The True Purpose and Meaning of Economics
I recently had some conversations with proponents of capitalism regarding the meaning of economics and rather than engage in thoughtful processes of discussion and inquiry, they found it necessary to fling around anti-socialist dogma and doubled down on almost sociopathic concepts of economy.
Typically when talking with so-called pro-capitalists, instead of engaging in good faith and inquiry, they’ll point at the USSR or Cuba etc. and sneer the usual banal dogma about how they had breadlines, or that they’re “dictatorships”, as if that somehow constitutes not only an argument, but also a full resolution of, or petty dismissal of the problems we socialists seek to address — the contradictions of capitalism. It’s childishly tedious and easily rebutted if you have the patience of a saint and aren’t dealing with the proverbial chess playing pigeon. I’ve digressed here already, so from here on I’ll refrain from further venting of my frustration.
Although I couldn’t get a comprehensible answer out of my political opponent, I thought it might be a good idea to state and expand a bit on what economics means to a socialist:
All of economics is the scientific study and practical application of the means by which we produce, allocate and distribute often scarce resources and services in order to ensure conditions for comfortable subsistence for all.
This is quite a broad definition and as you might notice, rightly free from any notion of money or finance, which is contrary to most dictionary definitions of economics. To many socialists, money is a mere token of exchange rather than a source for and means of unrelenting capital accumulation.
We all should work toward realising the above definition because within any economy, there are fundamental things that enable it by means of enabling the source of all economic activity, labour, to do what it needs to do in order to complete cycles of production. When I say fundamental things, I mean things like housing, water, transport, energy, food and healthcare - for if someone is not able to afford one or more of these things and thus no longer has access to it, it lessens the chance of that person being able to return back to work the next day and thus help the with further cycles of production. The other argument here is a moral one in that it is just plainly humanitarian to provide cheap, subsidised or even free access to these vital means of subsistence. It should hopefully be obvious that having as many people engaged with economy as possible means having an economy that is better suited to fulfilling the material needs, and thus basic means of subsistence for all. In essence, what I’ve spoken about here is what you might call the primary working class interests.
If the means by which any society produces, allocates and distributes said resources and services leads to wasteful abundances through overproduction and artificial scarcities in order to bolster market and shareholder value, and therefore profit whilst simultaneously leaving people hungry, homeless, destitute and sick, the means by which a society produces is disgustingly inefficient and wasteful. The only reason to want this trade-off of profit and human welfare is to wield a loss of the latter in a threatening manner; as a means of coercion in order to bolster the former, profit, as the primary capitalist class interest. In other words, the primary interest of a capitalist is one of profit, and the threat of destitution is hung over the head of the working class so that they may be coerced into producing this profit.
The primary interests of the two classes I’ve spoken of above are antagonistic. They lead to contradictions from which societal rot grows, takes root and creates barriers to an economy being utilised fully to ensure comfortable subsistence for all. However, like all undesirable weeds, it can be pruned, cultivated and controlled.
To resolve this contradiction, we should strive to understand that by abolishing the inefficient and expensive middle-man, the capitalist, and by the working class having control of, building upon and properly utilising the productive forces that capitalism has built, we can resolve the flaws and contradictions apparent in our society that are created by class antagonisms. This is because the primary interests of the working class are already the same individually and severally - we have more in common with each other than what separates us. We can and will create a better society because we already rely upon each other’s labour, it’s just organised and exploited by the capitalist class.
Given the above, it is obvious that capitalist class interests are extraneous and exist outside of working class needs, and are also often inefficient and inhumane — no-one should have to live without the basic things that enable their own existence. Doing so means the existence of an economy that cannot and does not work for everyone.
Typically, pro-capitalists next like to ask “How will you pay for it?” or “Why should I give some of my money to someone else?”. The implication being that someone else having access to adequate means of subsistence is somehow vulgar and hence should they should be subjugated to the cruel whims of capital.
I will finish with this which I have shamelessly stolen:
The full value of your labour is not the full value of your output. You benefit from the labour of other members of society and you would not be able to achieve that output without their aid. Contribution to support and maintain your community is fair compensation for that aid.
You work in a factory.
You benefit from that factory being connected to a maintained road network.
You benefit from the streetlights to guide you home after work.
You benefit from your fellow workers being educated.
You benefit from the disabled being accommodated for as they can then contribute.
You benefit from healthcare services keeping you from getting sick from your co-workers.
