in lower real wages, higher real costs (purchasing power) as state involvement ALWAY CAPTURES the currency system and often every transaction through regulators that live off kick-backs & bribes.
    Training ONLY benefits from the private sector outside the state.

  45. when businesses must employ people & must train them they will do so, before the State intervenes to ruin it. When the state intervenes, the market is destroyed: the state will extract tax using force, hurting the business once, then train people to do work no one has demand for because the State is outside the market & blind to market needs, then no one is left to BE trained for real market-demanded work/skills, then the economy collapses when this error repeats enough times.

  46. You are now witnessing precisely this collapse. Corporate finance through tax-funded bailouts, job stimulus sending money outside the country and also to broken markets which need to die, keeping people unemployed using hyper-extended unemployment benefits but NOT permitting them to retrain and/or move to better job markets with those benefits – is killing the economy.

  47. the reason the state is blind to all market needs is because the state has no market-data. The state has no idea how to collect market-data. The state does not understand how to measure or reduce loss. The state does not understand how to react for survival and markets must act ONLY on this information. The simple notion of adding productivity to the same wage (worker) & cutting costs to existing programs without quality loss is IMPOSSIBLE for the blind State (which is all of them)

  48. precisely ONE mechanism has a SMALL chance of having a market-aware state: FASCISM. You ought to know it's really bad. New entrants to Fascism will bring market-experience with them & be fully aware how to operate. Having acquired STATE POWER, however, reduces then destroys any NEED for a market – now the populace is captured the skill-set can be shut-down & full theft-mode can be used. This is the economic collapse you are living in today.

  49. What you claim is wrong. Taxation was taken before coin, then taken after coinage by ensuring the amount taken was more than what it cost to circulate the coins. This hurts markets, hurts producers. This kills the economy. The economy is there before & without the rulers as every person has a need to trade skills & goods with no rulers at all.
    Capital devaluation ONLY happens by state intervention. Markets ALWAYS predict capital devaluation & restructure to avoid it.

  50. markets never fail to adapt to devaluation-risk by ensuring new value is added to existing products & skills and that new skills & products are added to markets using non-state, non-government sources. States only steal money to bribe people, steal people to rob the market itself, then attempt to take credit for what the market tried to make with no State at all.
    Markets are integral to the murder of Capitalism. Capitalism requires states go away to benefit society the most.

  51. Expansion is not integrally tied to Capitalism all. The myth of expansion is hereby stomped: expansion is deadly to capitalism today because capitalism depends on market-survival and market-survival, personal survival, depends on the STOPPING of expansion. Capitalism depends on DETECTING COST-OVERRUNS and removing them, with no expansion whatsoever in today's era. Centuries ago with smaller human populations only THEN was expansion safe. Today it's dangerous & not wanted.

  52. it is the STATE, not capitalism, which depends on expansion. The state is like a heroin addict and its addiction is theft. The state always steals so much from the populace that all society collapses, then the state collapses. State-sponsored creation of markets is impossible & has in all history NEVER existed. Your "examples" are fiction & dismissed.

  53. this rarely happens. In reality the dispute is usually obvious that one party is guilty and refuses to leave. For the community that deals with these parties a decision must be made to use force to remove the guilty party having reviewed the evidence. In the end force must be the deciding factor over food, energy and land. Evidence is required but without force there is no property line.

  54. Most people own property, even if it's property that's carried in pocket or worn as clothing. Very few people in the entire planet own no property.
    Marx out-argued no one – Marx is a fraud. Marx actually made up a pretend-capitalism which isn't ever used & has never been wanted, then "defeated it" (his creation). This is a straw-man. This proves it:
    w w w. truthdig . com/report/item/occupy_draws_strength_from_the_powerless_20120213/
    15-part comment

  55. here
    w w w.truthdig . com/report/item/occupy_draws_strength_from_the_powerless_20120213/#480192
    and #480191 – pardon me, even more parts split to fit the comment-size there. It's detailed. It disproves Marx 100%

  56. obviously you're not too smart. Marx's critiques are as valid now as they were back then.

    The only difference now is that even LESS people own private property than in Marx's day.

  57. Obviously I'm incredibly smart, smarter than you, smarter than Marx. Marx invented a fraudulent capitalism instead of attacking the real one. The REAL capitalism requires CONSENTING TRADE and requires PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of your own property. MARX lied and said this: w w

  58. here you can see Marx is such a fraud, such a total failure, he can't address this:
    #1 "We enter a world of perfect capitalism: no monopolies, no unions, no special advantages for anyone. It is a world in which every commodity sells at exactly its proper price.
    LIE. That's anti-capitalism. REAL capitalism requires this:
    every good has a variable price, proper price can not exist more than a few moments, inequality is PROPER AND GOOD & imported directly from nature

  59. so in actuality Marx is DEFENDING capitalism by ATTACKING ITS OPPOSITE and is a liar – Marx pretends that something else is capitalism. Marx is too stupid to actually attack and defeat capitalism.

