Capitalist (Black, Female and Poor)

[Bud Struggle]

Honestly--this is all it takes.


Credit Lessons Learned at an Early Age

Katrina Jones Bought Her First House at Age 24What did you do with your allowance when you were a kid? Blew it on the things you wanted, maybe? Not Katrina Jones. She would stash her cash, and sometimes dole out a loan or two to her brother ... with interest attached.


Growing up, Jones witnessed the results of careless money handling in her family. She also saw what could be accomplished with financial discipline. The path she chose for herself was a no-brainer.
She also believes in making the most out of programs that can help her along the way. Case in point, by age 24, Jones had already purchased her first home.

Katrina Jones' Credit Lessons: + Pay all of your debts
+ Do not to live beyond your means
+ Always save something


Disenchanted with the way her landlord at the time managed the apartment building she lived in, Jones signed up for the city's Home Purchase Assistance Program and emerged the owner of a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. See? No nonsense.
Since becoming an employee of the Federal government in 1986, Jones has taken full advantage of contribution-matching retirement programs. Between a Thrift Savings Plan, a tax-deferred retirement savings and investment plan for federal government employees, and a T. Rowe Price IRA account, she's able to sock away 16 percent of her annual income for retirement.
"I can't leave any free money on the table," she says. "I believe in maximizing, whatever they can match."


At home, she and her husband stick to a simple philosophy: Meet basic needs, pay bills on time, save, and spend when appropriate. A bi-weekly allowance gives family members room to have fun, which for Jones means purchasing stocks and bonds on a quarterly basis. When it's time to shop, she goes for the deals and discounts over full retail price. Christmas cards and decorations for this year were purchased during end-of-the-season sales last year.
She keeps her mid-700 credit score in tact by leaning more on her debit card than her two credit union credit cards, she says. One card is saved for emergencies, while the other is used every once in a while and paid off immediately. Same goes for the retail credit cards she obtained purely for the immediate discount. Anything she purchases is paid in full within the month.
Thankfully, sons Lamar, 12, and Antoin, 26, are following mom's financial patterns, she says. The oldest is proving to be a responsible, bill-paying adult, while the youngest is getting hands-on, money-management training through the Capital Gains Program, an incentive-based program that allows middle school students to earn up to $200 a month for good behavior, grades, attendance, etc. Each student has a SunTrust bank account from which they can make a limited number of transactions each month.
"Any monetary gifts he receives, half goes to a savings account at a credit union, unless he has something particular he wants to buy," she says.

http://realestate.aol.com/article/credit/_a/credit-lessons-learned/20091207001?ncid=AOLCOMMre00dynlprim0013&icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl4|link4|http%3A%2F%2Frealestate.aol.com%2Farti cle%2Fcredit%2F_a%2Fcredit-lessons-learned%2F20091207001%3Fncid%3DAOLCOMMre00dynlprim 0013

[Lord Testicles]

I fail to see the point you are trying to make with this fairytale.

[Bud Struggle]

I fail to see the point you are trying to make with this fairytale.

Success in Capitalist society isn't about race or sex or financial position at birth (though a lot of these things help.)

It's about ambition and hard work.

[Decolonize The Left]

He's trying to show how anyone can do anything under capitalism if they simply choose to. Even someone as downtrodden as a poor, black woman can succeed! Who would have thought of that?!?

- August

[Os Cangaceiros]

Success in Capitalist society isn't about race or sex or financial position at birth (though a lot of these things help.)

Well, no, actually it is quite often about those things.

If you don't believe that then compare the number of financially prosperous white people to the number of financially prosperous black people in "capitalist society" fifty years ago.

[RedStarOverChina]

:rolleyes:Right...

What's next? "Your vote counts?" "Jesus loves you?" I'm just dying to hear more.

[Bud Struggle]

He's trying to show how anyone can do anything under capitalism if they simply choose to. Even someone as downtrodden as a poor, black woman can succeed! Who would have thought of that?!?

- August


Hey, just saw the story on AOL and thought it resembles the all too familiiar "Bud Struggle Story."

[Lord Testicles]

Success in Capitalist society isn't about race or sex or financial position at birth (though a lot of these things help.)

It's about ambition and hard work.

Who give a flying fuck? I don't think I would have much of a problem with capitalism if the only problem with it was that it took hard work to succed. If that were the case the likes of you would be starving in the street whilst the coal miners, steel workers and bin workers of this world would be rolling in money. You fail to grasp the point, it isn't that capitalist have more money than me that makes me pissed it's that they use (see: exploit) other peoples labour power so that they can live an idle life.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, no, actually it is quite often about those things.

If you don't believe that then compare the number of financially prosperous white people to the number of financially prosperous black people in "capitalist society" fifty years ago.

I'm not denying there isn't a correlation. I just think that people are psychologically programed by sociey to fail--not that society in any way actually physically hampers those who wish to succeed.

[rednordman]

At home, she and her husband stick to a simple philosophy: Meet basic needs, pay bills on time, save, and spend when appropriate. This is exactly the same philosophy of alot of families with the UK and rest of the west. This is definilty not by choice either.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hey, just saw the story on AOL and thought it resembles the all too familiiar "Bud Struggle Story."

No one cares about your story Bud, sorry.

- August

[bailey_187]

Moral of the story: Be thrifty while the capitalists live in luxury and abundunce and maybe, just MAYBE, you will be a bit like them

[Bud Struggle]

Who give a flying fuck? I don't think I would have much of a problem with capitalism if the only problem with it was that it took hard work to succed. If that were the case the likes of you would be starving in the street whilst the coal miners, steel workers and bin workers of this world would be rolling in money. You fail to grasp the point, it isn't that capitalist have more money than me that makes me pissed it's that they use (see: exploit) other peoples labour power so that they can live an idle life.

It takes more than hard work. It takes hard work and long range planning.

[Lord Testicles]

It takes more than hard work. It takes hard work and long range planning.

Oh shut the fuck up you bellend.

Like you are the only fuckwit that is capable of hard work and planning.

[Bud Struggle]

No one cares about your story Bud, sorry.

- August

Maybe not here, but in the real world it's the thing Infomercials are made of. :D

[Bud Struggle]

Oh shut the fuck up you bellend.

Like you are the only fuckwit that is capable of hard work and planning.

I thought it was a nice story--sorry if this offended you all.

[hugsandmarxism]

Success in Capitalist society isn't about race or sex or financial position at birth (though a lot of these things help.)

It's about ambition and hard work.

So, failure in capitalist society is the result of not being ambitious or hard working? Damn... well, I guess we should send a couple copies of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, to motivate these children into getting off their butts and finding their own fortune!

http://blog.ssis.edu.vn/terryp/files/2009/10/africa_poverty-383x480.png

...but then again, that would be socialism too... maybe between dieing of malaria and hunger at least a few of these brats would get around to saving up their earnings and making something of themselves. We can only hope, right? I mean, if that's really "all that it takes"....

[Bud Struggle]

...but then again, that would be socialism too... maybe between dieing of malaria and hunger at least a few of these brats would get around to saving up their earnings and making something of themselves. We can only hope, right? I mean, if that's really "all that it takes"....

And can you explain to me what Communism or Socialism has ever done to help people being killed by of milaria or hunger? Got some examples?

[hugsandmarxism]

And can you explain to me what Communism or Socialism has ever done to help people being killed by of milaria or hunger? Got some examples?

Sure I could, but that isn't the topic now, is it? The topic just so happens to be your assertion that success in capitalism is based solely on "hard work and ambition," with all other factors being secondary and trivial. Your assertion is ridiculous, and I was pointing that out, as others have and will.

[Kayser_Soso]

And can you explain to me what Communism or Socialism has ever done to help people being killed by of milaria or hunger? Got some examples?

Are you ready to feel stupid? Take a look at what happened after the establishment of socialism in the USSR and Albania, two countries that for most of their previous history suffered repeated famines, and in some areas(especially Albania) malaria. I suggest you take a look at the lifespan statistics, death rate, and population growth rate of both countries during their socialist periods.

By the way, your story is retarded. Assuming major details haven't been left out, you're basically using an exception to prove a rule.

[Bud Struggle]

By the way, your story is retarded. Assuming major details haven't been left out, you're basically using an exception to prove a rule.

I didn't write the story. I merely printed it. It makes sense though. As I said, I did something similar.

[hugsandmarxism]

Are you ready to feel stupid? Take a look at what happened after the establishment of socialism in the USSR and Albania, two countries that for most of their previous history suffered repeated famines, and in some areas(especially Albania) malaria. I suggest you take a look at the lifespan statistics, death rate, and population growth rate of both countries during their socialist periods.

By the way, your story is retarded. Assuming major details haven't been left out, you're basically using an exception to prove a rule.

In b4 Robert Conquest is cited :lol:

No, but rather than allowing Bud to distract from the matter at hand, we should focus on his argument that success and failure in capitalism is entirely a matter of volition on behalf of its participants.

[Kayser_Soso]

I didn't write the story. I merely printed it. It makes sense though. As I said, I did something similar.

It matters not, it is still an exception, an extremely rare exception. By this logic, all those racists who hate certain ethnic groups due to a couple of negative encounters would be justified in their beliefs.

[Bud Struggle]

...we should focus on his argument that success and failure in capitalism is entirely a matter of volition on behalf of its participants.

Within limits. Within the US, for the most part--I'd say that was true.

I'm not BSing you guys. I really believe it. :)

[Kayser_Soso]

Within limits. Within the US, for the most part--I'd say that was true.

I'm not BSing you guys. I really believe it. :)

Wow, that's sad.

[Bud Struggle]

Wow, that's sad.

Except that people succeed. Believe all you want that people don't pay any attention to the Communist message because of media and the "ruling class" and whatever you think.

There's a thing called the American dream and most people want to take a shot at it. (I know: they're idiots and you're not.)

[hugsandmarxism]

Within limits. Within the US, for the most part--I'd say that was true.

I'm not BSing you guys. I really believe it. :)

Oh I don't seek deny that you've been chugging the Koolaid, or embracing the notion that anyone with less than yourself can be simply written off as an underachieving slob. I think there is definitely a good showing among the ruling class who actually believe their free-market mystical nonsense, though I'm sure there is a good deal of snickering behind their backs by smarter capitalists.

[Kayser_Soso]

Except that people succeed.

Yes, people succeed. What the hell is that supposed to prove?



Believe all you want that people don't pay any attention to the Communist message because of media and the "ruling class" and whatever you think.

So you are denying the influence of media on people? But all those people in socialist countries were "brainwashed" right?



There's a thing called the American dream and most people want to take a shot at it. (I know: they're idiots and you're not.)

Look how that American dream turned out recently. By the way, you might want to refrain from making strawman arguments.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, people succeed. What the hell is that supposed to prove? Anyone who wants to can. (With qualifications.)




So you are denying the influence of media on people? But all those people in socialist countries were "brainwashed" right? Not at all. It exists, so does rain and bad roads and Teletubbies. But we have to make our way through the forest, don't we?




Look how that American dream turned out recently. By the way, you might want to refrain from making strawman arguments. My parents came from Poland in 1936...they did OK, I did fine, too. But agreed--it's a strawman.

[Kayser_Soso]

Anyone who wants to can. (With qualifications.)

Yes, the "qualifications" being a myriad of various explanations so as to make your original statement unfalsifiable. The evidence against your bizarre assertion here is overwhelming, and readily observable if one simply goes outside.




Not at all. It exists, so does rain and bad roads and Teletubbies. But we have to make our way through the forest, don't we?

Coherency. Get some.




My parents came from Poland in 1936...they did OK, I did fine, too. But agreed--it's a strawman.

So they benefited from Keynesian economic policy. Wonderful. Also you really ought to define "did fine".


In case you didn't catch it, the strawman was the assumption that I consider people who believe in the "American dream"(which has different definitions according to different people) to be idiots. I consider that point moot because most people recognize the "American dream" as nothing more than a patriotic slogan.

[Bud Struggle]

In case you didn't catch it, the strawman was the assumption that I consider people who believe in the "American dream"(which has different definitions according to different people) to be idiots. I consider that point moot because most people recognize the "American dream" as nothing more than a patriotic slogan.

The problem with that is (almost) no one in America believes in or belongs to the various Communist or Socialist organizations. Most Americans are happily Democrat or Republican--and those that aren't--are in between.

All fools to you, I guess.

[Luisrah]

Anyone who wants to can. (With qualifications, a good stash of money already, some power too, nice friends in high positions, tons of explorable workforce...)

Ah, maybe there I can agree.

[Bud Struggle]

Ah, maybe there I can agree.

Nope, that's not it. A good idea, hard work, ambition and a willingness to pick youself up again after you fail--that's what you need. Not to make millions, but to do well.

Really.

[Kayser_Soso]

The problem with that is (almost) no one in America believes in or belongs to the various Communist or Socialist organizations.

Appeal to popularity. It seems to me that you intend to go through every known logical fallacy in existence before this is over. There are several reasons why Communist organizations are not popular in the US. Part of it had to do with the CPUSA itself, the fact that the US was the leader in the Cold War and thus needed propaganda to fulfill this role, and the US was also home to the New Left movement which was largely influenced by a bizarre corruption of Marxism.



Most Americans are happily Democrat or Republican--and those that aren't--are in between.

You are really out of touch with the American people apparently. Do the rounds at some liberal blogs and see how Democrats and tried and true Obama believers are livid with anger that their savior sold them upriver(their fault for imaging that he shared their values when he never said as much). Take a look at Obama's approval ratings. They are very similar to the Democratic congress' low ratings in 2007- basically, Democrats got elected in hopes they would do certain things, and almost immediately after totally went back on their promises, and people's opinions reflected their anger.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Republican party is in crisis, and the radical Tea Party faction is rife with libertarians and far, far worse- all groups which see the Republicans as ineffective at combating the libruhls.

So no, people are not "happy" with this system at all, and if you pulled your head out of your ass and actually talked to real people or read something that didn't confirm your bizarre beliefs you would notice.

Lastly, people vote Democrat or Republican because there is basically NO CHOICE, and this is basically written into law(thank you, electoral college).



All fools to you, I guess.

This is the second time you repeat a strawman, in this case connected to a false assumption.


Judging by your posts so far, I think there are only two possibilities:

1. You are a troll. It takes one to know one.

2. You are incredibly ignorant about how the world works.

Which one do you prefer?

[Luisrah]

Nope, that's not it. A good idea, hard work, ambition and a willingness to pick youself up again after you fail--that's what you need. Not to make millions, but to do well.

Really.

No, you forgot all the rest I ''made you say'' before.

Or perhaps you didn't, and those things are all inside the ''good idea''
Because if that is true, then don't you find it odd that out of 6 billion people, only a few are insanely rich?

I mean, I guess a lot of others really want to be insanely rich too.

[Kayser_Soso]

Nope, that's not it. A good idea, hard work, ambition and a willingness to pick youself up again after you fail--that's what you need. Not to make millions, but to do well.

Really.


Can you provide any empirical evidence of this? Define "good idea", "hard work", etc. Are you saying that all those who are not "doing well" by your incredibly vague standard do not have these qualities? If so, provide proof of that.

[Bud Struggle]

No, you forgot all the rest I ''made you say'' before.

Or perhaps you didn't, and those things are all inside the ''good idea''
Because if that is true, then don't you find it odd that out of 6 billion people, only a few are insanely rich?

I mean, I guess a lot of others really want to be insanely rich too.

It's not about being "insanely rich." That is where you miss the point--it's about dong well for yourself.

It's the "insanely rich" thing that's the strawman in all of this.

It's about living a good comfortable life--not about emulating Bill Gates.

[Kayser_Soso]

It's not about "insanely rich" That is where you miss the point--it's about dong well for yourself.

FAIL. "Doing well" is relative.



It's the "insanely rich" thing that's the strawman in all of this.

It's about living a good comfortable life--not about emulating Bill Gates.

Then explain why Bill Gates is insanely rich then. Better idea maybe? It certainly wasn't hard work.

Also explain why most people in the world work harder than those in the leading countries, yet do not live "comfortable lives". Show your work.

[Luisrah]

It's not about being "insanely rich." That is where you miss the point--it's about dong well for yourself.

It's the "insanely rich" thing that's the strawman in all of this.

It's about living a good comfortable life--not about emulating Bill Gates.

I'm guessing all those 10 million people that die every year of hunger would be millions of times more hardworking and any Bill Gates, but none of them can escape death.

What's the problem with those?

[Bud Struggle]

FAIL. "Doing well" is relative. So is failure.




Then explain why Bill Gates is insanely rich then. Better idea maybe? It certainly wasn't hard work. Who cares?


Also explain why most people in the world work harder than those in the leading countries, yet do not live "comfortable lives". Show your work.

Granted--I'm talking about (and the article was about) America.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm guessing all those 10 million people that die every year of hunger would be millions of times more hardworking and any Bill Gates, but none of them can escape death.

What's the problem with those?

Again: the article was about "doing well" in America.

[Luisrah]

Who cares?


All the losers in the Capitalist Casino!

All the people that are INSANELY POOR, just because 1 man is INSANELY RICH.
Those are who care.

Oh, and we communists care too. We actually seek justice.

[Luisrah]

Again: the article was about "doing well" in America.

Everyone that is poor in America?

Lol, there are lots and lots of them.
It simply doesn't work.

[Bud Struggle]

All the people that is INSANELY POOR, just because 1 man is INSANELY RICH.
Those are who care. There's no connection.


Oh, and we communists care too. We actually seek justice.
Up to now it's just been power, but hopefully things have changed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Post mash-up:

I just think that people are psychologically programed by sociey to fail.



http://blog.ssis.edu.vn/terryp/files/2009/10/africa_poverty-383x480.png

That starvation is in your head kid.

[Luisrah]

There's no connection.

Bill Gates employs people. If he employs people than he is making money out of them. Which means the worker works more than what he recieves, or else, ''what sense would there be in hiring someone''?
There, Bill Gates creates poverty.


Up to now it's just been power, but hopefully things have changed.

In your opinion maybe. But it is fact that Socialism has brought better lives to people, where Capitalism couldn't do it.

Plus I imagine that every politician in America only wants the best for it's people. They aren't interested in a bit of money, probably.

[Bud Struggle]

In your opinion maybe. But it is fact that Socialism has brought better lives to people, where Capitalism couldn't do it. Both have give better lives to "select" people. The Masses--not so much.

[Luisrah]

Both have give better lives to "select" people. The Masses--not so much.

]

That's where you're wrong.

Capitalism has indeed brought better lives to select people.

But the Soviet Union and China made Huge Leaps, and the masses actually had better lives.

Chavez may not be the best example for some communists, but in the last 10 years, poverty there went from 49% to 27% (or something close to that)

[Bud Struggle]

That's where you're wrong.

Capitalism has indeed brought better lives to select people.

But the Soviet Union and China made Huge Leaps, and the masses actually had better lives.

Been to SU in the 80s three times stood in lines for coffee and meat. Anyway--the woman in the article did well. I'm proud of her.

:(

[Jazzratt]

This kind of progandising is inane and, worse, poisonous. It feeds into the noxious lie that the poor are simply lazy and/or stupid. People begin to imagine that any problems are with themselves rather than with the system and pretty soon they begin to resent anyone with less than them, leading (of course) to resentment in the oither direction before you know it there is another crack in class solidarity. Meanwhile the plutocracy is still laughing all the way to the bank.

It's the kind of thing that makes me want to throw bricks at people's fucking smug faces. So what if some bellpiece from stumblefuck, nowhere is raking it in? What the fuck does that tell us about anything? It's all anecedotes and guff about individuals because looking at the numbers would make you weep, unless your heart had already frozen over after growing up on steady diet of this horseshit. Unemployment is rocketing up, people are becoming demonstrably worse off and the gap between the rich and human beings is growing rapidly.

Who cares though? This isn't even news. "If we reported on every parasite that had found a way of clambering out of poverty whilst, no doubt, stamping on those below them. "Evil little shit in net increase in human misery for personal gain SHOCKER" isn't really what'll sell your paper anyway. The only reason we've heard about this particular example is that she's a woman of colour will which means drooling fuckwits will be practically falling over themselves in a rush to illustrate this means that every feminist ever was wrong and that institutional racism was just made up by that omnipresent enemy of freedom "The PC Brigade". It's pathetically predicatable and you're the least surprising capitalist to churn it out with a lolbertarian like tungsten or hayenmill running a close second.

[Skooma Addict]

This kind of progandising is inane and, worse, poisonous. It feeds into the noxious lie that the poor are simply lazy and/or stupid. People begin to imagine that any problems are with themselves rather than with the system and pretty soon they begin to resent anyone with less than them, leading (of course) to resentment in the oither direction before you know it there is another crack in class solidarity. Meanwhile the plutocracy is still laughing all the way to the bank.

It's the kind of thing that makes me want to throw bricks at people's fucking smug faces. So what if some bellpiece from stumblefuck, nowhere is raking it in? What the fuck does that tell us about anything? It's all anecedotes and guff about individuals because looking at the numbers would make you weep, unless your heart had already frozen over after growing up on steady diet of this horseshit. Unemployment is rocketing up, people are becoming demonstrably worse off and the gap between the rich and human beings is growing rapidly.

Who cares though? This isn't even news. "If we reported on every parasite that had found a way of clambering out of poverty whilst, no doubt, stamping on those below them. "Evil little shit in net increase in human misery for personal gain SHOCKER" isn't really what'll sell your paper anyway. The only reason we've heard about this particular example is that she's a woman of colour will which means drooling fuckwits will be practically falling over themselves in a rush to illustrate this means that every feminist ever was wrong and that institutional racism was just made up by that omnipresent enemy of freedom "The PC Brigade". It's pathetically predicatable and you're the least surprising capitalist to churn it out with a lolbertarian like tungsten or hayenmill running a close second.

Even if it were true that workers were being exploited, I would still support the so called exploitation of workers because I think the alternatives would be far worse. Now, I don't actually think workers are being exploited, but lets just that assume they are. If we were adopt socialism or basically any ideology most people here support, I don't think it could deliver the type of life style to which I have become accustomed. I enjoy being rich (by historical standards) far too much to give it up just so we can say workers aren't being "exploited." Sure, equality would be nice, but I think true material equality can only be achieved at the expense of the economy as a whole. The same goes for the forced elimination of wage labor or the implementation of socialism. It is all about weighing the pro's and the con's.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Katrina Jones' Credit Lessons:
+ Pay all of your debts
+ Do not to live beyond your means
+ Always save something
I already do those things.

