Democratic Market Society

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Care to think of a better way to allocate resources? I certainly cant'.

This should also put down all of the pre-conceived notions about the nature of capitalism in the western countries.



11. What is democratic market society?

Democratic market society is the end point of the massive revolution that the world had been going through for the last four hundred years. It is a new form of society that has only existed for about the last 50 years. Prior to World War II, the United States could be called a proto-democratic market society, or it could be called an oligarchic society, but it was not the same as the most modern kind of society that exists today.

After the Great Depression began in 1929, the American president, Herbert Hoover, said that it was not his job to ensure a prosperous economy. In those days and in earlier times, there is no record of a society where the government believed that it was responsible for the wellbeing and prosperity of all its citizens.

According to the definition used here, modern nations are truly democratic only when the government accepts that it represents all citizens and is successful in establishing the conditions that are necessary for most of the population to prosper. This is a very difficult and exacting standard for any government to meet. At least half of the national governments in the world today do not even come close. Something less than half seem to be making an effort to move in that direction. So far, about thirty countries meet the standards required to be democratic market societies.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, the following is a partial list of the kinds of things that I believe are minimum requirements for a government to claim that it is a democratic market society. It does not matter what level of government—national, regional, or local—that is responsible for these things. It only matters that they are accomplished successfully.


1.

Does the government make a major and successful effort to ensure that nearly all citizens have access to clean water?
2.

Does the government work hard to maintain and improve the overall health of nearly all citizens?
3.

Does the government make a major effort to provide quality education to nearly all citizens so that they can become successful in a modern market economy?
4.

Does the government work very hard to maintain the kind of law and order that is necessary for a successful market economy?
5.

Does the government work hard and successfully to prevent corruption within its own ranks which is detrimental to the success of the market economy?
6.

Is the government successful in maintaining a stable currency so that the market economy is able to flourish and provide jobs and incomes for nearly all citizens?
7.

Is the government successful in regulating the economy in a way that promotes free enterprise so that nearly all citizens have a chance to become successful capitalists and business owners, thereby creating more jobs and increasing the general prosperity of the entire population?
8.

Does the government work closely with the leaders of small and large businesses to identify, promote, and enforce the best rules and regulations that are needed to encourage a successful market economy?
9.

Does the government support workers’ rights and work closely with labor leaders to identify, promote, and enforce the best rules and regulations which are needed to protect workers’ safety, paychecks, and general wellbeing?
10.

Does the government work closely with citizens and environmentalists to protect a healthy environment, which is necessary for a successful market economy and for the wellbeing of all God’s creatures both today and for future generations to come?

For most Americans born since the end of World War II, these principles seem obvious and self-explanatory, but that was not always the case. The idea that the government is responsible for overseeing the development of a political, social, and economic environment that is capable of generating prosperity for everyone, would never have occurred to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. It is a new concept that originated only since the end of World War II. Even then it still took a while for the United States to accept that the term everyone must include African-Americans.

It was inevitable that it would take a great deal of time and a slow evolutionary process for these principles to develop. They are nearly inconceivable to the class-conscious societies that dominated the world as recently as the first half of the 20th century. This new kind of society was pioneered primarily in the United States and Western Europe, who deserve and generally receive a great deal of credit for this momentous achievement.

We are indeed talking about a new kind of society. When the government realizes that it can and should accept responsibility for public health, public education, fair and just enforcement of the rule of law, and economic prosperity for everyone, it opens the door to an entirely new world. Economists call it a virtuous circle. As more healthy, well-educated people become prosperous, they become consumers. As more people buy more goods and services factories, stores, and service providers grow larger and hire more employees. As these new employees prosper, they become consumers and demand increases again. Businesses grow still larger and hire more employees, who become consumers. This virtuous circle goes on and on until everyone is a consumer. Business keeps growing and expanding to meet the demand. Sure the rich get richer, but so does nearly everyone else.

How does this virtuous circle get started? Many people believe that modern technology is the key. Yes, it takes a certain level of technology to set this virtuous circle in motion, but the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Chinese probably had the minimum technology needed to get started. What they lacked was the necessary social technology, the idea that the entire population must be included. Even at the height of Ancient Athenian Democracy, one third of the population were slaves, and a small group of rich and powerful families looked down on ordinary people as inferiors. It was not real democracy as defined here. It was oligarchic society.

In oligarchic societies the rich and powerful do not understand the incredible amount of wealth that can be made possible by the virtuous circle. Oligarchs generally believe that there is nothing to be gained by paying workers more than a subsistence wage. Historically, they have had the idea that workers would use the extra money to get drunk, or take time off from work. We now know that is not true. Workers use the extra money to go shopping, or invest in their family’s future.

How did the United States, Western Europe, and Japan develop this new kind of society? It would be nice to report that some government figured out what reforms are necessary and found a way to break the class-consciousness that dominates oligarchic society. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Democratic market society evolved in response to a series of tragic events that should never be repeated.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Western Europe, the United States, and Japan were solidly oligarchic societies. A small percent of wealthy families controlled most of the economy and the government. What changed that was not a revolution or a program of reform? What happened was the series of events that included World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II.

In World War I massive numbers of ordinary people were drafted into the military. Tens of millions of average citizens fought a titanic struggle in the trenches of France, Gallipoli, and Eastern Europe. When the massive war of attrition was over, everyone new that it was the ordinary soldiers and citizens who were the primary strength of modern nations. The oligarchic generals on all sides had performed poorly. The courage and perseverance of the common soldier was the decisive factor. When the soldiers returned home they were hailed as heroes. This was not yet enough for their countries to realize that ordinary citizens were much more important than any handful of oligarchs, but it was a start.

Ten years later came the Great Depression. This massive economic calamity mobilized thousands of economists to study how market economies work. They rapidly increased the understanding of how important the government role is in regulating, protecting, and encouraging a market economy. They worked out mechanisms for stimulating an economy and laid the basic groundwork for the kind of interventionist role that is universal in democratic market societies today.

