My high school economics class enrages me.

[superborys]

I'm sure that being required to take economics made most people mad, not just because they're leftists, but because economics is boring.

Either way, today in my economics class we watched a video comparing the three generally recognized types of economies, those being traditional, command, and market.

Later on down the video it described mixed economies, such as those found in most modern-day socialisms, and then it went on to describe Communism as an extreme form of Communism, while true, sounds rather negative.

It then went on to compare the political viewpoints of Communism and Capitalism, while glorifying and shining upon the few high-points of Capitalism, and only telling about the shortcomings of Communism. My teacher also said "market economies are proven, statistically, to be more efficient and to have higher consumer satisfaction than command economies" and I nearly flew into a rage.

Back to the Cap vs Com comparison, it said things like:

Capitalism:
Private property ownership Political freedoms Personal freedoms Entrepreneurship Personal incentive







And then said "since people blah blah blah, people are on a whole are happier because the market is capable of providing, dynamically, what the people want. It also allows for people to be (paraphrased) greedy fucks who want to suck the last penny out of you by selling you something you don't need.

Then it spoke about Communism:
No private property No incentive No entrepreneurship No freedoms






And as you can imagine, me being the passionate, motivated leftist my rants have at least revealed myself to be, this had me gnashing my teeth.

It didn't even talk about the many upsides of command economies/communism, nor did it talk about the rampant poverty that arises in nearly all capitalisms unless some government intervention happens (and then it becomes a socio-capitalism, can anyone say Scandinavia/Germany?).
It didn't talk about any sort of wage complaints that Karl Marx had, which the video did talk about.

It made capitalism sound like this glorious, free system that allows for everyone with any job to be a millionaire and live a full, happy life, while those under communism suffered like rats in a gutter. It had a picture of a market in Pyongyang showing a man in a general store buying food and it said "While this man's food is free, has has little choice in what he wants, and will never have choice", and even though NK is not the best communist example, I instantly thought, "Better to always have food then to be able to ogle 10 kinds of food."

Another thing this blasphemous, biased book had was a chart that had all three kinds of economic systems compared with bullets, and it listed, "Able to gradually adjust to change" as an advantage of market economies. What?!

It also listed that command economies "require a huge bureaucracy, which means less resources and labor elsewhere", which made me extremely angry. Command economies do not require bureaucracies at all, it's just how they have been implemented!

It also said that command economies were 'inflexible', 'slow', 'clumsy', and 'could not respond to national crisis'. How is that last one even related to economics?


I thought about appealing to the school board to have this biased bullshit taken out, but then I realized that they are employed by the government, who has put this biased information in this book for just this reason...


Another last, irritating note:
In this video, they had a short clip of 4 kids playing Monopoly, and they whined that one player was making all the money. One guy suggested, "how about we change the rules to play Communist Monopoly?" And everyone acted as if they had eaten week-old vomit and been punched in the stomach at the same time.

It then showed them playing Communist Monopoly, which was more or less Monopoly with changed rules, it didn't say how they changed them, and one guy had all the money.
I have never been so vexed in my life.


In short, I officially hate this country. I used to have some reformist tendencies hidden very deep in my mind (mainly because I somewhere felt we could avoid a violent revolution that caused the deaths of innocents), but after seeing this I suddenly realize how corrupt, biased, and controlling this government really is.


I guess this political thread is about events that totally disillusioned you to "the American way, and the spirit of 'Democracy'"

[leftace53]

Yea, my high school economics, university economics, and university politics classes have all been right wing bullshit. Its such a cop out for the teachers to just say "we live in a capitalist society, and its good" rather than to actually analyze it deeper, and show the students that years of propaganda got it wrong.

[fa2991]

When I was a high school junior, our history book defined communism as "system of government where the government controls ever aspect of people's lives." I got into an argument with the teacher about whether or not Fidel Castro was a dictator who bit the hand that fed him. :D

[RED DAVE]

Ask your teacher the following:

(1) Was the USSR and other "Communist" countries really what Marx and Engels wrote about?

(2) Why is there a major capitalist crisis going on right now caused by capitalists?

(3) If s/he says there are good capitalists and bad capitalists, ask why the good ones give the bad ones so much power?

(4) Ask why, economically, the US invaded and has occupied Iraq Afghanistan.

(5) Read your young ass off. :D

RED DAVE

[superborys]

Ask your teacher the following:

(1) Was the USSR and other "Communist" countries really what Marx and Engels wrote about?

(2) Why is there a major capitalist crisis going on right now caused by capitalists?

(3) If s/he says there are good capitalists and bad capitalists, ask why the good ones give the bad ones so much power?

(4) Ask why, economically, the US invaded and has occupied Iraq Afghanistan.

(5) Read your young ass off. :D

RED DAVE

I'm consider doing all of those except 5, which I've mostly done. I've read some of Das Kapital. I've read the Manifesto, and I've spent over 100 hours reading excerpts, discussions, and blogs here and on wikipedia about the communist movement.