Where are my means of production?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Sure, equality would be nice, but I think true material equality can only be achieved at the expense of the economy as a whole. The same goes for the forced elimination of wage labor or the implementation of socialism. It is all about weighing the pro's and the con's.
While you're weighing the pro's and the con's, you left out a crucial question:

How big is this expense that the economy must supposedly pay for "true material equality"?

It is possible for the majority of the people to get richer even while the economy shrinks, as long as society is becoming more equal. It's easy to show this with very simple math - I'm sure I don't have to spell it out for you. So, even if I were to concede that socialism would require a cut in total GDP - which I don't - that would mean nothing unless you could estimate the size of the cut. If the cut is within certain limits, socialism would still benefit the majority of people.

[hugsandmarxism]

Even if it were true that workers were being exploited, I would still support the so called exploitation of workers because I think the alternatives would be far worse. Now, I don't actually think workers are being exploited, but lets just that assume they are. If we were adopt socialism or basically any ideology most people here support, I don't think it could deliver the type of life style to which I have become accustomed. I enjoy being rich (by historical standards) far too much to give it up just so we can say workers aren't being "exploited." Sure, equality would be nice, but I think true material equality can only be achieved at the expense of the economy as a whole. The same goes for the forced elimination of wage labor or the implementation of socialism. It is all about weighing the pro's and the con's.

We can't have socialism or communism/anarchism because Olaf will be inconvenienced by it. Best argument I've heard all day. :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

While you're weighing the pro's and the con's, you left out a crucial question:

How big is this expense that the economy must supposedly pay for "true material equality"?I obviously put that into consideration.


It is possible for the majority of the people to get richer even while the economy shrinks, as long as society is becoming more equal. It's easy to show this with very simple math - I'm sure I don't have to spell it out for you. So, even if I were to concede that socialism would require a cut in total GDP - which I don't - that would mean nothing unless you could estimate the size of the cut. If the cut is within certain limits, socialism would still benefit the majority of people. Like you, I don't measure economic success solely by GDP. So a decent cut in GDP wouldn't bother me that much. The problem is that I think the economy would be destroyed with the implementation of socialism. If the price for equality was very small, then I wouldn't oppose socialism to the extent that I do (this is assuming socialism can bring equality, but this is by no means obvious).

[Tablo]

My father was one of the exceptions. He grew up in the projects, worked his way through college and graduate school, and became a financially successful person. He got LUCKY. He attributes this luck to God(despite lack of evidence for his existence). Yes, he put a significant amount of time and effort into joining this elite class. It was no walk in the park, but it is not something everyone can achieve. Hard work can take a person places, but there are billions of people who work harder than most to support their families they love only to remain dirt poor. Most people can not and will not achieve an elite status with hard work. It is ridiculous to assume such. No matter what, if all people work hard in a Capitalist system they will not all become wealthy. Capitalism lets the hard work of the masses, benefit the elites. Communism lets the hard work of the masses, benefit masses.

Edit: I forgot to add that my father was a white male which put him in a significantly better position than many in the US.

[Robert]

I actually thought the point of the story was that you do not have to be a white male born with a silver spoon in your mouth to prosper in the USA. That's not the same as, or even a corollary of, "everyone who is not rich is lazy."

Anyway, I give the lady a big atta-girl and hope she gets richer and richer. She'll spend the dough on something or other and pay lots of taxes.

Good story, Bud. Keep 'em comin'.:lol:

[Drace]

Was this somehow suppose to justify imperialism and poverty on a massive scale?


I'm not denying there isn't a correlation. I just think that people are psychologically programed by sociey to fail--not that society in any way actually physically hampers those who wish to succeed.

If it is on the basis philosophy you wish to argue on, I will throw at you the idea of determinism, lack of free will and John Locke's "blank mind" theory.
Technically, we all have our destinies chosen at the birth of the universe.
But such a conclusion is not tolerated in politics. So I will make my argument on a social/political basis.

People are not psychologically programmed by society to fail, but rather economically and politically by the capitalist system. Economic structure influences people's behavior and also places obstacles in their success. While I am not bound to be poor at birth, I am put multiple steps back from someone who is more economically advantaged. Hell, this was even true in feudal society.
Its like using the exception of Joan of Arc to say that you can be successful in feudal society if you tried hard enough.

It is fucking retarded to say humans have the total choice of whether they want to be successful or not.

Can someone help write an article on this so we can just give a link instead of replying to this shit seriously every time. Or do you all just prefer making jokes every time this shit comes up?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Like you, I don't measure economic success solely by GDP. So a decent cut in GDP wouldn't bother me that much. The problem is that I think the economy would be destroyed with the implementation of socialism.
But history has proven that socialism can produce an economy at least as good as that of the USSR. Granted, the USSR wasn't exactly a shining beacon of high living standards, but its economy was growing - and growing faster than Western economies until 1980, I might add - so, eventually, it could have reached whatever arbitrarily high level of wealth makes you happy.

So, as far as I can see, the economic price of socialism will be - at most - a delay in reaching whatever level of total wealth you want to reach.

Even Mises conceded in his 1920 essay that his argument would only be valid against those socialists who expect socialism to bring about a land of plenty - not against those socialists who subscribe to "ascetic ideals". Presumably, "ascetic ideals" do not involve the total destruction of the economy, so Mises conceded that his argument did not imply the sort of apocalyptic consequences you seem to predict for socialism. And that was back when it was still possible to claim, as Mises did, that the Soviet experiment could never succeed in creating economic growth. But it did succeed. It succeeded beyond all expectations.

Historical reality refutes any argument which claims that the performance of any planned economy must be somewhere below the actual observed performance of the Soviet economy.

[Ele'ill]

Why should I have to work so hard for a house?

Actually I don't, I work that hard for fucking FOOD.

[Kayser_Soso]

Been to SU in the 80s three times stood in lines for coffee and meat. Anyway--the woman in the article did well. I'm proud of her.

:(


Guess what, today in Russia you STILL stand in line for things, only now they are overpriced, like everything else you pay for, the social health network is devastated, and the country is literally dying due to its demographics.

[Kayser_Soso]

Even if it were true that workers were being exploited, I would still support the so called exploitation of workers because I think the alternatives would be far worse.

That workers are exploited is an objective fact. It's not a debatable point. What is debatable is if Marx's theory of exploitation is actually to easy on the capitalist, because it only deals with necessary and surplus labor time. Things like humiliation in the workplace cannot be objectively measured.

And yes, the alternative would be worse- for you.



Now, I don't actually think workers are being exploited, but lets just that assume they are.

Some people think this Jewish carpenter died to save us from the wrath of...himself.



If we were adopt socialism or basically any ideology most people here support, I don't think it could deliver the type of life style to which I have become accustomed.

Well that depends? Are you accustomed to ending up in a work camp forced to actually produce for your meal ticket in life? Again, it all depends on your actual class, which can't be verified online, but the bottom line is that socialist revolution or not, people will always have to deal with lifestyle changes they aren't accustomed to.



I enjoy being rich (by historical standards) far too much to give it up just so we can say workers aren't being "exploited."

Which is why you wouldn't have to give it up. It will be taken from you.



Sure, equality would be nice, but I think true material equality can only be achieved at the expense of the economy as a whole. The same goes for the forced elimination of wage labor or the implementation of socialism. It is all about weighing the pro's and the con's.

Socialism is not about equality of wealth, but equality of opportunity. People will get from society what they put into it. By paying people the value of what they produce, and dividing any surplus value amongst themselves, the great majority under capitalism get a huge raise.

[Skooma Addict]

But history has proven that socialism can produce an economy at least as good as that of the USSR. Granted, the USSR wasn't exactly a shining beacon of high living standards, but its economy was growing - and growing faster than Western economies until 1980, I might add - so, eventually, it could have reached whatever arbitrarily high level of wealth makes you happy.I don't think the U.S.S.R. was actually a socialist country. But even if it was, then it is yet another example showing how socialism utterly fails to achieve equality of materiel wealth or equality of opportunity. It is also further evidence that a socialist state will degrade into a dictatorship of some sort. I don't know how you are measuring economic growth, but capitalist countries in the past have destroyed the U.S.S.R in terms of growth.


Even Mises conceded in his 1920 essay that his argument would only be valid against those socialists who expect socialism to bring about a land of plenty - not against those socialists who subscribe to "ascetic ideals". Presumably, "ascetic ideals" do not involve the total destruction of the economy, so Mises conceded that his argument did not imply the sort of apocalyptic consequences you seem to predict for socialism. And that was back when it was still possible to claim, as Mises did, that the Soviet experiment could never succeed in creating economic growth. But it did succeed. It succeeded beyond all expectations.Mises thought that socialism would degrade into syndicalism. I don't agree with him on that point, but I do agree with him that socialism will fail to achieve its goals. Mises thought socialism would lead to an economic collapse.

Socialists have an even better economist to deal with though. F.A. Hayek, the greatest economist of the 20th century (and a former Socialist), showed how socialism suffers from a knowledge problem. All availible knowledge cannot be used by a single central entity. Knowledge is necessarily dispersed among the entire population. Here is a very short (3 min) video of Hayek explaining the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNbYdbf3EEc

[Demogorgon]

Socialists have an even better economist to deal with though. F.A. Hayek, the greatest economist of the 20th century, showed how socialism suffers from a knowledge problem. All availible knowledge cannot be used by a single central entity. Knowledge is necessarily dispersed among the entire population. Here is a very short (3 min) video of Hayek explaining the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNbYdbf3EEc
Hayek the greatest economist? That is some claim. He is probably the only Austrian Economist with any credibility. But the best? I think not.

Anyway as for his argument there, it is actually a reasonable argument, a good one even, unfortunately it isn't an argument against what he wants to attack. It is an argument against centralisation, not socialism. This isn't unique to Hayek of course, anyone who observed the Soviet Union could tell you easily enough that the problem was the planners simply didn't have enough knowledge about what was going on to provide an efficient plan, but I will concede that he describes it well enough. There are two things he ignores though. First of all socialism does not have to be centralised and secondly capitalism is not necessarily decentralised.

Indeed a major problem we are seeing in modern capitalism is that firms expand far beyond their point of efficiency leading to waste and of course these very big firms are often very centralised themselves. Let's take Royal Dutch Shell as an example, the largest company in the world I believe. Indeed if it were a country it would have the twenty-fourth largest economy in the world. And of course its management structure isn't involving decentralised autonomy, an internal market or whatever, it actually has a very rigid form of governance. If a country were to have that level of control you would be outraged.

As it is it suffers from the problems Hayek describes as its managers cannot possibly have perfect knowledge of what is going on. You get that in all large companies of course and that is why if you work for them you will often by subject to bizarre and counter productive instructions "from head office" or whatever. Anyway as the largest company in the world Royal Dutch Shell can hardly be described as failing, but then again nor could the Soviet Union, however it does of course suffer from a lot of waste and inefficiency and is a perfect example of capitalism producing the sort of oversized company that suffers from exactly the sort of problems Hayek describes.

Socialism on the other hand doesn't have to be centralised whereas capitalism really doesn't have much of a choice.

[Skooma Addict]

Anyway as for his argument there, it is actually a reasonable argument, a good one even, unfortunately it isn't an argument against what he wants to attack. It is an argument against centralisation, not socialism. This isn't unique to Hayek of course, anyone who observed the Soviet Union could tell you easily enough that the problem was the planners simply didn't have enough knowledge about what was going on to provide an efficient plan, but I will concede that he describes it well enough. There are two things he ignores though. First of all socialism does not have to be centralised and secondly capitalism is not necessarily decentralised.I don't see how socialism could work if it were not centralized.


Indeed a major problem we are seeing in modern capitalism is that firms expand far beyond their point of efficiency leading to waste and of course these very big firms are often very centralized themselves. Let's take Royal Dutch Shell as an example, the largest company in the world I believe. Indeed if it were a country it would have the twenty-fourth largest economy in the world. And of course its management structure isn't involving decentralised autonomy, an internal market or whatever, it actually has a very rigid form of governance. If a country were to have that level of control you would be outraged. I suspect that Shell owes a lot of its size to government interference in the economy. I haven't studied the case or anything, but whenever I see a large oil company, I have to be suspicious. In a market, a firm will fail if it expands too quickly or if it becomes too big.

Regardless, the reason why the knowledge problem applies to Socialism but not to Shell is that Shell operates under the markets price system, while socialism does not. The price system is what coordinates peoples dispersed knowledge. For example, if many people speculate that the price of grain will go up, a farmer who is unaware of this speculation will discover that he can sell grain at a higher price than before, so more farmers will harvest grain. In order to avoid the knowledge problem, Socialism needs something to replace the markets price system.

It is probably true that a very large corporation may suffer from what we could call a "knowledge problem." In fact, I think it is one of the reasons why natural monopolies are not possible and are bound to fail in a free market. But I think that as long as the markets price mechanism is in tact, then capitalism will for the most part avoid the knowledge problem.

[RedStarOverChina]

And can you explain to me what Communism or Socialism has ever done to help people being killed by of milaria or hunger? Got some examples?
I've got one. Back in the 1940s, my grandmother was toiling in a infamous migrants' slum in Qingdao, working as a child slave labourer first for the Japanese, and then for the KMT officials who took over her factory. Tuberculosis (if I recall correctly) wiped out much of her family, including her parents and three siblings. They couldn't afford the medicine. What was left of her family survived by eating rotten cucumbers. To this day, she believed that the cucumbers saved her life, and naturally forces us to eat a couple of them everyday.

She survived on for just long enough by stealing bits of thread from the factories which was then under the corrupt and negligent KMT officials. Then the Chinese Liberation Army occupied the city in 1949.

Soon afterwards, she learned to read and write and became a friggin' doctor.

[Kayser_Soso]

I don't think the U.S.S.R. was actually a socialist country. But even if it was, then it is yet another example showing how socialism utterly fails to achieve equality of materiel wealth or equality of opportunity.

Socialist countries should primarily be compared with how they were before they became socialist, not with leading capitalist nations that had a long head start. They may also be compared with their post socialist existence.

The plain fact is that it is capitalism that fails according to the criteria you put forth. Like Parenti says- Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor(and must necessarily be so for that minority to prosper).



It is also further evidence that a socialist state will degrade into a dictatorship of some sort. I don't know how you are measuring economic growth, but capitalist countries in the past have destroyed the U.S.S.R in terms of growth.

First of all, all states are forms of a dictatorship. Second, you are welcome to name those capitalist states that "destroyed" the USSR in terms of growth.



Mises thought that socialism would degrade into syndicalism. I don't agree with him on that point, but I do agree with him that socialism will fail to achieve its goals. Mises thought socialism would lead to an economic collapse.

And it didn't- it actually led to just the opposite. What destroyed the Soviet economy was not its planning, but rather its lack of planning with increased market-style reforms beginning under Khruschev.



Socialists have an even better economist to deal with though. F.A. Hayek, the greatest economist of the 20th century (and a former Socialist), showed how socialism suffers from a knowledge problem.

If he's the greatest economist of the 20th century, Vanilla Ice is the greatest musician of that same century.



All availible knowledge cannot be used by a single central entity. Knowledge is necessarily dispersed among the entire population. Here is a very short (3 min) video of Hayek explaining the problem.


Hayek's little theory is disproven by some real world attempts at centralized planning, such as that developed in Chile(and subsequently destroyed in the coup). Paul Cockshott has dealt directly with Hayek's claims on this matter, and conveniently he posts on this board.

[Skooma Addict]

Socialist countries should primarily be compared with how they were before they became socialist, not with leading capitalist nations that had a long head start. They may also be compared with their post socialist existence.No, socialist countries need to be looked at primarily in their own terms. We can't just compare them with how they were before they were socialist. We can take that into consideration, but it is not a sufficient condition for adequately analyzing a country. The U.S.S.R. degraded into a qausi-dictatorship, just like practically every other major attempt to achieve communism. It also failed to create a classless society, or an egalitarian society, or a society with any of the values that socialists adhere to.


First of all, all states are forms of a dictatorship. Second, you are welcome to name those capitalist states that "destroyed" the USSR in terms of growth.Not all states are dictatorships unless your abusing the term. America destroyed the U.S.S.R in terms of growth on multiple occasions in it's history. But sheer growth isn't everything. America was also a far more just society than the U.S.S.R.


And it didn't- it actually led to just the opposite. What destroyed the Soviet economy was not its planning, but rather its lack of planning with increased market-style reforms beginning under Khruschev.The U.S.S.R. was doomed from the start. To the extent that the reforms by Khruschev were market reforms, they were helpful.


If he's the greatest economist of the 20th century, Vanilla Ice is the greatest musician of that same century.Hayek was great for his contributions to economics, but also because he didn't mind changing his opinion on an issue. He was actually very influential on neoclassical economists. The way he carried himself was very admirable. Can you point out for me a good socialist economist who lived in the 20th century?

[Paul Cockshott]

No, socialist countries need to be looked at primarily in their own terms. We can't just compare them with how they were before they were socialist. We can take that into consideration, but it is not a sufficient condition for adequately analyzing a country. The U.S.S.R. ... failed to create a classless society, or an egalitarian society, or a society with any of the values that socialists adhere to.

Is that so.

How about:
the ideal that health care should be available to all
the ideal that higher education should be free and available to those of humble social class
the ideal that there should be no unemployment
the ideal that there should be no profit income

You may not like these ideals but many socialists do and that is why many of them admired what the USSR had achieved.



Can you point out for me a good socialist economist who lived in the 20th century?
Here are 3 for the price of 1
Klaecki, Lange, Kantorovich

[Paul Cockshott]

Typo that should read Kalecki

[Demogorgon]

I don't see how socialism could work if it were not centralized.If I launch into this again I will sound like a broken record, but come on, this is an argument that has come up dozens of times here. And even if you've never taken part in this one before you must at least realise that the word socialism covers a pretty broad range of ideologies ranging from anarchism with no centralisation at all to the centralised models like the Soviet Union (and that is using the word very loosely). Now obviously you might think the anarchical models won't work and I would tend to agree but there is still a wide range of different proposals as to how to organise an economy and much in the way of real world economic analysis to determine exactly how these policies would work out.


I suspect that Shell owes a lot of its size to government interference in the economy. I haven't studied the case or anything, but whenever I see a large oil company, I have to be suspicious. In a market, a firm will fail if it expands too quickly or if it becomes too big.Pavlov's dog. :lol: We weren't talking about Government here, we were talking about capitalism and socialism. I know the second any failure of capitalism comes up you cry "Government" as an instinctive reaction but given capitalism has never existed without Government we are going to have to assume for now that it is an intrinsic part of it.


Regardless, the reason why the knowledge problem applies to Socialism but not to Shell is that Shell operates under the markets price system, while socialism does not. The price system is what coordinates peoples dispersed knowledge. For example, if many people speculate that the price of grain will go up, a farmer who is unaware of this speculation will discover that he can sell grain at a higher price than before, so more farmers will harvest grain. In order to avoid the knowledge problem, Socialism needs something to replace the markets price system. That doesn't answer my point at all. You are talking about the market system but there usually isn't a functioning market system within companies which means very large companies will not have that means of utilising the knowledge spread out within the firm. By the logic we have hear-that planning becomes less and less feasible-the more spread out knowledge is, then very large companies will function worse in their internal dealings than small countries utilising planning.


It is probably true that a very large corporation may suffer from what we could call a "knowledge problem." In fact, I think it is one of the reasons why natural monopolies are not possible and are bound to fail in a free market. But I think that as long as the markets price mechanism is in tact, then capitalism will for the most part avoid the knowledge problem.Yes, yes, we know, in the hypothetical world where Government vanishes Capitalism will suddenly alter and all the rules it plays by now will change. Fact is, we have never had a capitalist market of one kind or another without Government and I am pretty certain never will. To get a clue as to what might happen though, we can look at what happens in areas with less Government intervention. Surprise, surprise, what we see there is oligopoly hell. Hong Kong being a good example.

You want to know the best thing about Hayek incidentally? He wasn't afraid to consider all possibilities and did not resort to simply making things up and declaring them to be a priori truths. Whether that means he could still be considered an Austrian or not, I don't know, but damn sure none of the others ever followed him and that is why we keep hearing these outlandish claims about government being contrary to capitalism and so forth.

Incidentally even if you won't listen to me, at least have a read at Nozick. He gives a nauseatingly pro-capitalist account of why anarcho-capitalism will never happen. You might be able to accept it.

[Skooma Addict]

Is that so.

How about:
the ideal that health care should be available to all
the ideal that higher education should be free and available to those of humble social class
the ideal that there should be no unemployment
the ideal that there should be no profit income

You may not like these ideals but many socialists do and that is why many of them admired what the USSR had achieved.


Well I was thinking more in terms of general ideals. Equality for example. But ill retract my statement anyways.


Here are 3 for the price of 1
Klaecki, Lange, Kantorovich

I recognize Oscar Lange for his failed attempt to explain how a socialist economy could rationally allocate resources. I don't know who the other two are though.

[Skooma Addict]

If I launch into this again I will sound like a broken record, but come on, this is an argument that has come up dozens of times here. And even if you've never taken part in this one before you must at least realise that the word socialism covers a pretty broad range of ideologies ranging from anarchism with no centralisation at all to the centralised models like the Soviet Union (and that is using the word very loosely). Now obviously you might think the anarchical models won't work and I would tend to agree but there is still a wide range of different proposals as to how to organise an economy and much in the way of real world economic analysis to determine exactly how these policies would work out.

Right, I don't think the anarchical models would work. Some kind of central authority has to be in place and so far I see no reason to assume otherwise. It also appears that you agree with me here.


Pavlov's dog. :lol: We weren't talking about Government here, we were talking about capitalism and socialism. I know the second any failure of capitalism comes up you cry "Government" as an instinctive reaction but given capitalism has never existed without Government we are going to have to assume for now that it is an intrinsic part of it.

We can assume that if you want. I don't agree but I will go along with that. It is the biggest company in the world, and it is an oil company. I think it is safe to assume that it gets some major benefits form multiple governments. I honestly don't think that is unreasonable to assume.


