Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 179

Thread: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

  1. #81
    Abdülmecid I's Avatar ˇAy Carmela!
    Moderation Overseer Civitate Moderation Mentor

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,775

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Marx is from XIX century. We are in XXI century. Different tech, sociosphere and problems.
    Marxism has not invented class struggle, but it's a method of describing and explaining it, since the times of slavery, when humanity began to organise itself on a social basis. Being given that capitalism is the prevalent economical system, just like when Marx lived, I wouldn't say his communist vision has become obsolete, at least in what concerns the most fundamental aspect, that of financial and social organisation.
    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Countries where Communist Utopia was attempted to be created:
    Well, personally, I don't believe that capitalism is going to followed by communism, at least not in the foreseeable future, but that argument, originated from the fact that the USSR eventually failed to compete against the capitalist world is very fragile. Firstly, that "contest" wasn't even based on equal terms, since the wealth of the western world, was immense, compared to that of the Warsaw Pact, which had additionally suffered disproportionately from WW2. Secondly and more importantly, history never evolves in a linear fashion, quite the opposite, in fact, since almost always the first attempts at innovation are doomed to fail, due to the fact that they are either premature of the rest of the world's social and financial conditions are not yet ready to accept them, so they finally succumb to the vast amount of resources of their enemies, despite any advantages they might have gained. Typical example is the fate of the French Republic or the relatively more progressive French Empire, which were defeated by the aristocratic feudal monarchies and at least seemingly, reverted back to the ancien régime. The royalists gloated over the value of the old ways, but history quickly proved them wrong. Of course, I personally doubt that this example shows that the future belongs to the Soviet Republics, but it's a clear indication why the fall of the USSR hasn't sealed the fate of communism.

  2. #82
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Okay, I have to adress this now.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    How exactly are you defining theft? Because I've tried to comprehend this from every angle, and I still don't see the comparison. Someone being born without compared to another in no way involves the taking of anything from anyone. That is an essential ingredient for something to be theft given the actual definition of the word..
    The problem is you are using the moment as the reference point. All the institutions of today are created under certain social settings. They are not god-given. They socially constructed. When you see all of human history as one and look into how it relates to nature, you can easily view landgrabbing and establishment of private property as theft. Of course, looking from the moment and existing laws, what I say sounds ridiculous...but that isn't how I am looking. I am not taking this for granted.
    A slave would have been a property of someone at some point history, it would be perfectly normal to buy-sell human beings. But when you get out of the moment and look at the bigger picture, you can see different things.
    The taking-stealing here is not between individuals, it is a social process. No one individual is guilty of theft, I use the concept here in a social setting.



    How land becomes private property isn't subjective at all. It's far more subjective to reject land as some special category of thing that can't be owned. I'm unaware of many Marxists who would reject the idea of private ownership. I'm unaware of any society that rejects that idea myself. If I have a stick, it's my stick. I have my clothes. Is there a society in the world does not recognize stealing or thievery as a crime? If you want to draw the line at land, fine, but recognize that you are the one making the subjective cutoff.


    If someone comes across land and invests time and energy into making it productive, or in the modern world has paid for it, there is nothing subjective about the ownership. It is grounded in the investment and claim.
    So if I go to someone elses property now and work it the way I want it becomes mine?
    There aren't an infinite amount of land on earth you know. And the only reason someone else owns the land is because s/he was there first and there was the necessary institutional framework to make land property.
    Which brings us to below point:



    This is really a warped view of the history. Settlers and governments stole land, and you are connecting it to the idea of private property to slander the concept itself. Show me the philosopher or some theory of private property where Natives didn't own the land because they weren't making the right use of it. You can't. You are mischaracterizing liberal beliefs. You have created a strawman.
    Settlers did stole the land. Governments provided the "liberal" framework.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Locke
    Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.[
    What he said would have been understandable in his time. But now, all land is property. So what this basically means that vast majority of the world population from now on won't have access to land.
    The colonils motivated themselves on the concept of white men's burden....that the non-whites were not making the right, efficient use of the resources..and thus, it was the ones who could that should rule and own. Africa, the frontiers in Australia, Americas were all taken over in this manner.
    I believe the late 18th century, 19th century Europe&USA was quiet influenced by liberalism. They certainly weren't Marxists.


    No socialists have ever stolen land from natives, or forced native populations to forcibly move onto reservations.
    It does not matter. I am breaking your argument. Furthermore, I am not a socialist the way you define in your mind.

    And colonialism was *totally* invented with capitalism. Hell, it doesn't even need to be native populations.
    I did not claim that. Colonialism played a more important role in emergence of capitalism. And capitalism DEEPENED the colonial relations. Colonialism started of more a a feudal-mercantilist reflex. It was booty and land grabbing at first...a process driven by, wait for it, large LANDOWNERS. But you don't like the class dynamics

    I
    don't understand why you object to American settlers from taking native lands so much, anyway, considering that your entire theory of society denies ownership of land to begin with and has no qualms about the use of force to achieve a (perceived) greater good.
    The word I am looking for is, land belongs to every nobody. You automatically associate everything I say with state ownership. There are no states in the nature. There are no laws in the nature. Historically, a great deal land was common property. Although you could say a lot of it was under feudal lords or sultans or emperors, they functioned as lands of the commoners.
    Only after capitalism did land become a commodity. Which is not a bad or a good thing mind you, since production increased at extreme rates after that.

    However it raised a question, what makes the land property? Who decides who gets what land? What happens to land on the long run?

    The history of capitalism is full of proleterianization. Meaning, de-propertization of masses through taking over more and more of the commons.
    Where does the stop? Who decides where it stops? These are important questions.
    For a long time, commercialization of land was viewed as the only efficient way to increase production. Perhaps it was....certainly, the would economy would not have been this big if Americas were not plundered by modernity&civilization.
    The problem here is you viewing this a morally just thing, and protecting commons as a "thief" mentality.
    History won't be reversed, but when we are heading for the future, it is important to understand what happened for what it is...


    You have defended Stalinism when people have attacked it for its brutality. Because you claim to reject normative moral judgements as a Marxist.
    I did not defend Stalinism. I told you that world was not black and white.


    I
    have *never* said that colonialism and capitalism were unrelated to one another. Never. I have said that capitalism did not require colonialism, and I have backed that up with historical facts. You then shifted the goalposts.
    Capitalism has a lot to do with colonialism in its birth. Once it was there however, as a form of social relation, it spread without the need for colonialism. Though it could be argued that the ex-colonial nations were a major dynamic(as mediators of goods and surplus) in expansion of capitalism.

    Colonial nations of France, UK, Netherlands(later Belgium that came out from it) were the first to industrialize. And then in the "second industrial revolution", it has spread to Central and North Europe.
    American capital accumulation was heavily based on its access to riches of the west which they took from natives.

    It is true however that, saying just because there is surplus there will be a proper capitalist transformation would be wrong. It also required a form of social transformation. Spain and Portugal are a good case for that.


    It should be very easy to point to issues where private property ownership - that of a specific individual - created such harm, then. An individual who was not part of or connected to a state and who didn't use violence. Amazingly, in America there a real estate market. It changes hands. There is no uber capitalist buying it all up and hoarding it away from people. Nor would that make any sense. These are cartoonish critiques of capitalism that have no basis in reality.

    It's highly ironic to focus on land ownership when capitalism - you know, the capital is implied - is the system that overthrew the tyranny of aristocratic landowners. The free flow of capital meant people who simply sat on land and did not improve it would see their own wealth eclipsed and diminish over time. Why don't we have these mythical land hoarders under capitalism? Because simply owning land for the sake of it is not a wise investment. The value of the land fluctuates, or someone cashes out because they want capital that can be invested to other ends that are more profitable. Land ownership shifts around.
    Land has space on it for capital accumulation, rent and resources. It is the most basic thing we have for value creation. My argument isn't based on land, but land is the first thing human had to create value.

    Second, the whole emphasis on car ownership is itself hypocritical. You throw that out to show unfair, supposed unearned wealth. What isn't stated is that if we take Dogukan's arguments to their logical extreme, no one would own a car. A car is made of materials that come from the land. Building it requires the commoditization of it regardless of whether it is held in public or private hands. In Dogukan's ideal society, no one would own a car. Everyone would be equally deprived so that no one had to look at their neighbor and be envious of what they had then, I suppose.
    Car is a risky commodity to deal with in this case. Because yeah, I don't see any problem with an extensive public transportation network as opposed to cars. Not because I want other people to be poor. Many other logical reasons for this even an hardcore capitalism fan would agree.

    Then look at the complete lack of personal responsibility. Dogukan hates his life, hates his job where he feels he is overworked, but no one forces him to stay at that job. He can go work elsewhere. No one has a gun to his head, presumably, and is forcing him to work anywhere or pursue any career path he does not want. More to the point, how does any of this change under a socialist system where people very often have no choice under how they earn a living? This is oddity is more pronounced when we look at how Dogukan advocates for a strange form of agrarian socialism. Are the work hours going to be fewer? Will people be better off being tied to the land in order to survive? We only have to look back in human history, where Dogukan wants to take us, to answer unequivocally no.
    The forcing people to work or not thing. We have discussed this before and you did not reply. Yes, there is no law that bounds me to work...but can I survive that way? Did I choose the way the society works? What if millions of us are fed with the way society works? Can't we demand to change it?
    It is a collective action...capitalism is also enforced.
    The fact of the matter is, current society does not allow majority of the people to become what they want...but rather pushes them to subsistance.
    I think you are living in pretty good conditions if you cannot see this.

    Once again, I do not advocate a single system to be functioning everywhere...



    He talks in vagaries and collectivizes. At all costs, he avoids getting specific when he talks about this mysterious 'they' who are buying up everything and profiting from our exploitation. For one, they, if they even exist, can only do so with government force behind them. While people are born with wealth, that is irrelevant. They start with more material means than others in life, and this may not seem fair until you consider that someone before them did earn that money or acquire that property fairly. Inherited wealth is not unearned wealth. Someone did earn it, and they did so knowing they could pass it down to their family. They could take care of their own as all of us would like to do for those we care about. It is not a fair outcome, but it is fair process. The most fair process available as it allows people to keep the fruits of their own labor and build off of them. Dogukan doesn't even pretend he is going to provide everyone with this level of material security, or even that he will provide more people with material security. He talks about regression. People will certainly be equal, but they will not be better off at either end of the spectrum. Dogukan does not offer equal opportunity. He proposes eliminating opportunity to begin with. When there is nowhere up to climb, we will all have equally nowhere to go.
    Lol, seriously? Fair process? I propose creating oppurtunity together.
    But saying the world under capitalism is a place of equal oppurtunity where there is a fair process simply kills my motivation to go on with this. I would rather like to see how you think under current circmstances things will become better....you have really turned a blind eye to the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD and talking about how good capitalism is...from where? California?

