A Little Constructive Criticism for you Communists

[MMIKEYJ]

Here's my take.

From what Ive seen, the majority of you communists are smart. You're intellectual, thought provoking, and definitely well-read on your subjects.

The bad part here is that you're divisive and cannot agree.

You guys dont just talk about communism and socialism. You balkanize it into 27 different types: Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. So you wind up dividing yourselves up and spreading your strength out too thin. This is why youre all crying about the tea parties but at the same time cant get yourselves motivated enough to do something similar.

The other problem is that you needlessly overcomplicate discussion.

If somebody asks you a question about something, there is never a simple answer. It becomes a term paper worth of information as a reply.

Also, if somebody talks about Ron Paul.. well now you invent an "-ism" for it: Ron Paulism, "Misean" logic, etc. You guys constantly turn everything into an "-ism", whatever it is. All thats going to do is confuse young new people who might be open to your ideas but find it difficult to grasp your information.

And the other thing you do is make these flawed comparisons that give you a false sense of security in the superiority of your beliefs while underestimating the strength and validity of your oppositions' positions.

Heres a crude example:

The Nazis had gold,
Ron Paul supports a gold standard,
Therefore,
Ron Paul is a Nazi.

And from this flawed logic you'll go off on a tangent about how Ron Paul is a joke and how no nazis would ever get elected, etc. Yet at the same time you wonder how come only Austrian economics gets talked about and how the crazy cappies motivate themselves to go out into the tea parties.


Honestly, I dont think you and me are much different. You guys seem to want freedom for the people and for the people to be treated fair and not be ripped off. The part we disagree on is who is the one doing the ripping off of the people.

You guys think its all about evil capitalists, whereas I think its all about evil corporatists.

These two are very different though people many times confuse them both as being the same.

Im also glad that the majority of you are against the federal reserve and know its a bad deal for America.

We dont have to believe in each others' politics to get along. You do what you feel is best, and follow the politics you believe in.

[danyboy27]

i agree on the part that explain how divided we are.

in my city alone there is like 4 or 5 communist groups, hating eachother guts over ridiculous technicality of ideologies.

i think its an issue concerning power that cause that, the group x elect a leader, this guy become a power freak, and will refuse to concede any ground at all, even for the sake of communism beccause its a threat to their views.

i really dont know how we could get together, but i know someone who have an answer:

kreazy zebra the anti-revisonist: we need a purge its simple! if we kill all trots and anarchist, all troubles will go away! simple!

[Demogorgon]

I agree with your first point that we sub-divide ourselves too much, but the problem is trying to stop it. Fringe movements squabble amongst themselves to make up for not being able to take on real targets, but as long as they keep doing so they remain fringe movements. It is a vicious cycle. And of course it is a habit we find hard to break. In the last couple of years the far left here in Scotland has gone from mainstream success and multiple seats in parliament back to obscurity because of the obsessive need for infighting. It is not that people no longer agree with the policies, but they feel we just want to squabble and not achieve anything and turn to soft left parties like the SNP as they think they will give them at least a bit of what they want. Now to address some of the things I don't agree with.

The other problem is that you needlessly overcomplicate discussion.

If somebody asks you a question about something, there is never a simple answer. It becomes a term paper worth of information as a reply.I dare say that I am one of the people you have in mind here given the length and detail of the replies I have made to your posts, but while I do admit that I have an obsession with the finer points of argument, you cannot over-simplify things, particularly when you are talking economics. I spent many years studying the subject and still am not satisfied with my level of knowledge. It is a matter of such complexity that it can take years to resolve any argument. Trying to boil it down to "simple answers" won't work.

Yet at the same time you wonder how come only Austrian economics gets talked about and how the crazy cappies motivate themselves to go out into the tea parties.
Well hang on, who is talking about Austrian economics? It ain't exactly mainstream either.


Honestly, I dont think you and me are much different. You guys seem to want freedom for the people and for the people to be treated fair and not be ripped off. The part we disagree on is who is the one doing the ripping off of the people.Possibly, but if I concede that you and I have more in common than might appear at first glance, I mean you very specifically as an individual. I don't think you are as Austrian as you think you are, you don't sound to me like the authoritarian bigots the theory usually churns out.

[trivas7]

It's in the nature of pointy-headed types to "ism"-ize, make logical distinctions and fight w/ what God -- er, Nature -- has given you. To each her own; I would never begrudge Jacob Ritcher's mini-essays on the abstruse trivia of revolutionary theory or Rosa Lichtenstein's obsession w/ (anti-)Hegel. In fact, it's what makes this place so interesting.

[Black_Flag]

It is true that we are divided, however, thats not to say that all capitalists are united. Think of how many political parties thetre are who want to maintain a capitalist system.

While we do want people to be free and not ripped off in my opinion this can not be achieved under a capitalist system. Some may say that this type of system allows all of us an equal chance to prosper, however, in reality the majority of wealth lies in the hands of the few, giving them control over workers by employing them for a wage. i.e. "the few only allow the many to work on condition of themselves receiving the lion's share." (Kropotkin)

[Dejavu]

The bad part here is that you're divisive and cannot agree.

You guys dont just talk about communism and socialism. You balkanize it into 27 different types: Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. So you wind up dividing yourselves up and spreading your strength out too thin. This is why youre all crying about the tea parties but at the same time cant get yourselves motivated enough to do something similar.

Yes that's true but they are not the only one's guilty of this. For example , we pro-market anarchists have some widely diverging views from mutualism to rigid anarcho-capitalism.