[fa2991]

Ask your teacher the following:

(1) Was the USSR and other "Communist" countries really what Marx and Engels wrote about?

As if high school economics teachers have ever read anything by Marx... or even know who Engels is. :lol:

[superborys]

As if high school economics teachers have ever read anything by Marx... or even know who Engels is. :lol:

You're probably right....

We did an activity with a chocolate bar:

"You and two other people are on a uninhabited island with little food, and you find a chocolate bar on the beach, wrapped, safe to eat. How do you split it?"

Naturally most of the groups chose the natural thing to do and split it evenly, representing socialism. Not a single group in the class chose to sell it. One group, however, made it to where the finder required that the other two had to perform a task to get some. The teacher supposed this was communism, "You don't work, you don't eat."
Now, that may be a dominant theme in the bum-management facet of communism, but the two concepts are independent of each other. Just because it's communist doesn't mean that you have to work in order to get food, you work, and the food is there for you to take. I imagine what they represented was a meritocracy.

[Animal Farm Pig]

Two questions to ask your teacher:

If capitalism is such a good system, why are so many people living in poverty while others live in obscene wealth?

If the "free market" ensures efficient rationing of goods, why are people homeless while there are so many empty houses, apartments, and hotel rooms?

[KC]

Or just don't say anything and sleep through it.

[M-26-7]

My advice for economics classes, based on my own personal experience, is:

1. Mentally filter out the bullshit, such as "capitalism is personal freedom", and ignore it (there is no sense in raging over it).

2. Pay close attention and learn. You can't refute something you don't know about.

I think confronting your teacher at this stage is rather pointless, personally. There is a more than good chance that you will lose (because let's face it, your teacher knows more than you about this topic). But soak up what he's saying, and in the future you will really be able to win an economics argument.

[Red Commissar]

I agree with the statements of the last two posters.

Really it's not like other people in the economics class really care anyways. It's just another class in the grind as they watch the clock wind down to the end of the day. It'd be pointless to argue with the teacher though, and in the end what benefit would it net?

I can relate though. I can remember watching videos and the textbook in our economics class which made the modern market economy seem like the best thing for man kind. FREEDOM! INCENTIVE TO WORK! REWARDING HARD WORK! where as Communism stifled these things and doomed their economies to stagnation. I can remember watching videos that showed the "horror" of the Soviet system by showing footage from the last two years of the Soviet Union.

However it did prove useful in one regard, as it lets you know what kind of mindset a lot of people might be working with in regards to the glorious of Capitalism and the horrors of Communism, and be able to debate more effectively as M267 points out. Knowing where your opponents come from is just as important as knowing your own ideas.

It doesn't improve much when you get into colleges/universities either. From my experience most economics departments have a bent towards pro-capitalist outlooks anyways.

[RedSonRising]

I learned a lot about my economics class in high school, but of course what they talked about in terms of alternative socialist economics was overly simplified. One day I made a powerpoint presentation on socialism towards the end of the year refuting all the claims made by decades of propaganda and adding doses of history and theory that gave a lot of people in the class a wakeup call. My economics teacher told me he really enjoyed it and found it interesting, and most kids found it at least informative. One mentioned in my yearbook I had "opened his eyes to a lot of truths" and I felt really glad I was able to have even a small impact at that age in a high school environment on someone else concerning educating them about proletarian politics.

The one token republican in the class looked at me like I had put a swastika up on the screen though, his face was priceless :laugh:.

Just try your best to contribute and show your intelligence while taking everything in and adding small doses of common sense questioning of the system in order to strike up good conversations and learn while teaching others if you can.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It then went on to compare the political viewpoints of Communism and Capitalism, while glorifying and shining upon the few high-points of Capitalism, and only telling about the shortcomings of Communism. My teacher also said "market economies are proven, statistically, to be more efficient and to have higher consumer satisfaction than command economies" and I nearly flew into a rage.

To some extent it is true that a market economy creates better consumer satisfaction; after all, rampant consumerism is manufactured by the market as well. Since the satisfaction of worthless whims and impulsive purchase desires are not prioritised as of primary importance in a planned economy (hopefully not, anyway...), the market obviously satisfies this better. But this is of course of no real importance, nor is it a good measurement of the quality of people's lives.


Back to the Cap vs Com comparison, it said things like:

Capitalism:

Private property ownership
Political freedoms
Personal freedoms
Entrepreneurship
Personal incentive



Sounds like a nightmarish situation to me. Plus, what "political freedoms" are those? They are no meaningful ones. Merely a charade. And "entrepreneurship" is just empty capitalist rhetoric, it doesn't really mean squat; same goes for "personal incentive". They sure are classic though.


It made capitalism sound like this glorious, free system that allows for everyone with any job to be a millionaire and live a full, happy life, while those under communism suffered like rats in a gutter. It had a picture of a market in Pyongyang showing a man in a general store buying food and it said "While this man's food is free, has has little choice in what he wants, and will never have choice", and even though NK is not the best communist example, I instantly thought, "Better to always have food then to be able to ogle 10 kinds of food."