    The other reason Dogukan has to remain vague is that class is not static in a capitalist society. He has to stay vague and to collectivize because when we start talking about individuals we very often see that the wealthiest in society at any given moment did not inherit their wealth at all. They earned it. People frequently also lose it, as well. There is not simply a class of overlords above us getting richer and richer at all times. If you look at the list of the top 100 wealthiest families in America today, the names are completely different from those of a hundred years ago. Successive generations often squander the wealth left to them.
    One thing you need to learn is that when I talk of classes I do not talk of individuals...but dynamics relevant to classes. After all these debates, you could have at least looked up how class is used analytically in academia.

    A moral argument I will continue to make because the positive results of the ideas I espouse are on display daily. The failures of Marxism continue to linger, as well, unfortunately. What we see here is that the second you feel there is an opening, you slip into Baptist preacher mode and turn on the sophistry sensing you may be able to convert someone. Your claim that you do not make a moral argument is preposterous.
    Capitalism is a set of social relation, a mode of production.

    Marxism is not.



    Why did 'some' of the developing world make that leap? Right off the bat, it should be impossible with your un-nuanced worldview.
    Lol. Don't you think if experts had established this, whole world would apply the formula and everywhere would have been equally developed today? 300 years is a lot of material to analyze....


    Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea - these nations rank above a number of former imperial powers in the West. Singapore and Hong Kong are wealthier per capita than most of Western Europe and even America.
    Singapore and HK are city-states that function on finance and they are trade hubs...they are meaningless without the existing production network in the world.
    They have a lot to do with global power relations.

    The only exceptions here are Japan, Korea and to an extend Taiwan. And I explained to you their development histories.
    Besides what explained earlier, Japan and Korea also represent the 1st tier economy of the Asian region. So that region becomes their sphere. Which again brings me to power relations.
    These countries are now exporters of capital to cheap labor areas.



    The technology is freely available to socialists just the same as capitalists. Explain to me why the socialist nations cannot achieve the same results, Dogukan? If the rising tide is the result of simple technological gains, then explain to me why socialism has not been able to duplicate the same wealth generation, or even exceed it anywhere in the world? More to the point, explain to me who would have taken the initial risks to develop that technology without those greedy capitalist pigs in the West. Because industrialization was risky and required a great deal of capital. Were the entrenched landowners who made up the governments of the day going to do it?
    Why do you keep bringing real socialism to me as if I am advocating it?
    Secondly, socialism took roots in non-industrialized countries and were under constant threat thanks to USA which has had a major impact on their social-political structures. They were constantly at war with the most rich and powerful countries on earth.
    Furthermore, they were embergoed.

    I do not see this as a competition though. Technology is the common intellectual product of humanity...not capitalism. And it should be utilized the best way possible for the betterment of everyone.

    Even today, why does nearly all technological innovation continue predominantly in the West? Why haven't socialist nations, removing inefficient profits from the equation and with the technology to copy, been able to duplicate or even come close to it?
    Lol, what socialist nations are there?

    You would make the success of capitalism happenstance when just earlier you were arguing we only have one history. You have no data to suggest this happens without capitalism. None. When I argue that colonialism was not necessary to development, I can point to specific data points - countries - that developed without imperialism. Your argument doesn't have an ounce of evidence behind it.
    There was no technological development prior to capitalism?

    I think a free social-political environment is a more important factor than existance of capitalism.



    The assumption here being that money = wealth, to begin with. The other being that hours worked somehow produces more value or should be valued higher. It's nothing more than a complete rejection of economics. The same voodoo economics that all socialist nations inevitably adopt when they are forced to reform by reality. It's nice that you turn to the social sciences to understand economics. It's a shame that such a view doesn't produce positive results you can point to in order to demonstrate their efficacy. The only social element involved comes into play through how consumers/customers value the product or service provided, and political processes. The latter of which distorts value which not subjectively set at all.

    The value of labor is determined the same way as anything else. Through supply and demand combined with the value brought by the labor. The man in Vietnam is not paid less because he is Vietnamese and because Americans have more power. He is paid less there are a greater number of people who can do his job. Or because there are enough people in Vietnam willing to take that job for that pay. The supply side of labor. The wages are set by what is needed to attract workers.
    Hence, why I was questioning your "fair process" and "equal oppurtunity" premise....And also why asked to you, what you think about the complete lack of borders when it comes to labor.
    What you describe here is one of the major reasons capitalism thrives. It keeps explotation elsewhere, and creates more surplus for the ones on the top of the food chain. These can be nations....this theory of imperialism was coined like in the late 19th century by various Marxists.
    Exporting of capital to cheap labor lands is how extra surplus is created in core nations...which decreases the class conflict in these countries.

    A Swedish gardener in Sweden and a Vietnamese gardener in Vietnam can do the same job for equal amount of time. The Swedish will not make more money, he will have way more purchasing power outside as well.

    Power relations. Unequal power relations. Economics is politics.

    Lets say you are a programmer. You are making 25k dollars annually in California.
    Where does the materials for the computer come from? From which land? Who took over this land and how?
    Who mines them? Who transports them?
    Who assembles them?
    Who carries them around?
    Who sells them?

    Until it gets to you, in a western country, in a comfortable office, creating "more value" per hour?

    When you say it is socially determined, you mean subjective. A word you have used for it in the past. Yet we have seen the result of a refusal to accept that the value of labor is determined by forces outside the control of men on high or through democracy. Venezuela is experiencing this as we speak. You would make it sound like this is simply subjective, as if we can just decide to pay more, but don't out of greed when the reality is that it is impossible to pay more without observable and predictable consequences.

    Observable and predictable...hm...
    Haha, yeah. You should take a trip around the developing capitalist world....just by knowing the right people, you can make a lot of money, in the form of wage, regardless of the supply-demand equilibrium.
    You think economics can be seperated from politics and human networks...you think it is a "rational arena".....



    How does democracy work, again? When is social decision making good and when is it bad? For some reason, if people get together to vote on the value of something, this is acceptable to you. But when people vote through what they are willing and able to pay, that is bad. The conequences of the former approach are on display in every Marxist experiment gone awry in the twentieth century. Voting does not magically change value. Political processes cannot magically change the real value of labor. This is why efforts to do so always have negative consequences either that result in more unemployment, wafe inflation, or a number of other ills.
    Real value of labor......
    Have too little time to get into a debate over value theory.


    You have done exactly that multiple times in the post above. You have argued that the achievements are incidental. You have argued that they are unsustainable and destroying the planet while not providing an ounce of evidence
    You are trying to win a case for capitalism. I am trying to break your dogmas. Its you, who think that we are comparing two ideal systems and I am making a case for one side.......the problems on earth are real. 300 years of capitalism has not solved a lot of issues it created, despite constantly arguing that it has the means to do it.
    Which led me to saying that economics is politics, and capitalism is a representation of unequal power relations......

    And you are right, I did not present my "unsustainability" case with evidence.
    I wil ltry to gather the academic references I have at some point...but I really have time problems nowadays.....and most of my academic work goes into studying for this scholarship exam that is completely irrelevant to our debate here.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  3. #83

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Marxism has not invented class struggle, but it's a method of describing and explaining it, since the times of slavery, when humanity began to organise itself on a social basis.
    Actually, if you consider different species struggling amongst each other, you could say class struggle is much much older than 5000 years old... Darwinism and Evolution, require species struggle just to sustain life itself.
    Even eliminating Humans from the picture, species struggling against each other and species with class struggle amongst their groups will still exist. Any random page of biology/zoology manual confirms this.
    Other from upsetting young earth creationists, Darwinism and the implication of its findings gets thrown into the dust bin very easily...
    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    foreseeable future, but that argument, originated from the fact that the USSR eventually failed to compete against the capitalist world is very fragile.
    Well agreeable only to the point of fragile, given Nuclear War was a possible outcome, and then the Space Race so only natural stakes got higher and higher, and thus people expectations on both systems.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    that "contest" wasn't even based on equal terms, since the wealth of the western world, was immense, compared to that of the Warsaw Pact, which had additionally suffered disproportionately from WW2.
    Russia is largest country on earth, geographically speaking, and was/is gifted with a fantastic amount of natural resources, and could be said to have started the Space race with Sputnik. While USSR did suffer highest number of casualties in WWII, USSR in the angle you paint it is wolves in sheep's clothing. And don't ignore that it later got war supplies from USA.

    Also wasn't "equal" because Communist revolutions in Finland and Germany failed hard. In both countries USSR later got a chunk of their land (Karelia and East Germany), but never the whole country. Well things could be more "equal" had Finland and Germany communist revolutions suceeded, but Revolutions have such names for a reason, there's never guarantee of suceeding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Typical example is the fate of the French Republic or the relatively more progressive French Empire, which were defeated by the aristocratic feudal monarchies and at least seemingly, reverted back to the ancien régime. The royalists gloated over the value of the old ways, but history quickly proved them wrong.
    To be fair, I wonder, given that pre-WWII Governments in decision making had democracies, and before WWI several attempts to (again) commit regicide (not kill the King, but family aswell) in several countries happened Europe world-wide, including my own.

    Guillotine got replaced with more accurate and lethal gunpowder but idea was the same. This a few years before WWI and/or WWII. The "guillotine impulse" was attempted again at the upper ranks, and ended up in a mess that only got "solved" through more warfare. See Spanish Civil War (General Franco who emerged victorious, was pro-Monarchy and had Communist factions against him, one of the surviving militants in them was George Orwell himself), Portuguese Democracy anti-reactionary 1st Republic joining WWI to show "strenght", resulting in a killfest of otherwise common Portuguese people in battle of La Lyz, this in an ironic contrast to WWII, Portugal with a Catholic Fascist regime achieved Neutrality.

    Only sort of sucessful clear attempt at democracy, liberty and individual freedom was USA and Washington's Revolution, but they had a lot of room and space to implement their things, rather than force other people to die for their ideas. Also passed their trial of fire in deflecting British Empire.

    Asides from the endemic war with american natives, there's not much more controversy to the sucess of their revolution bearing decent fruits in post-revolution state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Of course, I personally doubt that this example shows that the future belongs to the Soviet Republics, but it's a clear indication why the fall of the USSR hasn't sealed the fate of communism.
    There's communism and "communism". "Communism" will never die because it consists of pointing out a bunch of social injustices which are real, and hoping for "Communism" to solve them, and also has many believers of "Communism" to be the only One True Path to solve Injustice. Basically a very sugarized version of everything that happened in any country with a sucessful communist coup d'etat.