Republicans are Neocons and Paleocons.
Liberals are Pink , Centrist, etc.
Libertarians range from minarchists to anarchists.

[IcarusAngel]

The Nazis had gold,
Ron Paul supports a gold standard,
Therefore,
Ron Paul is a Nazi.

The second and third statements in this "syllogism" can be combined.

If a person is a nazi, he supports gold.

If a person is Ron Paul he supports gold, therefore he is a nazi.


The second statement is the "converse" of the first and therefore this is not valid. Furthermore, the logic is going like this:

a -> b
c -> b, from which you can't make a deduction (It should be a > b, b > c || a > b, c > a), etc.


However, no one said this, which is why you give no examples of what you're talking about, and most people here would recognize the error in the logic above. Ron Paul's politics are criticized for what they ultimately lead to.

You mention the "Misean logic" thread. You know I am correct in that thread that an equation is not "always true." You know that Misean as a logician was heavily flawed, even for his time.

You know that dejavu and self-owner are two trolls who have no understanding of logic or reason and thus can't defend self-ownership.

Therefore you created this thread full of straw man instead of being a man and admitting your philosophy is full of errors. Not very honest, or logical, in my opinion.

[Dejavu]

You know that dejavu and self-owner are two trolls who have no understanding of logic or reason and thus can't defend self-ownership.

You're a vulgar dickhead. Even some other socialists on here have considered you troll-like. I no longer defend self-ownership and I pointed that out in the thread I linked. Seriously, from this point forward , I'm not going to even pay attention to your drivel.

[apathy maybe]

It is true that we are divided, however, thats not to say that all capitalists are united. Think of how many political parties thetre are who want to maintain a capitalist system.

While we do want people to be free and not ripped off in my opinion this can not be achieved under a capitalist system. Some may say that this type of system allows all of us an equal chance to prosper, however, in reality the majority of wealth lies in the hands of the few, giving them control over workers by employing them for a wage. i.e. "the few only allow the many to work on condition of themselves receiving the lion's share." (Kropotkin)

If capitalism wasn't the dominant system in the world today, think how many groups there would be promoting different sorts.

We can see, as mentioned above, the various political parties that all call for something slightly different.

Well, us leftists, we are in the situation where we aren't in a dominant position in the world. If we were, everyone would be laughing at the capitalists for being so divided... As it is, no one thinks it's a bad thing.

Lucky damn capitalists, they get to test different variations in different countries, and every few years have elections to, perhaps, try something new.

Us leftists are stuck talking about it mostly. But just imagine if we were dominant... We could try out this method in that community, and another method in another community (or rather, each community could try what they wanted).

That would be nice.

[Dejavu]

I think its folly to think you can have only one ideology dominant in a free society. It disregards pluralism and I don't see how that does not lead to authoritarianism anyway.

[Dejavu]

We could try out this method in that community, and another method in another community (or rather, each community could try what they wanted).

Spot on!

[RGacky3]

You guys dont just talk about communism and socialism. You balkanize it into 27 different types: Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. So you wind up dividing yourselves up and spreading your strength out too thin. This is why youre all crying about the tea parties but at the same time cant get yourselves motivated enough to do something similar.

In Reality there are 2 types of Socialism, Libertarian Socialism and State Socialism. The latter are pretty much devided into the democratic socialists and the leninists the latter of that is devided into trots, maoists and the such. The former Former, pretty much are just Anarchists and Libertarian socialists (essencially anarchists that thing anarchism is too strong a word), and they for the most part get along fine.

Those 2 types are very opposed however (leninism and anarchism) to the point to where they can really not be put under the same umbrella, as far as I'm concerned Leninism is just as bad as Capitalism.

So in reality we are not THAT divided, and even leninists and anarchists can come together on different issues.


If somebody asks you a question about something, there is never a simple answer. It becomes a term paper worth of information as a reply.

Also, if somebody talks about Ron Paul.. well now you invent an "-ism" for it: Ron Paulism, "Misean" logic, etc. You guys constantly turn everything into an "-ism", whatever it is. All thats going to do is confuse young new people who might be open to your ideas but find it difficult to grasp your information.

I can't speak for others but I do over compensate here on this board, considering the board is for intellectual discussion, however when speaking to others I try keep it simple. But considering the amazing job the State has done at demonizing socialism, we kind of have to break through barriers first.

This "ism" stuff, although done by some, is really way way way more done by the Capitalist media, I've heard everything from Castroism to defeatism.


The Nazis had gold,
Ron Paul supports a gold standard,
Therefore,
Ron Paul is a Nazi.

You've got to be kidding me, that tactic is done WAY WAY WAY more by capitalists on this board and much more than that by the Capitalist media.


You guys think its all about evil capitalists, whereas I think its all about evil corporatists.

How are they different, and how are the corporatists exploiting through an unjust position of power, in a way that Capitalists are not?

[IcarusAngel]

These are the types of capitalism I have heard of:
Conservative Capitalism
Liberal capitalism (Liberals)
Democratic capitalism (sweden, etc.)
Fascistic capitalism (storm front, etc.)
Corporate capitalism
free-market capitalism
laissez-faire capitalism
Objectivist capitalism
Austrian economics (Austrian capitalism)
Anarcho-Capitalism

And you say socialists are diversified?

[Post-Something]

MMIKEYJ, you're right, but you haven't actually criticized anything, or shown us why you wouldn't identify with our politics.

[#FF0000]

You know that dejavu and self-owner are two trolls who have no understanding of logic or reason and thus can't defend self-ownership.

