Marx and Automation

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.

[alanjjohnstone]

I go away for a day and return to two threads that are meaningless to any neutral visitor. Number of angels dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind…I'll be basically offline for a week or so and will expect to return to screeds of messages after messages which in no way relate or resonate with any of my fellow-workers. If it is workers' democracy we want, then boring them stiff and so that they will not participate or get involved will be one method of keeping the elite in charge.I posted a link to Lee Harvey Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union which i doubt anybody really read and how workers were discouraged not by lack of consultation but the amount of it…after meeting every day and every week…many compulsory…Worker's democracy for me is all about creating a situation that will free me from work obligations and the slavery of giving my time to it. Why do you think we all look forward to retirement from itroll on robotics when decision-making itself itself is automated,  self-monitoring and self-adjusting…and i can fully enjoy the fruits of machinery, by the beach with my pina colada…or a good malt in tree-covered, loch-speckled  hills 

[Alan Kerr]

@LBirdThe fact is we can’t avoid stages.Or can you for instance explain how automation could come before simple manufacture?No?Then you must accept stages.Before machines there were not even many wage workers to take part in your struggles.Struggles cannot avoid stages.See The Socialist Preamble.Lenin thought that backward Russia alone 1918 could skip capitalist stages and move to Socialist Production.Lenin did not understand stages.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I go away for a day and return to two threads that are meaningless to any neutral visitor. Number of angels dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind…I'll be basically offline for a week or so and will expect to return to screeds of messages after messages which in no way relate or resonate with any of my fellow-workers. If it is workers' democracy we want, then boring them stiff and so that they will not participate or get involved will be one method of keeping the elite in charge.I posted a link to Lee Harvey Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union which i doubt anybody really read and how workers were discouraged not by lack of consultation but the amount of it…after meeting every day and every week…many compulsory…

So, alan, you're arguing that the Soviet Union's version of 'consultation' amounted to "workers' democracy"? Wow!

ajj wrote:

Worker's democracy for me is all about creating a situation that will free me from work obligations and the slavery of giving my time to it. Why do you think we all look forward to retirement from it

But this is not "workers' democracy" within social production, alan. You are defining it as 'individual freedom' (much as robbo does), which is a ruling class idea. Marx was talking about how we collectively control our own natural production, which we are compelled to do by our natural existence. This 'compulsion' isn't a trick by the bourgeoisie, to prevent you 'sunning yourself on the beach'. We can't 'retire' from it, as a species.

ajj wrote:

roll on robotics when decision-making itself itself is automated,  self-monitoring and self-adjusting…and i can fully enjoy the fruits of machinery, by the beach with my pina colada…or a good malt in tree-covered, loch-speckled  hills 

But you're just talking about personal enjoyment, not social production. I'm all with you, on a personal level, robotic house-cleaner, boozy beach parties, roaming in the gloaming to visit a whisky distillery…… but workers' democracy is about how we go about ensuring that everyone on this planet gets to enjoy the fruits of our collective efforts.On the whole, your post just confirms to me what I've long suspected… many in the SPGB seem to be only concerned with 'individual freedom' (in the hippy sense), rather than building a collective social consciousness, concerned centrally with production. From your perspective, "workers' democracy" is nothing but a 'compulsion', which prevents your liberation. Whatever it is, it's nothing to do with Marx or socialism, alan.'Meetings' won't disappear in socialism, alan. It's a lie to say so to workers, now. And the idea that 'machines will make decisions' is technocracy, not democratic socialism, and will lead to an active elite controlling 'machines', and a passive mass, who can avoid 'meetings'. It sounds more like Brave New World.

[LBird]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@LBirdThe fact is we can’t avoid stages.Or can you for instance explain how automation could come before simple manufacture?No?Then you must accept stages.Before machines there were not even many wage workers to take part in your struggles.Struggles cannot avoid stages.

So, you'll have to define your 'stages', Alan. Are they 'technological' stages, or 'social production' stages? That is, regarding the defining characteristic of your 'stages', is it 'material stuff' or 'social relationships'?I'm with Marx, and would focus upon 'stages' of 'social production'. That is, 'class struggle' rather than 'machines'.So, any discussion of 'Marx and Automation' would be about the differences between 'bourgeois automation' and 'proletarian automation' (perhaps even some similarities).But a discussion of 'automation-in-itself' would be asocial and ahistorical.

