Socialism grows directly out of capitalism.Communism is a further development or "hi

[TheGoodNews]

I'm speaking in terms of the last hundred years or so.

I only think it's really a realistic scenario (political communism or large scale socialism leading to the betterment of all) on a macro scale if the current ruling class is excluded from the equation.

I'm certainly in favor of power disrupting technologies, but then again that will also be met with resistance by the monopoly players. It's a game of 'acquire the power' between the citizens of the planet and the ruling globalist classes in my view. Limiting their power and gaining independence from the system IMO is the most direct way to win. So things like the windmill are precisely what is needed in the modern context. Ways of gaining independence.

So empowering the people at the grassroots level, not empowering the state or even expecting it to save the day. The state will be turned against the people.

In another thread I had mentioned that Edison launched a vigorous campaign to stymie the adoption of alternating current, which eventually supplanted his direct current in most sectors. Industry probably has many concerns about the impact 3D printing, or any other prospective innovation might have on future business. Digital technology has democratized communication to a significant degree at least and even sent Ma Bell (remember her) out to pasture. Perhaps it could even be more decentralized.

Rifkin's basic premise was how emerging technological platforms (the Internet of Things) might further decentralize production/consumption:

"The democratization of manufacturing means that anyone and eventually everyone can access the means of production, making the question of who should own and control the means of production irrelevant, and capitalism along with it." Rifkin

It remains to be seen, though.

But on that note:

Joe_Armstrong, this one's for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Give prosumerism a chance, Joe.

 

[Zankou]

The easiest example of this is marx's description of fascism. Not a real ideology but an appeal to race, reinvested history / tradition / nationalism employed by the upper and middle class to divide the working class (with special appeal to the lumpen).

While it is a useful and relevant analysis in many historical situations, it certainly does not fit with the idea of the modern successful international capitalist and the opposition to it from sources of tradition.

Yep Marx was not unaware of this problem at all, and he and Engels spent 600 pages attacking the Right Hegelian Max Stirner, with some fairly insane rants, on the grounds that Stirner represented the false lumpen ideology. Marx hated Stirner with a blinding passion for a pretty simple reason ... Stirner kept throwing bomb after bomb into the kumbaya Communist narrative of universal brotherly love within the Church of Man. In large part, this is one reason why historians think Marx moved to emphasizing the 'scientific' basis of Marxism, he was so tired of Stirner ripping on the ideological foundations of communism and mocking its theological pretensions.

This is where we get the doctrine of false consciousness, that traditional modes of identity are imposed on the rational being for nefarious purposes of maintaining older authoritative social relations, and the rational being comes to falsely identify with these body thetans ... er I mean irrational reactionary prejudices ... which must be eliminated through the steady use of e-meters until the individual is 'clear' and achieves a revolution in consciousness ... er I mean achieves true class consciousness and maximizes their revolutionary potential.

Again, some serious Kool Aid required.

It is funny to read Marx attacking Stirner, who very few people even knew about at the time (and even less now), Marx just goes bonkers the same way we modern folk will get our jimmies rustled and post on Interwebz forums.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03d.htm

 

[James Keith]

What makes something accounting fraud isn't that it violates some universal ideal of "correct" accounting, but rather that it violates laws about it. In the two scenarios, there is no actual difference *and* no principle under which you declare one framing to be more right than another. It's just not a solid category, and you don't get around that by changing the subject to accounting fraud.

Why even bother typing an argument like this? Fraud means lie. These laws exist to punish deception, which of course requires a universal idea of true accounting. But notwithstanding your nihilistic views regarding fraud laws, you were the one who claimed the two cases were "the same", and clearly picked them in order to demonstrate a violation of that universal principle that also holds them to be the same, and not different as the deception wants to claim.

Yes, I'm not denying that the gov't is making the bridge happen, silly. I'm saying that the gov't has the power to make things happen without resorting to taxation or spending, and that measuring the gov't's power or "presence" isn't helped by looking at fiscal policy. In the example I gave, the gov't cut taxation and spending and yet still executed on a project. A gov't that builds bridges can be said to be one that is "bigger" than one that doesn't, but spending and taxation have nothing to do with that.