World War II ended the Great Depression. This proved that government spending could stimulate the economy and return it to full employment. The new war also reinforced the lessons of World War I but on a much larger scale. Eighty million average citizens from Europe, the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, China, and many other countries went to war. Two hundred million ordinary citizens, men and women, went to work in the factories, producing weapons and ammunition. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the courage and hard work of ordinary people that is the strength and salvation of the modern nation-state.

This time the lesson was learned and understood. Wealthy oligarchs do not make a nation strong. Ordinary average citizens are gigantically more important. Oligarchs have no right to monopolize the government and economy of a modern nation. The destiny of the nation is in the hands of all its citizens, rich and poor alike. Wealth does not matter; gender does not matter; religion does not matter, and race does not matter. When the chips are down and the country is in real trouble, it is the unity, the courage, and the hard work of all citizens that are required to see the nation through.

When this lesson was learned and understood in Western Europe, North America, and Japan, democratic market society came into being. The same lesson was learned in the Soviet Union, but they did not have a market economy to make use of it. The lesson about national unity and the primacy of ordinary citizens was also learned in China, but they were at the very beginning of the long transformation from aristocrat peasant society to democratic market society. After two generations of intense revolution the Chinese are now starting to get the virtuous circle into motion.

Democratic market society is capable of producing gigantic amounts of wealth, and there are only two requirements for this kind of society. It must have a market economy, and it must have a truly democratic government that is able to regulate, protect, and encourage the market economy and help all citizens to participate. If it is really that easy, why isn’t everybody rich? Why don’t all countries have a democratic market society?

It seems clear that in the future all nations will have a prosperous democratic market form of society. It is also clear that the development of this kind of society is more difficult than it should be. It could be that part of the problem is a basic lack of understanding about what is happening. One source of confusion is the term capitalism. For many generations there has been a gigantic worldwide argument about the merits of capitalism. What is missing is the understanding that there are two different kinds of capitalist societies. There is oligarchic society, where a small wealthy ruling class dominates the government and the economy. And there is democratic market society, where the nation is governed for the benefit of everyone.

In oligarchic society the government is weak; the economy is weak, and most people are poor. In democratic market society the government is strong; the economy is strong, and most people are prosperous consumers. The world has not yet developed a rational and reliable method for a nation to progress from oligarchic society to democratic market society. This change should not have to require large amounts of revolutionary violence or a massive war. Perhaps when the world has a better understanding of the entire revolutionary process, it will be possible for the transition to be made through a series of peaceful political and economic reforms. Until that day comes war, rebellion, revolution, anarchy, civil war, dictators, and strange ideologies will remain a fixture in world events.

http://www.historyexplained.com/index.php/...n/10/event=read (http://www.historyexplained.com/index.php/ebook/main/10/event=read)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Any objections, disagreements, or any brilliant quips?

A government that is conducive to capitalism, promotes competition, protection of private property rights through a judical legal system is the best method of organization.

Aren't you guys going to say, "Well...it's the best so far! Things change! It's just another stage along the way!"

If our economic model is in trouble, which will be inevitable, we'll just build it back up again and the workers will support it rather than revolt against it.

Am I wrong here?

[RebelDog]

from article

or it could be called an oligarchic society,

Is the United States no longer a oligarchy? Only rich parties bank-rolled by rich individuals ever stand a chance of becoming the US government and even then this is between only two parties who occupy such a narrow part of the political spectrum they are effectively two wings of the same party. Realistically only a small section of society pulls the strings.

I find some of the choices for what makes a "democratic market society" strange. It states clean drinking water for nearly all people as a requirement. Why "nearly all" why not all citizens. Hardly something one would expect to find lacking in the 21st century first world. Here in Britain the huge upgrade in the water infrastructure was always massive community works projects which were forced through by demands from below.
The develping world has had great problems with the marketisation of its public owned water companies with western powers demanding they open them up to privatisation. What about poverty, inequality etc why aren't they mentioned? What about Katrina, was that looking after peoples welfare? Bush and co didn't give a shit about those people.


Does the government work hard to maintain and improve the overall health of nearly all citizens?

My information on the US is limited because I live in the UK but is there not a huge problem in the US with people not being able to afford health insurance?
Our own NHS here in the UK is one of the things we are proud of. Everybody gets treated regardless of income. The NHS was not handed to people on a plate from above. It was fought for from below and disestablished the market in healthcare. The market reforms the NHS is now being subjected to threaten its existance more today than at any point in its history. A huge protest movement is growing by the day driven by the conviction that the market has no place in the NHS.
There are constant ongoing working class campaigns here in the UK to protect our public services from privatisation.


Does the government support workers’ rights and work closely with labor leaders to identify, promote, and enforce the best rules and regulations which are needed to protect workers’ safety, paychecks, and general wellbeing?


Does the government work closely with citizens and environmentalists to protect a healthy environment, which is necessary for a successful market economy and for the wellbeing of all God’s creatures both today and for future generations to come?

Are these two a joke. Does the Bush administration support workers rights? Tony Blair never mentions them and hasn't changed them since Thatcher. He loves giving the Confederation of British Industry everything it wants though.
The market economy is the precise reason we face environmental catastrophe. A social co-operative society would never have allowed this insanity. The UK could have been fully renewable today if it weren't for the fact that the free-market only does what turns a profit.

[Tungsten]

The Dissenter

Our own NHS here in the UK is one of the things we are proud of.
It's nothing to be proud of, it's a shambles.

The NHS was not handed to people on a plate from above.
Yes it was and you can thank Mr Atlee. In fact, many people did by voting for him. That, I believe, was the beginning of modern pork barrel politics.

It was fought for from below and disestablished the market in healthcare.
A wide range of private healthcare was still available last time I checked.

The market reforms the NHS is now being subjected to threaten its existance more today than at any point in its history.
The reason the NHS sucks is because, like the welfare state, it's become too large. Market reforms have got nothing to do with it.

