Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Survival of Capitalism watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    You are wrong. I find your idiocy and trolling to be tragic.

    Have a look here, you might just learn something:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

    Edit: Is this site full of idiots who think they're geniuses?
    I repeat, you were not quoting anybody, so you should have used apostrophes ( ' ' ) rather than quotation marks ( " " ).

    And yes, judging by your grammar, TSR is indeed full of idiots.

    Do you understand now, my child?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    I repeat, you were not quoting anybody, so you should have used apostrophes ( ' ' ) rather than quotation marks ( " " ).

    And yes, judging by your grammar, TSR is indeed full of idiots.

    Do you understand now, my child?
    Quotation marks aren't just used for direct quotations, small boy!

    The Wikipedia page would help, if you could read.

    Are you completely thick or trolling?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I'd say capitalism survived because it has adopted so many socialist principles.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'm kinda with you right up to when you say "...it is just that people are not necessarily absolved from responsibility of choice because..." You seem to magically posit the 'self' as if outside of the cause and effect processes which you otherwise recognise as generating what we might otherwise call 'choice making behaviour'. I think that you are indulging in some kind of non sequitur here. If we recognise that every aspect of what we otherwise call a 'choice' is generated through some kind of cause and effect matrix (or modules if you prefer) then where is the 'space' for responsibility? In crude terms there's input, there's machinery which processes that input, and then there's output, none of this seems to make room for some mysterious detached force which can be held 'responsible' as the term is ordinarily applied. Let me put it another way, if any gven specific set of circumstances and inputs mechanistically generate a specific response, at what point do we say "there", "there is the point at which the causes and effects become a matter of responsibility"?
    Posting from phone here so forgive any errors in typing.

    If you imagine that the modules I speak of are the functions in which inputs are directed and outputs are produced (in line with your example), then the two factors which determine the output lie in the input swell as the function.
    In this example, the function represents a module, which is tuned to filter an input into an output. However, I do not believe this 'tuning' is the same in every Human being, we respond differently to the same inputs even as a fetus In the womb. In other words, the causation->effect pattern is disrupted by an additional third element, this 'tuning'

    This is putting it in all very highbrow, epistomelogical terms. How does this tuning or filtering manifest itself physically in the Human brain to support my theory?
    Firstly, I'd postulate that every human being sends and receives brainwaves at slightly different frequencies, signals which are unique to that mind.
    Secondly, every brain is unique in neuron structure, to find the exact same pattern of neurons connecting to each other is exceedingly rare and only really found in identical twins. So even in the confines of physicality, each Hunan is potentially unique in it's thought process. I believe the uniqueness in this thought process is what constitutes ones broad sense of self.

    Edit : the room for responsibility lies in the aforementioned machinery, which i believe is unique in how it processes inputs to outputs in every individual.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    Quotation marks aren't just used for direct quotations, small boy!

    The Wikipedia page would help, if you could read.

    Are you completely thick or trolling?
    Yes they are actually, this is why we call them Quotation Marks. And yes thank you for the page; your use of wikipedia to back up your point rather does you more harm than good. it's not a very good website, you see. A bit rubbish actually. So do try to find better sources.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Posting from phone here so forgive any errors in typing.

    If you imagine that the modules I speak of are the functions in which inputs are directed and outputs are produced (in line with your example), then the two factors which determine the output lie in the input swell as the function.
    In this example, the function represents a module, which is tuned to filter an input into an output. However, I do not believe this 'tuning' is the same in every Human being, we respond differently to the same inputs even as a fetus In the womb. In other words, the causation->effect pattern is disrupted by an additional third element, this 'tuning'

    This is putting it in all very highbrow, epistomelogical terms. How does this tuning or filtering manifest itself physically in the Human brain to support my theory?
    Firstly, I'd postulate that every human being sends and receives brainwaves at slightly different frequencies, signals which are unique to that mind.
    Secondly, every brain is unique in neuron structure, to find the exact same pattern of neurons connecting to each other is exceedingly rare and only really found in identical twins. So even in the confines of physicality, each Hunan is potentially unique in it's thought process. I believe the uniqueness in this thought process is what constitutes ones broad sense of self.

    Edit : the room for responsibility lies in the aforementioned machinery, which i believe is unique in how it processes inputs to outputs in every individual.
    But that 'filtering' mechanism of turning input to output is a non conscious chemical/biological process. Neurons that stimulate efferent nerves which control muscles etc. require no internal agent.

    People act according to experiences governed by neurons and synaptic pruning. This does indeed create individual differences, but it doesn't prove any internal agent that necessitates moral responsibility.

