Hello

[The New State]

Hello, I decided to join this place after a number of references to it on another board I frequent.

I'm not sure why I am joining a board like this, but hell, it seems like there are others like me willing to jump into the play pin with the commies as well...


anyways, hello.

I am an economic libertarian, and a political authoritarian.

I believe in a mostly unregulated economy, and an authoritarian state guided by martial principles.

[Commie Rat]

cool

i am a commuist but i belive in free speech
you can belive in what eva the hell you want to belvie in

[The New State]

Hello, and thankyou. Some questions to you/any commies who bite:

Why are you a communist?


How do you deal with the archaic nature of the Labor Theory of Value, which is the foundation of Marxist thought?

Do you believe the Labor Theory of Value is correct? if so, why?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The New State
I believe in a mostly unregulated economy, and an authoritarian state guided by martial principles.

That's certainly an odd combination.

Authoritarian states "guided by martial principles" must perforce regulate their economies quite a bit...resources must be diverted to military purposes "regardless" of the "market".

As one of the dying Roman Emperors put it to his heir: "Pay the soldiers first!"

Although Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were capitalist countries, their authoritarian governments -- "based on martial values" -- did regulate highly both their domestic economies and their foreign trade.


How do you deal with the archaic nature of the Labor Theory of Value, which is the foundation of Marxist thought?

Does Capitalism "Self-Destruct"? A Problem in Marxist Economics (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083546760&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

My own view is that the labor theory of value must be "demoted" to the level of a hypothesis pending further research and development.

I note that you consider yourself a "future officer in the U.S. army". Far be it from me to discourage your ambition -- someone with your values will certainly "feel at home" in such a fascist environment.

But when you get ready to sleep, better look under your cot and check for live grenades. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[New Tolerance]

Why are you a communist?


Well, primarily because I think that human beings shouldn't be coerced either politically (I'm not a supporter of Lenin) or economically. I disagree with the arguement that workers are not "forced" to work for exploitative masters since they can quit their job anytime they want. Since to argue such is like arguing: "slaves aren't really slaves, since they can make an escape attempt anytime they choose, and the fact that they are not making escape attempts shows that they want to be slaves..."

In the West it is more difficult to connect with the ideas of exploitation and alienation these days, since labour laws are better enforced by democractic and popular institutions here (ideally speaking). If you look into the third world, you might get a better idea of I what they are talking about.

[revolutionindia]

Why are you a communist?

I don't think I am communist but let me give you some advice since you
sound new and ready to learn

Your mind is capable of infinte things
Don't create boundaries for your mind by trying to subscribe to certain ideologies
(capitalism,communism included)

There is no absolute good or bad,right or wrong in this world
Everthing is relative

Life is a dream,dream it

[The New State]

That's certainly an odd combination.


Authoritarian states "guided by martial principles" must perforce regulate their economies quite a bit...resources must be diverted to military purposes "regardless" of the "market".

Correct, but a state would be able to maintain a mostly free economy by eliminating social spending not related to the military, and allocating those funds towards lowering taxes, and increasing the size of the military.

Given these very crude estimations of the federal budget:

Social Spending: 600 billion Dollars
Military Spending: 400 billion dollars

It is possible to double the budget of the military, and reduce general taxation by 100 billion dollars(i.e reduce taxation to negate this surplus).

The definite changes would occur in the arms industry, inidustries formerly regulated by the bureaucracy would be set free; healthcare, social security, welfare - all privatized.



Although Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were capitalist countries, their authoritarian governments -- "based on martial values" -- did regulate highly both their domestic economies and their foreign trade.

This is a mistake. By 1943 most of the German economy was planned by state bureaucrats. This can be proven through both the NAZI Party's rehetorical doctrine, and its war-time practices:


I advise you to read Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer


Does Capitalism "Self-Destruct"? A Problem in Marxist Economics

My own view is that the labor theory of value must be "demoted" to the level of a hypothesis pending further research and development.

Wait, you concede that the LTV is probably incorrect, yet you continue to believe that capitalism is somehow designed for its own destruction?

How do you contend with Marx's totally incorrect assertions on the nature of wages, particularly the 'iron law of wages'?