A huge protest movement is growing by the day driven by the conviction that the market has no place in the NHS.
Who by? NHS workers frightented their ticket on the public sector gravy train will be taken away?

There are constant ongoing working class campaigns here in the UK to protect our public services from privatisation.
Most of them are either misguided or sanctimonious. Like most "public campaigns" (such as that fucking stupid gun ban we had in 97), they're spearheaded by pressure groups and do not necessarily represent the public, or it's interests.

The market economy is the precise reason we face environmental catastrophe. A social co-operative society would never have allowed this insanity.
What catastophe and what insanity? Most of these environmental threats, like the terrorist threats, are fictional and conjured up by people with an axe to grind. What would this "social co-operative society" do?

The UK could have been fully renewable today
That option is neither affordable, pratical or convenient. As I thought; you're a utopian.

[RebelDog]

It's nothing to be proud of, it's a shambles.

It looks like a shambles because the ruling class that would like to destroy it paint it that way. It represents a huge part of the UK economy that isn't privatised, a cash cow that isn't fully milked. The NHS has never let me or my family down. Its a very reassuring thing.


Yes it was and you can thank Mr Atlee. In fact, many people did by voting for him.

And those that support the free-market were in favour of the establishment of the NHS?
The working class exersised their power at the ballot box to bring to power a party which embarked on a programme of nationalisation and demarketisation in large sectors of the economy. Mr Atlee did all this himself?


A wide range of private healthcare was still available last time I checked.

A tiny monority of healthcare in the UK is private and it is no better than the "shambles" NHS, as you refer to it.
Read this article from yesterdays Guardian;

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservi...1935667,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1935667,00.html)


The reason the NHS sucks is because, like the welfare state, it's become too large. Market reforms have got nothing to do with it.

A national health service is always going to be big, why if something is big does it mean it "sucks". Market reforms are increasing the private cut of the NHS budget, they have to having a negative effect. Look at the cleaning, its been a disaster.


Who by?

If you live in the UK and have no knowledge of this then I don't know how that can be. Its a big story today in fact. Where I live 3000 people went to a public meeting in a small town to protect the local NHS hospital. The health board dropped their proposals in the face of intense and widespread public disatisfaction.


NHS workers frightented their ticket on the public sector gravy train will be taken away?

Why resort to such absurd statements as that. Workers should not protect their jobs?


What catastophe and what insanity? Most of these environmental threats, like the terrorist threats, are fictional and conjured up by people with an axe to grind. What would this "social co-operative society" do?

Global warming is fictional? I despair.
The UK is a perfect place to be a model renewable energy state. Wind, wave, hydro, tidal, solar can all make our carbon emissions negligable. I live in place where hydro has meant that we have never contributed to carbon/carbon equivilent emissions through power generation and that is only hydro. The tidal, wind, wave possibilities have not even been considered yet. There is no future for capitalism either without renewable energy.



That option is neither affordable, pratical or convenient. As I thought; you're a utopian.

You are good at telling people how little humans can achieve. If thats utopian capitalism is finished too.

[Demogorgon]

What is your point? That capitalism had to be restrained to stop it's collapse?

[Tungsten]

The Dissenter

It looks like a shambles because the ruling class that would like to destroy it paint it that way.
Are you referring to the government? It's in their interest to keep it going, so why would they want to destroy it? If they did, I should imagine it would have been long gone, given Bliar's steam-roller approach to everything.

It represents a huge part of the UK economy that isn't privatised, a cash cow that isn't fully milked.
The government's milking it for all it's worth.

The NHS has never let me or my family down. Its a very reassuring thing.
So you're a winner of the post code lottery. Lucky you.

And those that support the free-market were in favour of the establishment of the NHS?
How should I know? Some were, some weren't.

The working class exersised their power at the ballot box to bring to power a party which embarked on a programme of nationalisation and demarketisation in large sectors of the economy. Mr Atlee did all this himself?
How do you think political parties get voted into power? They make policies that are either popular (and get elected), or unpopular (and don't) and use those policies to gain votes. Like I said, pork.

A tiny monority of healthcare in the UK is private and it is no better than the "shambles" NHS, as you refer to it.
Read this article from yesterdays Guardian;
I wouldn't even trust the football results printed in the Guardian. Given the funding the NHS recieves, this doesn't reflect well.

A national health service is always going to be big, why if something is big does it mean it "sucks". Market reforms are increasing the private cut of the NHS budget, they have to having a negative effect.
Why are these reforms being introduced in the first place? To reduce the costs- reason: the NHS is too big and too expensive to maintain.

Why resort to such absurd statements as that. Workers should not protect their jobs?
Are they doing what's in their interest or the public's?

Global warming is fictional?
Antrhopogenic global warming probably is.

The UK is a perfect place to be a model renewable energy state.
I don't think the country would approve of you using it as an experiment.

Wind, wave, hydro, tidal, solar can all make our carbon emissions negligable.
Carbon emissions are overrated. Don't believe the doom mongers; they're only after your money.

You are good at telling people how little humans can achieve.
I'm good a citing reality too, which is what I'm doing here. Renewables are unrealiable.

[RebelDog]

Are you referring to the government?

The government and the capitalist class. Huge money is involved in the NHS and private companies see it as great oppertunity. Where PFI is concerned they see it as a good source of risk-free super-profits. Why build a hospital from the capital expenditure plan for 100% of the cost or borrow at the cheapest market rate when private companies can do it for 3000% of initial cost.


If they did, I should imagine it would have been long gone, given Bliar's steam-roller approach to everything.

Nonsense. He can't keep the parlimentary Labour Party in check nevermind the anti-privatisation majority in the public. He goes at a speed he thinks he can get away with.


The government's milking it for all it's worth.

Explain?


So you're a winner of the post code lottery. Lucky you.

And more privatisation will solve any post code lottery?


I wouldn't even trust the football results printed in the Guardian. Given the funding the NHS recieves, this doesn't reflect well.