    As for your 'brain frequencies'. It's very pseudo-science and your basing it on the assumption that 'mind' exists. People don't send or receive brainwaves. What is being picked up on on an EEG machine is the speed neurons are firing.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Posting from phone here so forgive any errors in typing.

    If you imagine that the modules I speak of are the functions in which inputs are directed and outputs are produced (in line with your example), then the two factors which determine the output lie in the input swell as the function.
    In this example, the function represents a module, which is tuned to filter an input into an output. However, I do not believe this 'tuning' is the same in every Human being, we respond differently to the same inputs even as a fetus In the womb. In other words, the causation->effect pattern is disrupted by an additional third element, this 'tuning'

    This is putting it in all very highbrow, epistomelogical terms. How does this tuning or filtering manifest itself physically in the Human brain to support my theory?
    Firstly, I'd postulate that every human being sends and receives brainwaves at slightly different frequencies, signals which are unique to that mind.
    Secondly, every brain is unique in neuron structure, to find the exact same pattern of neurons connecting to each other is exceedingly rare and only really found in identical twins. So even in the confines of physicality, each Hunan is potentially unique in it's thought process. I believe the uniqueness in this thought process is what constitutes ones broad sense of self.

    Edit : the room for responsibility lies in the aforementioned machinery, which i believe is unique in how it processes inputs to outputs in every individual.
    But I don't see how placing emphasis on the individualised nature of cause and effect processes in human brains somehow generates 'responsibility'. Sure, we all have brains 'wired up' in different ways, we've all experienced differences in our socialisation, our diet, and any number of things which will have some influence on the mechanistic processes which lead from inputs to outputs, but that doesn't somehow make us 'responsible', at least I can't see how. There's still no 'place' for a metaphysical 'us' which stands apart from the process of 'choice making'. So, no, I can't assent to an argument for responsibility from an appeal to the uniqueness of what are still mechanistic thought processes. Identification of our consciousness, our 'inner eye' so to speak, complicates the issue, I'd agree, but it doesn't in any way interfere with an ultimately mechanistic explanation.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    Yes they are actually, this is why we call them Quotation Marks. And yes thank you for the page; your use of wikipedia to back up your point rather does you more harm than good. it's not a very good website, you see. A bit rubbish actually. So do try to find better sources.
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    Quotation marks aren't just used for direct quotations, small boy!

    The Wikipedia page would help, if you could read.

    Are you completely thick or trolling?
    Your argument over grammar really isn't contributing to the discussion, PM instead?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    Your argument over grammar really isn't contributing to the discussion, PM instead?
    I don't think the Prime Minister will wish to contribute either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    We might be talking at cross-purposes here as my references to structure are not intended as references to 'structuralism' as it is associated with the likes of Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Foucault etc.
    No, I don't mean that either. I mean structuralism as in the belief that human action is controlled by social structures (as opposed to human agency).

    I'm supporting the idea of human thoughts and action as structured in more general terms, i.e. in the sense that they don't occur unless as a product of deterministic cause and effect processes in the brain. Likewise with my references to the power of socialisation and the wider 'situatedness' of each individual which can't help but shape and direct what we otherwise consider as their 'agency'.
    No I do acknowledge the power of structures - I said I favour a *dialectical approach*, i.e. structure and agency are two sides of the same coin and influence each other.

    But besides that, deviance is part of structured behaviour as I mean the term more generally. A whole matrix of intersecting past and present forces direct some to deviate in response to specific stimuli or circumstances just as they direct others to conform in response, because we never all experience, nor are thus formed by, the exact same 'decision generating' forces in exactly the same way. Just as most people like chocolate icecream some loath it - travelling backwards in time we should expect there to be a matrix of forces, from our genetics to our pre-school experiences to everything else which forms our response patterns and which would, ultimately, explain our icecream preferences.
    So your argument is basically "turtles, all the way down"? Structures within structures with structures?

    The same goes for the issue of change. Plants go through change as they respond to their environmental experiences and in accordance with their physiological constitutions, but we don't have to regard a plant's change as evidence of its 'agency' as it is ordinarily understood.
    See now you're writing more like a standard functionalist Marxist and treating society like an organism, which IMO is a flawed analogy. Out of interest, how do you explain, say, the fact that people can be reflexive and consciously attempt to change social structures? All the pressures that social structures face which might make them change are internal, so must arise from human agency.