That doesn't answer my point at all. You are talking about the market system but there usually isn't a functioning market system within companies which means very large companies will not have that means of utilising the knowledge spread out within the firm. By the logic we have hear-that planning becomes less and less feasible-the more spread out knowledge is, then very large companies will function worse in their internal dealings than small countries utilising planning.

This can become a problem if a company gets too big. Some companies can attempt to overcome this with economies of scale. But yes, if a company gets too big, it will fail.


Yes, yes, we know, in the hypothetical world where Government vanishes Capitalism will suddenly alter and all the rules it plays by now will change. Fact is, we have never had a capitalist market of one kind or another without Government and I am pretty certain never will. To get a clue as to what might happen though, we can look at what happens in areas with less Government intervention. Surprise, surprise, what we see there is oligopoly hell. Hong Kong being a good example.

You yourself admitted that companies can suffer from a knowledge problem. Do you think they would then fail if they got too big? It just looks like you have given me an argument for the claim that natural monopolies cannot occur.


You want to know the best thing about Hayek incidentally? He wasn't afraid to consider all possibilities and did not resort to simply making things up and declaring them to be a priori truths. Whether that means he could still be considered an Austrian or not, I don't know, but damn sure none of the others ever followed him and that is why we keep hearing these outlandish claims about government being contrary to capitalism and so forth.


This doesn't Make sense. There were plenty of other Austrians like Hayek. Schumpter and Ropke are just two that come to mind.


Incidentally even if you won't listen to me, at least have a read at Nozick. He gives a nauseatingly pro-capitalist account of why anarcho-capitalism will never happen. You might be able to accept it.

I don't know if this will surprise you but I am not in reality an anarcho-capitalist. For lack of a better term, I would call myself a skeptic. I have not found a single form of government that I could support, while at the same time I have my own (and I believe very good) reasons for refraining from supporting anarchism. I just argue for AnCap because I used to be one and I haven't flat out rejected it. Arguing for it helps me understand it better.

As for Nozick, he has always been someone who I wanted to read. Gotta get around to it.

[Bud Struggle]

Is that so.

How about:
the ideal that health care should be available to all
the ideal that higher education should be free and available to those of humble social class
the ideal that there should be no unemployment
the ideal that there should be no profit income

You may not like these ideals but many socialists do and that is why many of them admired what the USSR had achieved.


All lovely ideals but the most spectacular thing about the Soviet Union wasn't the quality of the ideals, but how far the the Soviets really were from achieveing them.

The best example of the true nature of the Soviet Union's structure was the seamless ease with which the bureaucrats and leaders of the state fell into being Capitalists businessmen and entrepreneaurs when the Soviet Union disolved.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't think the U.S.S.R. was actually a socialist country.
I agree that the USSR was not a socialist country. But it did have a planned economy, and economic planning is the aspect of socialism that you object to.


But even if it was, then it is yet another example showing how socialism utterly fails to achieve equality of materiel wealth or equality of opportunity.
Excuse me? The USSR and other similar countries had significantly higher levels of material equality than any capitalist economies can produce today. Consider, for example, these Gini Index estimates (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gin_ind-economy-gini-index&date=1988) for 1988 (using modern borders):

Turkmenistan: 26.39
Kyrgyzstan: 26.01
Kazakhstan: 25.74
Uzbekistan: 24.95
Moldova: 24.14
Russia: 23.8
Ukraine: 23.31
Estonia: 22.97
Croatia: 22.78
Belarus: 22.76
Latvia: 22.49
Lithuania: 22.48
Slovakia: 19.54
Czech Republic: 19.4

Who can boast of a Gini index below 20.0 today?

Also, equality of opportunity was very high in the Soviet-style system. This was due to a large extent to the fact that education was equal and freely available to all (my grandfather, for example, was only able to attend university thanks to the abolition of all fees in 1948).


It is also further evidence that a socialist state will degrade into a dictatorship of some sort.
No. The USSR did not degrade into a dictatorship. It was a dictatorship before it had economic planning.

If you want to provide evidence that a socialist state will degrade into a dictatorship of some sort, you need to show me a socialist state that began as a democracy and then turned into a dictatorship over time. The effect must follow the cause. In the Soviet case, according to you, the "effect" (dictatorship) preceded the "cause" (economic planning). That is why your thesis is wrong.


I don't know how you are measuring economic growth, but capitalist countries in the past have destroyed the U.S.S.R in terms of growth.
You must be joking. The USSR achieved higher growth than the United States for the entire period from 1930 to the mid-70s.

I am at work right now and don't have access to my sources, but when I get home I will post them.


Socialists have an even better economist to deal with though. F.A. Hayek, the greatest economist of the 20th century (and a former Socialist), showed how socialism suffers from a knowledge problem. All availible knowledge cannot be used by a single central entity. Knowledge is necessarily dispersed among the entire population. Here is a very short (3 min) video of Hayek explaining the problem.
Show? No, he did not show anything. He claimed. He claimed that the nature of most knowledge is such that it cannot be centralized, and furthermore that this non-centralizable knowledge is important enough that the economy would collapse in its absence.

He provided no serious evidence for either of those two assertions. We can accept that yes, some knowledge cannot be centralized. But how much knowledge is of this type? Is there any reason to believe that the amount of non-centralizable knowledge is so great that the economy would collapse if we did not use it? No, there is not.

You Austrians have a talent for identifying phenomena that might cause problems if they were sufficiently widespread, and then proclaiming that they will cause problems without providing any evidence that they are, in fact, sufficiently widespread.

[Pogue]

I think everyone has basically cleared this one up. Whats new, a re-spin on the 'If you try hard enough...' argument. Stunning. I expect the Chinese 14-hour day factory compounds will empty overnight this and by dawn tommorow we'll suddenly have the billions of people who make up the world working class, peasantry and all those who are basically fighting to survive all owning shares in HSBC and owning their own homes.

I honestly think the problems the world faces are going to need a bigger solution than a bit of thrift, maybe I'm just some sort of crazy radical though :lol:

[Luisrah]

I think everyone has basically cleared this one up. Whats new, a re-spin on the 'If you try hard enough...' argument. Stunning. I expect the Chinese 14-hour day factory compounds will empty overnight this and by dawn tommorow we'll suddenly have the billions of people who make up the world working class, peasantry and all those who are basically fighting to survive all owning shares in HSBC and owning their own homes.

I honestly think the problems the world faces are going to need a bigger solution than a bit of thrift, maybe I'm just some sort of crazy radical though :lol:

Lol yeah, I wonder why all those people (a long time ago) in my country that worked for 16 hours a day never got rich.

[Il Medico]

I really don't see what Bud thinks he's on about. This is pretty standard. This is one of the reasons capitalist nations don't have to gun down opposition in the street (all the time anyways), it is not as exclusive of a club. Born a peasant can you ever become a noble? No, but born a poor man could you ever become a capitalist? Yes. Does this mean much? No way. Capitalist society is deigned to let a few in, those who do get in get the benefits of having society geared towards their need, they then spread the idea that anyone can get in.
Capitalism can't let everyone into the club, but it can let a few in, and hence why it has such good propaganda. The "I did it and so can you folks". It is really no different between this and the idea that because X guy won the lottery so can I. If I was to bank my life on that I'd be a fool. The capitalist are hoping that the working class are fools waiting for their capitalist lottery. And the lottery winners like Bud just help the bourgeois fool them.

[Bud Struggle]

The capitalist are hoping that the working class are fools waiting for their capitalist lottery. And the lottery winners like Bud just help the bourgeois fool them.

Except it's not a lottery. If you do certain things--and do them over a period of time it is very likely you will be successful under Capitalism. And by successful I don't mean Bill Gates--but you can be reasonably comfortably middle class and have a good handle on your finances.

You have to stay in school, study things that produce an income, work hard in your job, save your money and invest wisely. And you have to do it for years. That's what the article was about, thrift and work and determination.

[blank]

'story of bud struggles'...
and does this how ends the story end like story of bud dwyer?

[Skooma Addict]

Excuse me? The USSR and other similar countries had significantly higher levels of material equality than any capitalist economies can produce today. Consider, for example, these Gini Index estimates (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gin_ind-economy-gini-index&date=1988) for 1988 (using modern borders):

Turkmenistan: 26.39
Kyrgyzstan: 26.01
Kazakhstan: 25.74
Uzbekistan: 24.95
Moldova: 24.14
Russia: 23.8
Ukraine: 23.31
Estonia: 22.97
Croatia: 22.78
Belarus: 22.76
Latvia: 22.49
Lithuania: 22.48
Slovakia: 19.54
Czech Republic: 19.4

Who can boast of a Gini index below 20.0 today?

Also, equality of opportunity was very high in the Soviet-style system. This was due to a large extent to the fact that education was equal and freely available to all (my grandfather, for example, was only able to attend university thanks to the abolition of all fees in 1948).


My point stands. The U.S.S.R. failed to achieve material equality. The murders got to live on mansions overlooking the Black Sea while their victims went to die in labor camps. There was also not equality of opportunity. If those were the goals, then the U.S.S.R. failed.



No. The USSR did not degrade into a dictatorship. It was a dictatorship before it had economic planning.

If you want to provide evidence that a socialist state will degrade into a dictatorship of some sort, you need to show me a socialist state that began as a democracy and then turned into a dictatorship over time. The effect must follow the cause. In the Soviet case, according to you, the "effect" (dictatorship) preceded the "cause" (economic planning). That is why your thesis is wrong.

Except sometimes dictatorships were overthrown and democracies were born. These democracies did not degrade back into dictatorships. Yet socialism did seem to. The problem is that with socialism you are centralizing power to an unsafe degree. Even if socialism was a new idea that had never been tried before, I would still object and say that there is a good chance that a dictatorship may emerge.



You must be joking. The USSR achieved higher growth than the United States for the entire period from 1930 to the mid-70s.

All I can say is that you should reread what I said. My claim that America destroyed the U.S.S.R. in terms of growth multiple times in it's history is true. America from the 30's to 70's was not exactly a beacon of capitalism. But anyways, I can use examples besides America.


Show? No, he did not show anything. He claimed. He claimed that the nature of most knowledge is such that it cannot be centralized, and furthermore that this non-centralizable knowledge is important enough that the economy would collapse in its absence.

He provided no serious evidence for either of those two assertions. We can accept that yes, some knowledge cannot be centralized. But how much knowledge is of this type? Is there any reason to believe that the amount of non-centralizable knowledge is so great that the economy would collapse if we did not use it? No, there is not.

You Austrians have a talent for identifying phenomena that might cause problems if they were sufficiently widespread, and then proclaiming that they will cause problems without providing any evidence that they are, in fact, sufficiently widespread.

Did you read his article The Problem of Knowledge in Society? All your objections are addressed there. His claims are also backed by the historical evidence.

Here is an unrelated question. Do you know how many innocent people the U.S.S.R. slaughtered in its very short life as a nation?

[Drace]

My point stands. The U.S.S.R. failed to achieve material equality. The murders got to live on mansions overlooking the Black Sea while their victims went to die in labor camps. Saying the leaders lived in luxury is the dumbest political argument ever. To say the leaders had so much wealth that it left none for the people is economically, logically and politically retarded. It is ridiculous to even come from someone that advocates capitalism, where 1% of its population owns 50% of the wealth!
Where Stalin's victims of the gulags were mostly rapists, murderers, thieves, kulaks and other radicals, the victims of capitalism are completely innocent people, many of which die too young to even be able to commit crimes!
Material wealth did not exist in the Soviet Union. Stalin did not own much that was to his benefit besides his personal belongings.

Stalin's official residence was government owned Kremlin, btw! Just like how Obama lives in the White House and Bush owns a mansion in Texas.


There was also not equality of opportunity. If those were the goals, then the U.S.S.R. failed.
You responded with this to a post that refuted the same question?
The USSR had much more fairer opportunity then the US ever did!

Free education, free health care, free housing?

Can the US boast of these things? Where literally the few percentage of the population own massive amounts of the wealth, where education and health care are getting harder to afford, and social programs being cut?


Except sometimes dictatorships were overthrown and democracies were born. These democracies did not degrade back into dictatorships. Yet socialism did seem to. The problem is that with socialism you are centralizing power to an unsafe degree. Even if socialism was a new idea that had never been tried before, I would still object and say that there is a good chance that a dictatorship may emerge.Oh really? How bout the French revolution? Socialism was never established but yet there was a cult made out of Robespierre and later Napoleon took absolute power and became an emperor. This all happened after the monarchy was abolished. It took an overall of 3 revolutions to finally create a Republic.

As of socialism having to be centralized, that was already addressed. But to argue, isn't the US and every other government highly centralized?
The USSR might of had flaws on its government, but to blame this as a fundamental part of socialism?
So, you might say that the USSR only became a dictatorship because its government did not have the "checks and balances" or whatever it is that doesn't allow the US government to become a dictatorship. Unless you want to argue that the US has resulted in a dictatorship because somehow its free markets play a role in people not taking ultimate power?

And "democratic" governments have reverted to dictatorships too.



My claim that America destroyed the U.S.S.R. in terms of growth multiple times in it's history is true. America from the 30's to 70's was not exactly a beacon of capitalism. But anyways, I can use examples besides America.The USSR was established in 1922 on the backbone of a very backwards agricultural society. If you want to compare the efficiency of the socialist system, it is not fair to compare it to the US. It is true that the US was ahead by GPD, though the USSR exceeded it massively in growth. From 1930 to 1940, its economy was increasing by a whopping 16.4%.

That is the only statistic I have right now but given the fact that it started as backwards country and became the second largest economy by 1989, we can see its outstanding growth.



Except it's not a lottery. If you do certain things--and do them over a period of time it is very likely you will be successful under Capitalism. And by successful I don't mean Bill Gates--but you can be reasonably comfortably middle class and have a good handle on your finances.

You have to stay in school, study things that produce an income, work hard in your job, save your money and invest wisely. And you have to do it for years. That's what the article was about, thrift and work and determination.So work your ass off 15x more than a capitalist so you can have a chance at a normal life while they live rich and cozy and throw obstacles in your way :rolleyes:

I think the fact that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth pretty much sums this up? "Oh no, people have their individual rights and they worked hard for their money and they should be able to use it on whatever they desire! That's real freedom!"
Pff, and a dictator in the same way has the the individual right to murder anyone he wishes, right?

The claim that the rich earned it itself cannot go unchallenged. But when you justify the minority owning most of the wealth in the world, and thus creating massive boundaries for the majority to succeed, then it is something completely different.
Its even worse to defend this view in a humanitarian light by saying property is natural right.

The popular use of "succeed" implies the harshness of capitalist society itself. To succeed, essentially to get a degree and a good job, is as an outstanding achievement. Though such a thing should not be hard and its something everyone should be doing.
Though that's not the reality.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Not all states are dictatorships unless your abusing the term.Yes, all states are dictatorships. No one is abusing any terms here, different interpretations are being used. Marxist use the term dictatorship (that is the only meaningful way to use it) to describe the rule of a given class, over the rest of classes in society. The United States is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or capitalist class, while the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat or working class. The use of the term dictatorship by Marxists arises from the historical materialist outlook of society, in that one class rules for it's time, then is overthrown by another class, formerly below the ruling class. What coincides with this act of revolution is a drastic and sweeping change in the foundations of society. When the capitalist merchants, industrialists, and nationalists overthrew the landowning feudal nobles and the hereditary monarchy, they got rid of the dictatorship of the feudal nobles and established their own dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

You on the other hand, use the term dictatorship to describe probably any system of government that does not match up with your idealized version of 'democracy'. You obviously perceive some kind of divide in forms of government, that is "dictatorship vs democracy"; the kind of politics you probably learned in high school. This kind of view is ultimately flawed and anti-materialist. It becomes meaningless to describe one government as a dictatorship, while you refer to the most powerful imperialist countries as "democracies", because you can find many similarities between a wonderful "Western democracy" and some country where the government came to power in a coup. For example a military government will use force to put down opposition, just like the US or any other "western democracy" does.


America destroyed the U.S.S.R in terms of growth on multiple occasions in it's history. But sheer growth isn't everything. America was also a far more just society than the U.S.S.R.Right, the society that practiced racial segregation, fell victim to massive economic depression and unemployment as a result of capitalists own contradictions, and invaded countless countries (killing plenty of people in the process) only to ensure economic investments is surely a just society. Mind you that all this was going on during the USSR's existence; where they had no racial segregation, no aggressive foreign policy or agenda, and managed to revolutionize their economy-lifting people out of poverty and introducing universal employment all while the rest of the world was in the Great Depression.

Also when talking about growth its totally unfair to compare the US to the USSR. The US had since the 1780's to expand westward, carry out primitive accumulation, industrialize, and carry out many invasions of in the Americas to secure markets; while the USSR managed to catch up the average standard of living in the US by maybe the 1950's, that's 30 years. The economic development of Russia and the other republics were decades behind the US before the USSR began implementing the Five Year Plans. It's a pretty weak comparison.


The U.S.S.R. was doomed from the start. To the extent that the reforms by Khruschev were market reforms, they were helpful.
:lol: Tell that to someone working in the agriculture industry at the time.


My point stands.
You haven't made any points, you've merely made a bunch of claims about the Soviet Union being a complete failure, without making a coherent argument.


The U.S.S.R. failed to achieve material equality.No nation in history has done so, and will never do so. Material equality, for one, can mean absolutely anything. Like everybody must watch the same tv, and drive the same car, and live in the same house. But this isn't the goal of socialists and revolutionaries at all.


The murders got to live on mansions overlooking the Black Sea while their victims went to die in labor camps. There was also not equality of opportunity. If those were the goals, then the U.S.S.R. failed.Nice, when you can't make an actual argument you resort to ad-hominem and ridiculous slurs. Typical really, I don't care for it much.

About equality of opportunity; in this aspect the USSR was much better than the US. In the US you can become a fucking millionaire if your born into wealth or get lucky, while the overwhelming majority work everyday to scrape out a living. In the USSR you couldn't get rich, but you had access to education, health care, and guaranteed employment....for everyone. You can't say this about any "western country".




Except sometimes dictatorships were overthrown and democracies were born. These democracies did not degrade back into dictatorships. Yet socialism did seem to. The problem is that with socialism you are centralizing power to an unsafe degree. Even if socialism was a new idea that had never been tried before, I would still object and say that there is a good chance that a dictatorship may emerge.
So political power is not centralized to an unsafe degree in the US for example? :laugh:

All of your claims are like a house of cards, built on sand, on a windy day.


All I can say is that you should reread what I said. My claim that America destroyed the U.S.S.R. in terms of growth multiple times in it's history is true. America from the 30's to 70's was not exactly a beacon of capitalism. But anyways, I can use examples besides America. Please do.

Care to demonstrate how America "destroyed" the USSR in terms of "growth". First, "growth" in itself does not automatically mean a rise in living standards and greater equality of wealth; for that you need a planned economy. This growth your talking about is most likely capitalists getting fatter pockets. On the contrary, the economic growth of the USSR during the 1930's specifically revolutionized the entire economy of the various republics of the USSR.





Here is an unrelated question. Do you know how many innocent people the U.S.S.R. slaughtered in its very short life as a nation?No, and you don't either.

Unrelated (or actually it's very related) question. Do you know how many people's lives were ended through the barrels of US guns? (not counting all the people who've bought guns from the US government and subsequently killed people)? How many countries have been invaded by your idealized bastion of democracy? How many governments have been toppled only to be replaced by a military officer on an American leash?

Please, if your going to go along with this argument at least try and catch the most glaring contradiction of them all.

[Skooma Addict]

Saying the leaders lived in luxury is the dumbest political argument ever. To say the leaders had so much wealth that it left none for the people is economically, logically and politically retarded. It is ridiculous to even come from someone that advocates capitalism, where 1% of its population owns 50% of the wealth!
Where Stalin's victims of the gulags were mostly rapists, murderers, thieves, kulaks and other radicals, the victims of capitalism are completely innocent people, many of which die too young to even be able to commit crimes!
Material wealth did not exist in the Soviet Union. Stalin did not own much that was to his benefit besides his personal belongings.

Stalin's official residence was government owned Kremlin, btw! Just like how Obama lives in the White House and Bush owns a mansion in Texas.

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I myself do not value equality like socialists do. I don't like to see poor people suffer, but the reason why I want to help them is not to make society more equal. Nothing you said disproves my claim. It is true that the murders lived in mansions overlooking the black sea while their victims died. By the way, over 7 million Ukrainians were murdered in less than 1 year thanks to the Soviet political elite.


You responded with this to a post that refuted the same question?
The USSR had much more fairer opportunity then the US ever did!

Free education, free health care, free housing?

Can the US boast of these things? Where literally the few percentage of the population own massive amounts of the wealth, where education and health care are getting harder to afford, and social programs being cut?

I do not value equality of opportunity itself. But again, my point was that the U.S.S.R did not have equality of opportunity. You referring to the U.S. is just a red herring.


Oh really? How bout the French revolution? Socialism was never established but yet there was a cult made out of Robespierre and later Napoleon took absolute power and became an emperor. This all happened after the monarchy was abolished. It took an overall of 3 revolutions to finally create a Republic.

As of socialism having to be centralized, that was already addressed. But to argue, isn't the US and every other government highly centralized?
The USSR might of had flaws on its government, but to blame this as a fundamental part of socialism?
So, you might say that the USSR only became a dictatorship because its government did not have the "checks and balances" or whatever it is that doesn't allow the US government to become a dictatorship. Unless you want to argue that the US has resulted in a dictatorship because somehow its free markets play a role in people not taking ultimate power?

And "democratic" governments have reverted to dictatorships too.

Democratic governemnts have reverted to dictatorships, but many were able to overcome their dictators. Attempts at socialism almost always seem to revert to dictatorships. You keep referring to the U.S., and I don't know why. I obviously do not think the U.S. is a dictatorship.


Right, the society that practiced racial segregation, fell victim to massive economic depression and unemployment as a result of capitalists own contradictions, and invaded countless countries (killing plenty of people in the process) only to ensure economic investments is surely a just society. Mind you that all this was going on during the USSR's existence; where they had no racial segregation, no aggressive foreign policy or agenda, and managed to revolutionize their economy-lifting people out of poverty and introducing universal employment all while the rest of the world was in the Great Depression.