But it was the Health Care Commission that carried out the survey, the Guardian merely reported it. Do you reject the Health Care Commission as a trusted source?

http://www.answers.com/The%20Healthcare%20commission%20

If so who do you cite as giving an objective analysis of public/private health care in the UK? We seriously lag behind other EU nations on health spending. If we used the same level of our GDP as Germany on the NHS it would leave the private sector trailing. You call an NHS that is underfunded but still an equal of the private sector a "shambles", what words have you to describe the private sector?


Are they doing what's in their interest or the public's?

Both. They are defending ther jobs and their communities against attacks and the public are right behind them.


Antrhopogenic global warming probably is.

Yes......, so what are you refuting?


I don't think the country would approve of you using it as an experiment.

What is there to experiment. Wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro etc are proven ways to generate electricity.


I'm good a citing reality too, which is what I'm doing here. Renewables are unrealiable.

The unreliable element is irrelivant. We can store electricity at ever increasing efficiency so when we overproduce we store and when we underproduce we use the store. Anything wasted through storage has not produced carbon, that is the beauty of renewable energy generation. There is a massive prospect for tidal power in the UK which is more reliable than any other form of power generation. If reliability is your concern why don't you shout for tidal power over fossil fuel or expensive nuclear power. You are good at citing an establishment view.

[Jazzratt]

Since all we're getting from Tungsten is the usual round of "the market will save us" crap that he usually spouts, I really don't see the point in debating him. He has, for example, claimed that people who get good NHS healthcare are winners of the Postcode lottery, which whilst true does not back up his assertion that we should let ill people die if they're poor. Also he seems to believe that global warming is some sort of "evil leftist myth designed to take money away from the debt-tyrants*" rather than what it actually is which is a scientific fact, most qualified proffesionals realise that denying global warming is akin to bleieving that there is an enourmous invisible wizard up in the sky - It's utterly ludicrous and only the brain damaged do it.


*Debt Tyrant Somone who has amassed a vast amount of debt tokens for very little and is now using it to coerce others into working hard, that they may recieve a few debt tokens to feed their family with.

And now a word from our sponsors:

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/sticksnew/HEALTH%20copy.jpg

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 01:53 pm
Since all we're getting from Tungsten is the usual round of "the market will save us" crap that he usually spouts, I really don't see the point in debating him.
It's as tiring as your usual repetitive "consensus by the people on everything led by a technocratic elite will solve everything" crap.

I think we should just start a slogan contest, since that's all this place really is.

I'll go first.

"Government isn't the answer, government is the problem."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+November 02, 2006 02:44 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ November 02, 2006 02:44 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 01:53 pm
Since all we're getting from Tungsten is the usual round of "the market will save us" crap that he usually spouts, I really don't see the point in debating him.
It's as tiring as your usual repetitive "consensus by the people on everything led by a technocratic elite will solve everything" crap.

I think we should just start a slogan contest, since that's all this place really is.

I'll go first.

"Government isn't the answer, government is the problem." [/b]
Here's one:

"Everyone is stupid and therfore unable to govern themselves properly, let's exploit them."

-Moderate Liberal

[Capitalist Lawyer]

What is your point? That capitalism had to be restrained to stop it's collapse?

No, it didn't have to be restrained. What the West did was expand capitalism so that everybody could participate in it; whether in producing good and services and consuming them.

We have been successful.

[Tungsten]

The Dissenter

The government and the capitalist class.
The government and what you call the capitalist class (like the workers) rarely have a common interest.

Huge money is involved in the NHS and private companies see it as great oppertunity. Where PFI is concerned they see it as a good source of risk-free super-profits. Why build a hospital from the capital expenditure plan for 100% of the cost or borrow at the cheapest market rate when private companies can do it for 3000% of initial cost.
Why indeed- it's not their money the government are spending- it's the taxpayer's. The money goes into the goverment's pocket and never reaches the private company. Time to get rid of the government middleman?

Explain?
Don't you think the government is getting rich off this too? What do you want to do to remedy it? Give more power and money to the government?

But it was the Health Care Commission that carried out the survey, the Guardian merely reported it. Do you reject the Health Care Commission as a trusted source?

http://www.answers.com/The%20Healthcare%20commission%20

If so who do you cite as giving an objective analysis of public/private health care in the UK?
No one at the moment. Note that the Health care comission has a vested interest in improving the NHS- that's stated as it's purpose.

We seriously lag behind other EU nations on health spending. If we used the same level of our GDP as Germany on the NHS it would leave the private sector trailing.
See my other comments on nationalised healthcare and unlimited spending.

You call an NHS that is underfunded but still an equal of the private sector a "shambles", what words have you to describe the private sector?
The private sector isn't funded with public money unless the NHS doesn't have the funds (not surprising when it spends six figure sums on decorative boulders), which isn't fair on those who have paid either.

Both. They are defending ther jobs and their communities against attacks and the public are right behind them.
And if interests come into conflict? What then? These people aren't always the altruistic souls they make themselves out to be. Just because someone in the public sector says keeping their institution open (which incidently gives them money, power and status) is in the public interest, doesn't mean it is.

What is there to experiment. Wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro etc are proven ways to generate electricity.
Not enough electricity and not all the time.

There is a massive prospect for tidal power in the UK which is more reliable than any other form of power generation. If reliability is your concern why don't you shout for tidal power over fossil fuel or expensive nuclear power.
The same reason no one else does. Because it's expensive and high maintainence. The taxpayer will be on the recieving end.

You are good at citing an establishment view.
You're a statist and you see expanding the state as in your interest. The only complaint you seem to have against the establishment is that it doesn't tax enough and that it doesn't seem to follow your particular brand of statism.

Jazzratt

Since all we're getting from Tungsten is the usual round of "the market will save us" crap that he usually spouts, I really don't see the point in debating him.
Plus, there's the fact you'll have your arse handed back to you, like you usually do. I don't claim that "market will save us". I have no magic wands.

