Jump to content
Time the Crestfallen

Economic Systems

Recommended Posts

"USSR wasn't real Marxism. That isn't real Marxism."



​Skip to 1:13:30 for this exact quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Principe isn't crap :/

"USSR wasn't real Marxism. That isn't real Marxism."



​Skip to 1:13:30 for this exact quote.

I still don't think you've understood the point behind Marxism.

All it really says is that Capitalism is an interstage in our socio-economic evolution with Communism as its final stage. Communism will be achieved once certain requirements are reached in history's course. An example that has been named before: Elon Musk plans to shoot satellites into the Earth's orbit to provide internet to the whole world. That's one inevitable, as Marx would've argued, step closer to a totally egalitarian society. Communism. Once enough of these steps are made and we manage to reach all the necessary requirements, Communism is achieved. With capitalism as its trailblazer.

So the argument that all the socialist and communist governments we've had in history thus far are just failed corruptions of the marxist theory is technically correct. Just like all the various capitalistic systems we've had thus far have turned out to be nothing more than corrupted and failed interpretations of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". And just as much as Smith probably would've damned the way Pinochet's way of implementing capitalism came about, Marx would have never approved of Stalin's, Hitler's or Mao's interpretation of his ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prince must forsake his morality and ignore his sense of justice to unite Italy into one state. He must do this because a sister fucking bastard son of the most corrupt pope in history failed to do so. The ends justify all means! (Deus Vult!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging the significance of Machiavelli's work by his morals makes about as much sense as a judging Hendrix' skills by his folk-guitar fingerpicking. That's not a very useful thing to do unless you have a thing for missing points on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging the significance of Machiavelli's work by his morals makes about as much sense as a judging Hendrix' skills by his folk-guitar fingerpicking. That's not a very useful thing to do unless you have a thing for missing points on purpose.

but he was really good at that too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think capitalism and socialism are opposites. Rather, from what I've seen on political discussions, definitions etc., what we call "capitalism" is actually a liberal capitalism (well, libertarian capitalism in the US), with low state intervention yadda yadda (see the first post), and "socialism" is actually capitalism with higher state intervention and control, basically. It's more of a discussion between interventionism x laissez faire, or rather, how we're supposed to use the system instead of which system is better. I think those premises are enough for me to claim that socialism is actually a model of capitalism rather than a completely different, independent economical system (which communism is).

I used to think laissez faire was the answer to every political question, but, as the paradox of liberty, an absolutely free market eventually leads to an absolutely restricted market, as its liberty collapses unto itself, giving origin to monopolies, cartels, oligopolies and such. Thus, it is necessary to regulate the market. However, regulating more than enough is also going to lead to monopolies, cartels, oligopolies and such, because of crony capitalism. It is possible that the very restrictions that are made for the market to function are responsible for restricting the market for big corporates or friends of the State.

I'm not versed enough to say how much is good enough or which one is actually the best. I lean toward laissez faire because, between freedom and security, I believe freedom is more valuable and that the market provides solutions quicker than the government could ever expect to do with gargantuan laws and bureaucracy. tl;dr, if it works without regulation (like, for example, Uber), leave it that way.

 

Quote

So the argument that all the socialist and communist governments we've had in history thus far are just failed corruptions of the marxist theory is technically correct. Just like all the various capitalistic systems we've had thus far have turned out to be nothing more than corrupted and failed interpretations of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". And just as much as Smith probably would've damned the way Pinochet's way of implementing capitalism came about, Marx would have never approved of Stalin's, Hitler's or Mao's interpretation of his ideology.

Yet Stalin and Mao went with Marx's plan, doing everything he said that should be done to reach communism. The proletariat attained power, elected a leader who could smash the current regime and bring forth an egalitarian regime to the people, but... they didn't let go of their power, which didn't complete Marx's plan, but isn't this actually his fault for coming up with a flawed strategy for giving "power to the people"? Yes, he is technically correct, and in theory his "plan" makes sense, but it fails in practice due to his miscalculation, which is all that I need to say to point out that Marx's method for communism is a failure.

If an engineer develops a plane that, on theory (and by his calculations), is capable of flight, and other engineers use his blueprint to make that model of a plane fly, eventually failing in proccess due to miscalculations from the original engineer, it is clear that that model of plane does not work. Marx did not foresee that the tyrants who took power after the communist revolution would stay in power and become worse than the former rulers. He did not see the spanner on his theory. Thus, his method is a failure, as the engineer's blueprint of a plane.