Therefore you created this thread full of straw man instead of being a man and admitting your philosophy is full of errors. Not very honest, or logical, in my opinion.

I don't think you've ever actually spoken to Dejavu.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't think you've ever actually spoken to Dejavu.

Ever since I refused to have a discussion with him on "Skype" I've been called a "troll" by him. However, I post on one or two other forums so outside of posting on forums I don't have time for IM chats that relate to politics.

However, if he really wants to bring it up over IM he can contact me on AIM.

[Dejavu]

Ever since I refused to have a discussion with him on "Skype" I've been called a "troll" by him. However, I post on one or two other forums so outside of posting on forums I don't have time for IM chats that relate to politics.

However, if he really wants to bring it up over IM he can contact me on AIM.


Actually I'm not sure I'd waste my time. If you want to make time for a voice chat over Skype then Rosch has my contact details and they are on my profile as well.

[Dejavu]

And I don't call you a troll because you refused to skype. Others here have declined a Skype invitation but I did not call them trolls. I call you a troll because you make these seething posts and outlandish claims against anything libertarian that are often accompanied by baseless claims such as 'Mises claimed he derived the laws of the universe' and he pressuposed the existence of law/logic before the existence of the universe.

Your vulgarness is annoying and I suppose I deserve it to a certain degree. I used to be quite vulgar myself and only now do I see how dickish it is.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, I love you commies just the way you are.:wub: :hammersickle:

[MMIKEYJ]

The Nazis had gold,
Ron Paul supports a gold standard,
Therefore,
Ron Paul is a Nazi.

The second and third statements in this "syllogism" can be combined.

If a person is a nazi, he supports gold.

If a person is Ron Paul he supports gold, therefore he is a nazi.


The second statement is the "converse" of the first and therefore this is not valid. Furthermore, the logic is going like this:

a -> b
c -> b, from which you can't make a deduction (It should be a > b, b > c || a > b, c > a), etc.


However, no one said this, which is why you give no examples of what you're talking about, and most people here would recognize the error in the logic above. Ron Paul's politics are criticized for what they ultimately lead to.

You mention the "Misean logic" thread. You know I am correct in that thread that an equation is not "always true." You know that Misean as a logician was heavily flawed, even for his time.

You know that dejavu and self-owner are two trolls who have no understanding of logic or reason and thus can't defend self-ownership.

Therefore you created this thread full of straw man instead of being a man and admitting your philosophy is full of errors. Not very honest, or logical, in my opinion.

See how over compicated you make everything?

I dont know anything about Mises being a logician.

Heres what I know about Austrian Economics in short:

Its a belief that if you want to buy something, you should have the money first to do so. If you dont have the money then save up BEFORE you buy it. Pay off your credit cards in full. And only go into debt if its an emergency.

Thats it.

Its really not that complicated.

[MMIKEYJ]

In Reality there are 2 types of Socialism, Libertarian Socialism and State Socialism. The latter are pretty much devided into the democratic socialists and the leninists the latter of that is devided into trots, maoists and the such. The former Former, pretty much are just Anarchists and Libertarian socialists (essencially anarchists that thing anarchism is too strong a word), and they for the most part get along fine.

Those 2 types are very opposed however (leninism and anarchism) to the point to where they can really not be put under the same umbrella, as far as I'm concerned Leninism is just as bad as Capitalism.

So in reality we are not THAT divided, and even leninists and anarchists can come together on different issues.



I can't speak for others but I do over compensate here on this board, considering the board is for intellectual discussion, however when speaking to others I try keep it simple. But considering the amazing job the State has done at demonizing socialism, we kind of have to break through barriers first.

This "ism" stuff, although done by some, is really way way way more done by the Capitalist media, I've heard everything from Castroism to defeatism.



You've got to be kidding me, that tactic is done WAY WAY WAY more by capitalists on this board and much more than that by the Capitalist media.



How are they different, and how are the corporatists exploiting through an unjust position of power, in a way that Capitalists are not?

Capitalists are just people who save money and are self employed. Small business owners, etc. Sometimes these small business guys get big from success and become huge like Microsoft for example.

But corporatism is different. Its collusion of big govt with big business. So big business buys off the govt, and the govt passes laws that benefit the businesses.. ANd the person who gets squeezed from this is the little guy - you and me.

Corporatism is essentially fascism, at least according to Mussolini. and I would stick by that definition..

The federal reserve is an example of corporatism. Government run by banks, for banks. Just look at who gets all the bailout money? The banks.

THe banks only get away with this because they own the federal reserve. And the federal reserve is absolute dictator of money in this country - fascism in money.

Thats the difference.

[MMIKEYJ]

MMIKEYJ, you're right, but you haven't actually criticized anything, or shown us why you wouldn't identify with our politics.
well i wasnt trying to criticize you for your beliefs.. If you believe in communism then fine. I was just pointing out perhaps things you could do to strengthen your arguments to newcomers.

Personally, I dont identify with communism because I do not believe it is a viable system. I believe in free market capitalism, but true free market, not the type of controlled market atmosphere we currently have.

[Demogorgon]

See how over compicated you make everything?

I dont know anything about Mises being a logician.

Heres what I know about Austrian Economics in short:

Its a belief that if you want to buy something, you should have the money first to do so. If you dont have the money then save up BEFORE you buy it. Pay off your credit cards in full. And only go into debt if its an emergency.

Thats it.