The point was that the distinction between that tax credit transaction and actual spending is meaningless.

If you insist on refusing to account for the moey itself in a way that makes sense, then account for the resources, including labor, that it is taking. That's how we spot the universal idea of correct accounting anyway...

 

[Gandhi]

Um, no. Fiscal policy has no impact on the size of gov't by any sane definition. As I pointed out in another thread, if we replaced a cut on the top tax bracket with a "job creator incentive payment" for everyone making more than $250K, it would have the exact same effect on everyone involved, but one policy (the tax cut) is "shrinking the gov't" and one (the spending increase) is "growing the gov't" according to the definition of Republican hacks. Gov't having the power to tax and to spend (i.e., exist) is the key step. Everything fiscal after that is zero sum or about how the gov't is carrying out goals rather than how "big" it

I think this is a great example. I was just explaining to someone last night that a country could have no taxes and just print money. If the money was distributed in such a way to mirror the tax and spend system, the end result would be the same (of course price stability could be effected, so it may not be best from a policy perspective.

But I disagree that it is not relevant at all to size of government. It certainly makes the terms harder to define. A flat income tax with no exemptions to me implies a smaller government than one with a progressive system with 100000 deductions. The government is more actively micro managing in the second case. Of course a government controlling 10% of GDP but is using it to prop up a police state with a market is in many ways more controlling than a Nordic social democracy.

 

[Lee978]

The current wealthy have exploited the poor however. The poor are "forced" into undisireable labor in order for the wealthy to maintain their lifestyles. Can we agree that drastic changes need to be made? There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

Could you give me an example of what you mean for clarification? I don't understand what "forced into undesirable labor" means. Also how are you defining "exploitation" in this context?

I can agree that changes need to be made I just don't believe unhealthy progressive taxation is necessarily the best and/or only answer.

 

[Zankou]

It refutes the whole idea that you can measure gov't size by looking at fiscal policy. Here's another example: Instead of building a bridge, the gov't can simply offer a transferable tax credit to the private contractor who builds it (transferable in case their total liability is less than the cost of the bridge). Doing it that way would show both a cut in taxes relative to GDP and in gov't spending, but, again, no difference in anything else. And that's not such a crazy example--a lot of gov't activity actually is carried out that way.

On the other hand, another way of looking at it, using your example, is that the gov't is already taxing all of society 100% of all income, and yet is magnanimously extending unconditioned tax breaks to all of us that reduces the gov'ts share to 25.1% of the total GDP (total end tax liability) ... yet really it's 100%, the government just spend the remaining 74.9% as tax breaks that it distributes to everybody.

Communism is already here, people. It's just in a really weird form.

Joking aside, I think the point of the example is that it's really less about total money spent and more about *how much does the government direct economic activity*, of which direct fiscal spending is just one component. Not an irrelevant component. But one component.

After all, theoretically there could be no tax or spend at all but the gov't could hand everybody a slip of paper in the morning that tells you exactly what you do, and you get shot in the head if you don't do it. In that case, rather than fiscal policy the gov't is directing economic activity through shoot-in-the-head policy.

In the real world, I suspect that tax and spend vastly dwarfs most other kinds of direction, although I suppose you can quantify regulatory control as well, which certainly approaches quasi-communistic appropriation in some highly-regulated industries.

 

[Lee978]

Joking aside, I think the point of the example is that it's really less about total money spent and more about *how much does the government direct economic activity*, of which direct fiscal spending is just one component. Not an irrelevant component. But one component.

Great point. I think when you frame the discussion this way it is easier to see how someone might have the audacity to say that government has a tendency to grow.

 

[Bay Area]

Could you give me an example of what you mean for clarification? I don't understand what "forced into undesirable labor" means. Also how are you defining "exploitation" in this context?

Exploited. As is taken advantage of. For example, a corporation working its employees ungodly hours, and granting them none of the profit gains. Paying them unlivable wages. Sabotaging their right to unionize etc. Slave labor conditions overseas etc. In order for a super wealthy class to exist, there will be a class of people exploited for their labor.