    Yes, the fact that the study of humans is undertaken by humans themselves does suggest likely methodological and interpretive problems, but I don't know that they are insurmountable. After all, by scientific taxonomic standards humans are mammals and yet we don't struggle to study other, non-human, mammals, do we? So where do we draw the line? We're a carbon-based life form too, does that make our study of carbon-based life forms problematic?
    I think you're smart enough to recognise the difference between your interaction with other human beings and smart enough to recognise your



    In the other direction your line of resoning might lead us to state that women are poor candidates for the study of women or black people poor candidates for the study of black people.
    No one is well placed to study social phenomena in the same way they study natural phenomena. Women are of course well placed to think about being a woman in reflexive, interpretive way, but not a scientific one.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    ...

    See now you're writing more like a standard functionalist Marxist and treating society like an organism, which IMO is a flawed analogy. Out of interest, how do you explain, say, the fact that people can be reflexive and consciously attempt to change social structures? All the pressures that social structures face which might make them change are internal, so must arise from human agency.

    ...
    I'm not ignoring your whole post here, I just don't want to get drawn into that whole sentence-by-sentence sword-play thing.

    You see, your point here strikes me as something close to question begging. You seem to be assuming that such things as we call 'reflexivity' and 'consciousness' are prima facie non-structured in the physical cause-and-effect sense I'm defending.

    Is it possible for you to re-phrase this sentence?

    All the pressures that social structures face which might make them change are internal, so must arise from human agency.
    It might just be the way I'm reading it but I'm not getting it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    From the perspective of sheer logic alone that is wrong. If everyone was a factory-owner and not a wage-labour for a factory-owner, who would, you know, wage-labour in a factory? Capitalism is competitive to the extent that a majority must wage-labour for a minority, no matter how much everyone might save to gain status as a factory-owner. So, even if everyone in society tried equally hard to become a factor-owner and not a wage-labourer, it just can't happen.
    This is nonsense, there's absolutely no reason why every firm in the world couldn't operate with a x:y:0 land:capital:labour factor ratio. Who'd produce stuff? Robots, how the heck should I know. What you wrote only makes sense if you erroneously assume that only labourers produce value - yep, the boring old LTV elephant raises its trunk yet again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As long as there are resources to power the capitalist market then there is no need for a revolt.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by ash-corbett-collins)
    As long as there are resources to power the capitalist market then there is no need for a revolt.
    But that's because the resources are the labour of those who revolt. It's self-explanatory to say as long as people are willing to sell their labour then a revolt won't happen.

    A need for one however, is questionable. Some reforms to capitalism do need to be made regardless of the fact people are willing to sell their labour for x amount. If it takes a revolt to happen, then yes it is needed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    But that's because the resources are the labour of those who revolt. It's self-explanatory to say as long as people are willing to sell their labour then a revolt won't happen.

    A need for one however, is questionable. Some reforms to capitalism do need to be made regardless of the fact people are willing to sell their labour for x amount. If it takes a revolt to happen, then yes it is needed.
    It's not a case of being willing to sell your labour, it's a mandatory component of living in a capitalist society. If you want a quality of life in excess of that spent living on a council estate devouring benefit payments then it is absolutely necessary to work.

    It's not 'self explanatory' either; Marx may have been wrong to predict an impending proletariat revolution but revolts happen all the time! Think factory riots in the 19th and 20th century, they were revolts. Think union strike action - that's a form of revolt.

    People will always be willing to sell their labour under capitalism, but they will not always be willing to work under poor or exploitative conditions - so revolts will of course occur.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    It's not a case of being willing to sell your labour, it's a mandatory component of living in a capitalist society. If you want a quality of life in excess of that spent living on a council estate devouring benefit payments then it is absolutely necessary to work.

    It's not 'self explanatory' either; Marx may have been wrong to predict an impending proletariat revolution but revolts happen all the time! Think factory riots in the 19th and 20th century, they were revolts. Think union strike action - that's a form of revolt.

    People will always be willing to sell their labour under capitalism, but they will not always be willing to work under poor or exploitative conditions - so revolts will of course occur.
    But that's what I'm saying, not very well mind you. Ok let me put it this way:

    Capitalism = available resources
    Available resources = willingness to sell labour
    Capitalism = willingness to sell labour
    not willing to sell labour = revolt

    What I'm saying is it's self-explanatory to say that capitalism continues when resources are available.