Also when talking about growth its totally unfair to compare the US to the USSR. The US had since the 1780's to expand westward, carry out primitive accumulation, industrialize, and carry out many invasions of in the Americas to secure markets; while the USSR managed to catch up the average standard of living in the US by maybe the 1950's, that's 30 years. The economic development of Russia and the other republics were decades behind the US before the USSR began implementing the Five Year Plans. It's a pretty weak comparison.

Lol at the bold part. I do think America had a more just society in spite of the racial segregation and the like. Really no part in arguing this point though so we will have to agree to disagree.


No nation in history has done so, and will never do so. Material equality, for one, can mean absolutely anything. Like everybody must watch the same tv, and drive the same car, and live in the same house. But this isn't the goal of socialists and revolutionaries at all.

By material equality I mean everyone is fairly equal when it comes to material wealth. They don't all have to own the same things. If the U.S.S.R. was trying to achieve this, then it failed.


Nice, when you can't make an actual argument you resort to ad-hominem and ridiculous slurs. Typical really, I don't care for it much.

About equality of opportunity; in this aspect the USSR was much better than the US. In the US you can become a fucking millionaire if your born into wealth or get lucky, while the overwhelming majority work everyday to scrape out a living. In the USSR you couldn't get rich, but you had access to education, health care, and guaranteed employment....for everyone. You can't say this about any "western country".

Well you made it apparent that you don't know what an ad-hominum is. SO I will just ignore that point.

Again you compare the U.S.S.R. with the U.S. I agree that equality of opportunity was better in the U.S.S.R. But there still wasn't equality of opportunity.


So political power is not centralized to an unsafe degree in the US for example? :laugh:

All of your claims are like a house of cards, built on sand, on a windy day.

Not to the extent that it was centralized in the U.S.S.R. I shouldn't have to tell you this.


Care to demonstrate how America "destroyed" the USSR in terms of "growth". First, "growth" in itself does not automatically mean a rise in living standards and greater equality of wealth; for that you need a planned economy. This growth your talking about is most likely capitalists getting fatter pockets. On the contrary, the economic growth of the USSR during the 1930's specifically revolutionized the entire economy of the various republics of the USSR.

You don't need a planned economy to have a rise in living standards as shown by almost every increase in living standards recorded throughout history.


Unrelated (or actually it's very related) question. Do you know how many people's lives were ended through the barrels of US guns? (not counting all the people who've bought guns from the US government and subsequently killed people)? How many countries have been invaded by your idealized bastion of democracy? How many governments have been toppled only to be replaced by a military officer on an American leash?

My idealized bastion of democracy? No wonder your so confused.

[Skooma Addict]

So I meant to respond to Kitty and Drace separately, but I accidentaly ended up mixing my replies together. But anyways.


The USSR was established in 1922 on the backbone of a very backwards agricultural society. If you want to compare the efficiency of the socialist system, it is not fair to compare it to the US. It is true that the US was ahead by GPD, though the USSR exceeded it massively in growth. From 1930 to 1940, its economy was increasing by a whopping 16.4%.

That is the only statistic I have right now but given the fact that it started as backwards country and became the second largest economy by 1989, we can see its outstanding growth.

The US was established on the backbone of...well...nothing. Yet the U.S. began to prosper very quickly.

[Drace]

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I myself do not value equality like socialists do. I don't like to see poor people suffer, but the reason why I want to help them is not to make society more equal. Well maybe you fuckin should value equality. Were not aiming for everyone to have the same amount of money here.
But the scale of the inequality capitalism has created is just disgusting.
Just how do you plan to help the poor without giving up the wealth of the capitalists?


Nothing you said disproves my claim. It is true that the murders lived in mansions overlooking the black sea while their victims died. By the way, over 7 million Ukrainians were murdered in less than 1 year thanks to the Soviet political elite.The image your trying to portray is "OMFG STALIN WAS LIVING LUXURIOUSLY RICH OFF THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE WHILE DELIBERATELY KILLING EVERYONE AND STARVIN EM TO DEATH"
As of the Ukrainian famine, it is ridiculous to say that it was murder or even to say it was the fault of Stalin. And 8 million deaths is a rather high estimate.
Go read up on Mark Tauger.

And I did argue on your claim that Stalin was a supreme murderer.
I said

Where Stalin's victims of the gulags were mostly rapists, murderers, thieves, kulaks and other radicals, the victims of capitalism are completely innocent people, many of which die too young to even be able to commit crimes!

You ignored it.


I do not value equality of opportunity itself. But again, my point was that the U.S.S.R did not have equality of opportunity. You referring to the U.S. is just a red herring.Can you address the god dam points? You keep back tracking. "Oh the Soviet Union did not have equal opportunity" *evidence* "well I dont care about opportunity...*insert insult here* "


Democratic governemnts have reverted to dictatorships, but many were able to overcome their dictators. Attempts at socialism almost always seem to revert to dictatorships. You keep referring to the U.S., and I don't know why. I obviously do not think the U.S. is a dictatorship.My point is that there is no blame on socialism for why dictatorships have arisen in the attempts to create socialism.

You argued that centralization will lead to dictatorship, but I mentioned the US and every other government as being a centralized state that hasn't reverted to dictatorship. Sure, not economically, but politically the power resides in the government. And there no evidence to argue that a socialist economy will impose a dictatorship in the government.


By material equality I mean everyone is fairly equal when it comes to material wealth. They don't all have to own the same things. If the U.S.S.R. was trying to achieve this, then it failed.Whatever it was trying to achieve that or not, it does not matter. The point still stands. The USSR had more opportunity then the US does.


My idealized bastion of democracy? No wonder your so confused. The US intervention in many countries and spilled much blood in the name of "Democracy".
Do you intentionally ignore everything that you cant respond to and only one take one the statements made and slur out of it?
You change your stance and arguments so much I don't even know even remember what the initial argument was.


The US was established on the backbone of...well...nothing. Yet the U.S. began to prosper very quickly. Sigh...
It also had an extra 100 years.
And since when did it prosper quickly? As shown, the USSR was outperforming it in growth.

[Skooma Addict]

Well maybe you fuckin should value equality. Were not aiming for everyone to have the same amount of money here.
But the scale of the inequality capitalism has created is just disgusting.
Just how do you plan to help the poor without giving up the wealth of the capitalists?By providing an economic system that allows for living standards to rise very quickly. By not allowing emotions to get in the way when it really matters. But no, I do not value equality itself. We could all be dirt poor and equal.


The image your trying to portray is "OMFG STALIN WAS LIVING LUXURIOUSLY RICH OFF THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE WHILE DELIBERATELY KILLING EVERYONE AND STARVIN EM TO DEATH"

As of the Ukrainian famine, it is ridiculous to say that it was murder or even to say it was the fault of Stalin. And 8 million deaths is a rather high estimate.

Go read up on Mark Tauger. You do know their crops were stolen from them correct? Also, it is a well documented fact that Stalin, like Hitler, was a notorious killer.


Can you address the god dam points? You keep back tracking. "Oh the Soviet Union did not have equal opportunity" *evidence* "well I dont care about opportunity...*insert insult here* "That was my whole point. The U.S.S.R. didn't have equality of opportunity. Your red herrings are not the points I need to address.


My point is that there is no blame on socialism for why dictatorships have arisen in the attempts to create socialism.

You argued that centralization will lead to dictatorship, but I mentioned the US and every other government as being a centralized state that hasn't reverted to dictatorship. Sure, not economically, but politically the power resides in the government. And there no evidence to argue that a socialist economy will impose a dictatorship in the government.Socialism is political and economic centralization on a whole new level. Other ideologies have overthrown dictatorships and prospered. Socialism seems unable to do this without reverting back to a dictatorship.



Whatever it was trying to achieve that or not, it does not matter. The point still stands. The USSR had more opportunity then the US does.Correct. I never claimed otherwise.



The US intervention in many countries and spilled much blood in the name of "Democracy".
Do you intentionally ignore everything that you cant respond to and only one take one the statements made and slur out of it?I ignore your red herrings. I never said America was an idealized bastion of democracy.


Sigh...
It also had an extra 100 years.
And since when did it prosper quickly? As shown, the USSR was outperforming it in growth. Sigh...
I was talking about the U.S. that existed right after it was founded. It prospered very quickly right after it was founded. The U.S.S.R. was not outperforming it in growth when the U.S. was at its most capitalistic point. But I don't know how your measuring growth anyways. GDP?


You ignored it.Those were not all of Stalin's victims. Still doesn't justify what Stalin did.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Democratic governemnts have reverted to dictatorships, but many were able to overcome their dictators. Attempts at socialism almost always seem to revert to dictatorships. You keep referring to the U.S., and I don't know why. I obviously do not think the U.S. is a dictatorship.
Which is exactly why your clueless on the subject. Every state is a dictatorship. It's in the very nature of the state. To deny this is to fool yourself.



Lol at the bold part.
You can lol all you want but it doesn't make your side of the discussion any more relevant or accurate.

I do think America had a more just society in spite of the racial segregation and the like. Really no part in arguing this point though so we will have to agree to disagree.

What are you talking about? No point in arguing this point? You keep saying things over and over again about how horrible it supposedly was to live in the USSR but you want to just sweep any accusation against American society? Whats the point in saying anything on here if it isn't to discuss it?

The fact is you can't prove that the US had a "more just society" than the Soviet Union. I don't blame you, it would be pretty hard to prove it had a more just society than almost any country. The thing is, many countries and economic systems have various excesses and problems that occur in spite of attempts to minimize or eradicate a given issue. The real problem is when such excesses and negative conditions like persistent poverty, unemployment, exploitation, racial discrimination and segregation, and countless other things become systematic and arise as a result of the very conditions of a given society. When that happens it's impossible to escape the consequences of maintaining such an organization of society. If you take a sober look at the world today you can plainly see that the above mentioned conditions are quite prevalent.




By material equality I mean everyone is fairly equal when it comes to material wealth. They don't all have to own the same things. If the U.S.S.R. was trying to achieve this, then it failed.

It failed by what standard? By your own?




Well you made it apparent that you don't know what an ad-hominum is. SO I will just ignore that point.


You'll ignore it because you don't know what your talking about.


Again you compare the U.S.S.R. with the U.S. I agree that equality of opportunity was better in the U.S.S.R. But there still wasn't equality of opportunity.
"Equality of opportunity" is not some superficial standard which has to be met within arbitrary conditions.




Not to the extent that it was centralized in the U.S.S.R. I shouldn't have to tell you this.
No you shouldn't because it's not the point. The point is that your claiming that the USSR was some "dictatorship" because political power was centralized to an "unsafe degree". Well if the US is a "democracy" and not a "dictatorship", then how come the US government can initiate imperialist invasions on it's own whim? Why should the president be able to pass or veto a law based on his own opinion or agenda?

Not only is the point of the US government being less "centralized" than the USSR slightly irrelevant; it is also incorrect in it's very perspective. The US and USSR were totally different governments in totally different countries and came about in completely different times and in a completely different manner. There are too many differences to judge whether one is "more centralized" than the other because the degree of centralization does not necessarily also imply the degree of democratic debate or decision making.




You don't need a planned economy to have a rise in living standards as shown by almost every increase in living standards recorded throughout history.
No shit Sherlock, but you've taken what I've said out of context. What I said was that economic growth does not entail increases in living standards. A society would need a planned economy as opposed to a market one in order to directly transfer economic growth into the pockets of the people as a whole. This simply cant happen in a capitalist framework.




My idealized bastion of democracy? No wonder your so confused.
You can dance around my points and call me confused all you want.

When you talk about "innocents being slaughtered" in the USSR, as if it were some kind of plea to sympathize with the working and exploited people's in their country (because you really care about them :rolleyes:), in order to try and paint a picture of pain and suffering to try and amplify your weak politics; it doesn't really work when it can be easily turned the other way around.

If you want to claim that the US is a "democracy" and the USSR is a "dictatorship", in the totally black and white way that you do--then how can you justify the acts of war, murder, exploitation, etc etc that have been perpetrated by the US since it's inception?

You talk about the way the USSR supposedly killed many people within it's short existence, but I really doubt you've got any kind actual statistical information that isn't the Black Book of Communism, or some other kind of anti-communist source. It wouldn't make any difference if you did, because the point is that you accuse dictatorships of being un democratic commiting murder and whatever other claims you've made, but turn a blind eye to the US when it comes to skeletons in the closet.

[Kayser_Soso]

No, socialist countries need to be looked at primarily in their own terms. We can't just compare them with how they were before they were socialist.

Yes we can compare them this way, and this is the fair and logical way to do so.



We can take that into consideration, but it is not a sufficient condition for adequately analyzing a country. The U.S.S.R. degraded into a qausi-dictatorship, just like practically every other major attempt to achieve communism. It also failed to create a classless society, or an egalitarian society, or a society with any of the values that socialists adhere to.

Again, this is the most logical way to analyze a country. It had made a huge stride toward doing so, and due to tactical mistakes backslid.



Not all states are dictatorships unless your abusing the term. America destroyed the U.S.S.R in terms of growth on multiple occasions in it's history.

Yes, all states are class dictatorships. Yes, on OCCASIONS.



But sheer growth isn't everything. America was also a far more just society than the U.S.S.R.

The US had far more experience with Constitutional law, precedent, etc., if that's what you are referring to.



The U.S.S.R. was doomed from the start. To the extent that the reforms by Khruschev were market reforms, they were helpful.[

Inaccurate assumption plus completely wrong.



Hayek was great for his contributions to economics, but also because he didn't mind changing his opinion on an issue. He was actually very influential on neoclassical economists. The way he carried himself was very admirable. Can you point out for me a good socialist economist who lived in the 20th century?

Plekhanov? Kantorovich?

[Skooma Addict]

Which is exactly why your clueless on the subject. Every state is a dictatorship. It's in the very nature of the state. To deny this is to fool yourself.


It boils down to semantics. But your definition of dictatorship makes no sense. Really if 99.9% of the population uses one definition, then it is best to just use that one.


You can lol all you want but it doesn't make your side of the discussion any more relevant or accurate.


The U.S.S.R. had an aggressive foreign policy. I cannot believe you didn't know this.


What are you talking about? No point in arguing this point? You keep saying things over and over again about how horrible it supposedly was to live in the USSR but you want to just sweep any accusation against American society? Whats the point in saying anything on here if it isn't to discuss it?

My conception of justice is radically different than yours. There is no point in arguing this point. I would take racial segregation over the abolition of private property, labor camps, and dictatorship.


You'll ignore it because you don't know what your talking about.

You just don't know what an ad-hominum is apparently. I don't need to respond to false accusations.


No you shouldn't because it's not the point. The point is that your claiming that the USSR was some "dictatorship" because political power was centralized to an "unsafe degree". Well if the US is a "democracy" and not a "dictatorship", then how come the US government can initiate imperialist invasions on it's own whim? Why should the president be able to pass or veto a law based on his own opinion or agenda?

I just don't understand how you fail to comprehend that America is not a dictatorship. You don't have to be a dictator to wage war or veto laws.



Not only is the point of the US government being less "centralized" than the USSR slightly irrelevant; it is also incorrect in it's very perspective. The US and USSR were totally different governments in totally different countries and came about in completely different times and in a completely different manner. There are too many differences to judge whether one is "more centralized" than the other because the degree of centralization does not necessarily also imply the degree of democratic debate or decision making.

The U.S.S.R. was more centralized. This really is common knowledge. I honestly don't care enough at this point to back up my claim.


No shit Sherlock, but you've taken what I've said out of context. What I said was that economic growth does not entail increases in living standards. A society would need a planned economy as opposed to a market one in order to directly transfer economic growth into the pockets of the people as a whole. This simply cant happen in a capitalist framework.

You do not need communism to do this. Again, thousands of years of history for you to look at.


You can dance around my points and call me confused all you want.

When you talk about "innocents being slaughtered" in the USSR, as if it were some kind of plea to sympathize with the working and exploited people's in their country (because you really care about them http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif), in order to try and paint a picture of pain and suffering to try and amplify your weak politics; it doesn't really work when it can be easily turned the other way around.

If you want to claim that the US is a "democracy" and the USSR is a "dictatorship", in the totally black and white way that you do--then how can you justify the acts of war, murder, exploitation, etc etc that have been perpetrated by the US since it's inception?

You talk about the way the USSR supposedly killed many people within it's short existence, but I really doubt you've got any kind actual statistical information that isn't the Black Book of Communism, or some other kind of anti-communist source. It wouldn't make any difference if you did, because the point is that you accuse dictatorships of being un democratic commiting murder and whatever other claims you've made, but turn a blind eye to the US when it comes to skeletons in the closet.

I never said that I support the U.S. or its actions.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes we can compare them this way, and this is the fair and logical way to do so.

Great. So if the worst dictatorship in history is overthrown and replaced by the second worst in history, then we should say that this is success.

[Kayser_Soso]

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I myself do not value equality like socialists do. I don't like to see poor people suffer, but the reason why I want to help them is not to make society more equal. Nothing you said disproves my claim. It is true that the murders lived in mansions overlooking the black sea while their victims died. By the way, over 7 million Ukrainians were murdered in less than 1 year thanks to the Soviet political elite.

Many lower level workers also had dachas or access to recreational vacilities outside of the city. By the way, you might be pleased to find out that 7 million Ukrainians didn't die in one year. Next time look at some population figures before making such an idiotic claim.




I do not value equality of opportunity itself. But again, my point was that the U.S.S.R did not have equality of opportunity. You referring to the U.S. is just a red herring.

Actually it did, or at least far more than the US and most of the world at the time.




Democratic governemnts have reverted to dictatorships, but many were able to overcome their dictators. Attempts at socialism almost always seem to revert to dictatorships. You keep referring to the U.S., and I don't know why. I obviously do not think the U.S. is a dictatorship.

It's a class dictatorship. Notice that there is now virtually no significant difference between the two US parties.



I do think America had a more just society in spite of the racial segregation and the like. Really no part in arguing this point though so we will have to agree to disagree.

You must be white then. You'd have to be not to notice how segregation was replaced with de facto segregation, discrimination, and police brutality to keep black America "in line."




By material equality I mean everyone is fairly equal when it comes to material wealth. They don't all have to own the same things. If the U.S.S.R. was trying to achieve this, then it failed.

It was not trying to achieve this.




Again you compare the U.S.S.R. with the U.S. I agree that equality of opportunity was better in the U.S.S.R. But there still wasn't equality of opportunity.

It would be foolish to think that equality of opportunity is an absolute thing. That being said, the USSR did offer more or less equal opportunity through its educational programs, guaranteed employment(pre 60s), healthcare, and so on.




You don't need a planned economy to have a rise in living standards as shown by almost every increase in living standards recorded throughout history.

No, but you need it in order to not have periodic crisis, imperialism, modern-day slavery, etc.

[Kayser_Soso]

Great. So if the worst dictatorship in history is overthrown and replaced by the second worst in history, then we should say that this is success.

Again, foolish assumptions.

[Skooma Addict]

Actually it did, or at least far more than the US and most of the world at the time.

Okay. I am doing to say this one last time. I will not make any more responses concerning this point. Now read closely.

The. Soviet. Union. Did. Not. Achieve. Equality. Of. Opportunity.

I know that there was more equal opportunity compared to other countries. But there is nothing good about equality of opportunity itself.



It's a class dictatorship. Notice that there is now virtually no significant difference between the two US parties.

The bourgeois do not rule the proletariat. I know you may want to think otherwise, but it isn't that black and white.


You must be white then. You'd have to be not to notice how segregation was replaced with de facto segregation, discrimination, and police brutality to keep black America "in line."

I guess I need to say it again? In spite of racial segregation, I still think America was more just.


It would be foolish to think that equality of opportunity is an absolute thing. That being said, the USSR did offer more or less equal opportunity through its educational programs, guaranteed employment(pre 60s), healthcare, and so on.

It is an absolute thing. It is equality of opportunity. That's what it is. The U.S.S.R. never offered true equality of opportunity. Even if we are going to say that it is impossible, the U.S.S.R. still came nowhere close to achieving what is possible.


No, but you need it in order to not have periodic crisis, imperialism, modern-day slavery, etc.


The U.S.S.R had slavery, imperialism, and periodic crisis.

[mykittyhasaboner]

It boils down to semantics. But your definition of dictatorship makes no sense. Really if 99.9% of the population uses one definition, then it is best to just use that one.

99.9 percent doesn't use the term in the way you do. That's bullshit.

Not like that would be justification to use that term anyway.

It's not semantics its actually the core of the discussion, but you are to dim witted to see that.



The U.S.S.R. had an aggressive foreign policy. I cannot believe you didn't know this.


The USSR's foreign policy and military policy was largely defensive throughout it's history. The only exceptions one could possibly make would be Czechoslovakia and Hungary.



My conception of justice is radically different than yours. There is no point in arguing this point. I would take racial segregation over the abolition of private property, labor camps, and dictatorship.

That's because your a fool.



You just don't know what an ad-hominum is apparently. I don't need to respond to false accusations.
I'm not making any false accusations.




I just don't understand how you fail to comprehend that America is not a dictatorship.
Because every fucking state is a dictatorship. I can't understand how you fail to comprehend that states are based on maintaining the power of the ruling class.


You don't have to be a dictator to wage war or veto laws.
Great strawman. Once again you've completely missed everything and simply write nonsense. The question was whether or not the US governemnt was centralized to an "unsafe degree" not about the US having a "dictator".




The U.S.S.R. was more centralized. This really is common knowledge. I honestly don't care enough at this point to back up my claim.
Your a dunce.




You do not need communism to do this. Again, thousands of years of history for you to look at.

Again you demonastrate your ignorance.



I never said that I support the U.S. or its actions.
Thats also beside the point. You claim the US is not a "dictatorship" and is a democracy". It seems you can't hold a basic discussion without consistently missing the point of the very discussion.

Have fun wasting someone else's time.

[Drace]

Wow Olaf, I think we need to first start with doing addition problems with you before we can discuss politics.


By providing an economic system that allows for living standards to rise very quickly. By not allowing emotions to get in the way when it really matters. But no, I do not value equality itself. We could all be dirt poor and equal.The conditions slaves increased over the time too, is that an argument for slavery too?