 

[Lee978]

Exploited. As is taken advantage of. For example, a corporation working its employees ungodly hours, and granting them none of the profit gains.

The only way I can see this being exploitation is if the workers weren't paid a market wage? If they were then why are should they also receive some of the profit? They didn't risk any capital.

Paying them unlivable wages.

If a firm is paying the market price for labor I don't see how they are taking advantage of workers. So I have to disagree with this one.

Sabotaging their right to unionize etc.

I can agree with this if the laborers trying to unionize don't try and seize the property of the owner if he chooses to fire them.

Slave labor conditions overseas etc.

Not sure what "conditions" you're specifically referring to?

In order for a super wealthy class to exist, there will be a class of people exploited for their labor.

I'm not sure that's true. As long as some form of capitalism is around there is always going to be a class of individuals considered "super wealthy," that's just a relative term. What matters to me is that individuals considered "super wealthy" gained that wealth legitimately through the markets and not by lobbying government for special privileges.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why even bother typing an argument like this? Fraud means lie.

Um, so which one is the "lie"? Aren't they equally valid?

These laws exist to punish deception, which of course requires a universal idea of true accounting.

No, they exist to standardize accounting, which is inherently subjective (and even following GAAP, there is a great deal of subjectivity involved).

But notwithstanding your nihilistic views regarding fraud laws, you were the one who claimed the two cases were "the same", and clearly picked them in order to demonstrate a violation of that universal principle that also holds them to be the same, and not different as the deception wants to claim.

The cases are the same, and there is no reasonable way to decide among them. From an accounting perspective, the key would be consistency (which doesn't exist here), but from a philosophical perspective, they are equally valid.

If you insist on refusing to account for the moey itself in a way that makes sense, then account for the resources, including labor, that it is taking. That's how we spot the universal idea of correct accounting anyway...

Sort of. See the point I made on this.

On the other hand, another way of looking at it, using your example, is that the gov't is already taxing all of society 100% of all income, and yet is magnanimously extending unconditioned tax breaks to all of us that reduces the gov'ts share to 25.1% of the total GDP (total end tax liability) ... yet really it's 100%, the government just spend the remaining 74.9% as tax breaks that it distributes to everybody.

Yes! I don't disagree with that. People generally agree that distributing things through the market leads to better outcomes and promote governance that mostly reflects that, but the nature of capitalism is that the gov't theoretically controls everything.

Communism is already here, people. It's just in a really weird form.

Well, Kropotkin would say that communism is the exact opposite--a situation where the gov't has no control over the economy, and even Marx saw that as the final stage of communism.

Joking aside, I think the point of the example is that it's really less about total money spent and more about *how much does the government direct economic activity*, of which direct fiscal spending is just one component. Not an irrelevant component. But one component.

I agree that how gov't directing economic activity is one aspect of its power, but I don't think that spending or taxation numbers reflect that component meaningfully.

After all, theoretically there could be no tax or spend at all but the gov't could hand everybody a slip of paper in the morning that tells you exactly what you do, and you get shot in the head if you don't do it. In that case, rather than fiscal policy the gov't is directing economic activity through shoot-in-the-head policy.

Correct.

In the real world, I suspect that tax and spend vastly dwarfs most other kinds of direction, although I suppose you can quantify regulatory control as well, which certainly approaches quasi-communistic appropriation in some highly-regulated industries.

In our society, yes, that's probably right. But, as I pointed out, as recently as 1945, U.S. gov'ts still used a loophole in the 13th Amendment to force people into slavery (
Section 1 of the amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."). So the fact that we're now primarily using fiscal policy as a means to direct economic activity represents a shrinking of gov't, even if taxation and spending is higher in an absolute sense.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

There's no doubt that capitalism has proved vastly more sophisticated and adaptable then Marx envisioned. It has also brilliantly seized on and exploited broader social phenomena like the breakdown of traditional structures of human society, traditional identities.