Its really not that complicated.
Actually Austrian Economics spends a great deal of time justifying usury and be extension lending systems. It says if someone wants greater present consumption in return for reduced future consumption that is entirely acceptable and they should borrow and agree a rate of interest with the lender who will be sacrificing current consumption in return for greater future consumption.

I doubt I even need to say what I think of it, but I am just pointing out that Austrian economics isn't exactly ancient Judaism when it comes to borrowing.

[Bud Struggle]

Personally, I dont identify with communism because I do not believe it is a viable system. I believe in free market capitalism, but true free market, not the type of controlled market atmosphere we currently have.

Bada bing! :thumbup:

But I'd add--if someone could make TRUE Communism work--that would be just fine, too.

We enter a dark world when we enter the land of the half-assed.

[MMIKEYJ]

Actually Austrian Economics spends a great deal of time justifying usury and be extension lending systems. It says if someone wants greater present consumption in return for reduced future consumption that is entirely acceptable and they should borrow and agree a rate of interest with the lender who will be sacrificing current consumption in return for greater future consumption.

I doubt I even need to say what I think of it, but I am just pointing out that Austrian economics isn't exactly ancient Judaism when it comes to borrowing.
I dont think usury is that much of a problem where real money and 100% reserve banking is concerned, but under the present system where we do not use real money, it is unsustainable. It eventually has to break down.

Hence, the boom times and current bust times like now.

[Dejavu]

Actually Austrian Economics spends a great deal of time justifying usury and be extension lending systems. It says if someone wants greater present consumption in return for reduced future consumption that is entirely acceptable and they should borrow and agree a rate of interest with the lender who will be sacrificing current consumption in return for greater future consumption.

I doubt I even need to say what I think of it, but I am just pointing out that Austrian economics isn't exactly ancient Judaism when it comes to borrowing.

Austrians more specifically call it time preference. Subsequently, time preference also factors into justification for wage labor or working for someone else.

[Demogorgon]

Capitalists are just people who save money and are self employed. Small business owners, etc. Sometimes these small business guys get big from success and become huge like Microsoft for example.

But corporatism is different. Its collusion of big govt with big business. So big business buys off the govt, and the govt passes laws that benefit the businesses.. ANd the person who gets squeezed from this is the little guy - you and me.

Corporatism is essentially fascism, at least according to Mussolini. and I would stick by that definition..

The federal reserve is an example of corporatism. Government run by banks, for banks. Just look at who gets all the bailout money? The banks.

THe banks only get away with this because they own the federal reserve. And the federal reserve is absolute dictator of money in this country - fascism in money.

Thats the difference.
I am going to do my best to avoid an over-detailed post. Honest.

I must say firstly in the interests of accuracy that Mussolini's description of fascism is misquoted. He didn't say corporatism was fascism, he said corporativism is fascism. Corporativism is the fascist concept of the intertwined organic state with class division for the benefit of everyone and all sectors of society part of an all-encompassing state. Organs of Governemnt would be based on this too. Legislatures would not be based on share of the vote or geographical representation as were and are the two most common methods in Liberal Society, but rather on representation to each group in society, with a strong preference to those at the top. That can exist in other forms of Government too of course, many Liberal constitutions provide for bicameral parliaments with an advisory Senate chosen to represent different interest groups and nobody is too bothered with that, but is fascism it is central to the system.

Now obviously fascist Governments had a very cosy relationship with the corporations and that is pertinent, particularly as in the Austro-fascist variation of Dolfuss, Von Mises was drawing up the economic policy for several years, but let's not confuse our definitions.

Anyway so that I don't go on for several days I will make the rest very brief. The reason there is a cosy relationship between Government and big business is that capitalism makes big business powerful and in any society those who are powerful are able to make Government dance to their tune.

[Led Zeppelin]

Here's my take.

From what Ive seen, the majority of you communists are smart. You're intellectual, thought provoking, and definitely well-read on your subjects.

The bad part here is that you're divisive and cannot agree.

You guys dont just talk about communism and socialism. You balkanize it into 27 different types: Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc. So you wind up dividing yourselves up and spreading your strength out too thin. This is why youre all crying about the tea parties but at the same time cant get yourselves motivated enough to do something similar.

The capitalist movement is probably just as fractured, if not more, as the revolutionary leftist movement. The fact that we are fractured has little to do with lack of will or desire to unite, but more with the material conditions within which we find ourselves.

Unity requires a basis, not just in words but also in deeds. Words and deeds are both based on actions, and the effectiveness, necessity, and form of actions are based on the material conditions. So, if the material conditions are not sufficiently developed for that basis to arise, then we have a fractured and weakened movement as a result.

That is not to say that individual desire and will does not play a part in it. It certainly does, but the role it plays is negligible compared to the role played by the material conditions. Luckily for is, and sadly for you, the material conditions are everywhere changing to our benefit.

Your movement, i.e., the capitalist movement, is becoming more and more fractured by the day. Why? Well, not just lack of will and desire to unite certainly, but the material conditions. A lot of pro-capitalists are moving towards the lunatic fringe; secessionists, white-power groups, ultra-conservatism, etc. and a lot of others are moving towards the traditional left. Within all these movements are various competing tendencies, and the differences between them are becoming greater by the day as the material conditions for your system worsens.

The worsening of the conditions for your system is the bettering of conditions for our unity.

In conclusion, we do not need your calls for unity; it's already happening. :)

[Demogorgon]

I dont think usury is that much of a problem where real money and 100% reserve banking is concerned, but under the present system where we do not use real money, it is unsustainable. It eventually has to break down.