Everyone knows 100 brands of the same food is the essence of freedom. amirite? Shirts with some company logotype on it. We're free to choose!


Another thing this blasphemous, biased book had was a chart that had all three kinds of economic systems compared with bullets, and it listed, "Able to gradually adjust to change" as an advantage of market economies. What?!

What economic system does not gradually adjust to change? :laugh:


It also listed that command economies "require a huge bureaucracy, which means less resources and labor elsewhere", which made me extremely angry. Command economies do not require bureaucracies at all, it's just how they have been implemented!

It also said that command economies were 'inflexible', 'slow', 'clumsy', and 'could not respond to national crisis'. How is that last one even related to economics?

What requires a gargantuan bureaucracy is really capitalism. Not just in the sense of a bloated administrative government, but business bureaucracy is even larger, even more bloated. Why else do they need so many of those gigantic office buildings? It's just that, for those liberals and capitalists, somehow a corporate board room and it's managerial branches are not a form of "bureaucracy", that's just something the state has. There was a silly wordplay in a Swedish Enterprise propaganda leaflet whining about the struggle between Näringsliv (enterprise, lit. nourishment-life) and "täringsliv" (referring to the public sector, depletion-life), arguing that everything that is private contributes, and everything that is public detracts and depletes. Thereafter raving on incessantly about bureaucracy--

The term "command economy" is a capitalist slur as well in general. Even the Soviet Union's planned economy never had a bureaucracy comparable to that of the United State's, even the U.S. government's administrative expenditure is more than twice that of the Soviet Union's revisionist form.

How well is the United State's economy handling the current economic crisis? How well was the Katrina incident handled? Handling of a national crisis of enormous proportions can be easier in a planned economy. Whether it responds quickly or not to changes and so on is an organisational question, not something inherent to a planned or unplanned economy (and a capitalist economy uses planning within companies and conglomerate groups, even so). The revisionist Soviet Union's system of planning was characterised by rivalries between industrial sectors and competing interests engaging in feuding, and the system was in many aspects relatively decentralised, which lead to considerable problems and inefficiencies.


In this video, they had a short clip of 4 kids playing Monopoly, and they whined that one player was making all the money. One guy suggested, "how about we change the rules to play Communist Monopoly?" And everyone acted as if they had eaten week-old vomit and been punched in the stomach at the same time.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[fa2991]

I learned a lot about my economics class in high school, but of course what they talked about in terms of alternative socialist economics was overly simplified. One day I made a powerpoint presentation on socialism towards the end of the year refuting all the claims made by decades of propaganda and adding doses of history and theory that gave a lot of people in the class a wakeup call. My economics teacher told me he really enjoyed it and found it interesting, and most kids found it at least informative. One mentioned in my yearbook I had "opened his eyes to a lot of truths" and I felt really glad I was able to have even a small impact at that age in a high school environment on someone else concerning educating them about proletarian politics.

You wouldn't still have that PowerPoint file, would you? Sounds like it would be cool to see. :lol:

[GPDP]

The term "command economy" is a capitalist slur as well in general. Even the Soviet Union's planned economy never had a bureaucracy comparable to that of the United State's, even the U.S. government's administrative expenditure is more than twice that of the Soviet Union's revisionist form.

Got any sources for this? I'm not questioning it or anything, it's just fascinating. I'd like to use such a statistic to turn it around if ever I find myself arguing with a right-wing blowhard spouting crap about socialism's supposed bureaucratic bloat.

[incogweedo]

well, living in the "Good Ol' Capitalist All American U.S.A.", they realize that shoving all this bullshit down kids' throats from ages 5 - 18 turns them into robots who don't question their government and just do what they're supposed to. They like to talk about how your rights just dissolve under a communist regime and there is no incentive to work. Plus, i like how they use the USSR as their example.

Trust me, there's really no point in arguing with them, just let them live in their dream world and believe they're "free". They are robots to this capitalist society, and will remain robots. It will never get any better, the rich will just keep getting richer, their robots will always get the good scraps because they suck so much rich cock, and the poor will just keep getting poorer. It will never get any better, don't look forward for the system to correct itself.

The only way to fix this is a revolution. Peaceful or violent, doesn't matter. we just need a revolution. Maybe we can work out some compromise of a "reformed" or "better" capitalist system, probably not. But the best way to fix this is a communist or anarchist system; based off human rights, mutual respect, and the welfare of all humans.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Got any sources for this? I'm not questioning it or anything, it's just fascinating. I'd like to use such a statistic to turn it around if ever I find myself arguing with a right-wing blowhard spouting crap about socialism's supposed bureaucratic bloat.

I don't remember the exact source, but I've seen it mentioned several times. It's extrapolated from % of GNP spent on state administration in the mid 1970's from official economic figures, IIRC.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

It also listed that command economies "require a huge bureaucracy, which means less resources and labor elsewhere", which made me extremely angry. Command economies do not require bureaucracies at all, it's just how they have been implemented!