[Alan Kerr]

@LBirdConsider the following stage.The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is not as yet a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.At this stage we can speak of automation for the big capitalist. Now Automation is a weapon which big capitalist uses in competition against small capitalist and workers.But we can already speak of automation for the worker in the long run. Why?In the long run the big capitalist enterprise becomes a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.So what happens?Workers become aware of ENGELS’ MATERIAL CONDITIONS and establish Socialist Production.This is not in The SPGB Object. But look at The Socialist Preamble. It is in there.If stages were simply about struggle and power as (for instance) MBellemare suggests then they would be arbitrary stages. Then MBellemare would be correct. But these stages are not arbitrary. These stages have an order about them. The order is independent of our will and rather determines our will. So MBellemare is wrong. So Engels, Marx and the Labour Theory are correct.Thank you. 

[robbo203]

Alan Kerr wrote:

 The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is not as yet a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production. 

 Alan, it is capitalist production, in general, big or small, that is the real "hindrance to productiion.  There are, in any case, even by capitalism's standards. diseconomies of  scale in certain lines of production beyond a certain threshold size  – meaning the bigger the production  unit, the less efficient  it is in producing stuff This  whole idea of the "concentration and centralisation of capital" which traditional 19th century Marxism relied upon as a way of boosting and developing the forces of production to bring closer the prospect of socialism is now completely obsolete .  For at least a century we have had at our disposal the technological potential to sustain a genuine socialist society worldwide. The left wing fetish about nationalising the "commanding heights of industry" which then they go on to wrongly  designate as some kind of transitional socialist stage between capitalism snd  communism is just so much reactionarry diversionary twaddle.  The forces of production dont need to be further developed under the auspices of the big capitalist corporations – and ultmately the biggest of them all, being the state.  This is only postponing the realisation of a socialist society on the false pretext that the forces of production need to be further developed as well as serving to deflect the core criticism that socialists make of capitalism –  that it is capitalism itself, not the relative size of the production units in capitalism, that is the real  problem

[twc]

LBird wrote:

Marx was talking about how we collectively control our own natural production, which we are compelled to do by our natural existence.  This ‘compulsion’ isn’t a trick by the bourgeoisie…  We can’t ‘retire’ from it, as a species.

LBird’s natural compulsion operating upon ‘our species’, independent of our will, is the foundation that opens up the (otherwise closed) possibility of a deterministic science of society.A science that comprehends external necessity has no choice but to recognize that thought is not the determiner of the necessity, but is the determined, just as LBird asserts against ajj.LBird acknowledges that social reproduction is subject to external necessity, from which he has abstracted a deterministic social law, and that society (as a whole, despite some members of it) isn’t free to practice just as it desires nor to think just as it pleases.And herein lies the germ of Marx’s materialism and Marx’s deterministic science of society which investigates the social forms that arise under the compulsion for social practice to reproduce society:“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.  The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.  The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.  It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” [Marx, A Contribution…].

[twc]

ajj wrote:

I thought the basis of science is that a hypothesis is set up…it is examined and argument and counter-argument takes place to resolve differences and for the hypothesis improvement. In other words, the "truth" of it is always being questioned.

No.  This is Karl Popper’s method of conjecture and refutation.The particular refutation Popper had uppermost in mind was Marx’s Capital.Conjecture might start out as hypothesis, inspiration, imagination, or mere stab-in-the-dark, but it remains forever grounded in thought.  Popper’s conjectural science glorifies thought but relegates practice to the refutation of thought.The method of drawing on practice to falsify thought is not Marx’s scientific method in Capital.  For this, see http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx‘s-scientific-method.