Hence, the boom times and current bust times like now.
You are changing the subject here. We have been through the subject of money in extraordinary detail, I spent three hours writing a single post on the subject last week! Here all I am saying is that Austrian time-preference theory (a load of rubbish in my opinion, naturally) defends borrowing and lending. It certainly doesn't say you should always have the money upfront if you want to buy something.

[Dejavu]

A lot of pro-capitalists are moving towards the lunatic fringe; secessionists, white-power groups, ultra-conservatism, etc. and a lot of others are moving towards the traditional left.

As a matter of meaningless semantics :P , I'd be careful on what you reference as traditional left. As a matter of fact , many would point to old French classical liberals and their laissez fair theories as first definitive of the Left.

Over time the political spectrum has almost undergone reverse polarity.

[trivas7]

Bada bing! :thumbup:

But I'd add--if someone could make TRUE Communism work--that would be just fine, too.

We enter a dark world when we enter the land of the half-assed.
Sorry, TomK but that is as half-a**ed a comment as you've ever made. Where are you on the fence? Is or is not communism viable IYO? IMO it is not currently viable but will be in future (when anyone can produce almost unlimited energy cheaply -- go fusion energy!).

[Dejavu]

Here all I am saying is that Austrian time-preference theory (a load of rubbish in my opinion, naturally)

Are you denying that time preferences, in terms of work , exists among people or are you calling rubbish the specific Austrian conclusions derived from time preference?

[Demogorgon]

As a matter of meaningless semantics :P , I'd be careful on what you reference as traditional left. As a matter of fact , many would point to old French classical liberals and their laissez fair theories as first definitive of the Left.

Over time the political spectrum has almost undergone reverse polarity.
It is not a reversal at all. Simply progress. Political theory doesn't exist in a vacuum, it moves with the times. The French radicals were Egalitarians who wanted to overthrow feudal privilege and build a fairer and more just society, their opponents wanted to entrench privilege. That is the context of the time, the individual ideas are what grew out of it relative to the actual situation. To take those same ideas and present them in very different circumstances could well be reactionary. You might as well say the feudal aristocracy were progressive because by thirteenth century standards they were very benign and forward looking.

[Dejavu]

Capitalists are just people who save money and are self employed. Small business owners, etc. Sometimes these small business guys get big from success and become huge like Microsoft for example.

But corporatism is different. Its collusion of big govt with big business. So big business buys off the govt, and the govt passes laws that benefit the businesses.. ANd the person who gets squeezed from this is the little guy - you and me.

Corporatism is essentially fascism, at least according to Mussolini. and I would stick by that definition..

The federal reserve is an example of corporatism. Government run by banks, for banks. Just look at who gets all the bailout money? The banks.

THe banks only get away with this because they own the federal reserve. And the federal reserve is absolute dictator of money in this country - fascism in money.

Thats the difference.


A little friendly advice, trying to redefine or 'rescue' the meaning of capitalism as directly correlated to corporatism is kind of pointless.
Capitalism was first coined by Marx to be descriptive of an economic system you would largely disagree with. I extend to you an invitation to become a free market anti-capitalist. Check it out. (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/)

[Demogorgon]

Are you denying that time preferences, in terms of work , exists among people or are you calling rubbish the specific Austrian conclusions derived from time preference?Well present consumption isn't always preferable to future consumption. Austrians try to take something that is generally true and make it always true. But the conclusions drawn from it are even worse. I really can;t face getting into it tonight, so we can pick this up tomorrow, but if you are interested in the general thrust of what I believe in regards to Time Preference, read chapter one of "Against Capitalism" by David Schweickart. It is a pretty clear presentation of the sort of argument I would make.

[Dejavu]

It is not a reversal at all. Simply progress. Political theory doesn't exist in a vacuum, it moves with the times. The French radicals were Egalitarians who wanted to overthrow feudal privilege and build a fairer and more just society, their opponents wanted to entrench privilege. That is the context of the time, the individual ideas are what grew out of it relative to the actual situation. To take those same ideas and present them in very different circumstances could well be reactionary. You might as well say the feudal aristocracy were progressive because by thirteenth century standards they were very benign and forward looking.


He did not say Left , he said traditional Left, referencing an earlier time period when something was considered 'Left.' Classical liberals gradually aligned with the Right ( particularly American libertarianism) when people who wanted leftist ideals wanted to use authoritarian means (the State) to achieve those ends. In the progressive era , leftism became more associated with the State. Hence the unholy marriage between conservatism and classical liberal-libertarianism which is still a problem to this day. All this sudden you get arch-conservative and christian minded libertarians and you get conservatives claiming to support the free market.

[Demogorgon]

He did not say Left , he said traditional Left, referencing an earlier time period when something was considered 'Left.' Classical liberals gradually aligned with the Right ( particularly American libertarianism) when people who wanted leftist ideals wanted to use authoritarian means (the State) to achieve those ends. In the progressive era , leftism became more associated with the State. Hence the unholy marriage between conservatism and classical liberal-libertarianism which is still a problem to this day. All this sudden you get arch-conservative and christian minded libertarians and you get conservatives claiming to support the free market.
That isn't entirely accurate because Classical Liberals were operating on different principals to Libertarians. Libertarians don't like the state. Classical Liberals were happy to use it as and when it suited them, including for some pretty big public works projects and other things. Trying to place their politics in a present day concept is an anachronism.

[Dejavu]

Well present consumption isn't always preferable to future consumption. Austrians try to take something that is generally true and make it always true.