You're right on target when you say that command economies have significant advantages that capitalism overlooks, but I'm not sure what your reasoning here is based on.

How do you implement a command economy without a bureaucracy? You can try to keep the bureaucracy in check by making it more responsible and preventing it from developing into a privileged caste, but a command economy seems to imply one simply by definition.

[RedSonRising]

You wouldn't still have that PowerPoint file, would you? Sounds like it would be cool to see. :lol:

I actually do on a different computer, I can show it when I get the chance. It's really muddled since I had a limited knowledge on the history of socialism and included socialist party leaders such as Zapatero of Spain due to his support of worker cooperatives (which is a major stretch, I know) to try and show the variety and relevance of the ideology in a way that the students could identify. There are a dozen examples I would rather have put looking back, but hey, I was just a beginner trying to make sense of countless competing socialist theories weaving in and out of a confusing history. I lumped the theories of State-Capitalism and Degenerate Workers' states together, bashed Mao and Stalin a bit (to disassociate the ideology with what many no doubt thought was textbook totalitarianism), but all in all I stressed through my oral presentation the focus of democratic workers' control and the historical examples where a State or an owning class was either diminished and subservient or non-existent under worker control, and that this was the direct opposite of the quasi-fascist "everyone gets paid the same" bread-line version of what socialism really is supposed to be. My favorite part was the "Famous Socialists" slide I had, where I had Einstein and Malcom X and Helen Keller and MLK among others saying some pretty "incriminating" things about capitalism. I did what I could to try and shellshock a bunch of white suburban middle class youths into critically examining an ideology for what it was meant to be while peeling back the layers of distorted historical fairy tales.

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, a "command economy" will produce much less waste. Because, in case of excess production, at least it can confiscate some and turn that towards the less production area. Those bloody f***ing economics teacher forgot that to satisfy one Good American consumer, how many mouths in Asia, Africa and Latin have to be starved.
In future, kindly ask the b****rd economist one thing, if capitalist "free" economics is so good, then why so much countries in the world around now have a huge starving population? Why the "efficient" capitalists have to bribe leaders and bureaucrats of third world countries to forcefully uproot aboriginal and poor people? And last but not the least, WHY THE "EFFICIENT" CAPITALIST FAILED TO CONTROL THE GLOBAL WARMING?
Things are worse in India and in my opinion, "market" economists are worse than prostitutes. Perhaps I am humiliating the prostitutes.

[bailey_187]

economics classes always start with this. just ignore it. Soon you should move on to learning the theory, then do more reading around it from marxist or non-neoclassical view.

[AK]

It also listed that command economies "require a huge bureaucracy, which means less resources and labor elsewhere", which made me extremely angry.
Funny. Reminds me of capitalism.

[NecroCommie]

I remember trolling my highschool economics class. Just for the lulz. When asked things like, what are prerequisites of entrepreneurship, or how do the markets handle unemployment, I answered: "greed and hatred towards humanity", and: "Very poorly".

It was a lot of fun and I earned a few good laughs from the class. I recommend. :thumbup1: Then again I had a teacher with a sense of humour and a tolerance for communists.

[Devrim]

When I was doing economics at school at 14 and 15 years old, I had an old Stalinist teaching it to me. He wasn't bad actually.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

And make sure you watch "Risky Business"! :D

RED DAVE

[jake williams]

I just want to respond to the original post. Economics isn't "boring" or even necessarily "right wing" (though academics and textbooks in the field often are). I'm actually an econ major. Economics studies the social relationships through which class struggle most directly occurs. You have to pay attention to find it and it's tough because your teacher is probably a shitbag, but I think it's worth it.

There's a lot you can gain from arguing with your teacher, but it's mostly selfish. Your teacher will not change his mind. Your fellow students, however, may, if even a little. Arguing keeps you on your toes and will let you analyze the material much better (in addition to sharpening your debate skills). If you don't challenge it, two pretty unfortunate things can happen - you may just totally shut out what the teacher is saying and refuse to engage with any of it, which is going to be a serious setback in terms of how comfortable you're going to be engaging with economics in the future. You could also subconsciously begin to believe it, at least at the margins, which wouldn't be helpful either.

It's work, but I think it's worth the work.

[hobo8675309]

this is propoganda.

[Tablo]

My econ class in high school was awful. The teacher hated me the rest of the year when on the second day I refuted her critique of the Soviet economy. She didn't have a clue.

[ZombieGrits]

You wouldn't still have that PowerPoint file, would you? Sounds like it would be cool to see. :lol:

RedSonRising, I'd like to see that one too, whenever you find it. I'm going into high school economics myself this year, and I don't want to waste any opportunity to defend my ideals.