  60. Many MORE people own private property than in Marx's day. People use unsecured credit to buy then they can't have that property taken. They pay lower prices or maybe none in the long run. The credit-price induces inflation but the unsecured credit means YOU CAN REFUSE TO PAY. NO legal consequences to run up your VISA buying gold, food, water, just file for bankruptcy and YOU'RE CLEAR. Don't do that with a mortgage (has collateral)

  61. Marx was wrong #2 "For the value of a commodity, says Marx, is the amount of labor it has within itself"
    TRUTH: that's impossible. The very notion of labour and commodity is that there is no fixed value of energy or skill or number of workers to make use of the end-result or to extract the raw material. It can't always be the same because every EXTRACTION is unique, every PROCESS is improving over time & every PERSON changes their mind about the NEED of a thing. That NEED dictates cost.

  62. #2-a
    "If it takes twice as much labor to make hats as shoes, then hats will sell for twice the price of shoes"
    This impossible condition is deconstructed as such: the number of shoes to be sold can not be determined until the number of still-useful shoes ALREADY bought is counted. This can not even be known until one considers ALL the environments one's shoes will face.

  63. It is thusly proven that no amount of labor input to a shoe (or other product) can determine the final price or demand of that same product. Only the usage-conditions & stock-pile conditions can be determinant of this final answer. Another factor is quality: that no matter the work-effort, energy & time that goes into a shoe, if the quality is very low then the demand will be very low. If there's a competing shoe with better quality then it will have higher price and higher sales

  64. This is core nature of all human beings. People don't deliberately choose something which takes more work and/or has less quality. People intrinsicly seek higher quality with less work. This is HUMAN nature, not "capitalism" and as such, capitalism merely repeats this behaviour because it has no rules or tendencies which OPPOSE this human nature. Humans are efficiency-seeking tool-makers. This means that humans do not ever seek anything with less quality and/or more effort.

  65. #2-b
    "But no matter what its form, everything is eventually reducible to labor, and all commodities, in this perfect system, will be priced according to the amount of labor, direct or indirect, that they contain."
    Absolutely untrue and part of the reason is explained in 2-a. Now in 2-b I will explain further about market-shift. A commodity replacement is possible & can cause the entire commodity to lose value. This is the case with asbestos and with PCB's.

  66. In both cases the true toxicity was not understood at initial use & as such the value dropped sharply once people determined how deadly they can be. This also happens with many pharmaceuticals. No matter the work, energy, time, skill that went into the product, no matter the stock-piles that were ready for sale, shipping, distribution of any sort, once the contents are determined to be toxic the value drops to zero for any consumer benefit. This is a one-way irreversible function.

  67. w w w goldmoney . com/gold-research/alasdair-macleod/the-purpose-of-market-intervention.html
    "Instead, the cost, borne by the hapless consumer in his role as taxpayer, actually accelerates, as well as distorting markets even more.
    Market intervention is what has got us here, and more of it is definitely not the cure."

  68. w w w . calibratedconfidence . com/2011/06/indiana-takes-down-fourth-amendment.html
    the true role of the state – military dominance – not helping any economy or any rights whatsoever

  69. pseudo-intellectual, pro-capitalist drivel and nonsensical propaganda which does not consider humans as humans, but as commodities. I will say this again: Marx owned you over a century ago.

  70. depends which people can get to it first. For the oil right under a continental shelf it looks like it's the nation on that segment of shelf. e.g. arctic sea oil is Canada's arctic sea oil. Oil even farther out & even deeper beyond human reach has no owner. The utility of that oil is of course pumped. Unpumped oil may be defended but may be lost to accidents or war.

  71. super-intellectual pro-capitalist pro-socialist anti-Marxist is what I am – aside from also being the supreme King of all Truth, Fact and Enlightenment.
    Marx was decimated as a fraud 100 years ago & I decimated Marx as a fraud PERSONALLY in the last 24 hours as a supreme economic genius and you know it.

  72. literally everything Marx wrote is a lie, is a lie that can be proved in no more than 10 seconds with flawless stomping of Marx into the ground, thus proving Marx lied about every detail of his "solutions" and every detail of his descriptions of Capitalism.
    Literally Marx could not speak a word of truth and did not.
    Literally Marx had not a single word of evidence to back his claims, not one, and died before trying to do so for the first time.