I don't understand your meaning here, sorry. Hardly any Austrians ( except maybe for vulgar few) ever claim that present consumption is always preferable to future consumption or vice-versa. Given what I understand of Austrian theory ( and I think I understand it quite well) consumption time preferences vary which is reflected the profit/loss system putting out save and spend signals. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning here.


But the conclusions drawn from it are even worse. I really can;t face getting into it tonight, so we can pick this up tomorrow, but if you are interested in the general thrust of what I believe in regards to Time Preference, read chapter one of "Against Capitalism" by David Schweickart. It is a pretty clear presentation of the sort of argument I would make.

I've read some stuff from Schweickart before but I'll check out it out some more. Thanks for the reference.

[Dejavu]

That isn't entirely accurate because Classical Liberals were operating on different principals to Libertarians. Libertarians don't like the state. Classical Liberals were happy to use it as and when it suited them, including for some pretty big public works projects and other things. Trying to place their politics in a present day concept is an anachronism.

I'm talking about the libertarians ( mostly in N.America and England) that arose later from the classical liberal tradition. I fully acknowledge that back in the day libertarians were synonymous with anarchists. Classical liberals for the most part believed in some political function for the state but wanted almost fully divorce it from economics.

[Demogorgon]

I don't understand your meaning here, sorry. Hardly any Austrians ( except maybe for vulgar few) ever claim that present consumption is always preferable to future consumption or vice-versa. Given what I understand of Austrian theory ( and I think I understand it quite well) consumption time preferences vary which is reflected the profit/loss system putting out save and spend signals. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning here.

They acknowledge variation in time preference of course, but there is an assumption that present consumption is preferable to future consumption and that when future consumption is chosen it is on the basis that there is a perceived greater reward for waiting. Now that is probably true generally, but you cannot be sure of it in all cases.

Anyway at any rate, it is the conclusions drawn from it that are really broken.

[Dejavu]

Btw, I've edited one of my posts earlier where I accidentally quoted Demo, I mean to quote Mickey.

[Dejavu]

They acknowledge variation in time preference of course, but there is an assumption that present consumption is preferable to future consumption and that when future consumption is chosen it is on the basis that there is a perceived greater reward for waiting. Now that is probably true generally, but you cannot be sure of it in all cases.

Anyway at any rate, it is the conclusions drawn from it that are really broken.

Well, they are not clairvoyant, hah.
What you're talking about is deferred gratification to use more Austrian language. If the fruits of the future do not meet their expectations this is reflected in profit loss which imputes back into the stages of production and changes resource allocation.

[Demogorgon]

I'm talking about the libertarians ( mostly in N.America and England) that arose later from the classical liberal tradition. I fully acknowledge that back in the day libertarians were synonymous with anarchists. Classical liberals for the most part believed in some political function for the state but wanted almost fully divorce it from economics.
The last sentence is where you have made a grave mistake. Classical Liberals certainly didn't want to divorce the state from economics (as if such a thing would be possible), they were happy for the state to intervene heavily in the economy whenever they thought it best, it just so happens that the majority of them didn't believe that to be the normal state of affairs.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, particularly in Britain, the major growth in industrial Capitalism made the Liberals start to examine the causes of poverty and the great misery in much of society despite the fact that wealth was rapidly increasing. It was here that a split occurred. Some felt that assistance needed to be given to the poor while others took the belief that it was the poor's own fault that they were the way they were and advocated a very callous approach to dealing with them. I can't help feeling that Libertarianism comes squarely from that second group especially as it often has what can only be called a cruel approach to the less fortunate.

You have become rather different from the average Libertarian I have noticed, but you can't deny if you ask around a group of Libertarians, you will find much contempt for the poor (not to mention cult like adoration of big business.

[MMIKEYJ]

Sorry, TomK but that is as half-a**ed a comment as you've ever made. Where are you on the fence? Is or is not communism viable IYO? IMO it is not currently viable but will be in future (when anyone can produce almost unlimited energy cheaply -- go fusion energy!).
Id probably agree with you on that. Lets take the world of star trek for a moment, with their ability to replicate anything they want. IF we had technology like that well then I dont know if capitalism would be viable as at that point anybody can own anything they want. At least the desire for money and what money could buy would disappear.. Humans might be motivated for more philosophical and leisurely desires..

I think I would welcome that sort of technology as it would allow betterment of everybody.

[Dejavu]

The last sentence is where you have made a grave mistake. Classical Liberals certainly didn't want to divorce the state from economics (as if such a thing would be possible), they were happy for the state to intervene heavily in the economy whenever they thought it best, it just so happens that the majority of them didn't believe that to be the normal state of affairs.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, particularly in Britain, the major growth in industrial Capitalism made the Liberals start to examine the causes of poverty and the great misery in much of society despite the fact that wealth was rapidly increasing. It was here that a split occurred. Some felt that assistance needed to be given to the poor while others took the belief that it was the poor's own fault that they were the way they were and advocated a very callous approach to dealing with them. I can't help feeling that Libertarianism comes squarely from that second group especially as it often has what can only be called a cruel approach to the less fortunate.

You have become rather different from the average Libertarian I have noticed, but you can't deny if you ask around a group of Libertarians, you will find much contempt for the poor (not to mention cult like adoration of big business.

Well perhaps you can't point to me some key classical liberals that agitated for massive state projects? I don't deny they might have existed but most of what I understand from the classical liberal tradition comes from the works of the French classical liberals such as Frederic Bastiat and John Baptist Say. I guess you can even trace the tradition further back to the Spanish scholastics. But that's irrelevant to this topic. Mises also wrote very informatively about the tradition in his book Liberalism. Their dissertations give no inkling to a necessarily pro state interventionalist agenda. I could be wrong though.