He has, for example, claimed that people who get good NHS healthcare are winners of the Postcode lottery, which whilst true does not back up his assertion that we should let ill people die if they're poor.
It doesn't follow that because someone doesn't have something everyone else should be bound by duty to provide for them, or that we have to centre society around those in the gutter.

Secondly, there's no we. There's no law stopping you form helping people, but you want to force everyone else to fund the pet group you see as worthy of help. You and "Class war" (or whatever they call themselves) can do whatever you like with your money. But mine and everyone else's isn't yours to command or spend.

Also he seems to believe that global warming is some sort of "evil leftist myth designed to take money away from the debt-tyrants*" rather than what it actually is which is a scientific fact, most qualified proffesionals realise that denying global warming is akin to bleieving that there is an enourmous invisible wizard up in the sky
It's still a debated fact whether anthopogenic (man made) global warming is happening, happening to any significant extent, or whether other factors (solar activity) are to blame. Naturally, you go for the one that most suits your purpose- that global warming is to blame and we need to shoot the rich polluters to save the planet (which is 100% about shooting the rich and 0% about saving the planet). I'm sure Al Gore would be proud.

The funny part is, when the government starts putting up "green" taxes, as they're doing now, i'm sure global warming will become yet another capitalist conspiracy to oppress the poor, while the rich can do what they like (and raising taxes certainly will certainly achieve this).

*Debt Tyrant
The latest catchphrase of the "technocrats", based on an anticapitalistic fallacy that was popular in the depression days of the early 1930's. Technocrats sought their utopia in (1) the abolition of profits, businessmen and market principles, and (2) the establishment of a society run by industrial engineers and other technical experts in accordance with the principles of advanced technology. (Like a left wing version of the Ayn Rand cult, only more violent.)


And now a word from our sponsors:

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/sticksnew/HEALTH%20copy.jpg
What bunch of losers.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

*Debt Tyrant Somone who has amassed a vast amount of debt tokens for very little and is now using it to coerce others into working hard, that they may recieve a few debt tokens to feed their family with.

A few??? Never heard of the "middle-class" have you?

AGAIN... the standard of living for the poor and middle class amongst nearly every society on the planet relies on couple working their butts off. What else is new? Apparently what's new to you is the fact that our poor have a standard of living that is rich compared to the rest of the planets poor and sometimes even middle class.

Now, I know what you're going to say next, "Well...that's only due to a mountain full of credit-card and mortgage cebt that nobody can escape."

How about this:

Give up the three car garage on a house that's too big, the big screen TV, the three phone lines, On-Star, cell phones with cameras, eating out more than eating in, digital cable or satellite, shopping at Ayres instead of Wal-Mart, new cars every three years and that debt QUICKLY goes away.

And yes, college tuition is skyrocketing because of....guess what?

Because of tuition aid, tuition PRICES are skyrocketing. Thing is, what people actually pay out of pocket for tuition has not.

As for Donald Trump:

His hard work was in the years of preparation spent gaining the knowledge that is now in such high demand. You apparently want to ignore that hard work so you can advance your political point of view.

I'll admit, hard work isn't the only determining factor in income earning, it is the demand that needs to be taken into account as well.


What bunch of losers.

bwahahahahhaha......

[red team]

It's still a debated fact whether anthopogenic (man made) global warming is happening, happening to any significant extent, or whether other factors (solar activity) are to blame.

It's a proven scientific fact that the Earth would be frozen planet without greenhouse gases. So more greenhouse gases would heat it up some more. There is the correlation, regardless of incidental solar activity. The sun is pretty much constant in its activity because it's fuel supply of hydrogen gas is measured in billions of years and human civilization only existed in the time scale of thousands of years. Any heating of the Earth due to minor increase in activity of the Sun would be insignificant to the much large effect of heat trapping gases and therefore be entirely controllable through emission restrictions.


The latest catchphrase of the "technocrats", based on an anticapitalistic fallacy that was popular in the depression days of the early 1930's. Technocrats sought their utopia in (1) the abolition of profits, businessmen and market principles, and (2) the establishment of a society run by industrial engineers and other technical experts in accordance with the principles of advanced technology. (Like a left wing version of the Ayn Rand cult, only more violent.)

I've yet to hear of a technocrat that was discovered to be an assassin or terrorist. But, I've heard plenty of confirmed stories of right wing death squads hired by South American land owners.

(1) the abolition of profits, businessmen and market principles

exactly where in the Technocracy document did it advocate the abolition of market principles. As for businessmen and profits, why do you need them if debt is abolished? And why do you need debt if two hours a day of labour at most would provide most material needs. This is in the 1930's mind you, so the hours of necessary manual labour would be even less now with advanced technology.

(2) the establishment of a society run by industrial engineers and other technical experts in accordance with the principles of advanced technology.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I might be somewhat bias as I'm also in the engineering field, but what's the businessmen's track record of managing industrial society?

We have 1 economic collapse, 2 worldwide wars, continuous "minor" wars since then, industrial pollution and poverty and homelessness in the "richest" country in the world.

That is certainly an exceptional record of resource management. <_< We now have advanced computer technology too. With much potential for computerised automation. What have you businessmen done with such potential? Oh, I know. How about:

- online gambling
- unsolicited sales
- stock market trading
- betting on tiny fluctuations in prices (day trading)
- market research (find out how best to screw the customer)
- profit maximization (find out how best to screw the worker)


Originally posted by Jazzratt
Since all we&#39;re getting from Tungsten is the usual round of "the market will save us" crap that he usually spouts, I really don&#39;t see the point in debating him.

I don&#39;t really like to "debate" with this brain damaged idiot either, but for the benefit of somebody browsing through this forum and happens to find this topic in which I totally demolish this particular idiot&#39;s Capitalist arguments as most Capitalist arguments are idiotic to begin with and the person walks away and say: "Hey, Capitalism is total trash and Capitalists arguments for defending their system is total trash", then I&#39;ve done my job.