    What happens is, reading the non-politically incendiary marx and staying loyal to the Orthodox views of Communism, the "cure" is extremely strong and more Leviathanesque than average, and taking several definitions with Ironclad discipline, people such as you and dogukan would be Capitalists (Due possessing private property for example). Being more blunt, personal to never be fully trusted in later stages of implementing anything Communist, due to already too much tainted by "Capitalism" and more worried about feelings on "Injustices" and "Equality" rather than setting up a proper solid disciplined Dictatorship of the Proletariat to have a stand off with Dictatorship of the Burgeoise for world domination.

    Several watered down spinoffs appeared, but the "stronger" one always got dominance, regardless if due to beautiful or ugly measures. (No coincidence Stalin ended up inheriting all of Lenin legacy, only one to stomach all the "ugliness" contained and even embrace it, adding more NKVD Purges to already Cheka ones just to be sure)

    Simply the term "Capitalism" as the rich guy in hat and cigar got popularized with implied meaning of "capitalism captain". In the more Marx's XIX century more Orthodox definitions, anyone enjoying private property and fruits of labour not of their own hands or labour are already part of "enemy side", but "maybe forgiven" because they can end up being potential means to start a revolt. But what asides from that? They were raised in Capitalism and got too used to such environment, can they be trusted to behave properly in the coming Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

    Ironic thing is, where is the proletariat in assembly line today to revolt against their chains? Most of industry isn't even on the West anymore, but on China, a Communist country. They revolted once, had the "Great Leap Foward" and after that, Mao's massive famines happened, so nowadays despite some workers feeling cornered in their sane state they don't see it (pulling another communist revolution inside a communist state that resulted from a communist revolution) as a solution. What happened in nearby Cambodia didn't help either.
    Last edited by fkizz; April 15, 2016 at 05:16 PM. Reason: typos
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  4. #84

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    When you see all of human history as one and look into how it relates to nature, you can easily view landgrabbing and establishment of private property as theft. Of course, looking from the moment and existing laws, what I say sounds ridiculous...but that isn't how I am looking. I am not taking this for granted.
    This is a roundabout way of saying that nothing is changing hands here by force or otherwise. There is no actual theft occurring either on the individual or the social level which was entirely irrelevant to the point I made. This is some metaphysical theft that has only occurred in your head.

    A slave would have been a property of someone at some point history, it would be perfectly normal to buy-sell human beings. But when you get out of the moment and look at the bigger picture, you can see different things.
    Slavery as a mass institution and as practiced in the past requires aggressive force to establish and maintain itself. It's an awful analogy to private property which does not. Because, as mentioned above, no theft or aggressive force is actually needed to establish or maintain it.

    What he said would have been understandable in his time. But now, all land is property. So what this basically means that vast majority of the world population from now on won't have access to land.
    This is where I can only shake my head because you not only don't have a grasp of the actual facts - and this is a factual matter, how much land humans occupy and privately own - but you show or feign ignorance of basic economics. So, amazingly, the whole point of private property - it's chief defining characteristic - is that it can be bought and sold by the individual. Land is bought and sold all the time. There is no good reason in a non-agrarian society to hoard to land for reasons already outlined. Besides that, humans make use of less than half the world's land. 95% of the world's population, roughly, lives on just about 10% of its land.

    Now, ironically enough, nearly all of the world's land is claimed by one state or another. This is public land, communally owned in some sense in many cases. You know, the sort of land system you advocate where no one can claim it and it gets set aside where people can't use it often times. The problem you complain about isn't the result of capitalism at all and is actually a result of the very thing you call for more of - declaring land part of some great 'commons.'

    Although you could say a lot of it was under feudal lords or sultans or emperors, they functioned as lands of the commoners.
    Lands of the commoners? By which you mean...they were tied and forced to work the land, with what they could or couldn't keep dictated by the ruling class? It was in no way communally owned.

    The colonils motivated themselves on the concept of white men's burden....that the non-whites were not making the right, efficient use of the resources..and thus, it was the ones who could that should rule and own. Africa, the frontiers in Australia, Americas were all taken over in this manner
    Manifest Destiny is the American term, and I am unaware of it being tied to land use much at all until the latter portion of the 19th century when efforts were made to settle Natives as agriculturalist. The term itself was only coined ad hoc, and it had very little to do with how the Native Americans used the land and when imparted with loftier notions, tended to be tied to democracy and freedom. Not private property. When you speak of the 'white man's burden,' you are blending two different and specific concepts. Neither of which was particularly tied to the notion of private property and almost always had more to do with culture and political institutions with the European 'version' being tied more to race.

    However it raised a question, what makes the land property? Who decides who gets what land? What happens to land on the long run?
    Who did it raise these questions for? What makes the land property - it's already been outlined in its most basic form. The defense of that notion does not require taking anything in either an individual or 'social' sense. There is no initiation of force required. Who decides who gets what land? After we move beyond the state of nature (which you have never refuted and which is actually reinforced with many of your own arguments), the question of who gets what land is pretty simple. The person who owns the land is free to sell or pass that land on to whomever he pleases. Because it is his. What happens to the land in the long run? Again, this is a matter of individual choice. In terms of how this functions, well, the ownership of land changes hands all the time every day in capitalist societies.

    The complete emphasis you have on land is rather absurd to me to begin with. Owning land is not that significant or even necessary in a developed nation to succeed or even rise to the highest classes. Land ownership is not a prerequisite for anything. A rich capitalist does not have to own any land.

    I did not defend Stalinism. I told you that world was not black and white.
    Relativists are also pretty absurd. Not only is it quite clear that you make and implant a number of moral judgements into your arguments on the regular, but every relativist has a clear limit on what they will accept. Put a gun to a relativists head and ask them whether they believe they have a right to live. You can sit there and try to argue that a notion of theft is a social construction, but that's only when you get into the finer minutiae of various laws. I'm unaware of any society on the planet now or in the past which did not recognize theft in any form. You argue that the notion of private property is just a construct, yet I'm also unaware of any society where another individual/private citizen entering the home of another and demanding use of it for themselves would be considered lawful.

    You talk about the increased production achieved by capitalism as if it were just happenstance. Or at the least you avoid discussion of why it occurred. Incentives. It's the dirty word socialists of all stripes avoid like the plague. They preach on the inequities of capitalism while simultaneously ignoring that, time and time again, private property has been identified with increased efficiency from workers. It's almost as if human beings have an innate, biological sense of fairness. One that recognizes that it is wrong to have the fruits of their labor taken from them. One that recognizes that it is wrong to work harder than your neighbor, and then forced to split the difference with him. You try to zoom out and only look at production in some broad sense instead of looking at it on the individual level. You do this because it allows you to play the relativist game. The individual, when left to his own devices and allowed to keep the fruits of his labor, decides willingly to work harder time and time again. When viewed based on the choices of an individual, your argument that natural rights are merely a fiction crumbles. Because no one is imposing a social construct or telling that individual what has value. They have a piece of land they own, they keep what they produce, and they decide on their own that they will work harder.

    When these results replicate themselves over and over again with the same results across different cultures, places, and times, it reveals your social construct argument for what it is.


  5. #85
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fight! View Post
    These are countries that have had State Socialist ideations, certainly, but none went so far as to abolish the State in attempt of Communism. Addtionally China is no longer a planned economy, and operates primarily under free market capitalism, which is what the Soviet Union adopted long before it fell. North Korea is very Maoist, and Cuba is pretty unique but they wouldn't call themselves Marxist-Leninist.
    All of the countries mentioned are, or have been deformed workers' states at one time. In the case of China, capitalism has long been restored, and class struggle has recently been on the increase despite the banning of communist ideas.* In the case of North Korea, it's almost impossible to tell what's going on - the virtual media blackout makes it difficult to guess at the economic structure, but it's clear widespread market reforms have been carried out in certain areas - for example, there are border regions where South Korean firms are allowed to exploit cheap North Korean labor. Cuba actually does call itself "Marxist-Leninist", but its key weakness (other than its isolation and relative poverty) is that it lacks mechanisms of workers' control. Like China the Castro regime was not created by a revolution of the working-class, but as a peasant and petit-bourgeois guerrilla war in which workers only really took part at the end, through a political general strike. U.S. foreign policy, the inability of capitalism to develop the island, and the power of the USSR at the time of the revolution set it on the "socialist" road, but the elements of a socialist revolution were not there, and the political regime was structured on that of the Soviet Regime in the post-Stalin period, rather than on one of democracy and workers' control. As for the USSR itself: You are correct in saying that the USSR had adopted many capitalist reforms, but it would be wrong to say that it was a capitalist state at the time of its collapse. The USSR showed faster growth for a period than any other country in the world for an extended period of time, but in lock-step with this growth was the growth of the parasitic bureaucracy that more and more appropriated resources for themselves, and led to general economic decline. Glasnost and Perestroika attempted to remedy this decline, but on the contrary, market reforms led to even further decline, and the ultimate destruction of the union. 20ish years on and the majority of Russians would rather have the housing and job security of the USSR over the Pizza Hut and pop songs of liberal capitalism.**

    *http://www.marxist.com/china-long-ma...lism021006.htm
    **http://russia-insider.com/en/politic...m-poll/ri12952


    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Actually, if you consider different species struggling amongst each other, you could say class struggle is much much older than 5000 years old... Darwinism and Evolution, require species struggle just to sustain life itself.
    Even eliminating Humans from the picture, species struggling against each other and species with class struggle amongst their groups will still exist. Any random page of biology/zoology manual confirms this.
    Other from upsetting young earth creationists, Darwinism and the implication of its findings gets thrown into the dust bin very easily...
    Well agreeable only to the point of fragile, given Nuclear War was a possible outcome, and then the Space Race so only natural stakes got higher and higher, and thus people expectations on both systems.
    Russia is largest country on earth, geographically speaking, and was/is gifted with a fantastic amount of natural resources, and could be said to have started the Space race with Sputnik. While USSR did suffer highest number of casualties in WWII, USSR in the angle you paint it is wolves in sheep's clothing. And don't ignore that it later got war supplies from USA.
    Equating natural selection and class struggle is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that most biologists would quickly condemn. As for the USSR: It went from one of the most economically backwards countries in Europe in 1917 (and one ruined by war) and by the time of World War 2 was almost on a level playing field with the rest of Europe - at the end of the war it was well ahead of the rest of Europe, and was the only country (excluding other Warsaw Pact countries) to refuse Marshall aid. The capitalists in Russia before the revolution were tied to feudalism and were incapable of developing the economy to any significant extent, while the bureaucracy of the Soviet Union was relatively progressive in this regard. The planned economy was able to deliver economic miracles, but its direction by the parasitic bureaucracy meant that every advancement was at twice the cost to the masses. The fall of the Soviet Union was not primarily because of competition with the U.S., but because of its own internal contradictions.