[Nolan]

We live in capitalism. The ruling class will try anything to maintain its power, and it will have hordes of its defenders. Get used to it, there's no need raging over it. Point out that many people have a good standard of living in some capitalist countries because of imperialism and unions. Discuss the history of the capitalist economy, the state, and their interdependence. If they go into hurr mode, which most will, walk away. Live and let live, you're not going to change their minds.

By hurr mode I mean...let me just tell you a story. The other day I brought up the mass graves in Colombia and made a small speech on the media's silence about this. Then a Colombian who just happened to speak perfect English blasted me and called me a Chavista, saying Chavez is "my president" because I'm Venezuelan American. What did this have to do with the graves in Colombia?

[Os Cangaceiros]

It should come as no suprise that most economists are hostile to Marxism/communism/anti-capitalism, as economics is a discipline that concerns itself with scarcity and how to effectively manage it.

[rednordman]

I would just like to add this...Under communism people for the most point probably didnt have to worry if the needed the toilet....Under capitalism, we are always getting monitored, and could lose our jobs due to the 'still time' that is created from going to the toilet, as it 'affects our performance' because we are always on a running performance (in otherwords, we are always on 'the system'). We cannot get a delay for this....this is a reality working in one of the most known monopolies in UK.

To think that high school economics is that one dimentional....fucking idiots.

[superborys]

Interestingly enough, I read in Communism: A short introduction by Leslie Holmes that Soviet workers could leave in the middle of the day to go shopping and stuff because their quotas were so small.

[Tatarin]

There is only one way out: fart in your teacher's face and say that you quit the course.

[jake williams]

scarcity
The way economists define "scarcity", "scarcity will exist" as long as, literally, you don't have an infinite amount of time within any given interval. It doesn't even make sense to talk about a "post-scarcity society" unless you don't understand what economists mean by scarcity. As long as there are any social choices about resource allocation to be made, and even arguably as long as there are personal choices about time allocation to be made, economics in the broadest sense will still be viable. In no way is it intrinsically backward.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It doesn't even make sense to talk about a "post-scarcity society" unless you don't understand what economists mean by scarcity. As long as there are any social choices about resource allocation to be made, and even arguably as long as there are personal choices about time allocation to be made, economics in the broadest sense will still be viable. In no way is it intrinsically backward.

So what are the implications of that in regards to what Marxist political scientists/economists refer to as "post-scarcity"?

[jake williams]

So what are the implications of that in regards to what Marxist political scientists/economists refer to as "post-scarcity"?
I think they're mistaken.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm so glad my history & economics teacher was a socialist..:lol:

[fa2991]

I'm so glad my history & economics teacher was a socialist..:lol:

How did the school let that slide?

[The Vegan Marxist]

How did the school let that slide?

They didn't know. :D

[M-26-7]

The way economists define "scarcity", "scarcity will exist" as long as, literally, you don't have an infinite amount of time within any given interval. It doesn't even make sense to talk about a "post-scarcity society" unless you don't understand what economists mean by scarcity. As long as there are any social choices about resource allocation to be made, and even arguably as long as there are personal choices about time allocation to be made, economics in the broadest sense will still be viable.

I think that when socialists talk about post-scarcity, they are talking about basic goods--food, clothing, shelter, healthcare. Still, scarcity will always exist. I think it is better to talk about the commodification of basic goods, which is entirely a social issue, versus the "scarcity" of these goods, which is due to a combination of social and natural causes. These goods will always be "scarce" in the sense that, by taking a little away from one (say healthcare), you could allocate a little more to another (say food). For instance, during the deprivations of the WWII era, basic goods were most certainly scarce in many parts of the USSR, but this was not the fault of the social system, nor could it have been remedied by a change in the social system. The real issue for socialists should one of equal access for all people to whatever total amount of these goods does exist--and this is a question of them being market commodities versus being public goods, not a question of them being abundant versus being scarce.

Anyway, I am long-windedly agreeing with you.

[RedSonRising]

By hurr mode I mean...let me just tell you a story. The other day I brought up the mass graves in Colombia and made a small speech on the media's silence about this. Then a Colombian who just happened to speak perfect English blasted me and called me a Chavista, saying Chavez is "my president" because I'm Venezuelan American. What did this have to do with the graves in Colombia?

The Colombian media has cleverly turned the situation of ideologically-based hostilities into a Colombia-vs-Venezuela conflict portrayed through a national lens. Whenever Chavez criticized Uribe's lack of acknowledgment for human rights abuses, many Colombians take it personally and feel it is an attack on their nation as a whole. They love to exaggerate any and all trivial statements released by Chavez that may make him appear to be crazy, violent, or hostile.

Without class consciousness, people will revert to the unscientific social divisions which shape modern politics, or rather which modern politics shape in society.

[Red Commissar]

What I went through in my economics class was no where near as annoying when I had to read Ayn Rand's Anthem for my Senior English class.

I seriously considered destroying that book, but it would have just meant the school paying them money again to get another copy. So instead I just wrote a link to that website on the back cover that said Ayn Rand was as sociopath, saying it was quick notes.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think they're mistaken.

