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

[AlucardNatasrd]

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

Please don't pollute the thread with sound bites. Whereas you aren't incorrect that Obama favours a more socialistic type economy, and has raised debt significantly, going "Obama sux!" doesn't help anything.

This is a thread for grown-ups who know their shit.

 

[Gandhi]

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.

What this leaves out is that even as human populations have exploded in the last say 30 to 50 years, the number of people living in absolute bone crushing poverty (ie the $1 and $2 a day income lines) has shrunk both as a % of the population and even in sheer numbers. The introduction of massive amounts of a new resource (labor) will have drastic effects on its value, so much so that it can be very disruptive socially. But capitalism and trade are still working.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

The American government has grown exponentially in every measurable way.

That fact isn't up for debate.

Someone pointed out that the population percentage of government workers has declined since 1962.

Name the ways in which the US government has expanded? I mean, I am not disagreeing with you, but if it is "not up for debate", then please list it for us.

 

[Gandhi]

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.

Lols no worries, was just a typo/mind fart on my part.

Please don't pollute the thread with sound bites. Whereas you aren't incorrect that Obama favours a more socialistic type economy, and has raised debt significantly, going "Obama sux!" doesn't help anything.

This is a thread for grown-ups who know their shit.

Yeah punk bud out

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

"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."

What this leaves out is that even as human populations have exploded in the last say 30 to 50 years, the number of people living in absolute bone crushing poverty (ie the $1 and $2 a day income lines) has shrunk both as a % of the population and even in sheer numbers. The introduction of massive amounts of a new resource (labor) will have drastic effects on its value, so much so that it can be very disruptive socially. But capitalism and trade are still working.

Worldwide, has the percentage of people who are in bone-crushing poverty actually declined? As I am not so sure of that, especially with population growth exploding in Africa (which is set to have 4.5 billion people by the end of teh century).

Also: Yes, even if world poverty is lower, first world nations are increasingly seeing a decline in the living standards expected for the majority of the populace, as through the economic opportunities they can expect to attain. The "Great Recession" saw tens of millions losing their jobs only to have them replaced by vastly inferior ones. This undermines the capacity for people to maintain a middle class lifestyle which was previously a given. The last vestiges of hopes for most people - to become part of the previousy economically strong educated labour class - is increasingly becoming a dead end as well.

The rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer and that bodes dramatically ill for capitalism unless we have Bismarckian/Henry Clayesque reforms that return the economies of the first world to promoting the common weal and national interests.

As with arresting Communism the first time, the answer is not "more free Capitalism!" (which, in agreement with Marx, will lead to Communism) but "more Nationalism!".

First world nations must make it a reasonable goal for reasonably educated men to find full time, gainful employment, that allows them to live a lifestyle we call middle class. To perhaps not be wealthy beyond all words - although to have that open to them, provided they work for it - but to have such money as permits them to keep a wife, own a house, own a car, have children, pay for their health insurance, go on vacation, and see to it that their children are well situated in life. If that becomes increasingly a dream that requires more and more sacrifices to attain, then Capitalism will no longer be persuasive. Capitalism is preferrable not, as Libertarians insist, for metaphysical reasons, but for purely practical ones: It has given us prosperity. When it ceases to give us prosperity, it is time for reform, and if need be, to dispense with it outright if we can think of something better to replace it.

I prefer reform along Nationalist lines, as I've noted.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

The easiest way to calculate "size of government" is government spending as a percentage of GDP.

In 1900 it was 7%. Today it is over 35%. It's come down a bit from 2010, where it was over 40%.


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...XXs1li111mcn_F0t_US_Total_Government_Spending

Reasonable point.

What do the "government isn't growing" people have to say about this?

Although it seems people are right to say this: Government does, in one way, ask much less of its population - conscription. The average young man (which almost all of us are!) would have expected to reasonably serve in the military even in peace time. We no longer are asked to do this, although it is notable that plenty of governments still have this (Norway and Israel come to mind).

 

[James Keith]

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

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

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.

Sort of. See the point I made on this.

Money is just a medium for exchanging resources. To suggest that changing from "honestly" accounting for money to accounting for resources would change something implies that your arguments have missed this fact.

So to answer your question, the accounting where nothing got exchanged yet the jargon was used to imply otherwise, would clearly be the invalid one. Did you seriously not know the answer I would give?

 

[James Keith]

... and I don't care to follow the way the posts get chopped up. It's possible I missed something illuminating in there.

I know I've told him repeatedly doing that cuts everyone else out of the conversation.