Capitalism has not raised the living standards though. For the millionth time I will address the fact that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth.
This mass poverty is nature of capitalism!

What has risen the standards of living is actually the opposition to capitalism. It has been the victory of the labors and the workers over their capitalist oppressors that put in effect the minimum wage, child labor laws, 8 hour day, worker's rights, etc.
You want to know what capitalism was before this, even in America? A 14 hour day where workers were being payed on starving wages and the capitalists were profiting off massively on the exploitation.
This nature of the capitalists has to be understood. They seek to gain as much as profit possible, even if it means lowering wages or even killing people. As Parenti said "There is one thing that they want, and that's everything"


You do know their crops were stolen from them correct? Also, it is a well documented fact that Stalin, like Hitler, was a notorious killer.
[/QUOTE

As of the famine
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1588783&postcount=38

And what are the sources of those documentations? Right wing propaganda from the Cold War and Nazis?

[QUOTE]That was my whole point. The U.S.S.R. didn't have equality of opportunity. Your red herrings are not the points I need to address.
What are you talking about? You said the USSR didnt have equality of opportunity, I provided evidence why it did, and you made the same assertion again and dismissed by point as red herrings? WTF?

And why is referring to the US "red herring". Nothing can be understood unless if its compared with something. By saying that the USSR did not have fair opportunity, your implying that the US does. I argued for both points, that the USSR did have equal opportunity, and that the US didn't. Its not like I ignored your claim.


Socialism is political and economic centralization on a whole new level. Other ideologies have overthrown dictatorships and prospered. Socialism seems unable to do this without reverting back to a dictatorship.Firstly, ideologies don't overthrow dictatorships. People overthrow them in a revolution and then establish a regime based on an ideology. And examples please?

And socialism being centralized has already been addressed. It is not a core element of socialism.


Correct. I never claimed otherwise.
...
"my point was that the U.S.S.R did not have equality of opportunity."


I was talking about the U.S. that existed right after it was founded. It prospered very quickly right after it was founded.

Yea I wonder why. I think it had something to do with killing and driving off 11 million Indians off the land and getting lucky on a cheap deal on the Louisiana Purchase. Oh and...slavery.

As of the industrial revolution age, the people were poor working for low wages with little rights in shitty factories.
It was economically stable, but prosperous?


The U.S.S.R. was not outperforming it in growth when the U.S. was at its most capitalistic point. But I don't know how your measuring growth anyways. GDP?

What do you consider the US's most capitalistic point?
No fundamental economic policy has changed. Its been capitalist since the Industrial Revolution.

Are you defining the "most capitalistic" point the time of which the US was most prosperous lol?

And that particular statistic of 16.5% increase a year was the industrial production.




I never said that I support the U.S. or its actions.

So what do you support? I have no idea what stance your arguing on. You praise capitalism but you don't support the US. At the same time you refer to how prosperous the US and its economy is.

This is ridiculous. Were posting paragraphs of text each and you put up one liner answers for every 5 statements we make.

[Skooma Addict]

This is going to be my last post to Drace and Kitty


Wow Olaf, I think we need to first start with doing addition problems with you before we can discuss politics.

Ad-Hominum


The conditions slaves increased over the time too, is that an argument for slavery too?

No. Did you get that one from Chomsky?


Capitalism has not raised the living standards though. For the millionth time I will address the fact that 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth.
This mass poverty is nature of capitalism!

Today's governments do not pursue a policy of free market capitalism. Even if capitalism did produce those numbers, that alone proves nothing. Living standards of everyone could be rising rapidly.


You want to know what capitalism was before this, even in America? A 14 hour day where workers were being payed on starving wages and the capitalists were profiting off massively on the exploitation.
This nature of the capitalists has to be understood. They seek to gain as much as profit possible, even if it means lowering wages or even killing people. As Parenti said "There is one thing that they want, and that's everything"

Yet the living standards of the workers went up.


What are you talking about? You said the USSR didnt have equality of opportunity, I provided evidence why it did, and you made the same assertion again and dismissed by point as red herrings? WTF?

And why is referring to the US "red herring". Nothing can be understood unless if its compared with something. By saying that the USSR did not have fair opportunity, your implying that the US does. I argued for both points, that the USSR did have equal opportunity, and that the US didn't. Its not like I ignored your claim.

You shouldn't have to appeal to the U.S. to show that the U.S.S.R. had equality of opportunity. But there wasn't equality of opportunity in the U.S.S.R. Compare the political elite to their victims.


...
"my point was that the U.S.S.R did not have equality of opportunity."

I should not have to spell this out for you. You said...

"Whatever it was trying to achieve that or not, it does not matter. The point still stands. The USSR had more opportunity then the US does."

I never claimed otherwise. What I do claim that the U.S.S.R. never had equality of opportunity.


What do you consider the US's most capitalistic point?
No fundamental economic policy has changed. Its been capitalist since the Industrial Revolution.

Its debatable. Maybe the industrial revolution, but there were also earlier times. In the beginning some States were far more capitalist than others.


And that particular statistic of 16.5% increase a year was the industrial production.

Alright, but remember that has nothing to do with prosperity whatsoever.


The USSR's foreign policy and military policy was largely defensive throughout it's history. The only exceptions one could possibly make would be Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Every other country it invaded was defensive?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My point stands. The U.S.S.R. failed to achieve material equality.
What is "material equality?" A Gini index of zero?

The USSR and other societies that copied its model achieved greater material equality than any other industrialized societies in history. Sure, a lot more could have been done, but what they achieved was very impressive for a first try!


The murders got to live on mansions overlooking the Black Sea while their victims went to die in labor camps.
Again, I must point out that the USSR had a lower Gini index than any capitalist society, which means that the differences in wealth between the capitalist murderers and their exploited workers were far greater than the differences between Soviet leaders and Soviet workers.


There was also not equality of opportunity.
...because you say so?

Come on, at least pretend to have some sort of an argument. Here, let me give you a hint. Start by giving a definition of "equality of opportunity."


Except sometimes dictatorships were overthrown and democracies were born. These democracies did not degrade back into dictatorships. Yet socialism did seem to.
Again, I have to remind you that "socialism" did not degrade from democracy to dictatorship. There was no democracy to start with. In fact, if anything, the USSR was far more democratic than Tsarist Russia.


All I can say is that you should reread what I said. My claim that America destroyed the U.S.S.R. in terms of growth multiple times in it's history is true.
Multiple times? Such as...?

Here are the statistics I promised you earlier. Source: Ofer, Gur. "Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985". RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior [American conservative think tank], 1988.

Soviet long-term average growth rates
1928-1980: 4.4% per year
1950-1960: 4.7% per year
1960-1970: 4.2% per year
1970-1980: 3.1% per year

American long-term average growth rates
1950-1980: 3.3% per year
1970-1980: 3.0% per year

West European long-term average growth rates
1950-1980: 4.2% per year
1970-1980: 3.0% per year

The numbers tend to be rather low for all countries and regions involved, because they are average values taken over long periods of time. Individual years would show more variation.

Notice that Soviet growth rates are higher than American and West European growth rates for every studied period. Also, the same source documents the fact that the Soviet economy was catching up to the American economy in terms of GNP. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25% the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40%. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60% threshold.

The source is American, so the numbers can be expected to be biased against the USSR. Notice that the average growth rate for the USSR for the period 1928-1980 is presented (4.4%), but there is no data for capitalist economies before 1950. Interesting, isn't it? I bet it's because they did not want to take into account the Great Depression.


Did you read his article The Problem of Knowledge in Society? All your objections are addressed there. His claims are also backed by the historical evidence.
You mean The Use of Knowledge in Society? I must admit I never got through the whole thing. Austrian methodology is crap, so I'm not terribly interested in the conclusions reached through it. However, I will humor you and read the whole essay some time next week. If you'd care to summarize the main arguments in the mean time, we can discuss them. If not, I will get back to this later.


Here is an unrelated question. Do you know how many innocent people the U.S.S.R. slaughtered in its very short life as a nation?
Do you know how many innocent people suffer and die unnecessarily in capitalism every day? Do you know how many people were slaughtered in imperialist wars between capitalist powers? Do you know how many native inhabitants of the Americas were ruthlessly exterminated by the United States during its glorious laissez-faire golden age? Or how many perished under colonial rule in Africa?

Oh, right, I forgot, your version of "capitalism" never existed in pure form, and therefore never did anything wrong. :rolleyes: Well, I can say the same about socialism and communism, then.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yet the living standards of the workers went up.
The living standards of the workers went up in the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1980. So what's your problem with central planning?

You seem to be saying that rising living standards are the only thing that matters about an economy. Well, planned economies had rising living standards too. So if that's the only thing that matters, why do you oppose planned economies?


But there wasn't equality of opportunity in the U.S.S.R. Compare the political elite to their victims.
Membership in the political elite was achieved by merit. Anyone could join the Communist Party and rise through the ranks. Isn't this kind of "meritocracy" something you love about capitalism?


Every other country it invaded was defensive?
Yes, actually. The USSR acted defensively in the Second World War. And that was the only major international war it ever fought in.


The U.S.S.R. had an aggressive foreign policy.
:lol: Oh, how I wish that were true! But, sadly, the USSR was far too defensive for its own good.

The USSR should have supported the communists in the Greek Civil War. The USSR should have told the French and Italian communists to begin armed insurrections against the capitalist occupiers in 1946, instead of telling them to surrender their weapons and cooperate with the class enemy. The USSR should have helped the German Democratic Republic liberate West Berlin and even the rest of the country (assuming the French and Italian revolutions succeeded).

If the USSR really adopted an aggressive foreign policy, as it should have, there would have been no capitalist governments left in continental Europe by 1950 - except Switzerland, Spain and Portugal (and, of course, the Soviets should have dealt with Franco and liberated Spain a few years later).

The Soviets should have also intervened in the Korean War directly. If they gave the DPRK the little help it needed to finish off the Pusan pocket before the United States had time to use it as a beachhead, the war would have ended much sooner - and with a victory instead of a stalemate.

In any conflict between a greater power and a smaller power, the only hope of victory for the smaller power is to strike first, strike fast, and strike hard. That's what the Japanese tried (and failed) to do at Pearl Harbor. The Soviets should have learned from it. They were foolish to believe the United States could be defeated by attrition.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Funny that the capitalist on this forum has "somehow" managed to come to the conclusion that he got there due to "ambition and hard work", though. Who would of expected that?

Have you recently done a detailed scientific study on this issue, Bud? Because I can't see how you would have the absolutely blinding and offensive arrogance to condemn millions of people as "lazy." compared to the brilliance of your ambition/hard workery.

[Demogorgon]

Right, I don't think the anarchical models would work. Some kind of central authority has to be in place and so far I see no reason to assume otherwise. It also appears that you agree with me here.

I don't think anarchism would work, but I don't support soviet centralisation either. We aren't talking about a binary scale here.


We can assume that if you want. I don't agree but I will go along with that. It is the biggest company in the world, and it is an oil company. I think it is safe to assume that it gets some major benefits form multiple governments. I honestly don't think that is unreasonable to assume.

I think it is bloody obvious they are. They have the power to get what they want, so they will damn well take it. No argument there. Thing is, I see that as perhaps the most fundamental aspect of capitalism. Corporate power will become at least as powerful and usually far more powerful than elected Government. I made a post tying in with this a week or so back.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1616808&postcount=27


This can become a problem if a company gets too big. Some companies can attempt to overcome this with economies of scale. But yes, if a company gets too big, it will fail.

Well there may be a theoretical upper limit at which companies cannot go beyond, but we are seeing companies grow to extraordinary size without failing. And where companies perhaps did fail as they grew too big, they are now getting past that point. Thing is they become very wasteful at this point, but still turn a profit (you could compare it to many of the old Eastern Block countries that had all the problems we have discussed but in terms of what we might call their "external business" they maintained a positive balance of trade and their Governments were able to collect much profit as a result.


You yourself admitted that companies can suffer from a knowledge problem. Do you think they would then fail if they got too big? It just looks like you have given me an argument for the claim that natural monopolies cannot occur.

Ah no, I didn't say they would fail, not until capitalism itself starts coming apart anyway, I said they would stagnate and become hopelessly inefficient. I mean that's what happened to the Soviet Union latterly. It had a bunch of problems that harmed the economy but it didn't collapse. In the end it was its excessive military spending that bankrupted it.


This doesn't Make sense. There were plenty of other Austrians like Hayek. Schumpter and Ropke are just two that come to mind.

I don't know how you can consider Ropke an Austrian. He was friends with Mises as I understand it and worked with him but his ideas were different. He was an architect of the West German welfare state after all. He acknowledged positive liberty and fell more into the bracket of Christian Democracy than anything else. If you are going to cast the net so widely as to make him an Austrian then yes you can get many reputable economists to fall under the banner, but you heavily dilute the meaning of the term if you do.

To be fair though Schumpter wasn't a bad economist either though many of his views were off the wall.

Anyway seeing as I praised Hayek, now time for the criticism, largely in response to your signature. He claimed, principally in "The Road To Serfdom" that welfare states and attempts at equality would lead to tyranny. History flat out proved him irredeemably wrong. The welfare states were generally the most democratic in the world and had the highest levels of even negative liberty. Plain and simple what he predicted magnificently failed to happen.

[Paul Cockshott]

Well I was thinking more in terms of general ideals. Equality for example. But ill retract my statement anyways.



I recognize Oscar Lange for his failed attempt to explain how a socialist economy could rationally allocate resources. I don't know who the other two are though.


Kalecki was a Polish socialist economist, much influenced by Luxemburg who independently of Keynes and at the same time developed a similar theory of the business cycle. Whilst he does not write as well as Keynes, he is admirably clear and concise. After the war he returned to Poland from exile as did Lange and both worked on the theory of socialist planning.

Kantorovich invented linear programming and the theory of its application to socialist planning. He won both the Stalin prize and the Nobel prize for economics. He also played a significant role in the mathematical work required for the Soviet nuclear weapons programme, and worked on the early development of computer programming being similar in these respects to John von Neumann.

[Skooma Addict]

What is "material equality?" A Gini index of zero?

The USSR and other societies that copied its model achieved greater material equality than any other industrialized societies in history. Sure, a lot more could have been done, but what they achieved was very impressive for a first try!
Material equality is when everyone's material possessions are generally equal in value. They don't need to own the exact same things obviously. But as I said, material equality itself doesn't really mean much. We could all be starving and equal.


Again, I must point out that the USSR had a lower Gini index than any capitalist society, which means that the differences in wealth between the capitalist murderers and their exploited workers were far greater than the differences between Soviet leaders and Soviet workers.Well I don't agree with your exploitation theory. But true, the gap between the rich and the poor was greater in other countries.


Soviet long-term average growth rates
1928-1980: 4.4% per year
1950-1960: 4.7% per year
1960-1970: 4.2% per year
1970-1980: 3.1% per year

American long-term average growth rates
1950-1980: 3.3% per year
1970-1980: 3.0% per year

West European long-term average growth rates
1950-1980: 4.2% per year
1970-1980: 3.0% per yearThis is GDP I assume. When I said that America has destroyed the U.S.S.R. in terms of growth, I was referring to the America that existed before any of the dates you listed. But I don't think that growth equals prosperity, especially when you are measuring GDP.

Grouping all west European countries into one category is very misleading.


Notice that Soviet growth rates are higher than American and West European growth rates for every studied period. Also, the same source documents the fact that the Soviet economy was catching up to the American economy in terms of GNP. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25% the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40%. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60% threshold.Are you just assuming that America remained the same throughout that entire period? You are also measuring GNP, which isn't a very useful statistic.



You mean The Use of Knowledge in Society? I must admit I never got through the whole thing. Austrian methodology is crap, so I'm not terribly interested in the conclusions reached through it. However, I will humor you and read the whole essay some time next week. If you'd care to summarize the main arguments in the mean time, we can discuss them. If not, I will get back to this later.Yes, that is what I meant. How is Austrian methodology crap?


Do you know how many innocent people suffer and die unnecessarily in capitalism every day? Do you know how many people were slaughtered in imperialist wars between capitalist powers? Do you know how many native inhabitants of the Americas were ruthlessly exterminated by the United States during its glorious laissez-faire golden age? Or how many perished under colonial rule in Africa?

Oh, right, I forgot, your version of "capitalism" never existed in pure form, and therefore never did anything wrong. :rolleyes: Well, I can say the same about socialism and communism, then. Imperialism and capitalism are very different. There have been imperialist countries that were not capitalist. Really nothing you said there has anything to do with capitalism.

I don't think communism ever existed in it's "pure" form either.



The living standards of the workers went up in the Soviet Union between 1928 and 1980. So what's your problem with central planning?

You seem to be saying that rising living standards are the only thing that matters about an economy. Well, planned economies had rising living standards too. So if that's the only thing that matters, why do you oppose planned economies?There are various instances where planning goes terribly wrong. The agricultural communes in China are a good example. I don't think one central authority can plan the entire economy. Especially an economy as complex as the modern economy. Its not like the U.S.S.R. was really a socialist country during the times you listed either. Various market reforms were put into place that helped out greatly. But most of all I still think that nobody has solved Mises' calculation problem.


Membership in the political elite was achieved by merit. Anyone could join the Communist Party and rise through the ranks. Isn't this kind of "meritocracy" something you love about capitalism?That sounds like the old saying "anyone can become the president or a member of our government." I don't buy it.


The Soviets should have also intervened in the Korean War directly. If they gave the DPRK the little help it needed to finish off the Pusan pocket before the United States had time to use it as a beachhead, the war would have ended much sooner - and with a victory instead of a stalemate.
That reminds me, is North Korea is an example of a planned economy in your opinion? Notice how the south instituted some free market reforms, and you can see the results compared to the north. The same is true of east and west Germany.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't think anarchism would work, but I don't support soviet centralisation either. We aren't talking about a binary scale here.

It just seems like massive centralization would be required. Maybe I am wrong, but as of now I don't see any other way it could work.


I think it is bloody obvious they are. They have the power to get what they want, so they will damn well take it. No argument there. Thing is, I see that as perhaps the most fundamental aspect of capitalism. Corporate power will become at least as powerful and usually far more powerful than elected Government. I made a post tying in with this a week or so back.

I don't think corporations can become more powerful than governments. A government could ruin a corporation if it really wanted to.


Well there may be a theoretical upper limit at which companies cannot go beyond, but we are seeing companies grow to extraordinary size without failing. And where companies perhaps did fail as they grew too big, they are now getting past that point. Thing is they become very wasteful at this point, but still turn a profit (you could compare it to many of the old Eastern Block countries that had all the problems we have discussed but in terms of what we might call their "external business" they maintained a positive balance of trade and their Governments were able to collect much profit as a result.

If a company is raking in a profit, then it is using societies resources productively. Almost all companies are wasteful in certain areas. There aren't any 100% efficient companies out there. But yes, there is an upper limit that companies cannot go beyond without the support of a state.


Ah no, I didn't say they would fail, not until capitalism itself starts coming apart anyway, I said they would stagnate and become hopelessly inefficient. I mean that's what happened to the Soviet Union latterly. It had a bunch of problems that harmed the economy but it didn't collapse. In the end it was its excessive military spending that bankrupted it.

Except they would fail. If they became hopelessly inefficient, I am assuming they are not raking in a profit? If that were the case, then they would fail. But yes, there are many hopelessly inefficient governments that don't "fail."


I don't know how you can consider Ropke an Austrian. He was friends with Mises as I understand it and worked with him but his ideas were different. He was an architect of the West German welfare state after all. He acknowledged positive liberty and fell more into the bracket of Christian Democracy than anything else. If you are going to cast the net so widely as to make him an Austrian then yes you can get many reputable economists to fall under the banner, but you heavily dilute the meaning of the term if you do.

Ropke was definitely an Austrian. There are many Austrians who support a welfare state and acknowledge positive liberty. I myself do not acknowledge negative liberty. Not that this proves anything, but they do sell his books at the Mises institute.


Anyway seeing as I praised Hayek, now time for the criticism, largely in response to your signature. He claimed, principally in "The Road To Serfdom" that welfare states and attempts at equality would lead to tyranny. History flat out proved him irredeemably wrong. The welfare states were generally the most democratic in the world and had the highest levels of even negative liberty. Plain and simple what he predicted magnificently failed to happen.

I don't think welfare states were an attempt at equality. But I agree with you that a welfare state will not necessarily lead to tyranny. But Hayek predicted other things that did occur. I am unaware of any economist who was 100% accurate when it came to predictions.

[Demogorgon]

It just seems like massive centralization would be required. Maybe I am wrong, but as of now I don't see any other way it could work.

Well I need to know what you are defining as socialism, because it seems you are doing so very narrowly, maybe even going for a strawman. Much has been written on the subject though. You must have seen at least some proposals as to how it might be done.


I don't think corporations can become more powerful than governments. A government could ruin a corporation if it really wanted to.

Don't you? In some parts of the developing world the big multi-nationals are clearly more powerful than the local governments and even in the west if they gang up they can seriously wound a government. Britain in the mid seventies is a good example.


If a company is raking in a profit, then it is using societies resources productively. Almost all companies are wasteful in certain areas. There aren't any 100% efficient companies out there. Most of the state run enterprises in the Soviet Union were profitable and it engaged in very lucrative foreign trade, so by this definition it was still using societal resources well. We need a better one than that.


But yes, there is an upper limit that companies cannot go beyond without the support of a state.
There is a limit in that capitalism tends towards oligopoly rather than strict monopoly, but I don't think that is quite what you mean. Your claim that firms can only reach a certain size without Government support is utterly unsubstantiated however.


Except they would fail. If they became hopelessly inefficient, I am assuming they are not raking in a profit? If that were the case, then they would fail. But yes, there are many hopelessly inefficient governments that don't "fail."

One can still make a profit if one is inefficient and many do. There are a vast amount of large companies out there wasting resources to a shocking degree and engaging in lacklustre management that still turn a profit after all.


Ropke was definitely an Austrian. There are many Austrians who support a welfare state and acknowledge positive liberty. I myself do not acknowledge negative liberty. Not that this proves anything, but they do sell his books at the Mises institute.