[Tungsten]

red team

It&#39;s a proven scientific fact that the Earth would be frozen planet without greenhouse gases. So more greenhouse gases would heat it up some more. There is the correlation, regardless of incidental solar activity. The sun is pretty much constant in its activity because it&#39;s fuel supply of hydrogen gas is measured in billions of years and human civilization only existed in the time scale of thousands of years. Any heating of the Earth due to minor increase in activity of the Sun would be insignificant to the much large effect of heat trapping gases and therefore be entirely controllable through emission restrictions.
What caused the ice age? Cavemen in SUVs?

I&#39;ve yet to hear of a technocrat that was discovered to be an assassin or terrorist.
You&#39;re all talk, but the threats of violence continue.

exactly where in the Technocracy document did it advocate the abolition of market principles.
When it decided to substitute subjective value with a variant of the labour theory of value.

As for businessmen and profits, why do you need them if debt is abolished? And why do you need debt if two hours a day of labour at most would provide most material needs.
It wouldn&#39;t.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
Precisely what&#39;s wrong with it. Another dictatorship run by "experts". Oooh that&#39;s never been tried before.

We have 1 economic collapse, 2 worldwide wars, continuous "minor" wars since then, industrial pollution and poverty and homelessness in the "richest" country in the world.

That is certainly an exceptional record of resource management. <_< We now have advanced computer technology too. With much potential for computerised automation.
We don&#39;t. If we did, a businessman that ran an entirely automated factory would completely piss over the competition and make back any added expenses in no time. Don&#39;t you think they realise this?

What have you businessmen done with such potential? Oh, I know. How about:
- online gambling
- unsolicited sales
- stock market trading
- betting on tiny fluctuations in prices (day trading)
- market research (find out how best to screw the customer)
- profit maximization (find out how best to screw the worker)
Resource management. Control. Denouncement of sales without permission.

Phew. For a second I thought you were advocating some sort of dictatorship.

I don&#39;t really like to "debate" with this brain damaged idiot either,
But then you realised you had to say something to prevent yourself looking like a fool, and on cue, you follow it up with yet another series of pratfalls.

[red team]

What caused the ice age? Cavemen in SUVs?

A very big rock.

Coincidentally, it wasn&#39;t your head.

It came from space.


It wouldn&#39;t.

Why wouldn&#39;t it?

Most people are engaged in what work nowadays in "advanced" industrial societies?

Do we really need that sort of "work"?


Precisely what&#39;s wrong with it. Another dictatorship run by "experts".

Experts in what? Spouting slogans, without providing a definitive plan to solve their complaints?

What expertise do politicians and businessmen have in the physical sciences?

Answer: none

This world is made of physical objects interacting with each other and your theories of making it all work is?

Please tell the class your theory Mr. Tungsten.

Subjective nonsense will get a failing grade.


We don&#39;t. If we did, a businessman that ran an entirely automated factory would completely piss over the competition and make back any added expenses in no time. Don&#39;t you think they realise this?

Money is not a measure of physical abundance. If that was the case, there would be no such thing as overproduction and price gouging would be impossible.

Further, any external expense incurred by the factory workers like for example paying for housing, healthcare and food is external to company expenses. But, they needed to be paid somehow, otherwise the workers would be dead and families nowadays most often need more than one worker just to pay the bills.

The company only thinks of short-term gain, therefore investing in infrastructure like automated production with expensive Capital assets only makes sense if the next quarter&#39;s return to investors is not affected, but no long term plan is made. Why do you think most energy production plants like hydro-electric dams are done as public projects? Would we be better off without electrical plants which generate huge amounts of surplus energy? Perhaps for the rich, they can afford plenty of candles and servants with their fictional debt tokens.


Resource management. Control. Denouncement of sales without permission.

Phew. For a second I thought you were advocating some sort of dictatorship.

Resource hoarding, Investor control of public resources, Denouncement of uninvited sales pitches that I&#39;ve never agreed to listen to in the first place.

Phew. That&#39;s quite a lot of unnecessary crap that this system produces that I&#39;ve exposed.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 02, 2006 05:01 pm

What is your point? That capitalism had to be restrained to stop it&#39;s collapse?

No, it didn&#39;t have to be restrained. What the West did was expand capitalism so that everybody could participate in it; whether in producing good and services and consuming them.

We have been successful.
Your statement is like saying something flies without ever leaving the ground.

I suspect I am just dealing with a troll so I don&#39;t want to go into much detail and I certainly don&#39;t want this to be a qualification waving contest, but I trained as an economist and certainly am not saying what you describe.

Incidetally I am sometimes puzzled by the OI forum. I have encountered some rather skilled proponents of capitalism, I don&#39;t agree with them but there is no denying they are good at constructing an argument and debating them is a challenge, but I hope mutually beneficial. In here I see almost nothing but strawmen, trying to defend capitalism on grounds that simply don&#39;t exist while simultaneously being completely oblivious to the actual arguments for it.

To be fair quite a few socialistts do the same.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 04, 2006 06:41 am
A few??? Never heard of the "middle-class" have you?

AGAIN... the standard of living for the poor and middle class amongst nearly every society on the planet relies on couple working their butts off. What else is new? Apparently what&#39;s new to you is the fact that our poor have a standard of living that is rich compared to the rest of the planets poor and sometimes even middle class.

Now, I know what you&#39;re going to say next, "Well...that&#39;s only due to a mountain full of credit-card and mortgage cebt that nobody can escape."

How about this:

Give up the three car garage on a house that&#39;s too big, the big screen TV, the three phone lines, On-Star, cell phones with cameras, eating out more than eating in, digital cable or satellite, shopping at Ayres instead of Wal-Mart, new cars every three years and that debt QUICKLY goes away.

And yes, college tuition is skyrocketing because of....guess what?

Because of tuition aid, tuition PRICES are skyrocketing. Thing is, what people actually pay out of pocket for tuition has not.