Well, certainly there are always going to be things that will always be of a limited quantity, such as time. However, as a previous poster said, I've always been of the understanding that basic goods were the primary focus of post-scarcity theories.

In any case, most economists are shills for the ruling class and capitalism. All thought is dedicated to effectively minimizing crises in favor of market equilibrium, and few of them actually have the foresight to look beyond the narrow parameters that the discipline has constructed for them. Of course, some of the core values of the profession will probably continue to exist into the future, in regards to management and such, but all things considered, the field of economics is pretty damn reactionary.

[Svoboda]

QUOTE=superborys;1835898]
My teacher also said "market economies are proven, statistically, to be more efficient and to have higher consumer satisfaction than command economies" and I nearly flew into a rage.
[/QUOTE]
Why would you fly into a rage? The reason why the USSR and the eastern Soviet Bloc collapsed was because of their massive inefficiency economically. The people were tired of waiting in line for shoes, and buying often shoddy products.




It didn't even talk about the many upsides of command economies/communism, nor did it talk about the rampant poverty that arises in nearly all capitalisms unless some government intervention happens (and then it becomes a socio-capitalism, can anyone say Scandinavia/Germany?).

I wouldn't call the poverty in the United States "rampant", 12% below the poverty line isn't pretty but in the command economies most people were equal sure but they were basically equally living in a shitty condition.


It had a picture of a market in Pyongyang showing a man in a general store buying food and it said "While this man's food is free, has has little choice in what he wants, and will never have choice", and even though NK is not the best communist example, I instantly thought, "Better to always have food then to be able to ogle 10 kinds of food."

Yeah I'm sure the people in North Korea eat real well.


It also listed that command economies "require a huge bureaucracy, which means less resources and labor elsewhere", which made me extremely angry. Command economies do not require bureaucracies at all, it's just
how they have been implemented!

What? Look at any of the command economies and you'll find that all means of production were taken under control of the state, and with no market economy in exist(at least legal) that regulated what the people wanted the command economies essentially had to create massive bureaucracies to find out what people wanted and they then had to tell people what to build and how much of it, that's why its called a planned economy. Who do you think did the planning?


It also said that command economies were 'inflexible', 'slow', 'clumsy', and 'could not respond to national crisis'. How is that last one even related to economics?

I wouldn't necessarily say that they couldn't respond to a national crisis, but they without a doubt were inflexible, slow and clumsy. They were inflexible in terms not being in any way able to meet consumer demand in an orderly amount of time. They were slow because of the massive bureaucracy. And they were clumsy or inefficient for numerous reasons, the biggest being lack of incentive for the people to work hard.


but after seeing this I suddenly realize how corrupt, biased, and controlling this government really is.

I'm sure that the command economies are a hell of a lot less corrupt, biased and controlling under their authoritarian nationalistic schools.

[Svoboda]

As if high school economics teachers have ever read anything by Marx... or even know who Engels is. :lol:
And as if you have ever actually read Adam Smith or Ricardo or even know who Murray Rothbard is.

[ZombieGrits]

And as if you have ever actually read Adam Smith or Ricardo or even know who Murray Rothbard is.

Actually, I have read smith and ricardo, and do, in fact, know of rothbard. that doesn't have shit to do with the topic at hand, ie that all the downsides of capitalism and all the upsides of other ideologies are, for the most part, ignore in economics education. Care to address that?

[Svoboda]

Actually, I have read smith and ricardo, and do, in fact, know of rothbard. that doesn't have shit to do with the topic at hand, ie that all the downsides of capitalism and all the upsides of other ideologies are, for the most part, ignore in economics education. Care to address that?
Well we first off I wouldn't say we live in a purely Capitalist society. So your economics class probably just gave a false perception of Capitalism really was. For example Adam Smith is commonly famous for his promotion of the division of labor, and I'm sure most economics classes discuss how he was in such heavy support of it because of the massive increase in productivity, but in reality he saw it as being potentially dangerous as it could lead to the workers essentially becoming slaves so he advocated the State's role in educating citizens and making sure that didn't happen.

Smith was all wary about the rise in big business and the greed that erupted from it he stated "Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.".

He would also be very critical of the state's involvement in big business which promoted their expansion. Also the quote in my signature also illustrates his views well.

Ricardo and Rothbard also hold interesting views that most people don't know about.

[ZombieGrits]

Much better. Yeah, somehow it is failed to be mentioned that even Adam Smith, holy of holies of liberal economists, had issues with capitalism :rolleyes:

[Svoboda]

Much better. Yeah, somehow it is failed to be mentioned that even Adam Smith, holy of holies of liberal economists, had issues with capitalism :rolleyes:
Well Capitalism never really existed during his time per say, so in his wealth of nations he criticized Mercantilism and advocated for a market economy, but I think he'd be horrified with what we call Capitalism today and he'd see it as a massive distortion of his ideas

[Raúl Duke]

In my high school, even the teacher hated economics (she also thought poli sci, which was more interesting). The class was really pro-Keynesian (social democratic), but we also understood that the economy as present was a very fragile thing that if it gets fucked up in one place it can get really fucked up.