I know they sell his books and have a gushing page on him as well for that matter. That does not change the simple fact however that his views and political activities were incompatible with the Austrian School. He was a founder (maybe even the most significant one) of ordoliberalism after all.


I don't think welfare states were an attempt at equality. But I agree with you that a welfare state will not necessarily lead to tyranny. But Hayek predicted other things that did occur. I am unaware of any economist who was 100% accurate when it came to predictions.
This was the centrepiece of his views though. The fact that welfare states did the opposite of what he claimed and created the most free societies that have yet been achieved throws his whole thesis into question.

[Skooma Addict]

Well I need to know what you are defining as socialism, because it seems you are doing so very narrowly, maybe even going for a strawman. Much has been written on the subject though. You must have seen at least some proposals as to how it might be done.

I basically define socialism as the abolition of private property along with the collective ownership over the means of production. Without a state, I think it would be very difficult to abolish private property except in some communes.


Don't you? In some parts of the developing world the big multi-nationals are clearly more powerful than the local governments and even in the west if they gang up they can seriously wound a government. Britain in the mid seventies is a good example.

Ok, well maybe some corporations are more powerful than local governments. I don't doubt that. But a national government could just pass laws which could ruin a corporation as has been done in the past. States have a monopolized army and are the final decision makers when it comes to law.


Most of the state run enterprises in the Soviet Union were profitable and it engaged in very lucrative foreign trade, so by this definition it was still using societal resources well. We need a better one than that.

Well until the economic calculation problem is solved, I think you will have a hard time proving that these corporations were profitable. At the very least, you couldn't prove that the way the resources were allocated was rational. Have you heard of the famous roof problem in the U.S.S.R.? Many houses were built, but they had no roofs. This was because there were no nails which were the correct size in order to attach the roofs correctly. This happened because the government thought it could make nails more efficiently by making them larger (which was most likely true). This problem never would have occurred in a market. The famines that occurred could have been avoided if there was a free market.


There is a limit in that capitalism tends towards oligopoly rather than strict monopoly, but I don't think that is quite what you mean. Your claim that firms can only reach a certain size without Government support is utterly unsubstantiated however.

This is a claim that is oftern over exaggerated.

"The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that of 113.4 million non-farm private sector workers in 2003, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 57.4 million (50.6%). Firms with fewer than 100 employees employed 41.0 million (36%)."

But still, there is nothing necessarily wrong with oligopoly. But I don't think that there is really a general trend towards oligopoly anyways. It depends on the industry. Some benefit from economies of scale, and a few benefit from just the opposite. By the way, if you don't like Austrian Economics, Game Theory holds that cartels are not possible. Or at least the pieces that I have read on Game Theory that is.

But if there is an oligopoly, and it is performing well and effectively using resources, then I don't see a problem. Once they start performing poorly, potential competitor will enter the industry.


One can still make a profit if one is inefficient and many do. There are a vast amount of large companies out there wasting resources to a shocking degree and engaging in lacklustre management that still turn a profit after all.


But if your making a profit, then your still allocating resources in a productive manner. You can be inefficient and still make a profit of coarse. You could also be the most efficient company in the world and be losing money. But once you become too inefficient, you will start losing money and consequently go bankrupt if you don't turn things around.


I know they sell his books and have a gushing page on him as well for that matter. That does not change the simple fact however that his views and political activities were incompatible with the Austrian School. He was a founder (maybe even the most significant one) of ordoliberalism after all.

You could say Kirzner sort of started his own school of thought, yet I would still consider him an Austrian. Ropke was pretty much on base with many other Austrians at the time. His views were not incompatible with the Austrian school. You don't have to be a libertarian to be an Austrian.



This was the centrepiece of his views though. The fact that welfare states did the opposite of what he claimed and created the most free societies that have yet been achieved throws his whole thesis into question.


I wouldn't really say this was the centerpiece of his views. He did not base his views around the belief that welfare states would eventually lead to tyranny.

[Demogorgon]

I basically define socialism as the abolition of private property along with the collective ownership over the means of production. Without a state, I think it would be very difficult to abolish private property except in some communes.

You're definition isn't too bad. I agree that we hold that private property (or to use the jargon ownership of the non human means of production) have to go, I agree that we call for collective ownership of all non human means of production and I agree (though many-perhaps the majority-of my colleagues here disagree) that it would be difficult to do this without Government.

The bit that is proving a little tricky is the bit where you assume that this means centralisation.


Ok, well maybe some corporations are more powerful than local governments. I don't doubt that. But a national government could just pass laws which could ruin a corporation as has been done in the past. States have a monopolized army and are the final decision makers when it comes to law.

By "local governments" I mean the domestic governments-that is the national ones and the big corporations are definitely more powerful, you can see this from the fact that when they do clash with the Government they usually win and certainly they ignore local laws with impunity.


Well until the economic calculation problem is solved, I think you will have a hard time proving that these corporations were profitable. At the very least, you couldn't prove that the way the resources were allocated was rational. Have you heard of the famous roof problem in the U.S.S.R.? Many houses were built, but they had no roofs. This was because there were no nails which were the correct size in order to attach the roofs correctly. This happened because the government thought it could make nails more efficiently by making them larger (which was most likely true).You are changing the subject here. The argument was not that it was efficient or even that it avoided ridiculous situations, simply that it was profitable. That is that the revenue its firms received was greater than their costs. This was definitely true-it is how the Soviet Union largely financed its Government activity for one.


This problem never would have occurred in a market. The famines that occurred could have been avoided if there was a free market. Famines under capitalism, most notably the Bengalese famine where there was actually enough food but because most of the local population was too poor to buy it and it all got exported, beg to differ.


This is a claim that is oftern over exaggerated.

"The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that of 113.4 million non-farm private sector workers in 2003, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 57.4 million (50.6%). Firms with fewer than 100 employees employed 41.0 million (36%)."Well in Britain there is actually a higher percentage still, but that is because Britain is less far along the road to complete oligopoly. You see markets do not start as oligopolies and they take a while to get there and there is plenty of Government intervention that can slow down the process. Evidently America, which has made less effort to slow this is further along the path as I say. And you may want to look at jurisdictions that have made less effort still. Hong Kong is absolutely clogged with oligopoly.

By the way, if you don't like Austrian Economics, Game Theory holds that cartels are not possible. Or at least the pieces that I have read on Game Theory that is. I know about game theory, I have brought it up myself as it happens. But there are two big problems here-one is that game theory breaks down when you have more than two players. Hence analysing complex market behaviour is pretty haphazard at best.

The other bigger problem is that cartels exist, the best theory in the world couldn't explain that away. Suppose I came up with a wonderfully argued theory that the world is flat. Would that invalidate the actually observed fact that the world is round?


But if your making a profit, then your still allocating resources in a productive manner. You can be inefficient and still make a profit of coarse. You could also be the most efficient company in the world and be losing money. But once you become too inefficient, you will start losing money and consequently go bankrupt if you don't turn things around.

You might be using at least some of them productively (though in practice you will probably be externalising a lot of your costs-pollution most notably) but you are not using them as well as they could be. There is a huge opportunity cost inherent in organising the economy so.


You could say Kirzner sort of started his own school of thought, yet I would still consider him an Austrian. Ropke was pretty much on base with many other Austrians at the time. His views were not incompatible with the Austrian school. You don't have to be a libertarian to be an Austrian.

Well I've certainly seen Austrians be nastier things than Libertarians, but it is a bit of a stretch to call someone generally on the left of the Christian Democrats an Austrian. Particularly as a large part of his work was about the desirability of constraining the market with Government intervention in a number of areas.


I wouldn't really say this was the centerpiece of his views. He did not base his views around the belief that welfare states would eventually lead to tyranny.
Not his more theoretical stuff, no. But he worked heavily in the political field, selling his views to right wing politicians. And he sold them by claiming that welfare states would lead to tyranny. The political vision he sold was hence based on an out and out falsehood.

[Kronos]

He's trying to show how anyone can do anything under capitalism if they simply choose to.Even if this were true, there is still the impossibility of this 'principle' being implied imperatively.

If everyone took advantage of this 'potential in a capitalist society', who would dig the ditches and take out the trash?

Capitalism depends on the failure of the lower classes at starting their own businesses...so that there is a labor force of wage workers which can be exploited.

Imagine for a minute that Bud Struggle had the power to snap his fingers and presto....everybody became a capitalist. What would happen? Capitalism would cease to function.

'Everybody can succeed' in capitalism doesn't even work in theory....much less practice.

[Bud Struggle]

If everyone took advantage of this 'potential in a capitalist society', who would dig the ditches and take out the trash? Who is going to do those things under Communism? See the problem?


Capitalism depends on the failure of the lower classes at starting their own businesses...so that there is a labor force which can be exploited. IT doesn't depend of the failure of the lower classes--it relies on the fact that many people don't choose to start their own business. Just like some people don't choose to do the work that gets them through medical school either.


Imagine for a minute that Bud Struggle had the power to snap his fingers and presto....everybody became a capitalist. What would happen? Capitalism would cease to function. Maybe, but I'm all for competition in the entire Capitalist world. I am deffitely poorer for the fact that many people because of the poor stae of Capitalism in some countries aren't allowed to compete.

[Skooma Addict]

You're definition isn't too bad. I agree that we hold that private property (or to use the jargon ownership of the non human means of production) have to go, I agree that we call for collective ownership of all non human means of production and I agree (though many-perhaps the majority-of my colleagues here disagree) that it would be difficult to do this without Government.

The bit that is proving a little tricky is the bit where you assume that this means centralisation.Well isn't it the planners who decide what is to be done with the means of production? Or do you support something else?



By "local governments" I mean the domestic governments-that is the national ones and the big corporations are definitely more powerful, you can see this from the fact that when they do clash with the Government they usually win and certainly they ignore local laws with impunity.I find that terribly difficult to believe. When they end up clashing with Government, they are usually on the defensive. So them "winning" is really just them stopping government intrusion. But I stand by my claim that the government is more powerful. If the government really wanted to, they have the power to pass laws which could destroy that corporation. Governments have a monopolized army, and that alone means a lot.

Also, when the two do clash, the Governments courts determine the outcome.


Famines under capitalism, most notably the Bengalese famine where there was actually enough food but because most of the local population was too poor to buy it and it all got exported, beg to differ.Are you referring to the Bengal Famine of 1770? I think there was more than 1 Bengal famine.


Well in Britain there is actually a higher percentage still, but that is because Britain is less far along the road to complete oligopoly. You see markets do not start as oligopolies and they take a while to get there and there is plenty of Government intervention that can slow down the process. Evidently America, which has made less effort to slow this is further along the path as I say. And you may want to look at jurisdictions that have made less effort still. Hong Kong is absolutely clogged with oligopoly.I do not see a general trend towards oligopoly. Do you have any theoretical reasons for believing that a market must trend towards oligopoly?


I know about game theory, I have brought it up myself as it happens. But there are two big problems here-one is that game theory breaks down when you have more than two players. Hence analyzing complex market behaviour is pretty haphazard at best.

The other bigger problem is that cartels exist, the best theory in the world couldn't explain that away. Suppose I came up with a wonderfully argued theory that the world is flat. Would that invalidate the actually observed fact that the world is round?I don't see what about game theory makes it break down when we analyze more than two people. I don't agree with Game Theory, but for different reasons.

As for cartels, I meant to say that they would not exist in a free market according to Game Theory.


You might be using at least some of them productively (though in practice you will probably be externalising a lot of your costs-pollution most notably) but you are not using them as well as they could be. There is a huge opportunity cost inherent in organising the economy so.Well I don't think there really are any cases where people are using their resources as productively as possible. Seems like you would need to know the future in order to do that.


Well I've certainly seen Austrians be nastier things than Libertarians, but it is a bit of a stretch to call someone generally on the left of the Christian Democrats an Austrian. Particularly as a large part of his work was about the desirability of constraining the market with Government intervention in a number of areas.The majority of Austrian Economists want to constrain the market with government intervention. Ropke, Kirzner, Schumpter, Hayek, Boettke, and almost all the Austrians over at GMU are some examples.


Not his more theoretical stuff, no. But he worked heavily in the political field, selling his views to right wing politicians. And he sold them by claiming that welfare states would lead to tyranny. The political vision he sold was hence based on an out and out falsehood.That's fair enough. I haven't really read much of his work on politics.

[Demogorgon]

I was going to reply in more detail, but I am practically falling asleep where I sit and am not up to it today and will answer this properly tomorrow. For now I will just clarify that I meant the 1943 famine.

[Kayser_Soso]

Have you heard of the famous roof problem in the U.S.S.R.? Many houses were built, but they had no roofs. This was because there were no nails which were the correct size in order to attach the roofs correctly. This happened because the government thought it could make nails more efficiently by making them larger (which was most likely true).

I've been studying Russia and the USSR for about half my life now, and have been living here for over three years. I have yet to hear the story. Let me tell you ANOTHER story about capitalism though, that goes back to my days as an inspector on construction sites. Once upon a time, housing prices were rising, and a magical city in the desert was growing by leaps and bounds. Thousands of houses were being built, with shoddy construction. A certain couple bought one of those houses(before it was even built; you can do that now), in the sense that they plopped down a payment and then started paying rent known as a "mortgage" on it, and year after year throughout the neighborhood, all manner of things on the houses had to be fixed. Shoddy concrete, stucco, insect infestations, cracks in the drywall, and so on. While working on so many home developments it wasn't difficult to see how poorly these houses were thrown up, hundreds at a time. Their prices, not including interest, began in the ballpark of $250,000. By contrast, Soviet housing WITH roofs, were issued, and people could inherit them. That is why so many people still live in Moscow despite low salaries and huge prices. They really do OWN their apartments.

But it gets better, because once upon a time a bunch of capitalists decided to gamble on home prices and sell securities based on mortgages. Someone might have suggested that this was a bubble, and a very risky investment to take, but people were making money hand over fist at the time so banks had to get in on the game or be edged out by their competitors. We all know the result of that.





This problem never would have occurred in a market. The famines that occurred could have been avoided if there was a free market.


Fucking hilarious. Maybe you didn't hear about how the Russian empire has had a long history of famines? Or perhaps that the "free market" was not producing sufficient grain to feed the growing urban population at the time?

[Paul Cockshott]

Quote:
This problem never would have occurred in a market. The famines that occurred could have been avoided if there was a free market.


You might profitably read 'Late Victorian Holocausts' to understand better the role of free market economics in historical famines.

[Bud Struggle]

You might profitably read 'Late Victorian Holocausts' to understand better the role of free market economics in historical famines.

Same publisher as Recent Communist Holocosts?

Yes of course Capitalism has had "issues" so has Communism. The 19th century free markets are long gone. So are most of the excesses of Socialism--its best to arrange some sort of syntheses don't you think?

[Drace]

This problem never would have occurred in a market. The famines that occurred could have been avoided if there was a free market.LOL. There is currently more then enough food to feed everyone, but yet over 30,000 people (5 million a year) currently die because of starvation. That's capitalist famine for you, killing more people than the Ukrainian famine, every year.

And of course there is food problems in many capitalist countries today. Haiti, India, China, Brazil, Russia, Kenya, Egypt, Iraq, Indonesia to name a few. That's only a fraction of the countries suffering under the capitalist globalization.

[Kayser_Soso]

Who is going to do those things under Communism? See the problem?

There wouldn't be a problem if those people were paid the full value of their work, had benefits and other programs set aside so that they could be more than ditch-diggers.



IT doesn't depend of the failure of the lower classes--it relies on the fact that many people don't choose to start their own business. Just like some people don't choose to do the work that gets them through medical school either.

Yes that's it, people don't succeed because they don't want to. Everyone can start a small business. It's easy!!

Since it's that time of year, I wonder if you met with Santa yet. What did you ask him for?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I find that terribly difficult to believe. When [corporations] end up clashing with Government, they are usually on the defensive. So them "winning" is really just them stopping government intrusion. But I stand by my claim that the government is more powerful. If the government really wanted to, they have the power to pass laws which could destroy that corporation. Governments have a monopolized army, and that alone means a lot.
The main source of corporate power over governments is the fact that corporations can move, while governments cannot move. It does not matter how much power a government has in a given area if a corporation can simply leave that area, and go where the government - or its army - cannot follow.

Corporations have lots of money. Sure, governments may have the power to confiscate that money, but corporations have the power to run away with the money outside the government's reach.

Only a government with universal jurisdiction would be as powerful over corporations as you describe it to be, Olaf.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes that's it, people don't succeed because they don't want to. Everyone can start a small business. It's easy!!


It's not easy. Starting a business is rather hard--that is why few risk the effort. And then there is the very real chance of failure if one actually does try.

That is why there are winners and losers int his world. That is why winners should be applauded for what they do. They tried and they succeeded. Good for them.

[Drace]

It's not easy. Starting a business is rather hard--that is why few risk the effort. And then there is the very real chance of failure if one actually does try.

That is why there are winners and losers int his world. That is why winners should be applauded for what they do. They tried and they succeeded. Good for them.

Im sure it was hard to become a noble in feudal society if you weren't born one either.
Whats your point? Just because a few people can get successful than everything's OK?

[Bud Struggle]

Im sure it was hard to become a noble in feudal society if you weren't born one either.
Whats your point? Just because a few people can get successful than everything's OK?

I think it was impossible to become a noble in Feudal society.

My point was to first of all to answer a question and then to point to that not everyone can become a member of the Bourgeoise--but that it open to those that really want to work for it.

Most don't have that interest and can do well enough in life without doing so.

[Drace]

I think it was impossible to become a noble in Feudal society.

People could actually buy into being nobles or be granted it by the king if you performed some type of service. They were known as robe nobles.
You could possibly also marry into noble families.

And Joan of Arc, btw? Even women had the chance to be successful!
Aha I love how relevant capitalist arguments are to that of feudal society.


My point was to first of all to answer a question and then to point to that not everyone can become a member of the Bourgeoise--but that it open to those that really want to work for it.

Most don't have that interest and can do well enough in life without doing so.

And it really doesn't change anything if you have the chance to become part of the bourgioisie or even to "climb up the ladder".

[Bud Struggle]

People could actually buy into being nobles or be granted it by the king if you performed some type of service. They were known as robe nobles.
You could possibly also marry into noble families.

And Joan of Arc, btw? Even women had the chance to be successful!
Aha I love how relevant capitalist arguments are to that of feudal society. I never pretended to be an expert on Feudalism. :)

[Drace]

I am not either, but just to show how capitalism and its supporters are not much different than feudalism and whoever supported it.

If I was a noble back than supporting feudalism I'd write like an article Titled
Joan of Arc (Poor, Female, Peasent) and talk about how she became one of the most successful military generals.

Oh look how similar that is to the front page thread on here.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalist-black-female-t124301/index.html

[Valeofruin]

Success in Capitalist society isn't about race or sex or financial position at birth (though a lot of these things help.)

It's about ambition and hard work.

Too bad if everyone paid their bills on time and didn't get into debt, and nothing else was introduced, the system as we know it would enter a crisis of epic proportions.

Fact:

In Capitalism some people are held back to allow others to prosper. We must come to accept that in capitalism we can not all be rich, especially if you start analyzing the world, instead of a select few nations such as the United States. If anyone however has any means in which everyone can be happy and prosperous under capitalism, please tell me.

Marxism is an ideology that does something rather unprecedented. It attempts to label those who have to be held back, and explain the ways in which they are economically restrained. It studies the division of society into classes and the mechanics of the exploitation that define the capitalist system.

[Kayser_Soso]

Most don't have that interest and can do well enough in life without doing so.

Do you have any proof of this bullshit assumption?

[Bud Struggle]

Too bad if everyone paid their bills on time and didn't get into debt, and nothing else was introduced, the system as we know it would enter a crisis of epic proportions. Maybe but then it wouldn't be the system we are in anymore;

Fact:


In Capitalism some people are held back to allow others to prosper. We must come to accept that in capitalism we can not all be rich, especially if you start analyzing the world, instead of a select few nations such as the United States. If anyone however has any means in which everyone can be happy and prosperous under capitalism, please tell me. Not all people can be happy--and everyone knows that money doesn't buy happiness. Most of the world does have to work harder of their forms of government to get better and fairer system of representation and economic control over their lives. But I believe that's up to them to do that for themselves.


Marxism is an ideology that does something rather unprecedented. It attempts to label those who have to be held back, and explain the ways in which they are economically restrained. It studies the division of society into classes and the mechanics of the exploitation that define the capitalist system. I believe it does all that. I just don't think it works in real life. It's a good tool for looking for places that could be changed for the better in society.


Do you have any proof of this bullshit assumption?

For the most part people seem pretty content with the way things are--you can see that by the way they vote--50% or so Democrat, 50% Republican. It swings a bit but there's always a Bush or Reagan after a Clinton or Carter.

No one's voting for any Socialist parties (at least here in the US.) There's no protests. There's maybe an occasional strike. If people want to start buisiness there's opportunity. It's hard so most people look for jobs.

[Kayser_Soso]

For the most part people seem pretty content with the way things are--you can see that by the way they vote--50% or so Democrat, 50% Republican. It swings a bit but there's always a Bush or Reagan after a Clinton or Carter.

How many choices are there for presidential candidates?




No one's voting for any Socialist parties (at least here in the US.) There's no protests. There's maybe an occasional strike. If people want to start buisiness there's opportunity. It's hard so most people look for jobs.


Look up something called the electoral college.

[Bud Struggle]

How many choices are there for presidential candidates?

Traditionally it's been at least one more than in Communist countries. :D

Seriously though--there are all sorts of Socialist, Communist and other Left wing parties that run candidates for President. On Wiki I counted at least 22 candidates of various parties that were on the ballot in at least one state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Demogorgon]

I forgot to give you this answer. So I will remedy that now
Well isn't it the planners who decide what is to be done with the means of production? Or do you support something else?
Something else I would say. I believe in planning most investment by collectivising all control of capital resources and I also want to do away with exploitative labour markets of course, but I don't think it is either desirable or possible to dictate the exchange of goods and services so long as the exploitation is removed by the elimination of private control of investment.