As for Donald Trump:

His hard work was in the years of preparation spent gaining the knowledge that is now in such high demand. You apparently want to ignore that hard work so you can advance your political point of view.

I&#39;ll admit, hard work isn&#39;t the only determining factor in income earning, it is the demand that needs to be taken into account as well.


What bunch of losers.

bwahahahahhaha......
Your problem is in thinking of a country as an entity deviod of international pressure or interests in its domestic affairs.

Yes, the U.S. is largely socialist. So are most western nations. You forget the price that is paid for that wealth, and that is cheap labor in china, taiwan, bangladesh, sri lanka, india, etc. and even covert drug testing on the people of India. This issue is like 3 out of a hundred getting a great choice and the rest getting shafted, and you calling it some sort of realistic progress.

[Tungsten]

red team

A very big rock.
Nope. The change in climate was gradual.

Why wouldn&#39;t it?

Most people are engaged in what work nowadays in "advanced" industrial societies?

Do we really need that sort of "work"?
If there&#39;s a demand, then we need it.

Experts in what? Spouting slogans, without providing a definitive plan to solve their complaints?
If these experts are anything like you, probably.

What expertise do politicians and businessmen have in the physical sciences?

Answer: none
Very little, but that doesn&#39;t make much difference. Scientists are as corruptable as everyone else.

This world is made of physical objects interacting with each other and your theories of making it all work is?

Please tell the class your theory Mr. Tungsten.
Interacting why and how?

Your turn: How do you completely mechanise society? I&#39;m still awaiting the detailed plan...


Money is not a measure of physical abundance. If that was the case, there would be no such thing as overproduction and price gouging would be impossible.

Further, any external expense incurred by the factory workers like for example paying for housing, healthcare and food is external to company expenses. But, they needed to be paid somehow, otherwise the workers would be dead and families nowadays most often need more than one worker just to pay the bills.
They wouldn&#39;t be employed, so why would they need to be paid?

The company only thinks of short-term gain,
What an absurd generalisation.

therefore investing in infrastructure like automated production with expensive Capital assets only makes sense if the next quarter&#39;s return to investors is not affected, but no long term plan is made.
Of course not. No businessman is capable of thinking beyond the next quarter. :rolleyes:

Resource hoarding,
Just like owning more tha one car is "car hoarding".

Investor control of public resources,
That&#39;s hardly a problem, seeing as the resources probably wouldn&#39;t be available without the investors.

Denouncement of uninvited sales pitches that I&#39;ve never agreed to listen to in the first place.
Your TV/radio comes with an off switch. Pity you don&#39;t.

[red team]

Nope. The change in climate was gradual.

I won&#39;t argue why the climate was warm enough to support large reptillian creatures for millions of years then suddenly they all died out when coincentally the climate became cold, other than to hint at some cataclysmic event happening in the past. This is what most likely happened from what geologists and paleontologists have uncovered, but for you, you can cling to the myth that God made the sun colder if it makes you feel good.

As for now, the climate change from a cold climate to hotter one is quite "gradual" in geologic time of a couple of decades, eh? :lol:


If there&#39;s a demand, then we need it.

Not necessarily and the "demand" could be for something else entirely that is totally unrelated to popular consumer wants.

Are you arguing that every investment decision made by business is driven from consumer wants? :rolleyes:

"Wants" can be created with a large enough marketing campaign. In that way "demand" is a function of salesmanship and marketing which are totally unnecessary and parasitic activities that create no real wealth. Coincidentally, sales and marketing is one of the largest department of both employment and outlays for business in "advanced" countries. Consumers must really like sales pitches and junk mail directed at them.


Very little, but that doesn&#39;t make much difference. Scientists are as corruptable as everyone else.

But that doesn&#39;t mean we couldn&#39;t make a scientific system which makes the corruptability of any individual irrelevant and irrelevant of social position.

Encryption schemes for software are quite secure and near impossible to break. These were created by talented engineers. That must mean they have all the keys to every single piece of software ever written or computer network ever set up that is encrypted. :rolleyes:


Of course not. No businessman is capable of thinking beyond the next quarter.

List one large scale national project that was completed by a private company or a consortium of private firms because they had the foresight to think ahead. List just one.

If national infrastructure projects were left to private firms we would still have no standardized telephone system, electrical system or highway system and prices for these services would still be tolled so only the wealthy members of society would be able to afford them.


Interacting why and how?

Must be with threats and bribes.

Next time a battery runs out of electricity for you, you can try bribing it with pretty pictured papers that&#39;s worth something to you or beating on it with a stick. :lol:


Your turn: How do you completely mechanise society? I&#39;m still awaiting the detailed plan...

Simple. Solve or attempt to solve every problem which occurs from material production, distribution, theft or corruption from a scientific and engineering perspective. I already have vague outlines of ideas for making most menial work obsolete and to make theft and corruption near impossible and I&#39;m just a single engineer. Imagine if all the experts in the physical sciences were to run society. But we all know that&#39;s not going to happen. People are mindless cows. They would rather elect the most popular class clown as president than the school nerd.


They wouldn&#39;t be employed, so why would they need to be paid?

Water is free, gravity is free, sun rays are free. All sources of energy.
And ideas once their discovered or invented for making something work don&#39;t require labour to reinvented again because they can be permanently recorded for anyone willing to learn these ideas. Regimentation of life into work and career is only a recent development.


Just like owning more tha one car is "car hoarding".

Sure it is, by the reasonable assumption of using 1 car per day you can only use any particular car half the time if you own 2 cars if compared to someone who owns just 1 car. If you work twice as hard or twice as long to afford the compensation to own 2 cars then it will take you twice as long to afford 2 cars as compared to someone who works only half as hard or long as you, considering that manual labour was used as a measuring stick. But if you work twice as long or hard you&#39;ll end up with more material possessions than the other guy, but with only half the time to enjoy provided you&#39;re not too exhausted from working twice as hard to enjoy it.