Also, I learned that the economy does not care about employment. In fact, it was in economics class where I learned that unemployment was actually good for capitalism. This alone made me think "well, I can't really believe those people who say "capitalism is the best system; that's obviously a glaring failing of capitalism."

I failed the AP tests for Economics.

In College, the economics department is the most reactionary one. It's the one with all the libertarians/Randians.

The most progressive departments in my university, in terms of students, etc, was Anthropology, Sociology, and History (in that order). Sociology students are the most communitarian minded and always think about how to improve society. My Sociology of Community class had more or less "apolitical" (as in they weren't leftists, etc) students criticize capitalism. Even the teacher did. History students tended to be the "most knowledgeable" (roughly speaking) about Marx. Anthropology has a lot of "thinkers," etc and also contained a lot of hippies/etc.

[fa2991]

And as if you have ever actually read Adam Smith or Ricardo or even know who Murray Rothbard is.

What an odd comment. Actually, I've read Wealth of Nations and On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.

Obviously I know who Murray Rothbard is, but I don't read him seriously because, really, fuck Murray Rothbard. That's like if I said that people didn't read enough George Orwell and you said "As if you ever actually read Ayn Rand!" Who cares? She sucks, as does Murray Rothbard.

[Svoboda]

What an odd comment. Actually, I've read Wealth of Nations and On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.

Obviously I know who Murray Rothbard is, but I don't read him seriously because, really, fuck Murray Rothbard. That's like if I said that people didn't read enough George Orwell and you said "As if you ever actually read Ayn Rand!" Who cares? She sucks, as does Murray Rothbard.
I never said Ayn Rand, I am disgusted by her. But Rothbard had a great critique of the state's intervention in the market which really creates and upholds the exploitation of private institutions on the people, without the state he argues "big business" would essentially be impossible. But I dostrongly disagree with his fervent support of private property. And don't fully understand how he was such a fervent opponent of the state's domination of the individuate but was blind to the Capitalist's domination of the worker.

[fa2991]

I never said Ayn Rand, I am disgusted by her. But Rothbard had a great critique of the state's intervention in the market which really creates and upholds the exploitation of private institutions on the people, without the state he argues "big business" would essentially be impossible. But I dostrongly disagree with his fervent support of private property. And don't fully understand how he was such a fervent opponent of the state's domination of the individuate but was blind to the Capitalist's domination of the worker.

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard are basically the same person, except Murray is probably less of an asshole.

Most of what you just said about Murray's philosophy is applicable to Objectivism.

[Svoboda]

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard are basically the same person, except Murray is probably less of an asshole.

Most of what you just said about Murray's philosophy is applicable to Objectivism.
Rothbard and Rand were close for a while yes, but then they had a big break when Rand really started to lose it. Rothbard is not an ojectivist.

[fa2991]

Rothbard and Rand were close for a while yes, but then they had a big break when Rand really started to lose it. Rothbard is not an ojectivist.

Anarcho-capitalist more or less = Libertarian capitalist, except anarcho-capitalist is even stupider than propertarian. So Rothbard is arguably worse than Rand.

[Svoboda]

Anarcho-capitalist more or less = Libertarian capitalist, except anarcho-capitalist is even stupider than propertarian. So Rothbard is arguably worse than Rand.
No not at all, for Rand was still in support of the state and essentially the military industrial complex and believed in the US policing the world, while Rothbard was complety aganist US imperialism he even praised Che upon his death in an article where he procalimed "his enemy was our enemy". Rothbard was overall completely disgusted by concept of the state and saw the people themselves as being able to solve their problems much better on their own and mutually rather than through the state.

[fa2991]

No not at all, for Rand was still in support of the state and essentially the military industrial complex and believed in the US policing the world, while Rothbard was complety aganist US imperialism he even praised Che upon his death in an article where he procalimed "his enemy was our enemy". Rothbard was overall completely disgusted by concept of the state and saw the people themselves as being able to solve their problems much better on their own and mutually rather than through the state.

It's a very thin line. Any power he wanted drained from the state was more or less made up for by his idiotic theories about capitalism.

[jake williams]

Well, certainly there are always going to be things that will always be of a limited quantity, such as time. However, as a previous poster said, I've always been of the understanding that basic goods were the primary focus of post-scarcity theories.
The provision of basic goods (barring natural barriers to doing so, for example natural disasters) is indeed a function of a reasonably decent society, but that's not post-scarcity. I go back to my original point, that economists mean something totally different than those advocating "post-scarcity" by the term "scarcity".


In any case, most economists are shills for the ruling class and capitalism. All thought is dedicated to effectively minimizing crises in favor of market equilibrium, and few of them actually have the foresight to look beyond the narrow parameters that the discipline has constructed for them. Of course, some of the core values of the profession will probably continue to exist into the future, in regards to management and such, but all things considered, the field of economics is pretty damn reactionary.
I don't think you know much about the field of economics.