  73. Marx never once spoke of the actual capitalist system. He instead invented a false system only in his mind & books, one of instant monopolies and instant collapses and absolute certainties linked directly to controls which do not exist, and he called it "capitalism". Instead real capitalism is private ownership of property & consenting trade. Marx REFUSED to deal with that at all.
    POOR people MAKE THEMSELVES POOR by consent. MAFIA Make people poor by FORCE. I'd like to see less of both

  74. You are a marxist shitfuck fraud who thinks you have a right to command me to work for you for free, to eat my food after I earn it, to kick me out of my own bed to sleep in it. People like you should be shot and thrown to hungry dogs. You are a disease upon all society.

  75. You are a total idiot, and despite this fact I don't want you to 'work for free', that's the complete opposite of what Marxists want. Marxists, like me, want workers to be compensated the true value of their labour for their work. Do you have a problem with HIGHER wages? If so, then you are a fucking dumbass.

  76. CAPITALISTS are the ones who want people to work for free, that's why they pay illegals shitty wages. It's why they pay people as little as they are legally allowed to.

    You are a fucking typical yank with no understanding of real economics, or of social justice. You are a tool, and a joke. Go back to your charts and 'precious metals', you fool. Socialists (marxists) want workers to be paid properly, since their labour is worth far more than capitalists bosses will pay us for. IDIOT!

  77. I wouldn't waste your time with that guy, he describes himself as 'the supreme genius' and collects precious metals whilst listening to Alex Jones…. lol. Enough said, really. He also thinks Marxists want people to work for 'free'…LMAO

  78. I didn't revoke the state, no one has done so. I HOPE that one day people will return to city-states and abandon nation-states but no one has done so. AT THIS TIME Canada owns the oil in the North Arctic Sea.

  79. OR abolish wage labour; exploit mechanisation and automation to their full and emancipatory potential; divide the the wealth, resources and remaining essential labout that exists evenly; eradicate all work that has no social use and purely exists because of the imperatives of capitalism i.e. financial services, advertising, estate agents, bailiffs etcetera. FULL UNEMPLOYMENT NOW.

  80. Straight up! Deluded degenerates and defenders of privelege. The post-war Keynesian 'full employment' era was a historical blip in capitalism that cannot be returned too without the re-industrialisation of post-industrial economies, extreme protectionist policies, isolationist autarchy etc. This is neither desirable nor faesible. Communise compagnos.

  81. Well that sounds like the Resource Based Economy ie RBE Zeitgeist Movement and that is exactly what I was alluding to. We either accept that Millions have no job no money and are homeless or we do what you said-the RBE. If you don't know what that is-Google it.

  82. Well then the system in place will never divide the spoils. So unemployment will get worse due to automation and those unemployed will just be fucked for lack of a better term. If people like you refuse open minded then the current capitalist money system can finish destoying what is left of resources & bisosphere. No tears from me buddy.

  83. "FULL UNEMPLOYMENT NOW." <–Your yelling words. Unfortunely not going to happen in our current system. So you can stomp your feet till the cows come in. The money based Capitalist system cares not about your demand.
    Since you view RBE as Communism then you will get neither-full employment of a Resource Based Economy. I tell you what you will get-is more fucked by this system every day that pass's.

  84. I think you've misunderstood compagni. I'm demanding communism and full UNemployment, not some new 'human' carnation of capitalism. I'm saying you RBE brehs should just call it what it is and stop being afraid of 'communism'. It's a wonderful word.

  85. Well first off the "C" word doesn't bother me but if you have had any experince with most indivuals when you say "C" word you might as well be saying you advocate Satan to rule society. I see people all the time call our current system Communinst or Socialist. I try to correct them but it goes nowhere.
    But to be honest with you you could say that there are some features of the RBE that is communist but it is not on the whole communist.

  86. In the RBE there is no Banks, Money, Armies, Rulers. Communism has all that.
    Now when it comes to equitable sharing it may have something in common with Communism. But that is about it IMHO.

  87. I haven't looked into it much, but the idea of RBE seems to be using mechanisation to liberate humans from work and the collectivisation of resources and property? How would you say it differs from communism, out of interest?

  88. Well in a 500 character comment, I would say the RBE is a rational intelligent Scientific Management system of the Earths Resouces. Of course automation,3d printing-a harmonious enviromental system vs the current rape & pillage of planets resources & HUMANS. Capitalism-bye bye-it is killing us. No money,No banks-no nations-the end to competive fight for resource & wealth. Peter joseph does a much better job & it blows my mind the conclusions PJ has come up with.

  89. Thanks for the information. But your knowledge of communism is wildly off the mark. I think you are conflating communism with the state capitalist (bureaucratic 'socialist' perhaps) regimes of the 20th century, which have nothing to do with communism other than the fact they used its name. Communists seek to abolish banks, money, armies and rulers.

  90. We have been in full employment for 2 years. there are no nurse in hospital and no bar girls at bar.You think because Japan refuse to receive immigrants. Partly yes but partly no. No people except Japanese can speak Japanese.When the government invited the Philippines for nurse they went home immediately because doctor's cards are all in Kanji.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *