Marxism

[steve_bank]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.


Part f the Chinese restructuring was getting rid of state run industry and requiring a busyness t be able to stand on its own.

Here inn Seattle I heard an idea floated to tax big business like Amazon to support small business that can not sustain itself.

Progressives are triyng piece meal solutions to economic problems but it will not change much.

It requires a federal restructuring of the economy. Not likely. The progressive Biden would say repeatedly 'Its itj to be rich'.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

In the long term conservatives are making their worse fears come true. Polls show decreasing support of capitalism and growing support for socialism among young people.

The question iIMOi is if we change rationally or end up with craziness like Venezuela with a devastated economy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fascinating. Culture is destiny.

I should probably clarify, by the way, that my point in bringing up all this Econ 101 stuff was to back you up -- I'm arguing you're right that it's possible for everybody to be rich, and bilby's counterarguments don't hold up.

I was unaware that ECON 101 stuff indicates it is possible for everyone to be rich. It suggests that market economies will cause a distribution of income that cannot be redistributed without making at least one person worse off, but it suggests nothing about whether everyone (or anyone) ends up rich.

I didn't say it does. Bilby implied it was impossible for everyone to be rich because "Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?". So I pointed out Econ 101 stuff indicates getting $100 an hour for toilet cleaning wouldn't take magic, just comparative advantage. Of course you can propose some completely different argument for why it's impossible; if you do so, we can check if Econ 101 refutes that one as well.

But that's a quite static way to look at which services are available in a market. Almost everything is dynamic in a market.

The demanded price for toilet cleaning can get so high that nobody is willing to pay it. That's where Scandinavia is today when it comes to toilet cleaning in private homes. Or where England is when it comes to butlers. 100 years ago butlers where common in England. Now it's, pretty much, just the king who has a butler.

A market can reach a point where we will optimise away a service, so it just gets baked into what normal people is expected to do by themselves. Which is the inevitable result when everyone is rich.

There's a lot of shitty jobs that have increased in price so much so that it gets replaced by machinery. For example dock workers loading and unloading ships. That used to be a shitty job for the poorest. Today is a well paid specialist job, done by machinery.

Don't underestimate the creativity of the market to make it work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.

Is it? Humans also want safety and predictability. Humanity have two strong drives in direct opposition. We want variety and abundance and we want safety and predictability. We can't have both, but we want both.

I'd say no system is a particularly good fit for humans. It's simply a question of compromise.

And that's ignoring the stark reality of that communism, at best, doesn't work at all, in providing economic stability.

Part f the Chinese restructuring was getting rid of state run industry and requiring a busyness t be able to stand on its own.

Here inn Seattle I heard an idea floated to tax big business like Amazon to support small business that can not sustain itself.

Progressives are triyng piece meal solutions to economic problems but it will not change much.

The curse of unintended consequences. This kind of regulation doesn't work. Fun fact, Europeans joke about how complicated American corporate beaurocracy is. The legal system for corporations in USA punish small companies. The red tape is, by European standards, extreme. Sweden was a couple of days ago in the Economist held up us the best place to start a company... in the whole world. Not USA.

It requires a federal restructuring of the economy. Not likely. The progressive Biden would say repeatedly 'Its itj to be rich'.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

In the long term conservatives are making their worse fears come true. Polls show decreasing support of capitalism and growing support for socialism among young people.

That's exactly my point. Marx has won the ideological war. The ideological war is no longer communism vs capitalism. It's now, which kind of socialism should we have. I think the shift has happened already. It happened in the 1960'ies.

Everyone today seems to think that the govornment is responsible for the wellbeing of it's citizens. That's the socialist mindset. The state as a super daddy, taking care of us.

The question iIMOi is if we change rationally or end up with craziness like Venezuela with a devastated economy.

I think the big question is whether or not democracy will inevitably lead to a slide into nanny state socialism, with a hobbled economy. I can imagine a scenario where China is less socialist than any western country and therefore becomes the wealthiest country on Earth.

 

[Bomb#20]

Pursuit of profit in the long run benefits all. It generally worked, but now the income disparity is making it impossible for increasing numbers of people to make ends meet.

The system as it is to me is obviously failing, politically and economically.

That just isn't true. Income disparity does not cause poverty. The number of people who can't make ends meet is decreasing, and has been for many years. There was a temporary increase due to Covid but we got it under control.

What does it mean to be rich? If as ityraditionaly meant in part a lot of decedent creature comforts then a large part of the masses have it. Cars, global air travel, good clothes. a wide variety of food everyday.