    As for the Marxist prediction, that's something entirely different which is far from self-evident. I would say that due to the increase in monopilsation a revolt may well occur, but capitalism is intertwined with some basic forms of business ethics, equality and rights e.g. unions as you point out, making a proletariat revolt either less likely to occur or more distant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    It's not a case of being willing to sell your labour, it's a mandatory component of living in a capitalist society.
    Like most socialists, you don't have a problem with capitalism. You have a problem with R E A L I T Y. If people don't work, they starve and this is not a feature of capitalism, it is a fact of reality. Abandoning private property does NOT mystically banish scarcity. Socialism is impossible. Why is this so difficult?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Like most socialists, you don't have a problem with capitalism. You have a problem with R E A L I T Y. If people don't work, they starve and this is not a feature of capitalism, it is a fact of reality. Abandoning private property does NOT mystically banish scarcity. Socialism is impossible. Why is this so difficult?
    Oh my. I'm not a socialist, don't think in such black and white terms.

    And you make a basic logic error here.

    You say I have a problem with reality. This is not actually a bad thing (you suggest it is).

    Our R E A L I T Y is that we live in a capitalist society; I point out flaws in capitalism, and therefore yes, I have a problem with R E A L I T Y.

    You fail to appreciate that a reality can change; we live under a certain economic and political system, but it has not always been this way, an economic R E A L I T Y can be changed, or are you so conformist that you believe this to be impossible?

    You say 'If people don't work, they starve and this is not a feature of capitalism, it is a fact of reality.'

    Here you make the same error, in that capitalism is not separate from reality, it is THE SAME as reality. So, people being forced to work is obviously a feature of capitalism!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noodlzzz)
    But that's what I'm saying, not very well mind you. Ok let me put it this way:

    Capitalism = available resources
    Available resources = willingness to sell labour
    Capitalism = willingness to sell labour
    not willing to sell labour = revolt

    What I'm saying is it's self-explanatory to say that capitalism continues when resources are available.

    As for the Marxist prediction, that's something entirely different which is far from self-evident. I would say that due to the increase in monopilsation a revolt may well occur, but capitalism is intertwined with some basic forms of business ethics, equality and rights e.g. unions as you point out, making a proletariat revolt either less likely to occur or more distant.
    Starting from the bottom up, Capitalism may indeed occur alongside business ethics, equality and rights (E.g. unions) , but it is not the same as these things - they are reactions to it.

    Union action is more or less the same as proletariat revolt.

    Your set of definitions:


    Capitalism = available resources
    Available resources = willingness to sell labour
    Capitalism = willingness to sell labour
    not willing to sell labour = revolt


    I'm not entirely sure I understand or agree with them at all. Not willing to sell labour is not the same as revolt, for a start. Those who do not work are called the lumenproles by Marx, they are distinguished by having no revolutionary consciousness. (Think people living on council estates who have never worked. This is not a form of revolution)

    Capitalism leads to a willingness to sell labour (f that is what you meant) yes, because people are forced to.

    That capitalism=available resources and that Available resources=willingness to sell labour, could you explain this more? Because that is far from a correct definition of capitalism. You could as easily say Communism = available resources if you believed in it; or Tesco=available resources.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    Starting from the bottom up, Capitalism may indeed occur alongside business ethics, equality and rights (E.g. unions) , but it is not the same as these things - they are reactions to it.

    Union action is more or less the same as proletariat revolt.

    Your set of definitions:


    Capitalism = available resources
    Available resources = willingness to sell labour
    Capitalism = willingness to sell labour
    not willing to sell labour = revolt


    I'm not entirely sure I understand or agree with them at all. Not willing to sell labour is not the same as revolt, for a start. Those who do not work are called the lumenproles by Marx, they are distinguished by having no revolutionary consciousness. (Think people living on council estates who have never worked. This is not a form of revolution)

    Capitalism leads to a willingness to sell labour (f that is what you meant) yes, because people are forced to.

    That capitalism=available resources and that Available resources=willingness to sell labour, could you explain this more? Because that is far from a correct definition of capitalism. You could as easily say Communism = available resources if you believed in it; or Tesco=available resources.
    Perhaps it would be better to say that such forms of proletariat revolution are part of modern society, which is in turn intertwined with capitalism. I agree that such rights are not directly part of capitalism but reactions to it.

    What I meant by not willing to sell labour is not the lumpenproletariat type, but those who are forced into slave labour or poor paid jobs and refuse to do it for 'human rights' or 'societal importance' etc. rather than personal lack of care. So yes, those who refuse to because of capitalism.

    What I meant with those definitions is that for capitalism to survive, resources must exist, and the main resource in capitalism is labour power. It works in a Hegelian master-slave dialectical where not only the labourers require labour work, but capitalism too depends on the labourers.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.