I find that terribly difficult to believe. When they end up clashing with Government, they are usually on the defensive. So them "winning" is really just them stopping government intrusion. But I stand by my claim that the government is more powerful. If the government really wanted to, they have the power to pass laws which could destroy that corporation. Governments have a monopolized army, and that alone means a lot. You see them winning all the time. In less developed countries they can often simply ignore what the Government says after all, because they can simply pay off the local police chief, plus as they will usually have driven off or bought up local business, the Governments are powerless to do anything to stop them and of course, even if a Government does successfully challenge them, they still have other Government's in their pocket who can make life very difficult for that Government. ANd also of course they might be friends with other powerful forces (the military for instance) who can use a coup to overthrow any troublesome Government.

In developing nations it is different. Their they can in extreme circumstance pack up their toys and move elsewhere as Kwisatz says, or in less extreme circumstances, stage an investment strike.


Also, when the two do clash, the Governments courts determine the outcome. Not often in practice. The courts won't do anything about an investment strike for instance and in the third world cases I mentioned, they won't do anything at all.


Are you referring to the Bengal Famine of 1770? I think there was more than 1 Bengal famine. 1943 as I say. The famine wasn't one of food. It was one of cash. There was plenty of food in Bengal (more than usual actually), its just the economic circumstances meant several million people couldn't afford it so it got exported or in some cases simply wasted. Markets don't correct themselves as quickly as you think.


I do not see a general trend towards oligopoly. Do you have any theoretical reasons for believing that a market must trend towards oligopoly?Yes. Plus the observation that it happens of course. Theory needs to explain what is happening, not explain why what is happening isn't really happening. At any rate as firms expand they gradually buy out or drive off competition until a few start getting noticeably bigger. At this stage they can start engaging in predatory pricing and raising other barriers to entry.

What happens with supermarkets in Britain is a good example. In Hong Kong it is even better.

As an aside, I had an economics teacher who maintained the only truly competitive market where there was no danger of this kind of thing was trackside betting on horse (or dog) racing. There are probably others of course, but it isn't teribly common.


I don't see what about game theory makes it break down when we analyze more than two people. I don't agree with Game Theory, but for different reasons. It is quite a well documented problem. It becomes harder and harder to predict what will happen the more and more players there are. And when it is tested, the results are inconsistent.

The other problem with game theory, well at least a problem with its conclusions, is that researchers used it to draw a number of conclusions about behaviour, but when they tested it using volunteers, the volunteers behaved differently to how the theorists expected, being much more trusting and cooperative that they were expected to be.


As for cartels, I meant to say that they would not exist in a free market according to Game Theory. Wll you only have to look at international markets (which ought to be considered free by your definition, there being no entity with a monopoly of force. There are around a hundred and seventy competing ones, much more competitive than most markets), cartels are rife. It is at the national level where an entity with monopoly of force can break them up that they become less common.


Well I don't think there really are any cases where people are using their resources as productively as possible. Seems like you would need to know the future in order to do that. Obviously they can't be used perfectly, but with reorganisation, it is easy to see that they could be used rather better than now. A capitalistic firm will always expand past its most efficient point (presuming it doesn't shut up business of course) because it will keep going so long as there is any marginal return. Reorganising the entities so that they stop at their most efficient point would render much better use of resources.


The majority of Austrian Economists want to constrain the market with government intervention. Ropke, Kirzner, Schumpter, Hayek, Boettke, and almost all the Austrians over at GMU are some examples.

That's fair enough. I haven't really read much of his work on politics.
Well as we discussed some of them aren't even Austrians. Certainly though, if you look at the modern ones (if you can call them economists at all of course) they are largely just ideologues for unrestrained markets.

[Skooma Addict]

Something else I would say. I believe in planning most investment by collectivising all control of capital resources and I also want to do away with exploitative labour markets of course, but I don't think it is either desirable or possible to dictate the exchange of goods and services so long as the exploitation is removed by the elimination of private control of investment.


Well it seems like collectivization would require planners. Or at least, a massive and centralized government. The CNT Anarcho-Statists of Spain are an example. The only way they could eliminate capitalism was by centralizing their government. Their attempts to create equality failed because the "worker collectives" still operated like a capitalist firm would.



You see them winning all the time. In less developed countries they can often simply ignore what the Government says after all, because they can simply pay off the local police chief, plus as they will usually have driven off or bought up local business, the Governments are powerless to do anything to stop them and of course, even if a Government does successfully challenge them, they still have other Government's in their pocket who can make life very difficult for that Government. ANd also of course they might be friends with other powerful forces (the military for instance) who can use a coup to overthrow any troublesome Government.

In developing nations it is different. Their they can in extreme circumstance pack up their toys and move elsewhere as Kwisatz says, or in less extreme circumstances, stage an investment strike.

To the extent that they can ignore the government, that is usually just due to the government not caring enough to enforce those laws. The fact that they can pay off governments has just as much to do with government corruption as it does with corporations. So none of this is a corporation actually exerting power over a government. They might be friends with the military, but this is very rare and usually in those cases the Military is the de facto government.

A corporation completely withdrawing from a country it is invested in is very costly. It isn't that easy. But anyways, this is just a way corporations can get away from harmful government policies. It is not something corporations use to exert power.


Not often in practice. The courts won't do anything about an investment strike for instance and in the third world cases I mentioned, they won't do anything at all.

An "investment strike" is barely even a conflict. The corporation doesn't have to invest in the country. So obviously the courts can't do anything. If I own a corporation, I am not going to invest in North Korea.



1943 as I say. The famine wasn't one of food. It was one of cash. There was plenty of food in Bengal (more than usual actually), its just the economic circumstances meant several million people couldn't afford it so it got exported or in some cases simply wasted. Markets don't correct themselves as quickly as you think.

Your correct that it was one of cash. The Bengal famine was the result of a currency crises created by Montagu Norman.


Yes. Plus the observation that it happens of course. Theory needs to explain what is happening, not explain why what is happening isn't really happening.


Again, I do not see a general trend towards oligopoly. You need some kind of theory to make sense of empirical facts. Anyone can find empirical facts to support virtually any claim. This is especially true for a social science such as economics.



At any rate as firms expand they gradually buy out or drive off competition until a few start getting noticeably bigger. At this stage they can start engaging in predatory pricing and raising other barriers to entry.

I want your definition of predatory pricing. Also, how do they raise barriers to entry? By getting regulation passed in their favor?


Wll you only have to look at international markets (which ought to be considered free by your definition, there being no entity with a monopoly of force. There are around a hundred and seventy competing ones, much more competitive than most markets), cartels are rife. It is at the national level where an entity with monopoly of force can break them up that they become less common.

You mean like OPEC?


Obviously they can't be used perfectly, but with reorganisation, it is easy to see that they could be used rather better than now. A capitalistic firm will always expand past its most efficient point (presuming it doesn't shut up business of course) because it will keep going so long as there is any marginal return. Reorganising the entities so that they stop at their most efficient point would render much better use of resources.

You don't know their most efficient point though. A good indicator of a firms most efficient point is when its income statement is at its highest. Once a firm expands past this point, they may not be making as much as before. But sometimes a firm needs to go past this point before it can reach new heights. As for reorganizing the firms, that was attempted and it failed miserably by the Anarcho-Statists in Spain. So I am skeptical.

[Demogorgon]

Well it seems like collectivization would require planners. Or at least, a massive and centralized government. The CNT Anarcho-Statists of Spain are an example. The only way they could eliminate capitalism was by centralizing their government. Their attempts to create equality failed because the "worker collectives" still operated like a capitalist firm would.

Yeah, I said there would be some planning. Just not planning as you envisage it. All economic systems involve planning, some more than others and capitalist systems have been known to have considerably more planning than nominally socialist ones (Japan in the sixties had far more planning than Yugoslavia for instance). THe question is how much planning you use and how you use it. To me planning is best used for investment, or to put it another way allocating non human resources.

"Worker collectives" have in the past operated like capitalist firms when it has been tried, that is true. However that is because they owned the resources privately rather than were merely allocated community owned property.


To the extent that they can ignore the government, that is usually just due to the government not caring enough to enforce those laws. The fact that they can pay off governments has just as much to do with government corruption as it does with corporations. So none of this is a corporation actually exerting power over a government. They might be friends with the military, but this is very rare and usually in those cases the Military is the de facto government. You now what I refer to. There are many cases of military coups to get rid of Governments unfriendly to foreign corporations.


A corporation completely withdrawing from a country it is invested in is very costly. It isn't that easy. But anyways, this is just a way corporations can get away from harmful government policies. It is not something corporations use to exert power.

An "investment strike" is barely even a conflict. The corporation doesn't have to invest in the country. So obviously the courts can't do anything. If I own a corporation, I am not going to invest in North Korea.

You are changing the subject now. I didn't ask for your opinion on whether corporations bullying the Government is legitimate, but whether it happens at all. You say the Government can get its way. I say investment strike (or the threat thereof) can soon bring a Government to heel. You might think corporations are perfectly entitled to do so, but you do then agree that they can overcome Governments. YOu simply think they should be able to do so.


Your correct that it was one of cash. The Bengal famine was the result of a currency crises created by Montagu Norman.

I fail to see what Norman had to do with it. Methinks that you just wanted to use your standard argument that it must be to do with the central bank and looked up who ran the Bank of England at the time without checking all your facts. The thing is though that colonial India used its own currency-the Rupee-that traded independently of the Sterling and was controlled by a different central bank that was entirely independent of the Bank of England.

It is an easy thing to be tripped up on obviously. Many British colonies and Dominions at the time did use Sterling, but India never did. The fact you made this mistake though indicates that you have never read any serious analysis of the famine and just tried to resort to a stock answer.


Again, I do not see a general trend towards oligopoly. You need some kind of theory to make sense of empirical facts. Anyone can find empirical facts to support virtually any claim. This is especially true for a social science such as economics.

There is an amusing one. If there is an empirical trend towards oligopoly then that means there is a trend towards oligopoly. Denying that makes you look like a parody of yourself. I actually did tell you why it happens, but even if I had not come up with anything, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is happening.


I want your definition of predatory pricing. Also, how do they raise barriers to entry? By getting regulation passed in their favor?

You know what predatory pricing means and as for the other question, amongst other things, yes. Though naturally in an anarcho-capitalist utopia there will be no Government to do these things and the corporations will not even consider setting up one to do so.


You mean like OPEC?

They are an example, yes.


You don't know their most efficient point though. A good indicator of a firms most efficient point is when its income statement is at its highest. Once a firm expands past this point, they may not be making as much as before. But sometimes a firm needs to go past this point before it can reach new heights. As for reorganizing the firms, that was attempted and it failed miserably by the Anarcho-Statists in Spain. So I am skeptical.
The most efficient point is where there is the highest average return per unit of production. A capitalist firm will keep going past this point because there is still profit to be made, though the marginal increase will be in decline, but it will no longer be using its resources as efficiently as it once was and hence there is a clear opportunity cost here as the resources could have gone to another firm that could have used them more efficiently.

[Skooma Addict]

Yeah, I said there would be some planning. Just not planning as you envisage it. All economic systems involve planning, some more than others and capitalist systems have been known to have considerably more planning than nominally socialist ones (Japan in the sixties had far more planning than Yugoslavia for instance). THe question is how much planning you use and how you use it. To me planning is best used for investment, or to put it another way allocating non human resources.

"Worker collectives" have in the past operated like capitalist firms when it has been tried, that is true. However that is because they owned the resources privately rather than were merely allocated community owned property.The point is that you cannot do this without massively centralizing power. If you don't, then people will find loopholes like they did in Spain.



You now what I refer to. There are many cases of military coups to get rid of Governments unfriendly to foreign corporations. You didn't address any of my other points. Military's that overthrow governments have motives besides helping corporations. But even if there have been corporations that are responsible for coups, that does not really prove much. In most cases, the military is part of the government, in which case everything I said earlier holds true. Todays governments control the money supply, the military, the police, and the courts. It seems like it should almost be self evident that governments are more powerful.


You are changing the subject now. I didn't ask for your opinion on whether corporations bullying the Government is legitimate, but whether it happens at all. You say the Government can get its way. I say investment strike (or the threat thereof) can soon bring a Government to heel. You might think corporations are perfectly entitled to do so, but you do then agree that they can overcome Governments. YOu simply think they should be able to do so.An investment strike does not prove that a corporation is more powerful than a government. For starters, investment strikes are detrimental to a corporation that is invested in a country far more than it is to the government. But a corporation is not actually exerting power when it goes on an investment strike.


I fail to see what Norman had to do with it. Methinks that you just wanted to use your standard argument that it must be to do with the central bank and looked up who ran the Bank of England at the time without checking all your facts. The thing is though that colonial India used its own currency-the Rupee-that traded independently of the Sterling and was controlled by a different central bank that was entirely independent of the Bank of England.

It is an easy thing to be tripped up on obviously. Many British colonies and Dominions at the time did use Sterling, but India never did. The fact you made this mistake though indicates that you have never read any serious analysis of the famine and just tried to resort to a stock answer.The famine was briefly discusssed in The Conquest of Poverty. Also, it is true that there was a currency crises at the time. I think it is a fair to assume that the central bank was responsible for the crises, since they control the money supply. I will look into the case further and get back to you.


There is an amusing one. If there is an empirical trend towards oligopoly then that means there is a trend towards oligopoly. Denying that makes you look like a parody of yourself. I actually did tell you why it happens, but even if I had not come up with anything, it still wouldn't change the fact that it is happening.Again, I do not see a general trend toward oligopoly.


You know what predatory pricing means and as for the other question, amongst other things, yes. Though naturally in an anarcho-capitalist utopia there will be no Government to do these things and the corporations will not even consider setting up one to do so.I have no problem with most peoples conception of predatory pricing. Low prices are good, and once the company raises its prices, competitors will enter the industry. Your right that under AcCap there would be no regulations that could be passed to raise barriers of entry.


They are an example, yes.Opec is comprised of countries.


The most efficient point is where there is the highest average return per unit of production. A capitalist firm will keep going past this point because there is still profit to be made, though the marginal increase will be in decline, but it will no longer be using its resources as efficiently as it once was and hence there is a clear opportunity cost here as the resources could have gone to another firm that could have used them more efficiently.Other companies can bid resources away from a firm if they are not using their resources as efficiently as they should be. But the point is that the goal is not to be as efficient as possible. If this was the goal, then Socialism wouldn't be that bad (although there would still be better alternatives). So only judging a firm by its most "efficient point" just sidesteps the issue. The fact remains that as far as satisfying demand goes, free markets work the best. In terms of sheer efficiency, well I am not so sure. The are also only a limited supply of capital goods, so a company cannot just keep expanding like you claim. Resources will be bit away from it.

[Demogorgon]

I'm only going to address a few points now
An investment strike (or often just the threat of one) is a dire threat to a Government and normally causes them to crumple. There are plenty of cases of it happening. The fact that you find it perfectly legitimate does not change the fact that it happened.
[quote]
The famine was briefly discusssed in The Conquest of Poverty. Also, it is true that there was a currency crises at the time. I think it is a fair to assume that the central bank was responsible for the crises, since they control the money supply. I will look into the case further and get back to you.Read what I wrote again. In your haste to give your stock answer you indicated you knew nothing of the issue when you tried to blame the Bank of England when the Bank had nothing whatsoever to do with India. India used a different currency and had its own central bank. This utterly invalidates your theory and moreover calls into question the credibility of anything else you say on the subject.


Opec is comprised of countries. And given they are operating on the world stage where there is no entity with a monopoly on force, they are just like firms in a theoretical market without a Government. I know you want to say that the fact that they are Governments nonetheless means they will behave entirely differently. But there is no evidence at all towards this claim.

[Dimentio]

Honestly--this is all it takes.


Credit Lessons Learned at an Early Age

Katrina Jones Bought Her First House at Age 24What did you do with your allowance when you were a kid? Blew it on the things you wanted, maybe? Not Katrina Jones. She would stash her cash, and sometimes dole out a loan or two to her brother ... with interest attached.


Growing up, Jones witnessed the results of careless money handling in her family. She also saw what could be accomplished with financial discipline. The path she chose for herself was a no-brainer.
She also believes in making the most out of programs that can help her along the way. Case in point, by age 24, Jones had already purchased her first home.

Katrina Jones' Credit Lessons: + Pay all of your debts
+ Do not to live beyond your means
+ Always save something


Disenchanted with the way her landlord at the time managed the apartment building she lived in, Jones signed up for the city's Home Purchase Assistance Program and emerged the owner of a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. See? No nonsense.
Since becoming an employee of the Federal government in 1986, Jones has taken full advantage of contribution-matching retirement programs. Between a Thrift Savings Plan, a tax-deferred retirement savings and investment plan for federal government employees, and a T. Rowe Price IRA account, she's able to sock away 16 percent of her annual income for retirement.
"I can't leave any free money on the table," she says. "I believe in maximizing, whatever they can match."


She is not a capitalist at all.

Neither is your local grocery store owner or your local farmer.

A capitalist is an individual who is owning means of production and pays others to work at the means of production in order to make him or her wealthier. The capitalist isn't working at all, just providing capital. Real big capitalists aren't even managing their firms but leave that to a board of CEO's.

[Skooma Addict]

An investment strike (or often just the threat of one) is a dire threat to a Government and normally causes them to crumple. There are plenty of cases of it happening. The fact that you find it perfectly legitimate does not change the fact that it happened.In the majority of cases, it hurts the corporation far more than the government. This is especially true if the corporation was invested in the country to begin with. If Walmart goes on an investment strike against China, it is obvious who will be hurt more.


Read what I wrote again. In your haste to give your stock answer you indicated you knew nothing of the issue when you tried to blame the Bank of England when the Bank had nothing whatsoever to do with India. India used a different currency and had its own central bank. This utterly invalidates your theory and moreover calls into question the credibility of anything else you say on the subject.

My belief that it was caused by a currency crises created by Norman is not uncommon at all. But even if I am wrong, that doesn't prove that the free market caused the problem. But you will dissmiss anything I say on this subject offhand apparently.

I should also note that just because India had its own central bank, that alone does not mean it had nothing to do with the bank of England. For example, maybe the Rupee was backed by the Sterling? I know this may not have been the case, but that is not the point. Also, Norman had intervened in India before.



And given they are operating on the world stage where there is no entity with a monopoly on force, they are just like firms in a theoretical market without a Government. I know you want to say that the fact that they are Governments nonetheless means they will behave entirely differently. But there is no evidence at all towards this claim. Well, they do behave differently, and the fact that they are governments instead of companies does matter. They are not just like firms in a theoretical market for obvious reasons. So you expect that one of them will engage in predatory pricing to make the smaller ones run out of business I assume.

[Kayser_Soso]

Traditionally it's been at least one more than in Communist countries. :D

In socialist elections, people voted for candidates who had differing views, regardless of the fact that they were in the same party. Or in some cases, non-party members ran for office.

Again, there are only two parties, which are identical in terms of the core issues.



Seriously though--there are all sorts of Socialist, Communist and other Left wing parties that run candidates for President. On Wiki I counted at least 22 candidates of various parties that were on the ballot in at least one state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Go back to wikipedia and look up electoral college, then try to figure out why that prevents third parties from competing without me having to tell you.

[Scary Monster]

Maybe but then it wouldn't be the system we are in anymore;

Fact:

Not all people can be happy--and everyone knows that money doesn't buy happiness. Most of the world does have to work harder of their forms of government to get better and fairer system of representation and economic control over their lives. But I believe that's up to them to do that for themselves.

I believe it does all that. I just don't think it works in real life. It's a good tool for looking for places that could be changed for the better in society.



For the most part people seem pretty content with the way things are--you can see that by the way they vote--50% or so Democrat, 50% Republican. It swings a bit but there's always a Bush or Reagan after a Clinton or Carter.

No one's voting for any Socialist parties (at least here in the US.) There's no protests. There's maybe an occasional strike. If people want to start buisiness there's opportunity. It's hard so most people look for jobs.

WTF? Are you completely ignorant of ANYTHING that goes on here in the US? It's as if you think that if something isn't reported on NBC or fox news, then it isnt relevant to society. Im an activist myself, and we get numerous organizations (such as socialist/labor, Green organizations that recognize the root cause of environmental destruction) working together all the time to put together massive protests. Sometimes we get a thousand person march. Right before the US went to war with Iraq in 2003, we had a 50,000 person march aginst Imperialism.
And just like kayser said, research the Electoral College. You can see how that greatly influences the outcome of every election.

[Valeofruin]

Maybe but then it wouldn't be the system we are in anymore;

Fact:

Not all people can be happy--and everyone knows that money doesn't buy happiness. Most of the world does have to work harder of their forms of government to get better and fairer system of representation and economic control over their lives. But I believe that's up to them to do that for themselves.

I believe it does all that. I just don't think it works in real life. It's a good tool for looking for places that could be changed for the better in society.



For the most part people seem pretty content with the way things are--you can see that by the way they vote--50% or so Democrat, 50% Republican. It swings a bit but there's always a Bush or Reagan after a Clinton or Carter.

No one's voting for any Socialist parties (at least here in the US.) There's no protests. There's maybe an occasional strike. If people want to start buisiness there's opportunity. It's hard so most people look for jobs.

Well, you are in many ways entirely correct. You'll have to forgive some of the comrades on this board, they can be a bit hostile at times...

I suppose they think words like 'bullshit' are what is necessary to charm the masses.. don't know who taught them that....

That said, perhaps the most correct statement you make is:


Most of the world does have to work harder of their forms of government to get better and fairer system of representation and economic control over their lives.Protesting and working to change your government to something that presents better economic representation for the poor is something that will get you no objections from me.

Unfortunately there are the rich people in those countries, and in our own, which the poor have to contend with. You see, the rich and powerful are more then happy with their current greedy, corrupt, economic and political systems. They have donated alot of time and money (mainly just money), to staying in power, and to the continuation of a system that benefits them. They stay in power by use of force, propaganda, bribery.. you name it really, and they will continue to do so well into the future. They control the military, the economy and the flow of information.

For the above reasons 'working harder' can only get one so far, as there will ALWAYS be someone with alot of influence attempting to block you. In America for example, people only vote democrat or republican because they do not have much of a choice, these people have all the power in this country and devote alot of energy toward snuffing out good ideas that come from working Americans. People for the most part are kept ignorant to the options that are truly available to them.