And if the LTV is wrong, and the rate of exploitation incalculable, how does one conclude that capitalism is doomed; how does one concluded that the crisis complex that commies dream of is anything but an illogical dream?

I can't remember where I heard this, but I am glad to share it with you nonetheless:

Communists have predicted 20 out of the last 3 economic depressions.

This sums up quite well their lack of understanding of basic economics(I don't claim to be an economist).




I note that you consider yourself a "future officer in the U.S. army". Far be it from me to discourage your ambition -- someone with your values will certainly "feel at home" in such a fascist environment.

But when you get ready to sleep, better look under your cot and check for live grenades.

I'll be sure to feel for explosives before I lay to rest each night.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The New State
Correct, but a state would be able to maintain a mostly free economy by eliminating social spending not related to the military, and allocating those funds towards lowering taxes, and increasing the size of the military.

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding.

It's not a matter of the simple "size" of the military budget; a highly militarized capitalist economy must be "guided" to produce guns, not butter...regardless of the fact that a really free market would produce butter and not guns.

Furthermore, the guns produced must be those that the authoritarian government "wants"...and not just the hypothetical "best gun possible". And the guns will be supplied to the government not at a "free market price" but at a monopoly or quasi-monopoly price -- you'll recall the famous $2,500 toilet seats, no doubt.

A bloated military-industrial complex and a "free market" are not compatible.

And a side note: if you do want a "big military", there are severe constraints on how much you can lower "social spending".

If you privatize public education, for example, then most kids will be illiterate...and when you draft them, you'll still have to spend the money to educate them.

If you privatize public health, then most of your draftees will be sickly and too weak to be good soldiers.

In fact, a capitalist "welfare state" is almost a requirement for building a large, healthy, and well-educated conscript army.


By 1943 most of the German economy was planned by state bureaucrats.

Probably true...but regulation commenced in 1933. A considerable amount of centralized planning existed in all the participant countries during World War II.

Perhaps you don't understand the distinction between "planning" and "regulation". When the authoritarian government tells a private company that it needs to begin switching to military production from consumer goods or else it won't receive any allocation of scarce raw materials...that's regulation. When it tells a private company that it must produce X number of tanks...that's planning.


I advise you to read Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer.

I've actually read all of Shirer's books...he gives a very interesting portrait of the interwar years in Europe as well as of Berlin itself in 1939-41.

The classic study of the economy of the Third Reich is Behemoth by Franz Neumann.


Wait, you concede that the LTV is probably incorrect...

Wait, how can you quote me and then immediately transform what I said into something entirely different?

I did not say that the LTV is "probably incorrect"...I said that it should currently be regarded as a hypothesis that requires further evidence to prove or disprove.

In short, the matter is undecided at the present time.


...particularly the 'iron law of wages'?

Sorry, that's not Marx, it's LaSalle. Marx, in fact, poked fun at LaSalle's "iron law" with a comment about "laws made of iron or sponge".


And if the LTV is wrong, and the rate of exploitation incalculable, how does one conclude that capitalism is doomed?

Well, you have (unconsciously) illustrated a possible scenario yourself. Your goal of an enormous military-industrial complex to enforce a world-wide "pax Americana" has an accompanying enormous social cost...which may possibly generate a practical fall in the rate of profit over time independently of the truth or falsehood of the LTV.

More than a few historians trace the collapse of the "pax Romana" to the crushing tax burdens required to keep massive armies on stand-by at all times.

We may get our "general crisis of capitalism" from a direction that Marx did not anticipate at all.

We'll see.


Communists have predicted 20 out of the last 3 economic depressions.

Cute...and a good illustration of the fallacy of using Marxism (or anything else) to attempt to predict the future in useful detail.

But as long as we're talking about "predictions", how's the track record of the neo-classical (bourgeois) economists?

Have they ever gotten one right? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

If you privatize public education, for example, then most kids will be illiterate...

You assume that education will remain at the same price regardless of demand.


In fact, a capitalist "welfare state" is almost a requirement for building a large, healthy, and well-educated conscript army.

Conscription is an initiation of force, or did that fact slip your mind ?


Perhaps you don't understand the distinction between "planning" and "regulation". When the authoritarian government tells a private company that it needs to begin switching to military production from consumer goods or else it won't receive any allocation of scarce raw materials...that's regulation. When it tells a private company that it must produce X number of tanks...that's planning.