Running hot and cold water everywhere, sewers, electricity, cell phones and so on.

Technology and manufacturing efficiency the result of free market competition can supply a large amount of material goods for all.

By traditional standards nearly everyone in modern countries already is rich. The perception that the poor are getting poorer is an illusion caused by expectations rising in parallel with prosperity.

If rich means the stereotypical idle rich who can lounge around living on investments(a family fortune), all can not be rich. A extreme prime example is the British royal family. The idle rich.

Sure, all can be rich, even by that standard. All can live on investments; all can be the idle rich if they choose, or the working rich if they prefer. Not today, true; but give robotics technology another hundred-odd years to develop and it will be perfectly feasible.

 

[laughing dog]

Fascinating. Culture is destiny.

I should probably clarify, by the way, that my point in bringing up all this Econ 101 stuff was to back you up -- I'm arguing you're right that it's possible for everybody to be rich, and bilby's counterarguments don't hold up.

I was unaware that ECON 101 stuff indicates it is possible for everyone to be rich. It suggests that market economies will cause a distribution of income that cannot be redistributed without making at least one person worse off, but it suggests nothing about whether everyone (or anyone) ends up rich.

I didn't say it does. Bilby implied it was impossible for everyone to be rich because "Or do you have some magical way to get $100 an hour for toilet cleaning?". So I pointed out Econ 101 stuff indicates getting $100 an hour for toilet cleaning wouldn't take magic, just comparative advantage. Of course you can propose some completely different argument for why it's impossible; if you do so, we can check if Econ 101 refutes that one as well.

I guess “it’s possible for everybody to be rich” confused me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that is why free market systems worked better than the Marxist - communist systems. Humans are naturally connective, free market systems are a better fit to what we humans are.

Unquestionably. Putting the people with their own assets in charge produces a better outcome that when you put people using other people's money in charge.

Biden was tone deaf on the economy as is Trump. Both have proclaimed good economies ignoring rising complaints by people on cost of essentials.

The problem is that this is far more a matter of unreasonable expectations than a true economic problem. It's just the internet has made reality more obvious.

We do have a problem with companies having too many choices and getting into decision paralysis because of it. Candidates A, B, or C--they pick one. Candidates 1..1000, they hold out for the unicorn.

 

[steve_bank]

Note I do not white wash the system as it is, I do not think Marxism or large scale ssocialism will work here in the USA.

I don't know that given our diverse population on many issues and our cultural norms of freedom of action there is any system that will work better.

The triple balance of power envisioned by the founders has broken down.

China makes socialism work for a billion people by rigid top down political and social control. No dissent is allowed. The justice system can be over ridden by the state.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Note I do not white wash the system as it is, I do not think Marxism or large scale ssocialism will work here in the USA.

I don't know that given our diverse population on many issues and our cultural norms of freedom of action there is any system that will work better.

The triple balance of power envisioned by the founders has broken down.

China makes socialism work for a billion people by rigid top down political and social control. No dissent is allowed. The justice system can be over ridden by the state.

Just a detail. The top down social control was invented by Lenin. After already taking power. There's an argument that can be made that its intrinsic to socialism.

The evolution of socialism in western Europe has made socialists extremely socialy liberal. Personal freedoms extremism.

So I think the top down social control of socialism is an artifact if the fact that a tiny group lacking popular support grabbed power in Russia, and then did their darndest to export that specific brand och socialism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Note I do not white wash the system as it is, I do not think Marxism or large scale ssocialism will work here in the USA.

I don't know that given our diverse population on many issues and our cultural norms of freedom of action there is any system that will work better.

The triple balance of power envisioned by the founders has broken down.

China makes socialism work for a billion people by rigid top down political and social control. No dissent is allowed. The justice system can be over ridden by the state.

Just a detail. The top down social control was invented by Lenin. After already taking power. There's an argument that can be made that its intrinsic to socialism.

The evolution of socialism in western Europe has made socialists extremely socialy liberal. Personal freedoms extremism.

So I think the top down social control of socialism is an artifact if the fact that a tiny group lacking popular support grabbed power in Russia, and then did their darndest to export that specific brand och socialism.

The only way to impose a new system on people that isn't unanimously liked is through violence. So of course, Marxism would have to be top down, with very brutal secret police force.

 

[steve_bank]

Harry gets the crux of the problem.