You can not defeat the corporate interests at their own game. You can not call for the abolition of fox news and expect them to expose your demands to the general populace. You can not expect to be able to, with your modest home/ apartment, and your 1999 Subaru sedan, defeat in the legal political arena a party which spends up to 750 MILLION US dollars on its presidential campaign alone. Even the TEA party protesters, a largely 'grass roots' movement could not operate without their corporate sponsors and hence corporate approval.

That being said we have the question of a lack of unionization and protests in the United States, which is a good point you raise. In my opinion people do not present more of a struggle, partly because, as I previously mentioned the flow of information is controlled, but also because the conditions in the United States are not really that bad. On average people live quite comfortably here, this is entirely due to capitalism. Contrary to some folks opinions however I do not think economic 'freedom', at this time is the primary reason for our success. Rather it appears more likely that the United States is able to improve conditions in its own country by damaging conditions abroad. It is imperialism, and cheap resources and labor from the middle east, africa, latin america or asia, that keeps domestic conditions stable.

[Robert]

A capitalist is an individual who is owning means of production and pays others to work at the means of production in order to make him or her wealthier. The capitalist isn't working at all, just providing capital. Real big capitalists aren't even managing their firms but leave that to a board of CEO's.

I wonder how many people truly fit that narrow definition. As a percentage of the wealthy in the USA, I'd bet it's less than 25%. I would also say that none of the CEO's of the Fortune 500 fit your narrow definition, as they are very actively involved in management, sales, PR, recruiting, R&D and regulatory compliance, just to name three kinds of "labor" that are much harder than some of the minimum wage jobs any of us have had.

If you are talking about wholly passive investors, say stock market or precious metals speculators or heiresses who do nothing but gamble with their money (though many of them were engaged in some kind of labor in order to accumulate their seed money), then I agree they don't produce much, if anything.

Another problem you guys have is dealing with extremely wealthy people who do nothing but labor, performing artists like the the Madonnas, Stings, Streisands, Elton Johns, Garth Brookses and P Diddys, and athletes like Derek Jeter and A Rod. They work a lot harder than I do, make far more money than some of the capitalists you malign, and if the capitalist team owners want to pay them $20M/year to play ball, which $20M they spend on boats, vehicles, homes, and entertainment, who cares? What means of production does Tiger Woods control when he's on the golf course?

[Valeofruin]

I wonder how many people truly fit that narrow definition. As a percentage of the wealthy in the USA, I'd bet it's less than 25%. I would also say that none of the CEO's of the Fortune 500 fit your narrow definition, as they are very actively involved in management, sales, PR, recruiting, R&D and regulatory compliance, just to name three kinds of "labor" that are much harder than some of the minimum wage jobs any of us have had.

If you are talking about wholly passive investors, say stock market or precious metals speculators or heiresses who do nothing but gamble with their money (though many of them were engaged in some kind of labor in order to accumulate their seed money), then I agree they don't produce much, if anything.

Another problem you guys have is dealing with extremely wealthy people who do nothing but labor, performing artists like the the Madonnas, Stings, Streisands, Elton Johns, Garth Brookses and P Diddys, and athletes like Derek Jeter and A Rod. They work a lot harder than I do, make far more money than some of the capitalists you malign, and if the capitalist team owners want to pay them $20M/year to play ball, which $20M they spend on boats, vehicles, homes, and entertainment, who cares? What means of production does Tiger Woods control when he's on the golf course?

One could summarize the objective as being fair compensation for everyone's labor.

Professional Athletes work quite hard, and one can theorize that they do produce surplus value.

In Socialism professional sports and entertainment will have to be reformed entirely to provide less compensation to the athletes and be made more affordable to the masses.

Seriously have you SEEN how much the NFL package costs on cable? Or the fact that music CD's are realistically marked up like 800%....

[Robert]

In Socialism professional sports and entertainment will have to be reformed entirely to provide less compensation to the athletes and be made more affordable to the masses.

You can watch Tiger Woods on TV for next to nothing. If you reduced the gate fee to $1.00 to permit the poor to go in person, you wouldn't be able to squeeze all the fans onto the golf course anyway. Personally, I'd rather watch baseball on TV than go to a dirty ballpark. As for musicians, you don't have to buy those marked up CD's. To heck with Britney and P Diddy and Garth Brooks. Patronize your local musicians at local coffee shops, or start your own band.

I also notice you put that "will have to be" in the passive voice. That won't happen except by coercion of some degree. Tell us who exactly is going to reduce Tiger Woods's compensation, down to what level, and how, especially under anarchy when we won't have government? Don't you think it's better to let the masses spend as much or as little as they want watching him, and if his income seems "too high" to you, you can just tax it and redistribute the money in social services?

[Valeofruin]

You can watch Tiger Woods on TV for next to nothing. If you reduced the gate fee to $1.00 to permit the poor to go in person, you wouldn't be able to squeeze all the fans onto the golf course anyway. Personally, I'd rather watch baseball on TV than go to a dirty ballpark. As for musicians, you don't have to buy those marked up CD's. To heck with Britney and P Diddy and Garth Brooks. Patronize your local musicians at local coffee shops, or start your own band.

I also notice you put that "will have to be" in the passive voice. That won't happen except by coercion of some degree. Tell us who exactly is going to reduce Tiger Woods's compensation, down to what level, and how, especially under anarchy when we won't have government? Don't you think it's better to let the masses spend as much or as little as they want watching him, and if his income seems "too high" to you, you can just tax it and redistribute the money in social services?

well I don't know much about golf, but I do know some stadiums can definitely be improved upon. As for television, again not knowing anything about golf, but tv prices can be lower. As can the price for novelties such as cards, shits etc. Mind you the lowering of prices wont be much when you first look at it, 9 cents or something less for a pack of baseball cards, but it can help.

As for compensation, In what scenario is compensation NOT enforced by coersion? To tax someone too must involve coercion. If you don't pay the government takes your house, arrests you, charges you etc.

When you go to work you do not really have a say in how much you get paid. Unless you are one of the select few, in a rare set of circumstances, that would be inconvenient to replace, you generally accept what you are given. If you do not accept it you have the option to leave or you will be fired, this of course can leave you in financial ruin. Suppose you have a family, what do you do? Risk having their electricity turned off because you don't think things are 'fair'? Truth be told capitalism is not free of coersion.

IMO a heavily graduated income tax may just be one of the primary methods of regulating income in a future socialist society (for a time anyway..), but the fact of the matter is we can not develop a fair and accurate course of action without scientific study. Just how hard is it to play golf compared to other professions? How does the specialization of the golfers labor factor in to the equation.

Point being; not only do i sugest we try to determine what a golfer should be paid, but that we will do it BETTER then the bourgeois. It will not stop athletes from being popular... it will not stop people that are really good at basketball for trying out for the team, but it will stop people from being GROSSLY overpaid.

Should our present athletes decide that they like being grossly overpaid and they decide to try to flee the country, and go rip off other group of people we have a solution for that too...

[Valeofruin]

You can not defeat the corporate interests at their own game. You can not call for the abolition of fox news and expect them to expose your demands to the general populace. You can not expect to be able to, with your modest home/ apartment, and your 1999 Subaru sedan, defeat in the legal political arena a party which spends up to 750 MILLION US dollars on its presidential campaign alone. Even the TEA party protesters, a largely 'grass roots' movement could not operate without their corporate sponsors and hence corporate approval.


Corrected this, was thinking of another race.

in 2008 the bourgeois spent over 1 billion dollars campaigning. If its an election you wanna win you have to be willing to throw money at it.. money working people do not have.

[Drace]

As if the Republicans and Democrats are any different.

[Antiks72]

What about the swaths of undereducated and working poor that can only move horizontally? What about women with babies that were kicked off welfare that then have to take jobs, and can't save a dime? There are tons of people like this in our ****ry, but they don't count and are swept under the rug.

For exception like this girl, there are millions who aren't. Bill Gates was lucky period. Ditto for all the other rich assholes like Tiger Woods who don't tip and ask for their expensive meals for free.

For those of you in the UK, this kind of thinking is rapant among the right. One guy on You Tube said that if you couldn't afford healthcare in the US, you should try harder. If there's ever a day where people like this are strung up, tears of joy shall be streaming down my face.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Alright, I don't buy into the capitalist fairy tale being talked about. My question is, however, does this example threaten communist ideologies?

If everyone got paid exactly according to how much they benefited society, I would not support such a society. If everyone got paid exactly according to how hard they worked for society, I would not support such a society.

I want a society where if people have needs, they are met. And if people aren't happy, we work to make them happy. People make choices. Political society can be seen as a picture. What kind of picture do you want to paint? Capitalism is like a picture of Michael Moore. Fat and ugly (no offense to fat and ugly people). Communism is a picture of a puppy. Puppies > Michael Moore. I think I have definitively proven the superiority of communism.

To sum up, would any communist accept capitalism if "anyone could succeed?" I know I wouldn't. That's only a pinprick of the many reasons I am a communist.

[Kayser_Soso]

Alright, I don't buy into the capitalist fairy tale being talked about. My question is, however, does this example threaten communist ideologies?

If everyone got paid exactly according to how much they benefited society, I would not support such a society. If everyone got paid exactly according to how hard they worked for society, I would not support such a society.

Then that society would be unlikely to support you.



I want a society where if people have needs, they are met. And if people aren't happy, we work to make them happy. People make choices. Political society can be seen as a picture. What kind of picture do you want to paint? Capitalism is like a picture of Michael Moore. Fat and ugly (no offense to fat and ugly people). Communism is a picture of a puppy. Puppies > Michael Moore. I think I have definitively proven the superiority of communism.

.

While it is the final goal of Communists to create a society where human needs are met, we are not utopians who are obligated to eliminate sadness and make people happy. We provide a means whereby people would have equal opportunity to pursue that which makes them happy, within reason, and where a great deal of what makes them unhappy is removed.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Then that society would be unlikely to support you.

While it is the final goal of Communists to create a society where human needs are met, we are not utopians who are obligated to eliminate sadness and make people happy. We provide a means whereby people would have equal opportunity to pursue that which makes them happy, within reason, and where a great deal of what makes them unhappy is removed.

I'm perfectly capable of supporting myself. Also, I don't think it's fair to say "communists" are never Utopians. Also, giving people equal opportunity to pursue their happiness necessitates is essentially just a form of trying to maximize happiness. Real "equal opportunity" would go as far as taking the intelligence of a person and transferring it to another (I wouldn't advocate this).

"Equal opportunity" is just an excuse where those with genetic capital can gain advantages over people who are born with a less advantageous genetic makeup. Look at opposition to steroids, genetic engineering, and intellect improving drugs. People don't want their intrinsic advantage to be threatened.

Communism should focus on giving people the equal means to be happy "without" doing things such as genetically equalizing people at the expense of others. This would require financial compensation in the form of placing a higher burden upon those with the most beneficial genetics.

Communism shouldn't let someone die or be miserable because they're too lazy to work.

[Valeofruin]

I'm perfectly capable of supporting myself. Also, I don't think it's fair to say "communists" are never Utopians. Also, giving people equal opportunity to pursue their happiness necessitates is essentially just a form of trying to maximize happiness. Real "equal opportunity" would go as far as taking the intelligence of a person and transferring it to another (I wouldn't advocate this).

"Equal opportunity" is just an excuse where those with genetic capital can gain advantages over people who are born with a less advantageous genetic makeup. Look at opposition to steroids, genetic engineering, and intellect improving drugs. People don't want their intrinsic advantage to be threatened.

Communism should focus on giving people the equal means to be happy "without" doing things such as genetically equalizing people at the expense of others. This would require financial compensation in the form of placing a higher burden upon those with the most beneficial genetics.

Communism shouldn't let someone die or be miserable because they're too lazy to work.

What are you on about now? Genetic equalization.... sounds like something from Dr. Strangelove, not revleft.

You are on the right track though, to be frank, I like your attitude. What I don't like of course is the fact that you misinterpreted what is meant by 'Equal Opportunity'. Perhaps you read too much into it?

Equal Opportunity is meant only as a term for the removal of the various material restraints that bar people from obtaining what they desire in the capitalist system, and frankly all systems before it, and potentially in all systems to come.

I agree it may be a bit utopian to say that all material restraints will be removed in the future. To say that most will be, however, is a different story.

You are on the right track when you speak of humans not wanting to give up their advantages, yet I think you may be looking at it from the wrong angle, and to look at it from the right angle, you need to attain further knowledge of Materialism. Humans most definitely need to survive, but what they need to pursue in their quest for survival is always subject to change. In laymans terms humans are quick to adapt to the material conditions around them.

What we can conclude from this is that while in our present conditions humans do not wish to give up 'genetic capital', that is, their advantage over the other humans with which they must compete for survival, under the conditions of communism this desire may change.

In the future your arguments should take this into account, lest you be seen as suggesting 'human nature' is static.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What are you on about now? Genetic equalization.... sounds like something from Dr. Strangelove, not revleft.

You are on the right track though, to be frank, I like your attitude. What I don't like of course is the fact that you misinterpreted what is meant by 'Equal Opportunity'. Perhaps you read too much into it?

Equal Opportunity is meant only as a term for the removal of the various material restraints that bar people from obtaining what they desire in the capitalist system, and frankly all systems before it, and potentially in all systems to come.

I agree it may be a bit utopian to say that all material restraints will be removed in the future. To say that most will be, however, is a different story.

You are on the right track when you speak of humans not wanting to give up their advantages, yet I think you may be looking at it from the wrong angle, and to look at it from the right angle, you need to attain further knowledge of Materialism. Humans most definitely need to survive, but what they need to pursue in their quest for survival is always subject to change. In laymans terms humans are quick to adapt to the material conditions around them.

What we can conclude from this is that while in our present conditions humans do not wish to give up 'genetic capital', that is, their advantage over the other humans with which they must compete for survival, under the conditions of communism this desire may change.

In the future your arguments should take this into account, lest you be seen as suggesting 'human nature' is static.

While equal opportunity may be material resources, I think that makes a mockery of what the words "equal" and "opportunity" mean. If you were to have equal opportunity under capitalism, using the "real" meaning of the terms, I suspect it would require everyone to be genetically the same. I don't support this, obviously. I also think the idea of "equal opportunity," as typically explained, is insufficient for satisfying the ideological motivations (fairness) for having it in the first place. But I wasn't quite aware that equal opportunity applied in such an illogical manner until you pointed it out. Now I think capitalists are even more ridiculous.

I don't think human nature isn't flexible. But I just can't imagine someone saying "I have a great memory, but if reducing it gives a stranger with memory problems help, I'll do it." At least for me, my abilities are a big part of my identity.

Also, I think people misapply evolutionary ends like survival. Survival works with evolution because it explains how organisms continue through generations. The ability to feel pleasure and pain encourages survival. In humans, I would argue, it actually takes precedents over survival. People only care about survival as it pertains to utility. Evolutionarily, it will be interesting to see if this trait plays out in a beneficial way.

I will agree that people have a desire to survive independent of their desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure. After all, many miserable people with no prospects cling to life. I'm just not sure if this desire is genetic, environmental, or both.

As for "human nature," I think it's quite flexible. I don't really concern myself with it much. Even if it's completely malleable, I still think certain things "should stay the same." I can't say I'm very sympathetic to giving up genetic capital. Maybe at birth. But after that, it seems like it becomes part of a person's identity. Maybe this is because of the capitalist system, but I'm not sure. It's easy for us leftists to attribute everything to capitalism because it's easy.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ That would be one of the great posts of RevLeft. Thanks Dooga.

[Kayser_Soso]

While equal opportunity may be material resources, I think that makes a mockery of what the words "equal" and "opportunity" mean. If you were to have equal opportunity under capitalism, using the "real" meaning of the terms, I suspect it would require everyone to be genetically the same.

Well then you would suspect wrong. Opportunity in this world has far more to do with class than genetics.



I don't think human nature isn't flexible. But I just can't imagine someone saying "I have a great memory, but if reducing it gives a stranger with memory problems help, I'll do it." At least for me, my abilities are a big part of my identity.

What does this have to do with Communism?

[Valeofruin]

Well I don't know what to say, just that as a communist my primary concern is, as you would say the role of 'environment' in human nature. It is as others would say, material conditions that play the primary role in human behavior.

Perhaps you are right that the term 'Equal Opportunity' is misleading, but in this case it means what it means. I explained its' definition.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well I don't know what to say, just that as a communist my primary concern is, as you would say the role of 'environment' in human nature. It is as others would say, material conditions that play the primary role in human behavior.

Perhaps you are right that the term 'Equal Opportunity' is misleading, but in this case it means what it means. I explained its' definition.

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with that. It's just a violation of what the words equal and opportunity mean by calling it that. I agree with your definition point. I wasn't aware it was being defined in such a ridiculous way. Then again, a lot of terms work that way. We aren't really disagreeing, I think. I also am not concerned with equality of opportunity as much as examining environmental determination and promoting equality, in general

As for the other point, I think "quoting" tends to suggest someone is being hostile with the other person. I am not intending to do so. I agree that equality opportunity is more than genetics. I didn't intend to imply that it isn't. I was simply saying that a logical interpretation of combining the terms "equal" and "opportunity" would require so much equality that it would result in material equality anyway.

I'm just saying that no matter what you do, the fact that someone "worked hard" isn't a justification for giving them more - in any society, let alone a communist one.

[Valeofruin]

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with that. It's just a violation of what the words equal and opportunity mean by calling it that. I agree with your definition point. I wasn't aware it was being defined in such a ridiculous way. Then again, a lot of terms work that way. We aren't really disagreeing, I think. I also am not concerned with equality of opportunity as much as examining environmental determination and promoting equality, in general

As for the other point, I think "quoting" tends to suggest someone is being hostile with the other person. I am not intending to do so. I agree that equality opportunity is more than genetics. I didn't intend to imply that it isn't. I was simply saying that a logical interpretation of combining the terms "equal" and "opportunity" would require so much equality that it would result in material equality anyway.

I'm just saying that no matter what you do, the fact that someone "worked hard" isn't a justification for giving them more - in any society, let alone a communist one.

Indeed, we agree.. so where do we disagree? What are you doing running around as an anarcho communist, and I a Leninist?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Indeed, we agree.. so where do we disagree? What are you doing running around as an anarcho communist, and I a Leninist?

It's probably on the transition to communism. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that the centralization of power will lead to corrupt.

However, my more important issue is timing. If my first worry was alleviated, I'd have a second problem with Leninism. Why have a socialist transition occur if it's not necessary? Why wait for the best option?

Honestly, I just choose anarchism because I'm (1) skeptical of authority, as a rule and (2) impatient. I've never been convinced that anarchism is unrealistic or that Marxist-style authority structures are necessary. If authority exists that is not necessary, I oppose it simply to avoid any possible complications.

One of my issues with Marxism is it often speaks of the importance of going away from social norms and being free people. At the same time, it treats societies in a rather materialistic way where things will only change according to specific rules. I don't think there is a macro/micro distinction there that Marxism seems to imply. Really, whenever people try to make distinctions between micro and macro, in general, I get skeptical. Things made up of other things generally share the properties of what make them up.

I'm interested in Marxism. I'm very practical. I'll support anything that I think "will help things" and "not cause harm." I really don't know how to respond. Whenever I disagree with any kind of Marxist ideology, someone tells me that is not what Marx says. Then I change what I think Marxism is and form a new critique. Then someone else tells me Marxism is what I thought it was originally - or something else.

When Marxists, Leninists, etc, tell me clearly what they believe, it's easier to criticize them. At least anarchists, in my view, are very clear. We don't like authority unless it's justified, which is almost impossible to do in most cases. Secondly, we like equality.

Anarchism is like the elementary school form of communism. The thing is, though, elementary school is fun. It's great, and it promotes awesome values.

If I ever considered switching from Anarchism to another ideology, I wonder why I would choose Leninism? What significant distinctions from Marx that Lenin makes do you feel are significant enough to back him? How can modern Leninist philosophy avoid situations like in the USSR?

[Valeofruin]

It's probably on the transition to communism. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that the centralization of power will lead to corrupt.

However, my more important issue is timing. If my first worry was alleviated, I'd have a second problem with Leninism. Why have a socialist transition occur if it's not necessary? Why wait for the best option?

Honestly, I just choose anarchism because I'm (1) skeptical of authority, as a rule and (2) impatient. I've never been convinced that anarchism is unrealistic or that Marxist-style authority structures are necessary. If authority exists that is not necessary, I oppose it simply to avoid any possible complications.

One of my issues with Marxism is it often speaks of the importance of going away from social norms and being free people. At the same time, it treats societies in a rather materialistic way where things will only change according to specific rules. I don't think there is a macro/micro distinction there that Marxism seems to imply. Really, whenever people try to make distinctions between micro and macro, in general, I get skeptical. Things made up of other things generally share the properties of what make them up.

I'm interested in Marxism. I'm very practical. I'll support anything that I think "will help things" and "not cause harm." I really don't know how to respond. Whenever I disagree with any kind of Marxist ideology, someone tells me that is not what Marx says. Then I change what I think Marxism is and form a new critique. Then someone else tells me Marxism is what I thought it was originally - or something else.

When Marxists, Leninists, etc, tell me clearly what they believe, it's easier to criticize them. At least anarchists, in my view, are very clear. We don't like authority unless it's justified, which is almost impossible to do in most cases. Secondly, we like equality.

Anarchism is like the elementary school form of communism. The thing is, though, elementary school is fun. It's great, and it promotes awesome values.

If I ever considered switching from Anarchism to another ideology, I wonder why I would choose Leninism? What significant distinctions from Marx that Lenin makes do you feel are significant enough to back him? How can modern Leninist philosophy avoid situations like in the USSR?

Well, if we can agree that environment, or material conditions have the greatest influence over human behavior, it would only make sense that a transition is necessary.

Corruption and the need for their to be an authority are tied to the environment around us, and hence changing these things has to start by focusing on the various stimuli if you will that cause humans to act so poorly. Conditions, that is to say 'the environment', of course doesn't always change instantly, sometimes they take alot of time and effort, to move things along. Further if conditions change over time, then 'human nature' (though in fact merely 'human response') too much change over time, that is it changes gradually. Hence would not a system in which a gradual transition to a stateless, genuinely free, society make the most sense?

As a Leninist I believe in a system that changes the same way humans do, and have yet to be convinced the Anarchist system does this.