Plus in the extreme case off line-by-line sniping at points, its almost always a waste of time for even the people arguing. It's trivially-easy to make a counter argument to any single-sentence statement when attacked alone. Much harder to counter one or more paragraphs consisting of a thesis plus supporting arguments.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The American government has grown exponentially in every measurable way.

That fact isn't up for debate.

Incorrect, but your style of making your point doesn't leave much to respond to.

Money is just a medium for exchanging resources. To suggest that changing from "honestly" accounting for money to accounting for resources would change something implies that your arguments have missed this fact.

So to answer your question, the accounting where nothing got exchanged yet the jargon was used to imply otherwise, would clearly be the invalid one. Did you seriously not know the answer I would give?

So you're going to duck the first example (top bracket tax cut vs. job creation incentive payout), which is what was being discussed in the part when I asked the question. I don't blame you, as that one is unanswerable.

I know I've told him repeatedly doing that cuts everyone else out of the conversation.

Plus in the extreme case off line-by-line sniping at points, its almost always a waste of time for even the people arguing. It's trivially-easy to make a counter argument to any single-sentence statement when attacked alone. Much harder to counter one or more paragraphs consisting of a thesis plus supporting arguments.

In your last response, if you'd stuck to the line-by-line format, you wouldn't have gotten lost. But then getting lost was part of the point of your bottom response.

 

[Gandhi]

Worldwide, has the percentage of people who are in bone-crushing poverty actually declined? As I am not so sure of that, especially with population growth exploding in Africa (which is set to have 4.5 billion people by the end of teh century).

Also: Yes, even if world poverty is lower, first world nations are increasingly seeing a decline in the living standards expected for the majority of the populace, as through the economic opportunities they can expect to attain. The "Great Recession" saw tens of millions losing their jobs only to have them replaced by vastly inferior ones. This undermines the capacity for people to maintain a middle class lifestyle which was previously a given. The last vestiges of hopes for most people - to become part of the previousy economically strong educated labour class - is increasingly becoming a dead end as well.

The rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poorer and that bodes dramatically ill for capitalism unless we have Bismarckian/Henry Clayesque reforms that return the economies of the first world to promoting the common weal and national interests.

As with arresting Communism the first time, the answer is not "more free Capitalism!" (which, in agreement with Marx, will lead to Communism) but "more Nationalism!".

First world nations must make it a reasonable goal for reasonably educated men to find full time, gainful employment, that allows them to live a lifestyle we call middle class. To perhaps not be wealthy beyond all words - although to have that open to them, provided they work for it - but to have such money as permits them to keep a wife, own a house, own a car, have children, pay for their health insurance, go on vacation, and see to it that their children are well situated in life. If that becomes increasingly a dream that requires more and more sacrifices to attain, then Capitalism will no longer be persuasive. Capitalism is preferrable not, as Libertarians insist, for metaphysical reasons, but for purely practical ones: It has given us prosperity. When it ceases to give us prosperity, it is time for reform, and if need be, to dispense with it outright if we can think of something better to replace it.

I prefer reform along Nationalist lines, as I've noted.

In 1820, 85% of the worlds population lived under a dollar a day, in 2001 the figure was 18%. (Sachs and Warner - Economic reform and the process of global integration").

Looking at just developing countries, In 1990, 31% of the population of the developing world lived on less than $1 a day - close to 1.4 billion. In 2008, half that proportion did - 14%, or about 800 million.

This also represents a drop in the absolute number of people below this poverty line, a first in world history.

What is more the reductions in these poverty levels can largely correlated with an expansion in global trade.

The overall wealth of world has also expanded thanks to globalization, while the destruction of the middle class (stagnation would be a fairer term) is much more prominent in the countries like the USA, where it has been intentionally exacerbated by government policy that favors the class of people that are already benefiting most from globalization.

The answer is not to constrain world wealth by throwing up national barriers but to ensure that govt policy has mechanisms to ensure a just distribution (starting with the no brainers in education, healthcare, infrastructure, but also other social programs).

 

[Gandhi]

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

What is interesting (and very much in line with a discussion on tradition, rationality, socialism and the market) is the impact of globalization on women. While some conservatives want the women back in the kitchen (I am talking to you, Nosferatu) , the global market does not care about your gender but what your economic contribution can be. The increase in earnings power for women has led to not just to an increase in economic output, but a larger percentage of it going to support family/ child welfare, which has an obv impact on poverty. The most obv example of this is seen in micro credit programs which target women for this reason (the benefits are most likely to flow down through the whole family).