Egyptian Pharaohs, kings, Roman emperors. Mao and Stalin. I don't think Lenin 'invented' authoritarian control. As I understand it in the end Lenin realized that sudden large scale change would have problems. There was a democracy movement. When Lenin died there was intrigue and Stalin won out.

Marxism is violent revolutionary by doctrine. In History Of The Russian Revolution Trotsky wrote persuasion was not working, force was necessary.

We see it in the Mid East. We toppled Hussein and handed Iraq over to the people. We put together an election but it was boycotted by a major faction. Leaders arose with militias and began fighting among themselves. Same result when Gaddafi was removed in Libya.

Without the USA as a stabilizing influence would the EU survive?

Western liberal democracy, rue by democratic processes, is on shaky ground,

Look at the havoc created by a rogue American president legally elected by the people.

Us humans are combative and competitive.

I think free market economics has worked because it is an outlet for the aggression. And it represents an unprecedented freedom of action for the masses.

Trying to limit those freedoms will meet stiff resistance on all sides.


China dumped Maoist collectivism and adapted free market economics. Notb te wde open freedom we have.

Yes, people in China generally have the freedom to change jobs
, especially with the growth of the market economy and online platforms making job-hopping common, but there are bureaucratic steps, particularly for foreigners needing to update work/residence permits, and labor laws (like mandatory written contracts) are in place, though enforcement can vary. Chinese citizens have significant economic freedom to choose careers, though political restrictions exist, and the system prioritizes orderly employment changes.

What are you wililng to give up in exchange for economic security? That is the question.

 

[No Robots]

The relationship between liberty and communism is fully elaborated by Harry Waton. In his book The Fetishism of Liberty, he writes:

The tendency of the material world is towards integration, cooperation and inter dependence. On the other hand the tendency of the spiritual world is towards self-consciousness and freedom. The more thoroughly we shall become integrated materially the higher shall we rise spiritually and the wider will then be our freedom. For freedom we are to look in the direction of Spirit, and not in the direction of matter. As St. Paul said: "Now, the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is also Freedom."

See also the chapter "Liberty and Communism" in Waton's A True Monistic Philosophy, v. 2.

 

[steve_bank]

Rights and freedoms fully developed in the past communists Soviet Union, today's communist China, Cuba, Ninth Korea....

Whatever the faults of western liberal democracy and free market economics these systems provide a historically unprejudiced level of freedom of action and right along with material wealth never before seen.

See4ing is believing and the proof id in the pudding, IOW results trump theory.

 

[No Robots]

The abundance of goods and services is the result of the development of communism. As Waton puts it:

But the most fundamental transformation of society into the state of communism is taking place in the process of production of the means of life. The mode of production is becoming ever more and more communistic. Consider the great industries. Hundreds of thousands and millions of workers are united, integrated and organized in the vast industries; they all work in common, they produce in common, and in common turn out millions of commodities. This communistic mode of production brought out national mass production, and now is bringing out international mass production. The time is coming when all production in the world will become one universal system of production, and this will mean universal communistic production. The mode of production of the means of life is the basis and substance of the mode of distribution. As the mode of production changes, so also does the mode of distribution change. And as they change, so also change the organic relations of society. See what is already taking place in the United States. The capitalists are reduced to mere managers, and the state becomes the capitalist. The state assumes ever more and more control of the production and distribution of the means of life, and at the same time the state acquires ever more economic and political power. All that is taking place in the world is only the manifestation of the revolutionary transformation of society; it is the retirement of private capitalism from the stage of history, to prepare the ground for state capitalism and ultimate universal communism.

As for American exceptionalism, this is an illusion. Here is Waton:

Consider again the American people. They are now subjected to a dictatorship, yet they do not feel it as a dictatorship, because they participate in it, and because they realize that it is necessary, and therefore desire it. The Russian people do not feel the dictatorship, because they participate in it, and because they realize that it is absolutely necessary to preserve themselves and their system of life in a world of enemies that plot to destroy them and their system of life. And here I call attention to a most striking fact, namely, that men always enjoyed perfect freedom, when they agreed with the established order of society and the rulers and masters. Under John the Terrible, under Nero, and under all tyrants and despots that ever existed, the people that agreed with them enjoyed perfect freedom. On the other hand, those that did not or do not agree with the established order of society and the rulers, they were always persecuted and severely punished, and this is also true today, and even in the United States. One who agrees with the established order in this country and the rulers is absolutely free; but those that do not agree with the established order and the rulers are constrained, not only indirectly, but by actual imprisonment. Hence there is no substance in the boast that in the United States we have a freedom which the peoples in other countries do not have. The Russians in Soviet Russia are absolutely free to agree with Stalin and the existing order; just as the Americans are absolutely free to agree with the existing order.