    Also wasn't "equal" because Communist revolutions in Finland and Germany failed hard. In both countries USSR later got a chunk of their land (Karelia and East Germany), but never the whole country. Well things could be more "equal" had Finland and Germany communist revolutions suceeded, but Revolutions have such names for a reason, there's never guarantee of succeeding.


    To be fair, I wonder, given that pre-WWII Governments in decision making had democracies, and before WWI several attempts to (again) commit regicide (not kill the King, but family aswell) in several countries happened Europe world-wide, including my own.

    Guillotine got replaced with more accurate and lethal gunpowder but idea was the same. This a few years before WWI and/or WWII. The "guillotine impulse" was attempted again at the upper ranks, and ended up in a mess that only got "solved" through more warfare. See Spanish Civil War (General Franco who emerged victorious, was pro-Monarchy and had Communist factions against him, one of the surviving militants in them was George Orwell himself), Portuguese Democracy anti-reactionary 1st Republic joining WWI to show "strenght", resulting in a killfest of otherwise common Portuguese people in battle of La Lyz, this in an ironic contrast to WWII, Portugal with a Catholic Fascist regime achieved Neutrality.

    Only sort of sucessful clear attempt at democracy, liberty and individual freedom was USA and Washington's Revolution, but they had a lot of room and space to implement their things, rather than force other people to die for their ideas. Also passed their trial of fire in deflecting British Empire.

    Asides from the endemic war with american natives, there's not much more controversy to the sucess of their revolution bearing decent fruits in post-revolution state.


    Don't get me wrong - as a Marxist I consider the American revolution to have been a real revolution, and some of its elements wanted to go well beyond the capitalist regime that it laid the groundwork for. The problem with your interpretation is that the American revolution was far from bloodless, and it did have a significant amount of "Collateral damage". Not only were loyalists to the British regime tarred and feathered, but prominent loyalists were often at times hanged, shot, or otherwise executed in order to strike fear in to the hearts of reactionaries. This is without even mentioning the huge amount of bloodshed in the war against the British Monarchy. The resultant regime was also not without its own crises - like Shays' rebellion, in which the new regime had to suppress many of the people who ensured its victory in order to establish the new power structure. For this and similar reasons the revolutionary firebrand Tom Paine called Washington a "traitor to liberty". It also, of course, bears mentioning that America had to have a second revolution - the Civil War - in order to purge it of slavery.

    There's communism and "communism". "Communism" will never die because it consists of pointing out a bunch of social injustices which are real, and hoping for "Communism" to solve them, and also has many believers of "Communism" to be the only One True Path to solve Injustice. Basically a very sugarized version of everything that happened in any country with a sucessful communist coup d'etat.

    What happens is, reading the non-politically incendiary marx and staying loyal to the Orthodox views of Communism, the "cure" is extremely strong and more Leviathanesque than average, and taking several definitions with Ironclad discipline, people such as you and dogukan would be Capitalists (Due possessing private property for example). Being more blunt, personal to never be fully trusted in later stages of implementing anything Communist, due to already too much tainted by "Capitalism" and more worried about feelings on "Injustices" and "Equality" rather than setting up a proper solid disciplined Dictatorship of the Proletariat to have a stand off with Dictatorship of the Burgeoise for world domination.

    Several watered down spinoffs appeared, but the "stronger" one always got dominance, regardless if due to beautiful or ugly measures. (No coincidence Stalin ended up inheriting all of Lenin legacy, only one to stomach all the "ugliness" contained and even embrace it, adding more NKVD Purges to already Cheka ones just to be sure)

    Simply the term "Capitalism" as the rich guy in hat and cigar got popularized with implied meaning of "capitalism captain". In the more Marx's XIX century more Orthodox definitions, anyone enjoying private property and fruits of labour not of their own hands or labour are already part of "enemy side", but "maybe forgiven" because they can end up being potential means to start a revolt. But what asides from that? They were raised in Capitalism and got too used to such environment, can they be trusted to behave properly in the coming Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

    Ironic thing is, where is the proletariat in assembly line today to revolt against their chains? Most of industry isn't even on the West anymore, but on China, a Communist country. They revolted once, had the "Great Leap Foward" and after that, Mao's massive famines happened, so nowadays despite some workers feeling cornered in their sane state they don't see it (pulling another communist revolution inside a communist state that resulted from a communist revolution) as a solution. What happened in nearby Cambodia didn't help either.
    I'm having trouble grasping a few of your points, aside from that you seem to imagine that a socialist revolution always leads to the establishment of a one-man or party dictatorship. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat means the direct rule of the working class as the state - the arming of the working class, the disenfranchisement of the large exploiters, and the rule of government and industry by workplace councils. We began to have a small glimpse of what this could achieve in the early days of the October revolution, but even then it was distorted by economic backwardness, lack of education, the devastation of war, and subsequently, of civil war. Almost no country in the world is not as economically backwards as Russia in 1917, and the world is more connected than ever - making the idea of revolution in just one country frankly laughable. As for China as a Communist country: See what I said earlier. China has long ceased to be a Deformed Workers' State, and is now a capitalist country ruled by a one-party dictatorship that repressed communist ideas and publications while putting forward a cynical and truncated "Communism" as their official ideology. Much the same can be said of Vietnam or Cambodia.


  6. #86

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    Equating natural selection and class struggle is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that most biologists would quickly condemn.
    You wish.. I wasn't equating.
    As for anyone who thinks that Evolution Theory, inter-species struggle for survival (sometimes intra-species, those who work in hierarchical packs) only exist to bash the church: Just No, you are activists who when is convenient deny Darwin more quickly than a XVIII century Bishop because it no longer fits your agenda.

    Evolution for such types is just a tool to upset Church, when boomerang comes hitting back, all I see is "atheists" running away to cover.
    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    As for the USSR: It went from one of the most economically backwards countries in Europe in 1917 (and one ruined by war) and by the time of World War 2 was almost on a level playing field with the rest of Europe - at the end of the war it was well ahead of the rest of Europe, and was the only country (excluding other Warsaw Pact countries) to refuse Marshall aid.
    Received massive supplies from USA during WWII to fend off Nazi Germany... Supplies were already there, no need to abuse hospitality from Capitalists would arouse too much suspicion on Capitalistic abilities.

    Plus you ignored the mass famines under Stalin, NKVD and Cheka purges, huge repression under the regime, aswell as Russian Civil War after Communist promises of ending WWI.
    Not to mention Orthodox Marxism implies revolution in an Industrialized nation, not a rural one... keystone error from step one.

    Basically, what you present is propagandized history with very strong communist bias.



    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    Don't get me wrong - as a Marxist I consider the American revolution to have been a real revolution, and some of its elements wanted to go well beyond the capitalist regime that it laid the groundwork for. The problem with your interpretation is that the American revolution was far from bloodless, and it did have a significant amount of "Collateral damage". Not only were loyalists to the British regime tarred and feathered, but prominent loyalists were often at times hanged, shot, or otherwise executed in order to strike fear in to the hearts of reactionaries. This is without even mentioning the huge amount of bloodshed in the war against the British Monarchy.
    I did mention war against British Empire (Military Victory against an Empire in the non-propagandized sense for sake of liberty, without decades long guerrila) and war against local american natives. War implies some bloodshed. Regardless the oldest functioning democratic constitution/code is still there, centuries after.

    As for slavery, well it existed before and after the revolution world wide and the black slave white owner is communist propaganda. A more careful look at history will reveal the amount of white slaves to have been amazing compared to stereotype.

    Compare Washington Revolt to French Revolution that had Guillotine and Death Penalty fest later spread to rest of Europe with Napoleonic Wars, that ended with re-instauration of Monarchy regime. So many death penalties for nothing, Monarchy was back.
    USSR didn't last a single century either, and risked nuclear war.



    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    I'm having trouble grasping a few of your points, aside from that you seem to imagine that a socialist revolution always leads to the establishment of a one-man or party dictatorship.
    If this were the 60s or 70s, maybe. Now there is abundant proof that things Empirically turned this way. Go see pictures of mass human skulls collected in Cambodia purges.
    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat means the direct rule of the working class as the state - the arming of the working class, the disenfranchisement of the large exploiters, and the rule of government and industry by workplace councils.
    Thomas Hobbes Leviathan - Human being natural state is war, take away current "opressors" and you have new opressors. Read history for more than 10 hours and it's easy to see.
    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    We began to have a small glimpse of what this could achieve in the early days of the October revolution, but even then it was distorted by economic backwardness, lack of education, the devastation of war, and subsequently, of civil war.
    Amazing on how World War One, one of the most brutal wars for mankind at the time to witness, was totally left out of the picture. People were tired of war, followed the anti-WWI commie folks and got a Civil War as a "thank you". Reality is Brutal. While Communist propaganda has massive amounts of Sugar.

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    As for China as a Communist country: See what I said earlier. China has long ceased to be a Deformed Workers' State, and is now a capitalist country ruled by a one-party dictatorship that repressed communist ideas and publications while putting forward a cynical and truncated "Communism" as their official ideology.
    China killed millenia of culture for Mao Tse Tung to be the new "Emperor" with a harem-tier sex life. China has evolved since then and is a question mark, but for sure a lot of Proletariat is opressed under said communist country.
    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    Much the same can be said of Vietnam or Cambodia.
    Vietnam had division war of south and north, like Korea, so more ambiguous, Cambodia it's fairly obvious famine problems were solved by killing off mouths to feed. I don't know if it's necessary to post Pol Pot's mass grave pictures as further proof.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  7. #87
    ★Bandiera Rossa☭'s Avatar The Red Menace
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    6,237

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    You wish.. I wasn't equating.
    As for anyone who thinks that Evolution Theory, inter-species struggle for survival (sometimes intra-species, those who work in hierarchical packs) only exist to bash the church: Just No, you are activists who when is convenient deny Darwin more quickly than a XVIII century Bishop because it no longer fits your agenda.