So in this case it is the market that has led an increase in social rationality as opposed to it being simply a mechanisms of wealth extraction under the cover of wealth extraction.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

See my response to Zank. Yes, how much stuff the gov't makes happen could be part of a definition of its size (though note that we were working off a more specific definition), but spending and taxation aren't good ways to measure that. They affect distribution but not the relative power of the gov't. The mistake people make is taking pre-tax/spending distribution to be natural and not influenced by the gov't. In fact, the gov't (which, after it exists isn't separable from the market) influences market distribution to an extreme degree, too.

 

[speakhandsforme]

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).

Your posts in this thread about been top notch: both informative and beautifully written.

 

[Gandhi]

See my response to Zank. Yes, how much stuff the gov't makes happen could be part of a definition of its size (though note that we were working off a more specific definition), but spending and taxation aren't good ways to measure that. They affect distribution but not the relative power of the gov't. The mistake people make is taking pre-tax/spending distribution to be natural and not influenced by the gov't. In fact, the gov't (which, after it exists isn't separable from the market) influences market distribution to an extreme degree, too.

This may be a definitional argument that will be hard to resolve. I think direct control over economic resources (making specific investments / subsidies /redirecting resources ) does indeed imply a larger government than the absence of those things. I agree that the market requires a govt and they are not easily separable (or at least requid to run run efficiently which is why no true capitalist wants pure libertarianism). It is like having cops at the market place and construction workers making roads to the market place, but if the cops then tell you what price to sell or buy, well IMO govt has grown. The more resources are allocated by indiv voluntary choice rather than govt rule, the smaller is the govt on at least one axis.

Of course when you compare a command economy with a right wing dictatorship, it breaks down. Aristocratic monopoly power enforced by a police state is not smaller govt than a command and control economy, even if it is a market economy. It is certainly not freer. In fact a society where all resources are controlled by a market may have a smaller govt but I am not sure that = freer either. 1 man 1 vote control is needed as a balance.

 

[Deleted member 53472]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds"

- My ability is to work 30 minutes a week
- My deeds are a bare minimum contribution to the society
- I want: a BMW A7, a nice 4K UHD TV, and a house

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

In 1820, 85% of the worlds population lived under a dollar a day, in 2001 the figure was 18%. (Sachs and Warner - Economic reform and the process of global integration").

Looking at just developing countries, In 1990, 31% of the population of the developing world lived on less than $1 a day - close to 1.4 billion. In 2008, half that proportion did - 14%, or about 800 million.

This also represents a drop in the absolute number of people below this poverty line, a first in world history.

What is more the reductions in these poverty levels can largely correlated with an expansion in global trade.

The overall wealth of world has also expanded thanks to globalization, while the destruction of the middle class (stagnation would be a fairer term) is much more prominent in the countries like the USA, where it has been intentionally exacerbated by government policy that favors the class of people that are already benefiting most from globalization.

The answer is not to constrain world wealth by throwing up national barriers but to ensure that govt policy has mechanisms to ensure a just distribution (starting with the no brainers in education, healthcare, infrastructure, but also other social programs).

Do these statistics take into consideration inflation?

But okay - good. But I shall admit: I really could not care less if global prosperity is on the rise. I am profoundly disinterested in the fate of the third world. I am principally interested in assuring that the first world is a place of plenty and prosperity.

But I vastly disagree: Throwing up barriers is a far more effective way. Expanding the state for Social Welfare only only encourages dependence on the government while rarely affording them the freedom to live a good life. Clearly, some government spending is necessary, but turning the economy over to the social welfare state is not how we get around the trap of impending Communism.

Further, education does little to actually increase the standard of living, as shown by increasing wage competition amongst educated workers. In fact, it can be a net negative choice because of the expense (in time and money) in eseking an education.

We're seeing a smaller and smaller sector of the population grow vastly more wealthy while the majority see their lives diminish. If we must be rid of globalization (which I think we must) in order to diminish that, I am fine with that.

 

[Cirris]

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

While socialism has contributed to the current Debt. Our Debt is not directly tied to socialism. It's mainly our politicians spending money beyond their means while passing it to the next guy to pay off.

The reality is both parties did it. And neither are willing to stop it. They only wish to point fingers at each other to blame others for their inaction.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Given that it is the premise on which its entire moral argument is built, capitalism's greatest conceit is its claim that all participation in a market economy is voluntary, occurring absent coercive force.

Thus we are led to understand that the market value of any service or good represents its objectively "correct" value, given that that price is arrived at via a sort of free-willing, consumer consensus. A pure "democracy of dollars", if you will. And that any attempt to reset this value, whether to the higher or lower side, represents an artificial corruption of the perfect, natural calibration.

So, "the people have spoken". What manner of tyrant dare defieth the people?!