Edited by Rapier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

marx didn't really write much resembling a "plan" though.  99% of his writing was confined to critiquing capitalism.  socialism/communism was theorized as part of his theory of history, the idea that there would be phases of society after capitalism just as there have been phases of society before.  he didn't write much on what socialism or communism would look like because it's impossible to predict what post-capitalism would look like in the 1800s.  He just knew that the working class would be driving the next phase because class struggle has always been the catalyst of societies transformations. 

the "plan" is probably the mix of a lot of different writers who came later, like lenin and mao.  it didn't work for the soviet union for several reasons, one of them that that russia was hardly even capitalist and mostly still agrarian while immediately having to face several wars.  to industrialize, their socialism was more like state-run capitalism, and naturally a power structure like that becomes increasingly bureaucratic and corrupted over time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone always throws out excuses for Russia and China. But nobody ever comments on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Pol Pot literally had people killed for wearing glasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22.1.2017 at 6:45 PM, Rapier said:

Yet Stalin and Mao went with Marx's plan, doing everything he said that should be done to reach communism [...]

Marx never actually formulated any kind "plan" on what should be "done" to reach communism. According to his theories the establishment of communism is a historic inevitability that is bound to happen at some point. So all he's saying is that if we let history take its course the ending result would be communism. Whether that is actually something that's going to happen or not is a whole different subject but it's simply a fact that Stalin's or Mao's actions did not happen in accordance to Marx' theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

though he didn't say it was inevitable in the deterministic sense,  but that capitalism creates the conditions that would lead the exploited classes to want to end it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Radiant head said:

though he didn't say it was inevitable in the deterministic sense,  but that capitalism creates the conditions that would lead the exploited classes to want to end it 

Nah, it's true that capitalism creates the conditions but not that it would lead the exploited classes to want to end it.

When the capitalism creates more people like Elon Musk, or more Antonino Fernandez, the closer to communism we get.

In theory, when every normal citizen can do what they do (I mean everyone are rich, and full of knowledge), that means we are already in communism state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

philanthropy and redistribution from "benevolent" capitalists doesn't do anything to bring us closer to a classless, stateless society?  i mean capitalism brings us closer than our previous systems because of rapid industrialization and production of wealth, but wage labour and private property, aka capitalism's fundamental underpinnings, are pretty at odds with communism. 

also this is a good read: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/18/fully-automated-luxury-communism-robots-employment

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I want to know is... Which economic idea has the best way to pay for a product and be able to keep it? How should we improve on OSHA, human resource (HR department), worker's wages, management, and etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Radiant head said:

nah, the past three decades have shown that capitalism can't really be regulated

Noooooo, the decades before that show that it can be. The rollback of reforms in the US were as a result of the American political system favoring corporations, and due to the electorate's general opposition to Communism. Some reforms being rolled back at some point do not equal "Capitalism cannot be regulated", especially when the period before those reforms were rolled back was, yes, CAPITALISM BEING REGULATED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Radiant head said:

capitalism can't really be regulated

 

Of course it can. And the places where it has been lead the world in providing their people with a respectable standard-of-living, social safety nets, and opportunities for upward mobility.

The issue is that when some persons use the term capitalism, they use the term narrowly  to describe only those unregulated or poorly regulated systems of PURE lassiez-faire economics, with no progressive reforms or constraints on unfair market practices, dismissing any economic system that has adopted such reforms and regulations as "socialist" in nature.

When in fact any system in which private enterprise is the primary means of distributing goods and services and in which private property rights are the primary means of determining lawful ownership is, by definition, a CAPITALIST one.

When I say ‘well-regulated’ capitalism. I mean capitalism with:

-Living Wage Laws

-Antitrust Laws

-A Progressive Income Tax

-Treatment of healthcare and education as public goods—not unlike military defense and roadbuilding—rather than market commodities  

-Strictly enforced ethics rules against and judicial bars to public officials accepting private money, and handing out private contracts.

i.e. things that will make a strict laissez-faire rightwinger scream 'SOCIALISM!', but are not in the least bit incompatible with (and I would argue a necessary for) a healthy and sustainable capitalist system.
 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand what you're talking about, but the fact is that neoliberalism has been chipping away at regulations and social democracy since at least the 80s now.  capitalism at its core needs endless growth and endless profit, and regulations hinder their ability to grow, and the same class that opposes regulations are the same class that have control over the economy, the media, the state, etc.  so "regulated capitalism" was always a contradiction that was never going to hold in the long run. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Radiant head said:

i understand what you're talking about, but the fact is that neoliberalism has been chipping away at regulations and social democracy since at least the 80s now.  capitalism at its core needs endless growth and endless profit, and regulations hinder their ability to grow, and the same class that opposes regulations are the same class that have control over the economy, the media, the state, etc.  so "regulated capitalism" was always a contradiction that was never going to hold in the long run. 

 

That's honestly rather Amerocentric. While there certainly has been some amount of rollback in Europe, public healthcare, probably the most important issue, is pretty well untouchable, even in more conservative countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Also, just because a trend has been happening since the 80s, or actually any amount of time at all, doesn't mean it will happen indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

 capitalism at its core needs endless growth and endless profit. 