The difference you describe is hardly one of principle.

[h&s]

You assume that education will remain at the same price regardless of demand.
That is not the point. The point is that a privatised education authority will be out to make a profit. This will lead to less and less funding going to the schools, and more and more going into the capitalist's pockets. Illiteracy is bad enough now - privatising education will make things disastrously worse.

[DaCuBaN]

You assume that education will remain at the same price regardless of demand.

Incorrect. if you privatise education and make it voluntary, indeed the "price" will fall in accordance, but you will still have thousands - if not millions - who are unable to afford it, and many more who cannot justify the expense - even if it is within their budget.

If you privatise and make it compulsary, then there is no need for the price to drop - unless of course, you suggest adding competition? If we try that, of course, you will find the same thing that happens with all private initiatives: The schools for the have's will be greatly superior to those for the have-not's, as they are able to charge more - and those who can pay, will - and as such have a greater amount of expendable funds.

It's a really bad idea.

That said, so long as the price-system remains, education is going to suck balls anyway; it's purpose is simply to give you the minimum skills necessary to function within price-society, rather than to give you the best possible education.


Conscription is an initiation of force, or did that fact slip your mind ?

Indeed it is - but of course, following this gentleman's logic the "state" is entitled to use force - in fact, he asserts that this is the primary intention of the state.

In 99% of cases, I think perhaps he may have something.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 28 2004, 08:15 PM
That is not the point. The point is that a privatised education authority will be out to make a profit. This will lead to less and less funding going to the schools, and more and more going into the capitalist's pockets. Illiteracy is bad enough now - privatising education will make things disastrously worse.
One minute the left is whining about kids going to private schools and getting an "unfair advantage" over others, the next they are saying that private education will make illiteracy worse.

Make your mind up.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What he said about private education creating illiteracy in no way contradicts the "unfair advantage" argument. Learn how to read.

[enigma2517]

Hahaaaa fancy rheotoric man. The two are not by any means mutually exclusive. Think about it...

The statements are taken out of context and you lose track of who they are referring to.

Kids (rich upper/middle class kids) will get that unfair advantage because of they attend much better funded schools which offer them more resources with which to learn.

On the other hand kids (poor lower/working class kids) will indeed become more illiterate (ignorant is a broader, more applicable term) because they cannot afford to tend this laviously funded schools.

Stop twisting our words around and get a real argument please. If you can't....theres always the door :)

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 29 2004, 09:13 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 29 2004, 09:13 PM)
h&[email protected] 28 2004, 08:15 PM
That is not the point. The point is that a privatised education authority will be out to make a profit. This will lead to less and less funding going to the schools, and more and more going into the capitalist's pockets. Illiteracy is bad enough now - privatising education will make things disastrously worse.
One minute the left is whining about kids going to private schools and getting an "unfair advantage" over others, the next they are saying that private education will make illiteracy worse.

Make your mind up. [/b]
Seriously though, do you hane no common snense?

[DaCuBaN]

One minute the left is whining about kids going to private schools and getting an "unfair advantage" over others, the next they are saying that private education will make illiteracy worse.

Simply put, have you ever known a poor kid who attended private school, when there was a free (in as much as anything is) school within the vicinity? No.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 10:38 PM
Simply put, have you ever known a poor kid who attended private school, when there was a free (in as much as anything is) school within the vicinity? No.
Me.

[Professor Moneybags]

On the other hand kids (poor lower/working class kids) will indeed become more illiterate (ignorant is a broader, more applicable term) because they cannot afford to tend this laviously funded schools.


It's the "if the government didn't provide X, only the rich would be able to afford it" argument again.

"X" being just about anything from healthcare, schools, clothes, food etc.


Stop twisting our words around and get a real argument please. If you can't....theres always the door :)

Aren't you brave ?

[Osman Ghazi]

Have you ever been to public school?


It's the "if the government didn't provide X, only the rich would be able to afford it" argument again.

"X" being just about anything from healthcare, schools, clothes, food etc.


Not 'only the rich', but certainly not the very poor.

[Abby Normal]

Welcome aboard Opposing Ideologies, the cargo-deck of the pinko-yellow submarine known as Che Lives. ;)