[Adil3tr]

I'm going to have to take that class soon. That'll be hell. Also, I think he mixes up "command economy" and socialism.

[mo7amEd]

I'm sure that being required to take economics made most people mad, not just because they're leftists, but because economics is boring.

Either way, today in my economics class we watched a video comparing the three generally recognized types of economies, those being traditional, command, and market.

Later on down the video it described mixed economies, such as those found in most modern-day socialisms, and then it went on to describe Communism as an extreme form of Communism, while true, sounds rather negative.

It then went on to compare the political viewpoints of Communism and Capitalism, while glorifying and shining upon the few high-points of Capitalism, and only telling about the shortcomings of Communism. My teacher also said "market economies are proven, statistically, to be more efficient and to have higher consumer satisfaction than command economies" and I nearly flew into a rage.

Back to the Cap vs Com comparison, it said things like:

Capitalism:
Private property ownership Political freedoms Personal freedoms Entrepreneurship Personal incentive







And then said "since people blah blah blah, people are on a whole are happier because the market is capable of providing, dynamically, what the people want. It also allows for people to be (paraphrased) greedy fucks who want to suck the last penny out of you by selling you something you don't need.

Then it spoke about Communism:
No private property No incentive No entrepreneurship No freedoms






And as you can imagine, me being the passionate, motivated leftist my rants have at least revealed myself to be, this had me gnashing my teeth.

It didn't even talk about the many upsides of command economies/communism, nor did it talk about the rampant poverty that arises in nearly all capitalisms unless some government intervention happens (and then it becomes a socio-capitalism, can anyone say Scandinavia/Germany?).
It didn't talk about any sort of wage complaints that Karl Marx had, which the video did talk about.

It made capitalism sound like this glorious, free system that allows for everyone with any job to be a millionaire and live a full, happy life, while those under communism suffered like rats in a gutter. It had a picture of a market in Pyongyang showing a man in a general store buying food and it said "While this man's food is free, has has little choice in what he wants, and will never have choice", and even though NK is not the best communist example, I instantly thought, "Better to always have food then to be able to ogle 10 kinds of food."

Another thing this blasphemous, biased book had was a chart that had all three kinds of economic systems compared with bullets, and it listed, "Able to gradually adjust to change" as an advantage of market economies. What?!

It also listed that command economies "require a huge bureaucracy, which means less resources and labor elsewhere", which made me extremely angry. Command economies do not require bureaucracies at all, it's just how they have been implemented!

It also said that command economies were 'inflexible', 'slow', 'clumsy', and 'could not respond to national crisis'. How is that last one even related to economics?


I thought about appealing to the school board to have this biased bullshit taken out, but then I realized that they are employed by the government, who has put this biased information in this book for just this reason...


Another last, irritating note:
In this video, they had a short clip of 4 kids playing Monopoly, and they whined that one player was making all the money. One guy suggested, "how about we change the rules to play Communist Monopoly?" And everyone acted as if they had eaten week-old vomit and been punched in the stomach at the same time.

It then showed them playing Communist Monopoly, which was more or less Monopoly with changed rules, it didn't say how they changed them, and one guy had all the money.
I have never been so vexed in my life.


In short, I officially hate this country. I used to have some reformist tendencies hidden very deep in my mind (mainly because I somewhere felt we could avoid a violent revolution that caused the deaths of innocents), but after seeing this I suddenly realize how corrupt, biased, and controlling this government really is.


I guess this political thread is about events that totally disillusioned you to "the American way, and the spirit of 'Democracy'"

I actually read International Business & Economics in University. The first semester I was amazed at the bullshit written in these books, for instance (and this is actually what the book said), Capitalism = Democracy and Communism = Dictatorship. In one course we were taught that Socialist economy was similar to Nazi Germanys economy because when Germany and Soviet were preparing for war they had similar systems, where everything was manufactured to sadisfy the war machine that was built. It was called dirigisme... Their scientific methods are bullshit and based on retard charts and graphs that has little or nothing to do with reality. I could do a research, make it extremly subjective and still it'd pass as legitimite... as long as the "professors" like it. Most research are justified by being "emprically" proven, which basically means they asked three to four persons.

Best part of this so-called "bullshit" educations is that every retard can graduate without effort, still here in Sweden (and probably in most of West) it's a respected education.

Anyhow, now two years later I just don't care, I go idly by and awaits the day I graduate or drop of to study something else.

[The Idler]

Ask your teacher, if "capitalism has political freedoms", can you show a short video to the class that critical of capitalism? If the answers no, go to the head of economics then your principal.

The obvious one would be Crises of Capitalism by David Harvey but there is also Brendan McCooney (http://www.youtube.com/user/brendanmcooney).qOP2V_np2c0

[NGNM85]

You should check out Ha-Joon Chang's "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism", Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", and Noam Chomsky's "Profit Over People:Neoliberalism and Global Order."