 

…not really…

That’s a nice thing to have. But it isn’t needed.

The only thing Capitalism absolutely NEEDS is private property rights, a functioning government to enforce them, and marketable assets of land/labor/capital.

A side-effect of capitalism unrestrained (and the reason why it needs to be reigned in from its more predatory impulses) is that capitalism unrestrained produced an inordinate focus on growth and profit as objectives of utmost importance, while assigning lesser value to human health and happiness and basic principles of good faith and fair dealing. And that’s where government has to step in and say: “No…you aren’t allowed to do that…”  

Agreeing with the above stated sentiment that your grievances seem to be more directed towards how political dysfunction in poorly regulated capitalist systems, like the United States, presently allow the system to run amok.

And less directed against the idea of capitalism itself.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

That's honestly rather Amerocentric. While there certainly has been some amount of rollback in Europe, public healthcare, probably the most important issue, is pretty well untouchable, even in more conservative countries like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Also, just because a trend has been happening since the 80s, or actually any amount of time at all, doesn't mean it will happen indefinitely.

nah not really, the difference in america is that we never really had social democratic politics to begin with, and had to settle with the milquetoast new deal.  the uk government for example, can't outright strip universal healthcare and piss people off, but they've implementing harsh austerity in so many other areas of the public sector, and the nhs itself has been chipped at funding-wise, to the point where the quality drops and one day people wouldn't even think it's worth saving. i'm also  not just talking about welfare, the deregulation of the financial sector which caused the 2008 crash wasn't confined to the us.  

19 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

…not really…

That’s a nice thing to have. But it isn’t needed.
 

uh yeah ok, simply stating this doesn't really move the conversation anywhere, tbh.  capitalism at its root is based on the idea of people investing capital for greater return.  the whole system collapses if this doesn't happen. 

the government isn't going to step in and say no because the state is designed to protect the interests of capital. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Radiant head said:

*snip*


You could theoretically have a functioning capitalist system with sustained zero capital growth, if the system also has sustained zero population growth. The idea being that the system would sustain itself purely on portability of assets, and the perpetual need to produce and consume fungible goods.

It’s when you add population growth to the equation that you get the constant need for capital growth. And indeed the two tend to go hand-in-hand in a capitalist system, where human labor and productivity is itself a form of capital. The logical outgrowth therefrom is that you invest in PEOPLE to improve their productivity, and grow an economy. (This is why its always struck me as rather silly that there are those on the right who regard public funding of healthcare and education as inconsistent with capitalism. Public funding of healthcare and education is nothing if not an investment in human capital.)   

Conversely, under socialism, population growth presents a challenge. Because the problem in a socialist system is always PRODUCTIVITY. Once you unpeg the leisure/labor trade-off from the prospect of tangible reward, you lose your productive workforce. Then what happens is the larger the population grows and the more the needs of the population creeps ahead of your production shortfalls, the more brutal and authoritarian the government needs to be to keep its worker’s producing at an acceptable level.

And that’s why every single time someone tries to take socialism in theory and put it into practice—even if you can get it to work on a small scale like a Kibbutz or a Tribal Village or a Hippy Commune—once it scales big enough, the end result is totalitarian communism.

…Something to consider…

Take that under advisement, and move the conversation as you will.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Radiant head said:

the government isn't going to step in and say no because the state is designed to protect the interests of capital. 

The state isn't designed to do shit. Government wasn't created as a conspiracy by rich people to control the wealth, rich people developed because of government. Rich people, also, aren't a bad thing, the only bad thing is if poverty exists, and rich people should be the first targets of the state to minimize poverty. As to the state's purpose, that is to enforce the law and provide public services. The breakdown of rule of law will not benefit anyone but the people most equipped to use force, which, newsflash, isn't the Socialists, or minorities.

9 hours ago, Radiant head said:

nah not really, the difference in america is that we never really had social democratic politics to begin with, and had to settle with the milquetoast new deal.  the uk government for example, can't outright strip universal healthcare and piss people off, but they've implementing harsh austerity in so many other areas of the public sector, and the nhs itself has been chipped at funding-wise, to the point where the quality drops and one day people wouldn't even think it's worth saving. i'm also  not just talking about welfare, the deregulation of the financial sector which caused the 2008 crash wasn't confined to the us.  

Again, though, the problem with your argument is that this assumes that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. The less public services there are, the more discontent there will be. The more discontent there is, the more pressure there will be for more public services. Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Government wasn't created by rich people to control the wealth, rich people developed because of government.

I feel the need to highlight this as a stand-alone point. Because it is a profound one. And there’s a great book on this subject, that’s a must-read for anyone whose interested in this kind of argumentaiton; Prosperity & Violence: by Robert Bates.

515I8hxvQzL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

^
Worth a read

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...