    Evolution for such types is just a tool to upset Church, when boomerang comes hitting back, all I see is "atheists" running away to cover.
    It appears I misunderstood part of your argument, though I'd still suggest you take a parallel too far. In your view class struggle is an extension of a sort of "pack mentality" in which classes stick together for survival, in competition to others? (If so, that reminds me a bit of the old IWW rhetoric and its upside down social darwinism.)

    Received massive supplies from USA during WWII to fend off Nazi Germany... Supplies were already there, no need to abuse hospitality from Capitalists would arouse too much suspicion on Capitalistic abilities.
    I never denied this, though the majority of this aid was specifically for the war effort (though not all of a military nature) and didn't go much to domestic investment. The Soviet Union would have beat Germany even without U.S. aid, but it probably would have taken more time and have been much more costly. (This is likely true of the second front as well)

    Plus you ignored the mass famines under Stalin, NKVD and Cheka purges, huge repression under the regime, aswell as Russian Civil War after Communist promises of ending WWI.
    Not to mention Orthodox Marxism implies revolution in an Industrialized nation, not a rural one... keystone error from step one. Basically, what you present is propagandized history with very strong communist bias.
    I'm a Bolshevik-Leninist, and as such violently opposed to the purges and policies of Stalin (and it's worth mentioning that the targets were very different between the CHEKA and NKVD). One of the biggest problems for the USSR was precisely that it the revolution took place in an economically backwards country subject to international isolation, ravaged by war, and which would go on to be invaded by at least 14 countries when it attempted to end the war. With the failure of the revolution in Germany - an industrialized nation - the degeneration was almost inevitable. As for presenting a biased view of history - Aren't they all? I'm a communist, and my bias is a communist one. I'm not apologetic for that.


    I did mention war against British Empire (Military Victory against an Empire in the non-propagandized sense for sake of liberty, without decades long guerrila) and war against local american natives. War implies some bloodshed. Regardless the oldest functioning democratic constitution/code is still there, centuries after.

    As for slavery, well it existed before and after the revolution world wide and the black slave white owner is communist propaganda. A more careful look at history will reveal the amount of white slaves to have been amazing compared to stereotype.

    Compare Washington Revolt to French Revolution that had Guillotine and Death Penalty fest later spread to rest of Europe with Napoleonic Wars, that ended with re-instauration of Monarchy regime. So many death penalties for nothing, Monarchy was back.
    USSR didn't last a single century either, and risked nuclear war.
    On the subject of white slavery: There were white and black indentured servants, both of which were heavily exploited - but it was black servants who were eventually to become slaves. This has a large number of reasons, but we could discuss this on another thread if you like. As for the French revolution: There certainly was a political counterrevolution with the rise of Bonaparte, but what he did not do was restore the old economic system - instead bourgeois society and capitalism had been born, and Napoleon spread it across the continent. Even the restoration of the old monarchy could not restore feudalism.


    If this were the 60s or 70s, maybe. Now there is abundant proof that things Empirically turned this way. Go see pictures of mass human skulls collected in Cambodia purges.
    Thomas Hobbes Leviathan - Human being natural state is war, take away current "opressors" and you have new opressors. Read history for more than 10 hours and it's easy to see.
    Amazing on how World War One, one of the most brutal wars for mankind at the time to witness, was totally left out of the picture. People were tired of war, followed the anti-WWI commie folks and got a Civil War as a "thank you". Reality is Brutal. While Communist propaganda has massive amounts of Sugar.
    I've read Leviathan. I'll add a critique here after I'm off work.

    China killed millenia of culture for Mao Tse Tung to be the new "Emperor" with a harem-tier sex life. China has evolved since then and is a question mark, but for sure a lot of Proletariat is opressed under said communist country.

    Vietnam had division war of south and north, like Korea, so more ambiguous, Cambodia it's fairly obvious famine problems were solved by killing off mouths to feed. I don't know if it's necessary to post Pol Pot's mass grave pictures as further proof.
    To be continued.


  8. #88

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    In your view class struggle is an extension of a sort of "pack mentality" in which classes stick together for survival, in competition to others?
    Yes, even in packs of wolves or groups of monkey/chimps you can see examples of "class struggle" and "privileged classes".

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    I never denied this, though the majority of this aid was specifically for the war effort (though not all of a military nature) and didn't go much to domestic investment. The Soviet Union would have beat Germany even without U.S. aid, but it probably would have taken more time and have been much more costly.
    You forgot to include without USA supplies it would've increased chances of losing Stalingrad battle to Nazi Germany. Seems a bad gamble out of pride. Even if won, at cost of many more hundred thousand humans dead for the sake of the "glory of communism" which is obviously not humanistic at all. And also forgot to include that USSR elite of the time was smart enough to do some reverse engineering on USA supplies received for industrialization process later.

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    I'm a Bolshevik-Leninist, and as such violently opposed to the purges and policies of Stalin (and it's worth mentioning that the targets were very different between the CHEKA and NKVD).
    NKVD had no problems in purging people violently opposed to them. In fact, they were scaringly efficient in doing so. Former bolsheviks who disliked Stalin would either be put against the wall and shot, or forced to kneel and be shot. Being against what policies Stalin took would have increased chances of being shot by firing squad for "not being dedicated enough".
    Except for Trotsky (later assassinated in Mexico) all of former Lenin top brass were killed aswell under Stalin orders.
    If you are a revolutionary bolshevik, unless you were willing to join NKVD firing squads to kill other "bolshevik dissidents" who were your former revolutionary comrades, you would end up in Stalin kill list. Possible escape? To run away to "opressive capitalist country where some people pray without trouble". (All this was result of a strong leader doing Communism in practice rather than rosy theory)

    This had echoes even in Spanish civil war, where Communists who disfavored Stalin started being persecuted/killed. George Orwell was amongst the survivors, and his famous books revolve about such disappointments/betrayals.

    And the excuse "but it was bad luck out of Stalin".. There's lots of similiar cases around the world. North Korea, Cambodia, Revolutionary China (millenia of culture lost), the ride never ends. Communism is appealing in rosy theory, in practice it speaks for itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    One of the biggest problems for the USSR was precisely that it the revolution took place in an economically backwards country subject to international isolation, ravaged by war, and which would go on to be invaded by at least 14 countries when it attempted to end the war.
    Backwards depending on age is subjective - Orthodox Marxism, has to be Industrialized. Russia was still rural.
    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    With the failure of the revolution in Germany - an industrialized nation - the degeneration was almost inevitable. As for presenting a biased view of history - Aren't they all? I'm a communist, and my bias is a communist one. I'm not apologetic for that.
    Fair enough, but you forgot to include Finland and Spain. There were Communist organizations for organizing revolutions in at least Germany, Finland and Spain. Failed in the 3 of them. About that, well, revolutions have that name, part of the rules they have a chance to fail hard. In Finland, Commie revolutionaries were executed.
    In Spain, Stalin orders did the job. Stalinists killed most of the communist revolutionaries themselves during civil war.

    Later in late 60s early 70s, Portugal was at risk of Communist takeover aswell. But the planned civil war by USSR didn't come to fruition and instead we followed democracy path.

    Quote Originally Posted by ★Bandiera Rossa☭ View Post
    On the subject of white slavery: There were white and black indentured servants, both of which were heavily exploited - but it was black servants who were eventually to become slaves. This has a large number of reasons, but we could discuss this on another thread if you like. As for the French revolution: There certainly was a political counterrevolution with the rise of Bonaparte, but what he did not do was restore the old economic system - instead bourgeois society and capitalism had been born, and Napoleon spread it across the continent. Even the restoration of the old monarchy could not restore feudalism.
    No mention of Barbary Pirates, who prided themselves in getting (preferably) virgin christian girls as slaves for either exploitation or selling in slave market, ISIS doing human slavery today, Ottoman Empire capturing Europeans for slavery purposes, slavery in Ancient Greece and Roman Empire (including late one), and basically Serfdom during whole Middle ages that came close enough to slavery in some cases.

    Most communist slavery propaganda is done with purpose of raising racial tensions and conflicts between races (mainly whites and blacks), despite claims of "pushing for equality despite race".

    To end - if you are worried about opressed underpaid proletariat, most of them are in Communist China right now! (which is industrialized!) Dunno what your job is, but doubt it reaches working 14-15 hours a day in a factory with food and bad sleeping conditions as "salary".
    Last edited by fkizz; April 28, 2016 at 07:35 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  9. #89

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Capitalism will last forever because it fits human nature and makes sense. From the various black markets in the USSR to wall street, capitalism is just how we work. Every society is capitalist in nature, cash is not the only currency and only measure of profit.

    This is what Marxists can not see.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  10. #90

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    First of all, I lived 20 years in a communist country and I can testify from direct experience that small-scale private property existed. Nobody could take my house or my car because they belonged to me, not to "the people".

    Second, communism died for the reasons stated by Timoleon of Korinthos: nobody, irrespective of how smart and well informed might be, can solve the mathematical model describing an economy. The system of equations is intractable even today with our modern computers. It was more so with the computers existing back then.

    In capitalism, the entrepreneurs simply make bets about how the economy would behave in the future. Since there are many bets, at any moment in time some will result in loses but others will result in wins. Given people learn from mistakes, while on short term we might have serious crises like the Great Depression or the subprime crisis, on the long term progress is made.

    The best proof is that while wealth accumulates more and more in the hands of the rich, the "poor" of the Western countries live better than their parents and grandparents. This apparent paradox is easy to solve: while the piece of pie the rich get is larger and larger, the pie itself also grows on long term.

    In a planned economy the central planners make only one bet and go "all in" on it. When they guess right, the economy grows very fast. When they make the wrong guess, the economy is severely hit.

    The problem is the central planners are directly connected with the political power, unlike in capitalism where the mistakes of the CEO of say General Motors do not translate in the Republicans or Democrats losing the next elections.

    The direct link existing between the central planners and the elite of the communist country means the central planners cannot afford to make very big mistakes. As a result they make very low risk bets. For instance they are slow to adopt a new technology or a new management practice. That in turns guarantees the planned economy would always lag behind a market economy in terms of efficiency and creativity.

    The longer a planned economy competes against a "free" one, the larger the gap between the two. Eventually the planned one crumbles due to its inefficiency.

    Later edit:
    Now about the topic of capitalism being replaced by something else.

    That depends on our ability to solve the equations forming the mathematical model of economy. If that becomes possible in the future, then the need to make a lot of independent bets would disappear.

    In such case a planned economy would be the way to go, because any new idea could be simulated on computers first to see if it results in the desired outcomes or not before actually committing any resources to it.