One of the most characteristic failures of Marxism was to underappreciate how the collapse of traditional structures of reactionary identity *has aided capitalism*. Marxism, and leftism generally, is premised on the belief that *traditional structures of social engagement and identity based on reactionary sentiment* will be replaced by *rationalized structures of social engagement and identity based on common human nature and economic class*. And that capitalism is a sort of middle-stage development that embodies such traditional structures.

For the classic Marxist, as traditional forms of identity -- religious, family, ethnic, national, racial, tribal -- are replaced with rational perception of your identity in terms of the economic structure of human society -- primarily class -- you will naturally turn towards socialism. After all, that kid who is not your biological child, who is of a different religion, who is from a different country, who is a different race: That kid *will be just as dear to you as your own kid, once you see your position rightly*. All traditional forms of identity shall be replaced with a glorious community that thus recognizes and loves common humanity above all else. Honor to labor!

This, in its exaggerated Marxist form, represents a characteristic delusion of much Leftist thought, the assumption that deletion of traditional forms of identity and sentiment will surely lead to replacement by *equal* social sentiment on purely rational class-based grounds. The actual empirical result is rather different: You end up with individualist worker drones ripe for exploitation by global capitalism, and fundamentally incapable of any serious collective action. That central irony illuminates not only Marxism's failures but also much of modern politics. And it's why capitalism keeps winning. It understands human nature better.

If you are really interested in the philosophy, this ideological conflict was developed in great detail during the conflict between the Left Hegelians (which Marx was one of) and the Right Hegelians (now almost unknown, sadly).

I'm mildly conversant with the post-Hegel Hegelians on these points. Moreover, it is really not surprising that Germany should've been the epicenter of modified capitalism so early on: Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" essentially advocated for such a system, which Bismarck was clearly inspired by, even if he may not have implemented exactly to point. Or rather, it is probably more accurate to say: Everyone in Germany was inspired by, and Bismarck knew by diffusion, as I have no idea if Bismarck had any working knowledge of Hegel directly (though that'd be fascinating).

But yes, Marxism has a serious "human nature" problem. A wildly inaccurate picture of humanity that seems to dissolve mankind's particular-focus of affection. Even in a capitalist economy that has done so much to break up the extended, traditional clan-based society, where your uncles and aunts and cousins were vastly more important than today, people still maintain a strong sense of limitation on affection and importance. Specifically, human nature is hardwired in a sense to favour one's own over another - to the point where it is effectively impossible to live communally with non-kin.

Capitalism also vastly benefits, of course, as it is inherently better (when regulated) in improving the lot of most people. Most people in the modern West are fairly decently well off, whereas that has never been the case wherever Communist governments have been. You simply cannot win such an ideological structure when two societies can look at eachother and one can be objectively assured of their superiority to the other by their vastly better living standards. Communism could only hide this truth for so long, and eventually the scales fell off their eyes as much as the iron curtain fell.

Of course, now Capitalism is beginning to follow a corrupting internal logic of its own, as Capitalism is slowly ceasing to be an engine of broad prosperity. I do not believe Capitalism can continue on its path of "part time, on-call, low-wage" labour anymore. Hell, even the previously protected classes - educated labour, like engineers and such - are now facing massive competition with third world imports (like the nonsense RUbio and co. are supporting in congress now - in order to demolish their capacity to remain or become middle class. When even educated Americans cannot make it ahead (or educated any place), Capitalism is severely threatened.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

In another thread I had mentioned that Edison launched a vigorous campaign to stymie the adoption of alternating current, which eventually supplanted his direct current in most sectors. Industry probably has many concerns about the impact 3D printing, or any other prospective innovation might have on future business. Digital technology has democratized communication to a significant degree at least and even sent Ma Bell (remember her) out to pasture. Perhaps it could even be more decentralized.

Rifkin's basic premise was how emerging technological platforms (the Internet of Things) might further decentralize production/consumption:

"The democratization of manufacturing means that anyone and eventually everyone can access the means of production, making the question of who should own and control the means of production irrelevant, and capitalism along with it." Rifkin

It remains to be seen, though.