You benefit from the fire brigade stop your workplace or house burning down.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
It is therefore imperative that we realise the true meaning of economics, for the welfare of all of us is at stake.
Typically when talking with so-called pro-capitalists, instead of engaging in good faith and inquiry, they’ll point at the USSR or Cuba etc. and sneer the usual banal dogma about how they had breadlines, or that they’re “dictatorships”, as if that somehow constitutes not only an argument, but also a full resolution of, or petty dismissal of the problems we socialists seek to address — the contradictions of capitalism. It’s childishly tedious and easily rebutted if you have the patience of a saint and aren’t dealing with the proverbial chess playing pigeon. I’ve digressed here already, so from here on I’ll refrain from further venting of my frustration.
Although I couldn’t get a comprehensible answer out of my political opponent, I thought it might be a good idea to state and expand a bit on what economics means to a socialist:
All of economics is the scientific study and practical application of the means by which we produce, allocate and distribute often scarce resources and services in order to ensure conditions for comfortable subsistence for all.
This is quite a broad definition and as you might notice, rightly free from any notion of money or finance, which is contrary to most dictionary definitions of economics. To many socialists, money is a mere token of exchange rather than a source for and means of unrelenting capital accumulation.
We all should work toward realising the above definition because within any economy, there are fundamental things that enable it by means of enabling the source of all economic activity, labour, to do what it needs to do in order to complete cycles of production. When I say fundamental things, I mean things like housing, water, transport, energy, food and healthcare - for if someone is not able to afford one or more of these things and thus no longer has access to it, it lessens the chance of that person being able to return back to work the next day and thus help the with further cycles of production. The other argument here is a moral one in that it is just plainly humanitarian to provide cheap, subsidised or even free access to these vital means of subsistence. It should hopefully be obvious that having as many people engaged with economy as possible means having an economy that is better suited to fulfilling the material needs, and thus basic means of subsistence for all. In essence, what I’ve spoken about here is what you might call the primary working class interests.
If the means by which any society produces, allocates and distributes said resources and services leads to wasteful abundances through overproduction and artificial scarcities in order to bolster market and shareholder value, and therefore profit whilst simultaneously leaving people hungry, homeless, destitute and sick, the means by which a society produces is disgustingly inefficient and wasteful. The only reason to want this trade-off of profit and human welfare is to wield a loss of the latter in a threatening manner; as a means of coercion in order to bolster the former, profit, as the primary capitalist class interest. In other words, the primary interest of a capitalist is one of profit, and the threat of destitution is hung over the head of the working class so that they may be coerced into producing this profit.
The primary interests of the two classes I’ve spoken of above are antagonistic. They lead to contradictions from which societal rot grows, takes root and creates barriers to an economy being utilised fully to ensure comfortable subsistence for all. However, like all undesirable weeds, it can be pruned, cultivated and controlled.
To resolve this contradiction, we should strive to understand that by abolishing the inefficient and expensive middle-man, the capitalist, and by the working class having control of, building upon and properly utilising the productive forces that capitalism has built, we can resolve the flaws and contradictions apparent in our society that are created by class antagonisms. This is because the primary interests of the working class are already the same individually and severally - we have more in common with each other than what separates us. We can and will create a better society because we already rely upon each other’s labour, it’s just organised and exploited by the capitalist class.
Given the above, it is obvious that capitalist class interests are extraneous and exist outside of working class needs, and are also often inefficient and inhumane — no-one should have to live without the basic things that enable their own existence. Doing so means the existence of an economy that cannot and does not work for everyone.
Typically, pro-capitalists next like to ask “How will you pay for it?” or “Why should I give some of my money to someone else?”. The implication being that someone else having access to adequate means of subsistence is somehow vulgar and hence should they should be subjugated to the cruel whims of capital.
I will finish with this which I have shamelessly stolen:
The full value of your labour is not the full value of your output. You benefit from the labour of other members of society and you would not be able to achieve that output without their aid. Contribution to support and maintain your community is fair compensation for that aid.
You work in a factory.
You benefit from that factory being connected to a maintained road network.
You benefit from the streetlights to guide you home after work.
You benefit from your fellow workers being educated.
You benefit from the disabled being accommodated for as they can then contribute.
You benefit from healthcare services keeping you from getting sick from your co-workers.
You benefit from the fire brigade stop your workplace or house burning down.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
It is therefore imperative that we realise the true meaning of economics, for the welfare of all of us is at stake.
Comments
Post a Comment