    If the need to make independent bets on the future disappears then there will be no reason to have capitalists (= "people who can bet large sums on money on the future of economy").
    Last edited by Dromikaites; April 30, 2016 at 01:31 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  11. #91
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    This is a roundabout way of saying that nothing is changing hands here by force or otherwise. There is no actual theft occurring either on the individual or the social level which was entirely irrelevant to the point I made. This is some metaphysical theft that has only occurred in your head.
    No it isn't. When you conceptualize humanity as a whole, as a species into a larger framework, its not silly to make such a statement.
    It might not be the only way of looking at it, but you simply do not want to look at "now" from a historical perspective and don't want to admit to the processes which brought us to where property is today. It did not happen "freely", through the invisible hand sorting out everybody's demand problems. It had been a process of forced accumulation and plunder.



    Slavery as a mass institution and as practiced in the past requires aggressive force to establish and maintain itself. It's an awful analogy to private property which does not. Because, as mentioned above, no theft or aggressive force is actually needed to establish or maintain it.
    The thing you simply fail to realize is that private property itself creates a force in-itself to force the way the labour works.
    We do not have to look into how core shapes the periphery today. The history of enclosures in England itself is a good place to start as to how labour is forced through forces/dynamics of capitalist accumulation and its empowerment of the property-owning classes.
    It was not done by the force of a government or a king-lord content with abundance of surplus he gets or a state trying to maintain social services.


    This is where I can only shake my head because you not only don't have a grasp of the actual facts - and this is a factual matter, how much land humans occupy and privately own - but you show or feign ignorance of basic economics. So, amazingly, the whole point of private property - it's chief defining characteristic - is that it can be bought and sold by the individual. Land is bought and sold all the time. There is no good reason in a non-agrarian society to hoard to land for reasons already outlined. Besides that, humans make use of less than half the world's land. 95% of the world's population, roughly, lives on just about 10% of its land.

    Now, ironically enough, nearly all of the world's land is claimed by one state or another. This is public land, communally owned in some sense in many cases. You know, the sort of land system you advocate where no one can claim it and it gets set aside where people can't use it often times. The problem you complain about isn't the result of capitalism at all and is actually a result of the very thing you call for more of - declaring land part of some great 'commons.'
    I was referring to the process where the small-farmers are beocming obsolete as more and more TNCs move in and take over or force the small-farmers out through competition(which is the second part of the power inequality, the unequal global trade relations..whereas the developed world developed its agriculture behind protectionist measures, it forces the "developing world" into free market access where the small-farmer obvious cannot compete or the large-landholder puts the toll on the backs of the rural proleteriat like in Latin America).
    The concept of food sovereignity(food to be produced and distributed in its region than globally) is a big deal in the anti-globalization subaltern world. Because thats the only way millions of people survive, and when the means to survive through that is gone...all we have left with is slums made up of billions.
    Because these people are not going to be "white-collar workers" over a day.

    Lands of the commoners? By which you mean...they were tied and forced to work the land, with what they could or couldn't keep dictated by the ruling class? It was in no way communally owned.
    I was not trying to praise the feudal system, I told you that already. I was trying to tell you that the feudal lords did not have full direct control unlike now.
    I was trying to emphasize how the villages functioned.
    Sure, the surplus was taken by the feudal lord, which later turned into a landowner after commercialization of land.
    But prior to that, villagers ran the farms communally.
    That was what I was referring to.
    You could see that as a cooperative of sorts, but under feudalism they did not decide "together" where the surplus goes. Under communism it was taken by the state, under feudalism it was taken by the lords.

    Manifest Destiny is the American term, and I am unaware of it being tied to land use much at all until the latter portion of the 19th century when efforts were made to settle Natives as agriculturalist. The term itself was only coined ad hoc, and it had very little to do with how the Native Americans used the land and when imparted with loftier notions, tended to be tied to democracy and freedom. Not private property. When you speak of the 'white man's burden,' you are blending two different and specific concepts. Neither of which was particularly tied to the notion of private property and almost always had more to do with culture and political institutions with the European 'version' being tied more to race.
    The colonizers viewed the lands of the natives as not being made use of, under the rising liberal ideology, its utilitarian framework of the day and its praisal of property.
    The driving force for the taking over of those areas weren't state, or bureucrats.


    Who did it raise these questions for? What makes the land property - it's already been outlined in its most basic form. The defense of that notion does not require taking anything in either an individual or 'social' sense. There is no initiation of force required. Who decides who gets what land? After we move beyond the state of nature (which you have never refuted and which is actually reinforced with many of your own arguments), the question of who gets what land is pretty simple. The person who owns the land is free to sell or pass that land on to whomever he pleases. Because it is his. What happens to the land in the long run? Again, this is a matter of individual choice. In terms of how this functions, well, the ownership of land changes hands all the time every day in capitalist societies.

    The complete emphasis you have on land is rather absurd to me to begin with. Owning land is not that significant or even necessary in a developed nation to succeed or even rise to the highest classes. Land ownership is not a prerequisite for anything. A rich capitalist does not have to own any land.
    First of all, most of my arguments are for the problems in the semi-periphery and periphery world. Not the core countries. 300 years have shown us that, development does not have a linear path and countries do not go through same processes to a "higher developed stage"...the paradigm of modernization has long been dismissed. Economies do not work within national economies that we can quantify on paper. It is a set of global social relations. A constant process.

    Secondly, you base your argument on the belief that constant state of ceteris paribus is what matters, and everything at the moment is exchangeable freely. This neo-classical view based on the constantly finding equilibrium does not account for a lot of the social, political things that are involved.
    You cannot make a simple mathematical equation to explain the whole dynamics of land exchange.


    Relativists are also pretty absurd. Not only is it quite clear that you make and implant a number of moral judgements into your arguments on the regular, but every relativist has a clear limit on what they will accept. Put a gun to a relativists head and ask them whether they believe they have a right to live. You can sit there and try to argue that a notion of theft is a social construction, but that's only when you get into the finer minutiae of various laws. I'm unaware of any society on the planet now or in the past which did not recognize theft in any form. You argue that the notion of private property is just a construct, yet I'm also unaware of any society where another individual/private citizen entering the home of another and demanding use of it for themselves would be considered lawful.
    I am not a relativist or whatever that constitutes. I am well aware of what happened.
    But when I deal with history, I do not really blame people for a lot of things that happen. For I do not view history as being driven by moral processes or individuals.
    For the most part, I see people as OBJECTS of history with a limited room for steering things.
    Thats why I don't go craz about atrocities of Stalin or Hitler.
    Society has its dynamics, and once it takes a path, certain things become more likely.
    I see Stalinism more as a product rather than a subject of a specific history. That is not to say that alternatives were not possible or things could not have been different.

    You talk about the increased production achieved by capitalism as if it were just happenstance. Or at the least you avoid discussion of why it occurred. Incentives. It's the dirty word socialists of all stripes avoid like the plague. They preach on the inequities of capitalism while simultaneously ignoring that, time and time again, private property has been identified with increased efficiency from workers. It's almost as if human beings have an innate, biological sense of fairness. One that recognizes that it is wrong to have the fruits of their labor taken from them. One that recognizes that it is wrong to work harder than your neighbor, and then forced to split the difference with him. You try to zoom out and only look at production in some broad sense instead of looking at it on the individual level. You do this because it allows you to play the relativist game. The individual, when left to his own devices and allowed to keep the fruits of his labor, decides willingly to work harder time and time again. When viewed based on the choices of an individual, your argument that natural rights are merely a fiction crumbles. Because no one is imposing a social construct or telling that individual what has value. They have a piece of land they own, they keep what they produce, and they decide on their own that they will work harder.
    I did not avoid incentives. In fact, iirc I mentioned that real socialism lacked the dynamism of creative destruction capitalism had and tried to stop history in heavy industrialization of 1930s-50s. That was the end of history in their vision.
    Many times as well, I told you that I am not for state ownership of everything...I also told you that I am not against markets.

    What concerns me is what dominates market forces, and what it is driven by, and how it fits into society. I am against a purely profit-driven market system or private ownership over many things that should belong to commons(natural resources and land).
    Thus I told you that I am interested in cooperative economies, social economies which is what the idea is in Rojava and a lot of the new left movements. Alternative economies where the subaltern or the "oppressed" can become a subject of its economy, not limited to the competition under unequal oppurtunities...a system where the bottom has the most say through introduction of more local democratic institutions that are not new to our history...bur rather making them bigger and more extensive.


    That is a form of socialism. I could call that socialism, if socialism is the negation of capitalism and social ownership of things. A form of workers ownership of means of production and the political hegemony.
    Without a domineering state or a market.


    If there is a limited resource, say water in a cityof 100000 people. If 1 people owns it under global free market conditions, he is going to be driven by profit and accumulation without concerns for future, the working people, the environment and the social inequality unless a state tries to balance him being at odds with masses through social policies.....in a few cases, he might do a few philantropist acts to win hearts(over people being angry at him due to his potential corrupt acts and political power) or genuinely, depending on the institutional framework or the personality.

    If in the same tcity, the 100000 have a network of councils where they directly make public opinion AND DECIDE on it, and the resource is owned communally through cooperatives...the decision will include people bringing up their concerns, their children, their living conditions etc...but they will also realize that profit needs to be turned to make it function. So they will decide what to sacrifice, which will also increase the legitimacy of self-exploitation.
    This also means, economy can also still be incentive-driven.
    There are many examples of this throughout history and even now....but it is of course questionable how something like this would fit the global world.
    I requires a whole set of formal and informal institutions...and thats what I intend to work on. And Rojava is a great place for me to start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    First of all, I lived 20 years in a communist country and I can testify from direct experience that small-scale private property existed. Nobody could take my house or my car because they belonged to me, not to "the people".

    Second, communism died for the reasons stated by Timoleon of Korinthos: nobody, irrespective of how smart and well informed might be, can solve the mathematical model describing an economy. The system of equations is intractable even today with our modern computers. It was more so with the computers existing back then.

    In capitalism, the entrepreneurs simply make bets about how the economy would behave in the future. Since there are many bets, at any moment in time some will result in loses but others will result in wins. Given people learn from mistakes, while on short term we might have serious crises like the Great Depression or the subprime crisis, on the long term progress is made.

    The best proof is that while wealth accumulates more and more in the hands of the rich, the "poor" of the Western countries live better than their parents and grandparents. This apparent paradox is easy to solve: while the piece of pie the rich get is larger and larger, the pie itself also grows on long term.

    In a planned economy the central planners make only one bet and go "all in" on it. When they guess right, the economy grows very fast. When they make the wrong guess, the economy is severely hit.