But on that note:

Joe_Armstrong, this one's for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Give prosumerism a chance, Joe.

Mass production is inherently more cost efficient than extremely slow, extremely inefficient 3D printing. The big factory will never go away, although elements of it (like building prototypes) will be vastly improved by 3D printing.

Simply put:

I can take 45 minutes to make a plastic army man in a 3D printer.

Or I can take 45 minutes and make a -few tens of thousands- of plastic army men with my plastic army men factory.

What the 3D printer might be able to do is give me a working mold for a new type of plastic army man that has a different pose quicker than making the previous mold.

Amusing you bring up Star Trek, as their idea of replicators are absolutely ridiculous. The sheer amount of energy required to make a turkey dinner would be the equivalent of several hydrogen bombs! 2.5 pounds = 20 megatons, roughly, through E=mc2. Roughly (very roughly).

 

[Gandhi]

Just to bud in a bit in the jack / Keith thing.

The term accounting fraud does not apply here, but the accounting concept of substance over form certainly does. Without an intention of profit from misleading, you don't have a fraud. But you do have the issue of how to recognize a transaction, if not from a strictly accounting point of view, then at least from an economic one.

If the govt gives a tax credit to a company to build a public bridge, that is no different than if the gov't taxed the company at the normal rate and then paid it to build a bridge. The more govt does this kind of thing, the larger govt is.

Fiscal policy can be very misleading because it leaves out impacts of things like tax credits (which are the same as subsidy in substance) and regulatory regimes (ie forcing a buis to cover health care). But it is still relevant if murky.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Just to bud in a bit in the jack / Keith thing.

The term accounting fraud does not apply here, but the accounting concept of substance over form certainly does. Without an intention of profit from misleading, you don't have a fraud. But you do have the issue of how to recognize a transaction, if not from a strictly accounting point of view, then at least from an economic one.

If the govt gives a tax credit to a company to build a public bridge, that is no different than if the gov't taxed the company at the normal rate and then paid it to build a bridge. The more govt does this kind of thing, the larger govt is.

Fiscal policy can be very misleading because it leaves out impacts of things like tax credits (which are the same as subsidy in substance) and regulatory regimes (ie forcing a buis to cover health care). But it is still relevant if murky.

The phrase is "butt in".

 

[Zankou]

Good thread btw, unusually high level of posting and lots of solid contributions.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Just to bud in a bit in the jack / Keith thing.

The term accounting fraud does not apply here, but the accounting concept of substance over form certainly does. Without an intention of profit from misleading, you don't have a fraud. But you do have the issue of how to recognize a transaction, if not from a strictly accounting point of view, then at least from an economic one.

If the govt gives a tax credit to a company to build a public bridge, that is no different than if the gov't taxed the company at the normal rate and then paid it to build a bridge. The more govt does this kind of thing, the larger govt is.

Fiscal policy can be very misleading because it leaves out impacts of things like tax credits (which are the same as subsidy in substance) and regulatory regimes (ie forcing a buis to cover health care). But it is still relevant if murky.

It all needs taken in conjunction with things like scope/detail of regulation, Bill of Rights type shit, barriers to economic entry. I'm not even sure what Jack is arguing because he seems to be saying money spent isn't a factor, which is absurd, and I don't care to follow the way the posts get chopped up. It's possible I missed something illuminating in there.

EDIT: Oh fuck, Zankou jinxed me.

 

[crazyjames1233]

People would need to change drastically for communism or socialism to truly work on a massive scale. Capitalism works (at least in its ability to generate wealth) because it plays on people natural greed. The others rely on people working towards helping others rather than themselves.

 

[Johntreksmith]

Obama is bring socialism to the USA. 18 trillion in debt later. Tax and spend.

 

[Gandhi]

Good thread btw, unusually high level of posting and lots of solid contributions.

The phrase is "butt in".

...

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

...

To note: I didn't do it to be a dick, I did it because it was odd to see someone use the phrase "bud in". Sincerely, I hope I didn't piss you off, as I am not trying to be an asshole.