I would say it was the socialist tradition that started taking the first real serious look at the not-so-pretty parts of capitalist production. The Industrial Revolution deeply changed society so rapidly that some people were extremely hard pressed by the changes. The classical liberals too were concerned with this phenomon , even forming their own class analysis from which Marx heavily borrowed from, but believed the free market can best deal with these issues rather than a centralized state. You could say the ends , in terms of having a better more just society was shared by both camps , but the means to achieve those ends were drastically different.

In America , in particular, most of the Liberals were identified with the laissez fare tradition. In the wake of the IR, many immigrants came to America for better opportunity ( many Americans can trace their ancestry from these immigrants) but they came from countries already heavily influenced by socialist ideas such as Germany. Along with them came their ideas on how society should be managed and thus began the rapid surge of statism in America. The American classical liberals and now, libertarians, didn't take to well to clamoring to the State for solutions and gradually stood on common ground with some of the conservatives.

Remember, most of the classical liberals ( Jeffersonian types) were agnostic or deistic religiously. Now, with the new found American libertarianism ( classical liberalism fused with conservatism) Christian-fascism became a tendency of a lot of American libertarians. Likewise, because of the ideas the new immigrants brought with them that were 'not American,' they adopted conservative ideas of anti-immigration. Conservatives, likewise , borrowed terms from the classical liberals such as 'free market' and construed it have a meaning friendly to conservatism.

And you are right, at face value it does appear that libertarians and conservatives are rather ambivolent or disdainful for the poor. It's a sad case really and it involves a lot of vulgar behavior on the part of libertarians and conservatives.

I call myself a libertarian in the classical sense, meaning anti-authoritarian. ( note I do not like to use the big 'L') In a way I wish to see the better ideas of classical liberalism surgically removed from the Right and have reconciliation with the Left. I am an anarchist because I further wish to remove the state from those ideas.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry, TomK but that is as half-a**ed a comment as you've ever made. Where are you on the fence? Is or is not communism viable IYO? IMO it is not currently viable but will be in future (when anyone can produce almost unlimited energy cheaply -- go fusion energy!).

Well mabe my crystal ball isn't as polished as yours. We could end up in Capitalism "forever" or some sort of reincarnated Fascism or we could have a thousand other futures. Workable energy may always cost $1. per gallon more than it needs to produce a workable Communist world. I remember when nuclear energy was going to make electricity free. I just don't KNOW. I wish--but there's a difference between knowing and wishing.

I'm just not able to predict.

[IcarusAngel]

There were several classical liberals who did not believe in pure free-markets:

Rousseau
von Humboldt
John Stuart Mill
TH Green
etc. etc.

Even Adam Smith wrote against increasing inequality, and many of the French revolutionaries were also left:
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture19a.html

Mises fails as a historian here - many members of the parliament who sat on the left QUESTIONED property, not supported it.

[trivas7]

The capitalist movement is probably just as fractured, if not more, as the revolutionary leftist movement.

Your movement, i.e., the capitalist movement, is becoming more and more fractured by the day. :)
What is the capitalist movement as such, if not mere base human nature?

[Dejavu]

There were several classical liberals who did not believe in pure free-markets:

Rousseau
von Humboldt
John Stuart Mill
TH Green
etc. etc.

Even Adam Smith wrote against increasing inequality, and many of the French revolutionaries were also left:
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture19a.html

Mises fails as a historian here - many members of the parliament who sat on the left QUESTIONED property, not supported it.

Well my claim is not that the classical liberals wanted a pure free market since they were mostly minarchists. My claim was that not many of them were rabid statists.

Your claim about Mises ( again) is nebulous or just outright wrong. Have you actually read what Mises said about the classical liberals or are you just making up shit again? I would bet the latter. Seriously dude, his stuff is available for free, on pdf. (http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=280) I recommend Liberalism for this particular subject.

Sure, classical liberals questioned prevailing ideas about property but that does not mean they were anti-property. It simply doesn't follow unless you have evidence to back up what you're saying. Its good to question ideas about property or any other social institution in my opinion.

[IcarusAngel]

They were not minarchists - this is the Misean claim. They operated under an entirely different framework than anarcho-capitalists and "minarchists" operate under, which are derivatives of Objectivism. For example, Adam Smith wanted his theories to operate under his system of justice, and I suggest reading his Lectures on Jurisprudence.

I suggest reading von Humboldt whose work sounds a lot like Marx when it comes to talking about how workers are exploited, and Rousseau, who said the state should return to its natural duties or should be done away with all together.

He did not do this because he was a capitalist, but because he saw the state as a protector of property. "Critiques of Libertarianism" has several quotes from classical liberals, even some of the these "founding fathers", that make anyone question their commmitment to hierarchical capitalism.

[Dejavu]

They were not minarchists - this is the Misean claim. They operated under an entirely different framework than anarcho-capitalists and "minarchists" operate under, which are derivatives of Objectivism. For example, Adam Smith wanted his theories to operate under his system of justice, and I suggest reading his Lectures on Jurisprudence.

I suggest reading von Humboldt whose work sounds a lot like Marx when it comes to talking about how workers are exploited, and Rousseau, who said the state should return to its natural duties or should be done away with all together.

He did not do this because he was a capitalist, but because he saw the state as a protector of property. "Critiques of Libertarianism" has several quotes from classical liberals, even some of the these "founding fathers", that make anyone question their commmitment to hierarchical capitalism.