I think the new, alternative business model we have seen in operation within the indie music and film community over the course of the past decade or so represents a very real and beautiful example of the falsity of the above claims. As it is a model of exchange that is actually true to those claims.

It's now possible for a consumer to obtain music or video product free of charge - but with the proviso that the consumer, voluntarily and absolutely absent any force of law (that is, literally, acting with complete personal liberty) then pay the seller of that product exactly what they, the individual consumer, believe that product to be worth.

This is the way value would be established in a marketplace that was truly free and voluntary. And also one that, if put in place across all industries, would result in economic collapse.

Capitalism has proven vastly superior to monarchy as a system of tyranny in that it has caused the majority, oppressed and ruled over by a tiny minority, to believe that the powerlessness and exploitation they experience is somehow a result of their own failures. Because, given that they are "free", how could it be otherwise?

This is the true brilliance of capitalism. And in this sense I tip my hat to it.

 

[Gandhi]

Do these statistics take into consideration inflation?

But okay - good. But I shall admit: I really could not care less if global prosperity is on the rise. I am profoundly disinterested in the fate of the third world. I am principally interested in assuring that the first world is a place of plenty and prosperity.

But I vastly disagree: Throwing up barriers is a far more effective way. Expanding the state for Social Welfare only only encourages dependence on the government while rarely affording them the freedom to live a good life. Clearly, some government spending is necessary, but turning the economy over to the social welfare state is not how we get around the trap of impending Communism.

Further, education does little to actually increase the standard of living, as shown by increasing wage competition amongst educated workers. In fact, it can be a net negative choice because of the expense (in time and money) in eseking an education.

We're seeing a smaller and smaller sector of the population grow vastly more wealthy while the majority see their lives diminish. If we must be rid of globalization (which I think we must) in order to diminish that, I am fine with that.

Yes it is not even a real dollar. It is a $1.25 of equivalent purchasing power, which is really nothing. It does provide a meaningful metric directionally. But it is of course in real terms or it would be quite silly.

I can not base my concern for humans outside my immediate family on some made up line in the sand or appeal to some larger tribe of nation or race or 1st worlds. That is just BS IMO.

Throwing up barriers is far more inefficient, for reasons of basic economics that most conservatives should at least pretend to understand. It can't be argued against that the global approach will create far more wealth. And from the readings I have done, the middle class has not declined so much as stagnated. Hurting the top and the very bottom by throwing up barriers is not guaranteed to create vast amounts of new wealth for the middle class. The right kind of education (again paid for by the newly created wealth, you seemed to miss this), even income supplements, etc., free healthcare are all ways to share the love. But before all that, how about reversing some of the basic US policies that favor the top that we don't see in most Western systems.

Communism is not coming. Too much wealth is generated under the current system to allow it or a reversion to national economics to happen. Trade also has the nice impact of reducing wars.

 

[Gandhi]

Given that it is the premise on which its entire moral argument is built, capitalism's greatest conceit is its claim that all participation in a market economy is voluntary, occurring absent coercive force.

Thus we are led to understand that the market value of any service or good represents its objectively "correct" value, given that that price is arrived at via a sort of free-willing, consumer consensus. A pure "democracy of dollars", if you will. And that any attempt to reset this value, whether to the higher or lower side, represents an artificial corruption of the perfect, natural calibration.

So, "the people have spoken". What manner of tyrant dare defieth the people?!

I think the new, alternative business model we have seen in operation within the indie music and film community over the course of the past decade or so represents a very real and beautiful example of the falsity of the above claims. As it is a model of exchange that is actually true to those claims.

It's now possible for a consumer to obtain music or video product free of charge - but with the proviso that the consumer, voluntarily and absolutely absent any force of law (that is, literally, acting with complete personal liberty) then pay the seller of that product exactly what they, the individual consumer, believe that product to be worth.

This is the way value would be established in a marketplace that was truly free and voluntary. And also one that, if put in place across all industries, would result in economic collapse.

Capitalism has proven vastly superior to monarchy as a system of tyranny in that it has caused the majority, oppressed and ruled over by a tiny minority, to believe that the powerlessness and exploitation they experience is somehow a result of their own failures. Because, given that they are "free", how could it be otherwise?

This is the true brilliance of capitalism. And in this sense I tip my hat to it.

In this case, the seller is agreeing to the terms of free to whatever, because there is no incremental cost of giving away digital copy of a song (all costs are sunk), which is actually very smart business for am unknown artist) and in line with market thinking. It is really more of a case of extreme voluntary price discrimination, which is not new and does not really repudiate anything.
.