[Anonymous]

@Robbo, Post # 285 Your making sense to me! Your position and questions are clear and speaking my language, even if there are some disagreements between our positions.I don't quite see, your idea, that capitalism is like some innocuous lumbering beast, lurching on and on, through history, like some frankenstein, that is incapable of truly intelligent, devious, calculated, fascist, maneoeuvres. In fact, capitalism shows beneath its veneer of Trump-idocy, that it is an insideous, calculating, ruthless machine/logic, with a Janus-Face, which, in the end, will not tolerate any deviant political economic framework other than its own.You state that capitalism could never tumble into a dark age akin to 1984. Yet, mass totalizing surveillance and information gathering is real and pretty dark-age and medieval stuff to me. It is magnifying fear and paranoia across everyday life. These are all totalitarian aspirations that the logic of capitalism is expressing and has wanted to implement for decades. Terrorism has simply given carte blanche to the logic of capitalism to enact its totalitarian aspirations. Plus, the idea of catastrophic nuclear annihilation that you mention is pretty dark-age stuff, as well. So don't be too optimistic, but be realistic. There is much in society that is dark and sinister. Social media, is filled with trolls, micro-fascism, celebrity gossip, big brother types, fake news and incessant repetitions of the status quo. The SPGB site may be an autonomous zone/autonomous-collective, but it is a minority in a sea of BS.  Also, Robbo, I think you might be ascribing to Gramsci's idea of hegemony and Jurgen Habermas's idea of consensus building/communicative-action, expressed in recent books like "Inventing the Future". Any idea, that hegemony still exists in a mass totalizing surveillance/information gathering society is pure illusion. We can think differently, yes, but try and really act differently against capitalism, outside a revolutionary rabble, and see how long that lasts.          I wouldn't say that capitalists are conspiratorial when arbitrarily manufacturing value, price and wages, but I would say that capitalism has a central-operating-code, i.e., a logic, that people are hardwired into, which informs the way people relate to each other, act in the world and define value, price and wage according to. Humans are social beings by nature, thus they tend to congregate, birds of a feather flock together. Capitalism is simply the logic and framework by which people currently congregate, i.e., relate to each other, both producing their social existence and producing meaning in their lives. This includes price, value and wage. That's the problem, people in general think capitalism is right and the embodiment of truth because it persists and somewhat makes their lives more comfortable, via nifty machines. But behind these machines is the machination of value, price and wage, by those whose power is able to normalize arbitrary values, prices and wages. Business relationships are all about improving an entity's influence and power, and that's not being conspiratorial, its being a good business man or woman.   Contrary to Marx and Engels, capitalism is something that is both conceptual and material. It is a logic of social organization and interaction, including a logic of production, that is both conceptual and material.  A principle reason (not the sole reason) why people do not overthrow capitalism and the logic of capitalism is that the logic fundamentally supplies them with meaning, existential meaning and comprehension in their everyday lives. It gives artificial meaning to an existence, that is, in fact, pure relativism, nihilism and anarchy beneath all these artificial, capitalist meanings and ideational structures. Capitalism is able to manufacture a logical order and sense to existence, even if this order and sense is in the end arbitrary, exploitive and in fact meaningless. People would rather live in an artificially constructed complex of ready-made meaningfulness, than the realization of nothingness and complete meaningless-ness, actually lying beneath the current social organization of everyday life. Capitalism fills the void left-over by the Death of God and the marginalization of religions, which its own logic has manufactured. Marx and Engels accurately stated an important fact that under capitalism "All that is solid melts into air", what they failed to do is finish the sentence, "ALL THAT IS SOLID MELTS INTO AIR, (EXCEPT THE LOGIC OF CAPTITALISM)".  Capitalism liquidates/eliminates alternative logics, which can organize society according to different principles, and instead programs its own logic in their place, making people live according to the idea that their is no alternative except captialism. Capitalism is totalitarian, there is a fascism to it, it is a micro-fascism, a creeping fascism, which commodifies everything, elimates alternatives, and puts a value/price on everything, even if this value/price in the end is an unfounded, artificial, fabrication.        Micro-fascism is all the little corporate micro-dictatorships dotting the so-called democratic, western social landscapes, schooling us, both softly and coercively,  in the logic of capitalism governing the world. For instance, universities are little micro-dictatorships, where vindictive power stuggles and hiearchical structures infect the pursuit of knowledge and attempt to direct the pursuit of knowledge according to the imperatives of capitalism, that is, along the lines of technological development, technocratic bureaucratic knowledge, rote learning and obedience (we must not forget obedience). North American universities are filled with moderate, middle of the road, obedient, soft-spoken academics, who preach moderation, intellectual passivity, and a form of social critique that is not really social critique, pseudo-social-critique. They are institutions who purge classrooms of real social critique and instill the motto that to advance within capitalism (obedience is intelligence/intelligence is obedience). You can critique, yes, but, don't critique too much, less you be labeled a radical and/or are marginalized from your colleagues, or worst the university-structures themselves. Such ideas like the Enlightenment/Meta-Narratives are not dead they can be rehabilitated, Hegemony and consensus-building is the way, full-automation/A.I. will be our emancipation, now is the time to build a counter-totality to capitalism, reform not revolution etc., these are all moderate, middle-of-road, mild, neoliberal ideas peddled by most liberal academics and universities which are complicit in sustaining and furthering capitalism.  This is Jurgen Habermas in disguise, Habermas peddled as revolutionary, as novel, when he is mediocre, old hat and a middle-of-the-road academic, complicit in supporting capitalist institutions like the Capitalist university. These indoctrinated, out of date, ideas are all present in the recent book by "Inventing The Future". An old liberal like Habermas would be smitten with such a book, which smuggles these status quo (liberal) ideas in its pages, in a new shiny packaging, that claims to be revolutionary.  The post-modernists have it right, we must not resurrect the meta-narratives of the Enlightenement, as they invariably turn into nightmares. However, I would say that we must continue the post-modern revolution and continue to deconstruct all meta-narratives, such as the totalizing, meta-narrative of capitalism, which continues to persist as a totality and as an emblem of the only future available. The goal is revolution towards a multi-varied, multi-dimensional society, with many cultural and socio-economic differences, living in relative equality, not any Mont-Pelrin like totalitarian hegemony of the left. Yikes! this is totalitarian socialism all-over again in disguise.A book like "Inventing The Future" is not some bewildered Frankenstein lurching around (Robbo), it was a well-calculated, well-orchestrated, streamlined ideological attempt to refashion old, Habermasian, liberal ideas, lying around the university classroom into a poignant complicit pseudo-force, a liberal force masked pitched at the public as a new revolutionary force. That is, the book appears to be on the surface revolutionary, but in substance, it is truly conventional and the reiteration of the Habermasian academic status-quo. Anyone who hops on this band-wagon is set to return back to square-one, defeated, disillusioned and none the wiser.             