    The problem is the central planners are directly connected with the political power, unlike in capitalism where the mistakes of the CEO of say General Motors do not translate in the Republicans or Democrats losing the next elections.

    The direct link existing between the central planners and the elite of the communist country means the central planners cannot afford to make very big mistakes. As a result they make very low risk bets. For instance they are slow to adopt a new technology or a new management practice. That in turns guarantees the planned economy would always lag behind a market economy in terms of efficiency and creativity.

    The longer a planned economy competes against a "free" one, the larger the gap between the two. Eventually the planned one crumbles due to its inefficiency.
    I can agree with much of what you say here. But the newer generations being better-off was also achieved under real socialism. In fact, since accumulation and its re-investment in the production process became a thing on a large scale with capitalism, this process has been going on...regardless of state ownership or private ownership.
    But as for its capacity to adapt, central planning institutions of real socialism were indeed failing on the long-run.
    Last edited by dogukan; April 30, 2016 at 06:49 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  12. #92
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,049

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    For I do not view history as being driven by moral processes or individuals.
    For the most part, I see people as OBJECTS of history with a limited room for steering things.
    What concerns me is what dominates market forces, and what it is driven by, and how it fits into society. I am against a purely profit-driven market system or private ownership over many things that should belong to commons(natural resources and land).
    Thus I told you that I am interested in cooperative economies, social economies which is what the idea is in Rojava and a lot of the new left movements. Alternative economies where the subaltern or the "oppressed" can become a subject of its economy, not limited to the competition under unequal oppurtunities...a system where the bottom has the most say through introduction of more local democratic institutions that are not new to our history...bur rather making them bigger and more extensive.

    That is a form of socialism. I could call that socialism, if socialism is the negation of capitalism and social ownership of things. A form of workers ownership of means of production and the political hegemony.
    Without a domineering state or a market.
    I am curious, if you see humans as objects of history, why insist on them becoming the subjects of their economy? What is the basis of this moral claim? Do you consider the economic as the criterion for freedom? If so, whence have you derived this criterion? From history, that is, as Marx believed, from man's interaction with man and his environment over time (i.e., productive activity)? If so, is your argument that man can indeed become subject of the historical process, but only if he is master of his own essence (i.e., his productive activity)?

  13. #93
    Fight!'s Avatar Question Everything.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,820

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    Capitalism will last forever because it fits human nature and makes sense. From the various black markets in the USSR to wall street, capitalism is just how we work. Every society is capitalist in nature, cash is not the only currency and only measure of profit.

    This is what Marxists can not see.
    I see your argument, but would like to know your premises. Would you elucidate for me the nature of your claims that:

    1.) Capitalism fits "human nature" (And may I ask you to define that?)
    3.) Every society is Capitalist in nature
    Roll over the names for quotes

    Aristotle || Buddha || Musashi


    Under the proud patronage of Saint Nicholas
    Proud patron of ★Bandiera Rossa☭

  14. #94
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamat View Post
    I am curious, if you see humans as objects of history, why insist on them becoming the subjects of their economy? What is the basis of this moral claim? Do you consider the economic as the criterion for freedom? If so, whence have you derived this criterion? From history, that is, as Marx believed, from man's interaction with man and his environment over time (i.e., productive activity)? If so, is your argument that man can indeed become subject of the historical process, but only if he is master of his own essence (i.e., his productive activity)?
    I was not trying to go back to classical Marxism there.

    ABH2 said I defended Stalinism. I just tried to make it clear to him that rise of Stalin, is not a mere result of behaviours of an individual. There is a ripe environment which makes something like Stalin coming to power more likely and a whole civil war framework where could establish what we call "stalinism".

    I should have said, I see people "mainly" as objects of history. That is not to say people do not make history. Most of "history" had been available to a minority of people to steer it(except for a few bursts or "revolutions" they themselves has lost control of in short time) or to become subjects of it. The more acces the larger segments of population has to power, the more they can become subjects of history.
    Under capitalism, an average person has very little power in the bigger picture...even less so in the developing world, and almost none in the subaltern.

    By creating a new economical framework where larger segments can become more powerful by cooperating, they can become decision-makers which would make them move involved politically and economically, and hence become more influential in their own history.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  15. #95
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,049

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I was not trying to go back to classical Marxism there.

    ABH2 said I defended Stalinism. I just tried to make it clear to him that rise of Stalin, is not a mere result of behaviours of an individual. There is a ripe environment which makes something like Stalin coming to power more likely and a whole civil war framework where could establish what we call "stalinism".

    I should have said, I see people "mainly" as objects of history. That is not to say people do not make history. Most of "history" had been available to a minority of people to steer it(except for a few bursts or "revolutions" they themselves has lost control of in short time) or to become subjects of it. The more acces the larger segments of population has to power, the more they can become subjects of history.
    Under capitalism, an average person has very little power in the bigger picture...even less so in the developing world, and almost none in the subaltern.

    By creating a new economical framework where larger segments can become more powerful by cooperating, they can become decision-makers which would make them move involved politically and economically, and hence become more influential in their own history.
    The reason for my asking is my curiosity concerning the basis of your call for putting people in charge of their economy, which is essential to your critique of capitalism.

    The notion of people becoming "subjects of history" is not straightforward. What are the criteria for being subject of history, from where does one derive these criteria, and how can one actually measure whether or not people have become historical subjects? You seem to suggest that "power" is the criterion, and the basis of this "power" seems to lie in the economic sphere. Yet why does putting people in charge of their economy make them subjects of history? What is the link between the economic and history? Is it because "power" resides in the economic and because history to you is seen in terms of an economic struggle?

    Moreover, would you also equate this power with freedom? Does the democratic ownership of the economy translate into freedom (I mean, why is this so important to you; what is the foundation of this call)? That seems to be the implication here, since in a power relationship, you will have those in power and those not in power, with the corollary that freedom is achieved when power extends to the masses as a whole. A power narrative usually implies a freedom narrative, which then implies unspoken claims about human nature.
    Last edited by Diamat; May 01, 2016 at 05:12 AM.

  16. #96
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamat View Post
    The reason for my asking is my curiosity concerning the basis of your call for putting people in charge of their economy, which is essential to your critique of capitalism.

    The notion of people becoming "subjects of history" is not straightforward. What are the criteria for being subject of history, from where does one derive these criteria, and how can one actually measure whether or not people have become historical subjects? You seem to suggest that "power" is the criterion, and the basis of this "power" seems to lie in the economic sphere. Yet why does putting people in charge of their economy make them subjects of history? What is the link between the economic and history? Is it because "power" resides in the economic and because history to you is seen in terms of an economic struggle?

    Moreover, would you also equate this power with freedom? Does the democratic ownership of the economy translate into freedom (I mean, why is this so important to you; what is the foundation of this call)? That seems to be the implication here, since in a power relationship, you will have those in power and those not in power, with the corollary that freedom is achieved when power extends to the masses as a whole. A power narrative usually implies a freedom narrative, which then implies unspoken claims about human nature.
    I actually suggested combination of 2 things;
    1)Cooperative economies, that are mostly controlled by people under market mechanisms. (Natural resources are not subordinated to market forces)
    2)An extensive local democracy mechanism where the political power also resides with the locals as much as possible

    This is so as there to be a feedback mechanism and people coming together to decide on what to sacrifice or not for their future for themselves.
    This is also important for politicization of people at the local level, where they have a greater access to their own history rather than global markets,global institutions or professional politicians and elites setting the major trajectory.
    Thats what I meant by people becoming subjects of their history.

    The question of freedom is something else. Each social system, social contract, in the end might be viewed as a limitation of this or that freedom. But I am, to an extend, for limitation of an hierarchical structure. So a large state or a bureuratic system is a threat to this. Rather, it should be loose networks of civil society setting goals and standards. And delegates of the local setting guidance at a decentralized structure.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  17. #97

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    1)Cooperative economies, that are mostly controlled by people under market mechanisms. (Natural resources are not subordinated to market forces)
    Yea, just a simple 'cooperative economy' where wage labor is outlawed. I'm really going to blow some gaskets with this one, though - markets involves human cooperation. Cooperation on a grand scale. It is, despite your protests, a matter of voluntary exchanges in the aggregate.

    No it isn't. When you conceptualize humanity as a whole, as a species into a larger framework, its not silly to make such a statement.
    It might not be the only way of looking at it, but you simply do not want to look at "now" from a historical perspective and don't want to admit to the processes which brought us to where property is today. It did not happen "freely", through the invisible hand sorting out everybody's demand problems. It had been a process of forced accumulation and plunder.
    1. I have never rejected that historical circumstances are a large part of why the present is the way it is. I have simply argued that this is a rather ridiculous critique of the present system. Further, like when the issue of scarcity comes up, I have yet to see you propose any solution. Presumably, humanity can just live in a static, unchanging landscape where generation after generation tills the same small piece of land. In the name of equality.
    2. Your solution to past wrongs - past wrongs committed by who are dead - is plunder. Because someone 200 years ago may have stolen a piece of land (I say may because you know full well in most cases you could never prove that, and in many/most other cases it's simply not true), that makes all land somehow ill-gotten. But let's just get back to the main point - the only solution you offer is violence and plunder. It is social justice.

    The phrase that throws the word justice in to hide the fact that what it is advocating is in fact the opposite of actual justice as it institutionalizes injustice.

    The thing you simply fail to realize is that private property itself creates a force in-itself to force the way the labour works.
    We do not have to look into how core shapes the periphery today. The history of enclosures in England itself is a good place to start as to how labour is forced through forces/dynamics of capitalist accumulation and its empowerment of the property-owning classes.
    It was not done by the force of a government or a king-lord content with abundance of surplus he gets or a state trying to maintain social services.
    Jesus. Here's where we get redundant. We've already had this argument on English enclosures in the past. I'm not wading back into it. But suffice to say, only by watering down the definition of force is that word even remotely adequate.

    I was referring to the process where the small-farmers are beocming obsolete as more and more TNCs move in and take over or force the small-farmers out through competition(which is the second part of the power inequality, the unequal global trade relations..whereas the developed world developed its agriculture behind protectionist measures, it forces the "developing world" into free market access where the small-farmer obvious cannot compete or the large-landholder puts the toll on the backs of the rural proleteriat like in Latin America).
    The concept of food sovereignity(food to be produced and distributed in its region than globally) is a big deal in the anti-globalization subaltern world. Because thats the only way millions of people survive, and when the means to survive through that is gone...all we have left with is slums made up of billions.
    This is where I point out that the reason small farms can't compete is because they produce less food, and thus have higher prices. Meaning, you point to how the farmers can't compete, but ignore the large numbers of poor who currently benefit from having access to cheaper food in the first place. You ignore the fact that the rest of society benefit from having cheaper food, and you ignore that no force was ever involved in this process. It is a competition, but it does not involve force.