 

[steve_bank]

OMG, the word claptrap cones to mind.

Ancient Chinese were the first civilization to develop mass production . Water powered stamping machines not much different in function than today.

What created the Industrial Revolution was the steam engine and cheap energy in coal. Steam powered water pumps allowed deeper coal mines, pumping out water. Powered drills.

19th century free market competition developed the steam engine. The search for profit.

For most of my adult life as an engineer I witnessed the positive aspects of free market capitalism. Competition reduces cost and fosters new ideas and services and goods. Creates jobs.

The PC and Internet as we have it today are the re4ult of intense free market completion.

Soviet and Chines communists lacked the personal incentives by ideology. They failed to meet basic needs of the people.

Soviets failed catastrophically. China adapted some principles of free market capitalism and rescued itself.

 

[No Robots]

Communism has always been the basis of human organization. However, primitive communism could only attain to universal communism through a dialectic process of self-negation and negation of the negation. Capitalism arose as the negation of primitive capitalism. It allowed mankind to advance beyond rule by custom and property to rule by law and finance. In turn, capitalism is negated by universal communism, which is the ultimate state of human organization.

The Internet is the product of state capitalism, which is the intermediate state between capitalism and communism.

Communism allowed Russia and China to propel themselves to world-dominating status.

 

[steve_bank]

You will have to define what yu men by communis.

Generalizing in terms of economics.

Free market capitalism:
Private ownership of means of production. Wages, goods, services generally set by supply and demand. Government does not pock and choose, protects rights of property owners.

Socialist:
A mix of free market economics and government control of the economy.

Communism:
Common ownership of means of production. Not based in investment and profit. Tribal in a sense. Compensation set by the state. Production controlled by the state, where state is theoretically the people.

In China technically the state owns all land.


For some I suspect communism is a warm fuzzy where all is well all the time. Get rid of capitalism and all will be well. All you have to do is look at how Soviet and Chinese communism fared by eliminating free market capitalism.

So NR, what do you mean by communism? Not in the abstract, but how it would work in your version.

As I seen it the big issue regardless of the system is how decisions are made and how conjflicts and differences are resolved,

Unless in your ideal communist state there are no disputes, conflicts, and differences in a nation as big as the USA.

Russian counis failed, and Russia today is a mes. A dictatorship with little individual rights. Chijna has structural problems worse than the western systems.

You could move to Chna to luive and wrk, but when you rqch a certain age they kick you out. It is a rqacist culture.

You can move to Russia. The have a shrrinking pouation and need workers,. You can hang out with Snoden.

In both Russia and China I think you wouled meet resistance prooting your agenda on social edia,

I thnk there is a communist state inn the old sense in Russian Federation.

But why ove, right? You are in Canada with polical and indivisual rights. Pkety of food and goods. Good health care.

Conservatves here consider Canada socialist.

 

[No Robots]

Here is Waton on the nature of universal communism:

On the one hand, it is the destiny of the economic relation to become one universal system of production and distribution of the means of life; on the other hand, it is the destiny of mankind to become one human society. The one human society resting on one universal system of production and distribution of the means of life - that will be universal communism. The soul of universal communism will be the principle: From every one according to his ability, unto every one according to his needs.

 

[steve_bank]

In other words NR, you have no idea what you are talking about.

We do have what has become a global system of distribution and production. It is called free market global free trade.

You are in Vancouver right?

Canada imports a significant volume of agri-food products from Mexico, including top items like beer, tomatoes, avocados, berries, and peppers
. These goods, which make Mexico a key supplier of fresh produce, are often shipped via the U.S. and are regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to meet safety standards.

The USA also gets a lot of fresh produce fro Mexico.

A lot of the electronics you buy comes from China. Clothes from Asia and Africa.

The modern term is global integrated supply chains. Like you Trump is ignorant of the global supply chain and interdependence.

Without Ukrainian wheat htere are places in Africa that can starve.

A global centrally controlled system would fail. The experiments in centralized economic control in Russia and China failed.

Free market trade and manufacturing is a distributed system that largely runs on its own. Supply and demand.

 

[No Robots]

This developing international system of production and commerce is the initial phase toward niversal communism. At present, this system is regulated by agreements between nation states. It is state capitalism.

 

[No Robots]

I live in Edmonton. My daughters live in Vancouver.