[Alan Kerr]

robbo203To you robbo capitalist production in general, big or small, is the real hindrance to production.  Compared to what? What is your alternative? Would you rather make the scale of production units arbitrary? Would you just trust to pure guesswork? Then how do we know if your Socialist alternative is not the real hindrance compared to the market? How do we know if your alternative is not the real hindrance compared to capitalist production?Any society that just tried to leave production organization to luck would surely starve.Do you claim as if the scale of units of production is just arbitrary? Look around and the market is a graveyard for failed firms. We need to talk about the trend. The trend is not all one way. But the general trend shall we say since introduction of the first machines is to big production. There is a trend. Would you say that this is just arbitrary trend? Then the labour theory is wrong. Then MBellemare is right to claim that the labour theory is wrong. But then MBellemare has not yet explained how come the present population has survived. He has failed so far to explain what is shifting total labour around in a way which keeps us alive.Or do you claim scale of units of production rather depends on efficiency? Then there is nothing arbitrary to it. Then the labour theory still holds good in practice.You have failed to bring us any real argument against our same way to think in The Socialist Preamble.And we see how you robbo are also guilty of speaking of stages. To you about 100 years ago you first got the technological potential to sustain a genuine socialist society worldwide. You don’t say if that is or is not just your own personal guesswork. All we do know is that you are clearly speaking of stages. How come you did not call your stages twaddle? Why call my stages twaddle? What to you is the difference?Please feel free to answer my previous question to MBellemare in post #289https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-automation?page=28#comment-43041