But, with energy consuming machines making your car, wealth are evenly distributed across the consuming public because it makes no sense to say you&#39;ve earned your car from your labour if energy consuming machines did most of the "labour". In that case it would be economically impossible for you to pay for more than what is the evenly divided sum total in energy used to make all the cars available for purchase. Which means you&#39;ll only be likely to afford one car if you don&#39;t neglect other necessities like food.

Is this the case now? Quite a lot of rich people who have 10 cars or more are quite lively and have plenty of time to get off work early to enjoy their luxuries.


That&#39;s hardly a problem, seeing as the resources probably wouldn&#39;t be available without the investors.

You have far too much confidence in people with only fictional debt tokens. Care to find out how fictional they will be when the price system collapses and money isn&#39;t worth the paper it is printed on? We&#39;ll simply bypass the need for "rich" investors to be part of the production process. We wouldn&#39;t even need to overthrow the moneyed class. We&#39;ll just ignore them and their pretty pieces of pictured paper.

[Guerrilla22]

According to the definition used here, modern nations are truly democratic only when the government accepts that it represents all citizens and is successful in establishing the conditions that are necessary for most of the population to prosper.

So a government is democratic, only when most of its citizens are wealthy, regardless of civil society. Typical capitalist illogic.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In reply to the first post:
First, it&#39;s important to note that you just outlined the conditions of the first world. However, there are many third world countries in the same situation, in terms of government and economic policy. They just cannot develop their economies because of imperialism. This imperialism, coincidentally, is a common quality of all first world countries to which you refer.

Furthermore, all workers, including those in the developed world, suffer from oppression and inequality.

[CrazyModerate]

I find the statement on how before the United States there was no government who found it important to help all citizens. First of all, who says the American government believes this? Many American presidents would have fundamentally disagreed with the idea of the government helping all Americans.

Secondly, most governments consist of competing factions, even authoritarian governments. Many of these nations likely consisted of those who had the intention to benefit all citizens.

So either way your statement is untrue. If you are talking about the first government to attempt to assist all citizens than it is not true because other governments had the intention to help all (ie. Revolutionary France) although not the ability.

If you are saying the first successful government, well I believe even if there has been a government successful in this sense, it has not been the United States.

Too large is too vague of a criticism. Wal Mart is too large. So is microsoft. They are EXTREMELY inefficient companies that attempt success by underpricing their opponents, not by cutting costs or improving their products.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

(2) the establishment of a society run by industrial engineers and other technical experts in accordance with the principles of advanced technology.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

In other words, a society and economy centrally run/controlled by "experts."

Sorry, that&#39;s been tried and no matter how smart or benevolent the experts are, they can&#39;t possibly make better decisions than millions of people deciding what is best for themselves.


We have 1 economic collapse

An unemployment rate of less than 5% and expanding GDP is hardly economic collapse. Quite the opposite in fact.


worldwide wars, continuous "minor" wars since then, i

As opposed to the constant tribal and monarchal wars that preceeded democracy/capitalism?

Did you not read this article?


What have you businessmen done with such potential?

Again, you make the assumption that businessmen run society. They don&#39;t.


The company only thinks of short-term gain, therefore investing in infrastructure like automated production with expensive Capital assets only makes sense if the next quarter&#39;s return to investors is not affected, but no long term plan is made.


Anyone who does risks being beaten by those that think of short AND long term gain. Witness the demise of GM/Ford compared to Honda/Toyota.

[red team]

In other words, a society and economy centrally run/controlled by "experts."

Some goods and services gain no extra benefits for the consumer by placing them in market "competition" in privately owned companies producing them. The market "competes" by respecting one thing only. Returning the greatest profit to shareholders which seldom correlates well with quality brought to consumers. In those cases having them centrally administered by experts is the best route to go.


Sorry, that&#39;s been tried and no matter how smart or benevolent the experts are, they can&#39;t possibly make better decisions than millions of people deciding what is best for themselves.

You&#39;re making the assumption that private firms takes the opposite position of providing the best value for the consumer. Not necessarily true. If that was the case there would be no need for government regulation of business to make sure they don&#39;t harm consumers with their products or services. Further, if the economy was privatized what choice do workers have, but to go to private firms no matter their quality or price of their goods? The worker would have no choice, but to buy it back from their boss what was produced by them in the first place. Without an alternative in staple goods and services provided by a neutral agent like the government then what choice do the consumer have to opt out of the market place by relying on a constant and reliable source of goods and services?


An unemployment rate of less than 5% and expanding GDP is hardly economic collapse.

Unemployment rates do not count long term unemployed in their rolls and also count casual and part-timers as being employed so we have both an underestimate and an overestimate to skew the truth politically. Not surprising since unemployment like everything else related to the economy is a political statistic.

GDP is a useless accounting of the total transactions in an economy without specifying what those transactions were made for and whether or not it was real wealth being generated and distributed to the working public. If those transactions turned out to be for bad or parasitical purposes like price speculation and weapons spending then its referred to as negative externalalities.


Anyone who does risks being beaten by those that think of short AND long term gain. Witness the demise of GM/Ford compared to Honda/Toyota.

In the early years of Japanese industrial expansion companies like Honda and Toyota rely on an integrated government research and subsidies program to build up strategic areas of the economy referred to as MITI.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Without an alternative in staple goods and services provided by a neutral agent like the government then what choice do the consumer have to opt out of the market place by relying on a constant and reliable source of goods and services?


What you wanna-be communists (and most liberals... and even many conservatives) continue to miss is that the market, through the communication instrument called prices, allocates scarce resources to where they are most needed. Liberals and conservatives and whatever the hell you advocate wish the gov&#39;t (by whomever) to dictate such allocation, and what we end up with is a very poor model of efficient allocation.

We then end up with budget deficits and debt and an insistance that taxes must be raised rather than the obvious solution, which is to get the gov&#39;t out of realms it has no business being in in the first place.

(I&#39;ll try to get to your other crap at a later time.)