First , list for me one quote where a recognized classical liberal was explicitly anti- all ideas of property.

Property is not explicitly a capitalist concoction so I don't know what you're really trying to suggest here. Anti-capitalist =/= anti property, consult Proudhon's work about that for starters.

Secondly, Mises didn't make the explicit claim of minarchism for classical liberals , I did. Mises couldn't make that claim since 'minarchism' as being descriptive of a political ideology wasn't coined until agorist Sameul Konkin III, after Mises' time. My use of minarchism here was to show how most classical liberals wanted minimalist state intervention in the economy. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think it stands.

Thirdly, while Randian Objectivism can be thought of as a kind of minarchism, it is not the other way around. Objectivists explicitly reject any ideas of anarcho-capitalism as well. This is greatly defined by Rand herself in her book Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal in chapter 4 ( I believe). Suggesting that minarchism and anarcho-capitalism derives from Objectivism is just more of your typical bullshit.

[Dejavu]

PS : Look into the antagonism that Rothbard's ideas ( the so-called father of anarcho-capitalism) and Rand's ideas had towards each other on this very issue , along with ethics.

[IcarusAngel]

"Ethics is the practice of recommending to others the actions required for cooperation with oneself."

Mises made up a set of ethics that do not corroborate with what we know about morality or the human conditions.

Anyway, even many intelligent "Austrian" have fled austrian economics, due to the absurdity of its logic:

"One might ask why the graduate students there called themselves "former Austrians." One name suffices to answer the question: Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Dr. Hoppe, leading light of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, had presented such a loopy, absurd and utterly unhinged picture of Austrian economics at a public lecture there, under the sponsorship of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, that those graduate students felt obliged to distinguish themselves publicly from such a strange and incomprehensible set of views. "

Hoppe is a well known Misean and modern spokesman for them. His crazy ideas ultimiately lead to this kind of thinking. Rational people shouldn't spend a moment's time with it.

[IcarusAngel]

First , list for me one quote where a recognized classical liberal was explicitly anti- all ideas of property.

Rousseau. He saw governments as being established to protect property, and thus to protect the rich against the poor:

"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his
fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.
"

"The rich form governments to steal from the poor." --rousseau


Property is not explicitly a capitalist concoction so I don't know what you're really trying to suggest here. Anti-capitalist =/= anti property, consult Proudhon's work about that for starters.

If you are against property you can't be a capitalist. I believe in some property but like classical-liberals it should be restricted so as to prevent tyranny.


Secondly, Mises didn't make the explicit claim of minarchism for classical liberals , I did. Mises couldn't make that claim since 'minarchism' as being descriptive of a political ideology wasn't coined until agorist Sameul Konkin III, after Mises' time. My use of minarchism here was to show how most classical liberals wanted minimalist state intervention in the economy. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think it stands.

Mises falsely claimed classical-liberals had similar ideas of how society should be run. They didn't. They generally wanted freedom and democracy and not servitude to the rich.

[Dejavu]

Rousseau. He saw governments as being established to protect property, and thus to protect the rich against the poor:

"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his
fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one.
"

"The rich form governments to steal from the poor." --rousseauThis utterly does not even answer my question. Rousseau criticizes a particular theory of property but not property itself. Perhaps you should re-read the question I asked you.

This is similar to the dialectical criticism from Proudhon over the theory of property rights involving state lordship over property allocation. Again, it is not a flat out rejection of all ideas of property.


If you are against property you can't be a capitalist.Well duh. So does that mean if you are for property ( to any degree) you're capitalist , at least to the degree you support property?

Well:


I believe in some property but like classical-liberals it should be restricted so as to prevent tyranny.Since you believe in some property , are you somewhat capitalist?:confused:


Mises falsely claimed classical-liberals had similar ideas of how society should be run. They didn't. They generally wanted freedom and democracy and not servitude to the rich.Mises was a classical liberal and recognized as such even by socialists like Oskar Lange. The suggestion that Mises wanted servitude to the rich is a opined bias. Some could say Marx wanted servitude to the few who run the socialist state. That's not actually a fact unless its cooberated by evidence. Its more opinions based on one's own popular political persuasion.

[Jack]

The Austrian school is not mainstream. The Chicago school is mentioned often, but they are not too far from the Austrians, I just beleive they want school vouchers and possibly public roads (though I could be wrong).

[Hoxhaist]

yours is a straw man argument. Of course, communists are divided, but so are any other ideological movement. Although we recognize each other's ideological differences we recognize the overall enemy in capitalism and fascism

[Dejavu]

The Austrian school is not mainstream. The Chicago school is mentioned often, but they are not too far from the Austrians, I just beleive they want school vouchers and possibly public roads (though I could be wrong).

Well Marxist economics not mainstream either, I don't know why that's particularly important though?

Chicago school differs greatly from the Austrian school. Don't be fooled by talk of free markets by either side.

One of the major differences is that the Chicago school tradition is monetarist and they advocate central bank institutions which would put them more inline with mainstream economic theories.

Also, its not always wise to aggregate individuals that subscribe to these economic disciplines as all the same. An Austrian like Walter Block would oppose public ownership of things like roads where an Austrian like Roderick T. Long advocates concepts of common property.

There are Austrians that defend IP ( Intellectual Property) while others harshly criticize it such as Stephen Kinsella. Self-ownership is another contested issue within the Austrian ranks.

[RGacky3]

Well Marxist economics not mainstream either, I don't know why that's particularly important though?


Worldwide? A LOT more so than Austrian.