[robbo203]

Alan Kerr wrote:

robbo203To you robbo capitalist production in general, big or small, is the real hindrance to production.  Compared to what? What is your alternative? Would you rather make the scale of production units arbitrary? Would you just trust to pure guesswork? Then how do we know if your Socialist alternative is not the real hindrance compared to the market? How do we know if your alternative is not the real hindrance compared to capitalist production?Any society that just tried to leave production organization to luck would surely starve.Do you claim as if the scale of units of production is just arbitrary? Look around and the market is a graveyard for failed firms. We need to talk about the trend. The trend is not all one way. But the general trend shall we say since introduction of the first machines is to big production. There is a trend. Would you say that this is just arbitrary trend? Then the labour theory is wrong. Then MBellemare is right to claim that the labour theory is wrong. But then MBellemare has not yet explained how come the present population has survived. He has failed so far to explain what is shifting total labour around in a way which keeps us alive.Or do you claim scale of units of production rather depends on efficiency? Then there is nothing arbitrary to it. Then the labour theory still holds good in practice.

 Alan. As I indicated in my earlier post, in a capitalist economy there are both economies and diseconomies of scale in terms of output per worker depending on the branch of industry we are talking about ( some industries are prone to natural monopolies, for example) and also technological development (solar power, for example, makes possible decentralised and even off grid energy production as I know living in Spain!) However you are missing my main point.  No, I dont think the scale of production is arbitrary  – i.e. big or small units – and there are technical reasons that would determine  the size of the particular unit or corporate  entity concerned,  Thats another argument, however,  My argument is that capitalism has long outlived its usefulness  in developing the forces of production  to the point at which we can have socialism.  Consequently the whole argument about the "concentration and centralisation of capital" which is supposed to aid the development of the productive forces,according to Marxist theory  is now completely obsolete and dead as a dodo Capitalism  is now the real hindrance to production – NOT the lack of a sufficiently developed resource base.  We have long had the material or technogical infrastructure to support a socialist society.  The potential is there to meet the reasonable needs of every person on this planet  but capitalism is preventing us from realising this potential.  Capitalism is not directly concerned with meeting the needs of people  but with with realisation of profit.  For instance, most of the labour in the formal sector of a modern capitalist ecnomy is socially useless in that it produces nothing of real worth e.g. banks etc and only exists to keep capitalism ticking over on its own terms. All that wasted labour could be used to augment social production in socialism in environmentally sustainable ways Capitalism is grotesquely inefficient by that standard, since you ask;  its consignment to the dustbin of history is long overdue

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I go away for a day and return to two threads that are meaningless to any neutral visitor. Number of angels dancing on the head of a pin comes to mind…I'll be basically offline for a week or so and will expect to return to screeds of messages after messages which in no way relate or resonate with any of my fellow-workers. If it is workers' democracy we want, then boring them stiff and so that they will not participate or get involved will be one method of keeping the elite in charge.I posted a link to Lee Harvey Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union which i doubt anybody really read and how workers were discouraged not by lack of consultation but the amount of it…after meeting every day and every week…many compulsory…

So, alan, you're arguing that the Soviet Union's version of 'consultation' amounted to "workers' democracy"? Wow!

Previously I have tried (sometimes by your own admission successfully) taking the piss out of you, but I think after reading the above I have to admit that at times I'm beat,L Bird you really are beyond parody, your ability to misconstrue any statement made by another is an absolute marvel of the modern world. I would go as far as to say, and I don't say this lightly, your ability to misrepresent any comment made in a negative and derogatory way goes beyond that of my late mother in law, and that is my friend very great praise.L Bird, a one man mixture of misunderstanding, misrepresentaion and misconstruction, I salute you sir!

[Anonymous]

@robbo203 & @mbellemerre

robbo203 wrote:

Consequently the whole argument about the "concentration and centralisation of capital" which is supposed to aid the development of the productive forces,according to Marxist theory  is now completely obsolete and dead as a dodoCapitalism  is now the real hindrance to production – NOT the lack of a sufficiently developed resource base.  We have long had the material or technogical infrastructure to support a socialist society.  The potential is there to meet the reasonable needs of every person on this planet  but capitalism is preventing us from realising this potential.  Capitalism is not directly concerned with meeting the needs of people  but with with realisation of profit.  For instance, most of the labour in the formal sector of a modern capitalist ecnomy is socially useless in that it produces nothing of real worth e.g. banks etc and only exists to keep capitalism ticking over on its own terms. All that wasted labour could be used to augment social production in socialism in environmentally sustainable waysCapitalism is grotesquely inefficient by that standard, since you ask;  its consignment to the dustbin of history is long overdue

It's really not that complicated if you can get over your pre-conceptions about the medium of exchange being neutral.  If you base money on an ounce of gold then in every sale or exchange gold gets concentrated and everything else gets distrubuted relative to how easily it converts into gold.  If you base an exchange system (aka market) on trading of trees than every sale or exchange would result in a marginal concentration of trees but every sale or exchange would also then result in some increase to the distrubution of gold.  If you want to distrubute capital resources fairly and evenly to the world then you need to base your medium of exchange on a non-capital unit of measure such as personal hope or personal time.  So I think waht your descirbiing it true, but it results not from capitalism exactly. More preceisely concentration of wealth is a result of the medium of exchange.  Every exchange of human value in a capitalist economy using capital dollars increases concentration of capital value.  heres' an example of two exchange systems.  One exhange system is based on a unit of capital value (the US dollar).  Another exchange system is based on a unit of personal time (one hour of your time is worth how many dollars?).  here's a fictional example to put some numbers on what I'm trying to explain.

---

The price tag says a book cost “2 hOEP.coin” (hOurs Equals Price dot coin), so that means 2 hours of your time equals the price you pay.  If you think that’s a fair price, you click the buy button and enter your credit card info.  If you’re a first time user, check the box to allow the IRS, bank, or other verifier to calculate and confirm an hour of your time is worth/cost $25/hr.  Charges on your credit card read “2hrs@$25/hr” or "2 hOEP".

---

Jenny, a hair stylist earns $20/hr. and therefore it costs her $20 for one hOEP.coin.Teresa, a nail specialist earns $60/hr. and therefore it costs her $60 for one hOEP.coinJenny and Teresa Both agree to work for each other for an hour.

---

How many net dollars will Teresa have transferred to Jenny if they both agree to bill each other fairly for 1 hour each using hOEP.coin? Answer: the poorer person is now $40 richer than before. Inequality decreased by $80.How many net dollars will Jenny have transferred to Teresa if they both agree to bill each other fairly for 1 hour each using USA Dollars? Answer, The poorer person is now $40 poorer than before. Inequality increased by $80.

---

So robbo203, the point I'm making is that the exchange system and currency is not Neutral about whether money gets concentrated or distributed and exchange using a money system based on capital value favors concentration of capital value. in constrast an exchange system usinga base unit of an hour of your personal time instead of an ounce of gold has the opposite effect of decreasing captial wealth concentration and increasing concentration of personal time wealth.this violates the pre-conceptions of capitalism and communism, but the math tests out correct. I have 21 page slideshow that explains this better and more clearly than is possible using only text in this discussion format, but I don't post the link here because it upsets the mods. If you ask me for the link I think the mods would permit me to answer you with the link.   

[Anonymous]

@ Steve San Fran, concerning post #340.Its an interesting system you have, Steve, but it is predicated on what I've been saying to a certain extent. That value, price and wage-determinations are founded on conceptual-perception, i.e., on what people in general believe is a valid means of exchange and a valid form of equivalence for things and between things. Which means theoretically that people could be convinced to change exchange system. Both Teressa and Jenny have to agree to the HOEP.coin system. And/or must be indoctrinated to the HOEP.coin system for it to work, either by force and/or propaganda.Its a little bit like BITCoin, If I am correct, and its attempt to generate hipe for an alternative means of exchange. However, isn't this what capitalism is doing, trying to convince us as to what are equitable values, prices, and wages? And ultimately, capitalists would seek to eliminate any means of exchange that takes power away from its highly controlled central banks, as it kinda did with BITCOIN. 

[Author]

Posts