    Then I point out how this same process has occurred elsewhere, and how, despite your protests, the people found other things to do to earn a living. Eventually, they grow wealthier as a result. Society grows wealthier because you suddenly don't need the bulk of your population to grow food to begin with. This is a good thing. People are moving away from subsistence level living. You, of course, adopt the argument that people have some sort of inalienable right to live the same way as their ancestors into perpetuity with no outside forces disturbing them at all. In order to secure this right, you justify the use of actual, honest to god force to be used against those who do not comply. This is initiatory force and not self-defense.

    From here, I already know your response because I've already seen it and, in my view, debunked it. You will make wealth out to be some zero sum game where people are just going to crowd into slums to starve (despite the access to cheaper food). The West will ship in cheap Iphones and other tech that indigenous folk can't compete with. There is no room for domestic development. You will never stop to ask who will be buying the cheaper food and technology.

    This process is not easy. There are losers. But on the whole, societies benefit from trade. This is why humans have probably been trading (as in, there is archaeological evidence of it) for a few hundred of thousand of years now.

    Because these people are not going to be "white-collar workers" over a day.
    And in your worldview, they or their ancestors never will be. They will be locked into perpetual poverty in the name of stability and equality.

    I was not trying to praise the feudal system, I told you that already. I was trying to tell you that the feudal lords did not have full direct control unlike now.
    I was trying to emphasize how the villages functioned.
    Sure, the surplus was taken by the feudal lord, which later turned into a landowner after commercialization of land.
    But prior to that, villagers ran the farms communally.
    That was what I was referring to.
    You could see that as a cooperative of sorts, but under feudalism they did not decide "together" where the surplus goes. Under communism it was taken by the state, under feudalism it was taken by the lords.
    And under communism, it is taken by the bureaucrats. PROGRESS!

    Your non-defenses of these institutions come off as defenses to me. Even if the little people had a say in what happened with the surplus, it's still a morally bankrupt system as the individual is robbed of choice. This is what YOU don't get. It doesn't matter if you are defending it or not. It essentially acts the same way as your model. The individual is subsumed, and you call it freedom because they get some fractional vote in what occurs with the fruits of their labor.

    And you have the nerve to call wage labor slavery while calling for a 'communal economy.' It's ridiculous. Perhaps you can deny having said that one.

    The colonizers viewed the lands of the natives as not being made use of, under the rising liberal ideology, its utilitarian framework of the day and its praisal of property.
    The driving force for the taking over of those areas weren't state, or bureucrats.
    The driving force wasn't the state or bureaucracy. You argue that private property is a state institution. There was no state in the initial settlement. Ergo... Second, no, colonizers (at least in terms of settlers in the American West) frankly didn't care how Indians did or didn't use their land. Since you are the one making this assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence of it in the first place. Second, it's just a ridiculous stretch to assume that this ideological motivation you claim was the actual driving factor rather than people simply acting in their own interests. The average American settler moving West had never read Adam Smith. And they were settling Indian land well before there was ever any concept of Manifest Destiny.

    Not the core countries. 300 years have shown us that, development does not have a linear path and countries do not go through same processes to a "higher developed stage"...the paradigm of modernization has long been dismissed.
    You always make claims like this, and you never specify according to whom. I would argue the paradigm of Marxism in all of its various flavors has long been dismissed not just in terms of real world economic failures, but intellectually for having been revealed as the nonsensical tautology that it is. Of course, a number of individual in the social sciences still make use of some sort of Marxist lens (though, fewer would openly call themselves Marxists) and my opinion would be baseless in that realm. You, on the other hand, just make assertions lacking specifics. What am I supposed to respond to here? There's nothing specific so I'm stuck refuting some very vague blanket statement that is impossible to pin down to a source.

    Most of the countries that fail to develop do so because of very real internal failings that are of their own making. Not global capitalism and exploitation. There's my assertion. And since you started us down this path, it's on you to provide specific data points to discuss.

    Since your quote is nominally in the context of land, I feel pretty confident in my own personal assertion because land law in most of the non-developed world is a complete disaster.

    Secondly, you base your argument on the belief that constant state of ceteris paribus is what matters, and everything at the moment is exchangeable freely. This neo-classical view based on the constantly finding equilibrium does not account for a lot of the social, political things that are involved.
    Supply and demand include and incorporate both social and political realities. Neither concept excludes social and political factors from playing a part. You, by contrast, take this as some excuse to deny supply and demand at all. Human beings aren't machines and I'm unaware of any 'neoliberal' economist who would argue any such view. Supply and demand both have human elements to them. There's no accounting for taste or qualitative preferences. Nor do neoliberals claim some great 'equilibrium' is achieved. Someone espousing libertarianism will tell you that there is no endstate. Free markets don't strive towards anything. It is not a system, but a collection of decisions made by individuals.

    I don't see what point of mine you are trying to refute here. By comparison, you have refused any and all discussion of scarcity as a concept despite making grandiose claims about freeing people to pursue their dreams as if a large number won't have to be worker bees in your 'communal economy.'

    Just once I'd like to hear you address that problem and what it means for your average schmuck who has to till the land only to have his 'surplus' taken by the community.

    I am not a relativist or whatever that constitutes. I am well aware of what happened.
    But when I deal with history, I do not really blame people for a lot of things that happen. For I do not view history as being driven by moral processes or individuals.
    For the most part, I see people as OBJECTS of history with a limited room for steering things.
    Yes, I know. And I accused you of it in the first response I ever made to you. You deny human agency. And you turn around to use that as justification for stripping individuals of choice because you argue they don't really have any to begin with. Besides yourself, of course. You, personally, were robbed of pursuing your dreams (apparently not even that - it's just been tough to do so financially) because of capitalism. Which is why when I first responded to you I also included the notion that people such as yourself (Marxists) always foresee themselves as the organizers of their revolutionary utopia rather than as the worker. They are the guys with the clipboard making sure the trains to the gulag run on time. They are never the rubes line up against the wall and shot.

    Oh, but perhaps that's hyperbole. Only slightly, though. If there are no gulags or firing squads, there's still people being forced to engage in labor and having their autonomy infringed upon.

    And just as I argued before, even if it were true that human beings lack agency, the idea that Marxist theory has any value is absurd. It has no predictive power to speak of. It's explanatory power is only possible when done ad hoc. Even if any flavor of Marxism had validity as a world outlook, it would always struggle from the fundamental problem of a lack of information. Your perception of the world is absolutely useless as far as I'm concerned and has absolutely no business masquerading as a supposed scientific outlook.

    Society has its dynamics, and once it takes a path, certain things become more likely.
    I will note the shift to a probabilistic term here in 'likely.' I don't really know how Versailles and the Great Depression made the Holocaust particularly likely. Sure as hell no one at the time, up until the implementation of the final solution, thought they were likely. Hitler himself didn't even dream of the final solution until that time when he realized he could get away with it. You know who sure as hell didn't predict any of those things? Marxists.

    Many times as well, I told you that I am not for state ownership of everything...I also told you that I am not against markets.
    You would neuter markets to the point where they are meaningless and stagnant, and whether it's the state or a 'community,' there's only a slight difference. You can be oppressed by your immediate neighbors even more so than some hundreds of miles away.

    I already said all of that in my last post, but you didn't see fit to respond to those specific arguments.


  18. #98
    Diamat's Avatar VELUTI SI DEUS DARETUR
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Mind
    Posts
    10,049

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I actually suggested combination of 2 things;
    1)Cooperative economies, that are mostly controlled by people under market mechanisms. (Natural resources are not subordinated to market forces)
    2)An extensive local democracy mechanism where the political power also resides with the locals as much as possible

    This is so as there to be a feedback mechanism and people coming together to decide on what to sacrifice or not for their future for themselves.
    This is also important for politicization of people at the local level, where they have a greater access to their own history rather than global markets,global institutions or professional politicians and elites setting the major trajectory.
    Thats what I meant by people becoming subjects of their history.

    The question of freedom is something else. Each social system, social contract, in the end might be viewed as a limitation of this or that freedom. But I am, to an extend, for limitation of an hierarchical structure. So a large state or a bureuratic system is a threat to this. Rather, it should be loose networks of civil society setting goals and standards. And delegates of the local setting guidance at a decentralized structure.
    Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you seem to mean by "subjects of history," though I think that this term is perhaps a bit too strong for the content that you've given it.

    In its rough outline, I find your vision of a more localized society appealing. However, I would not agree with the notion of freedom you have advanced, since it suggests that freedom prefigures society and exists most ideally in a state of nature. But that is a discussion for another thread. In any event, since you do not seem to attribute freedom with the economic, would you then concede that freedom does not hinge on economic equality? In other words, since your use of "power," as far as I can tell from your posts, only calls for a localized, democratic ownership of the economy, if such an economy gives rise to various wealth strata, then would you consider this a bad situation?

  19. #99
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Yes, overall, the idea is to localize as much as possible.
    Of course, how this would function would vary greatly from region to region. In Europe, something could be done under the framework of European Union for instance, or different formulas tailored for other areas in the world...Middle East, Latin America...etc

    If we are to focus on a model that I am contemplating in a utopian way; yes, some form of inequality is alright. It is worth emphasizing that I am talking in the context of developing world, not the developed world.
    Inequality should not be "structural". So there would of course still be entrepreneurship and working people. But these would be tied closely and supervised with labor organizations, women organizations, constantly at these local democratic institutions ran by citizens and decisions be enforced by the delegates chosen.
    I certainly don't have a rapid economic growth mentality in my mind. So it is more about sustainability than a life of race to shrewd business&competition.

    I am also skeptical about large capital ownership, so again, going by my preferences, inter-regional capital should not be privately owned and should be closely supervised-guided.
    Locals' needs should be left to market dynamics, and be sorted out in the urban setting through SMEs(this does not apply to large metropoles). But capital-intensive production needs guidance for sustainability as well as infrastructure, in this case, social ownership becomes more important.

    The idea is to have as much functioning cooperatives as possible that function under market that open up an alternative to the actual global economy that is going on, but are tailored towards social needs in coordination with the local society. In that sense, the municipality, when the needs are decided by the councils feedback should support these enterprises with capital(form of banking) and infrastructure depending on priority. But like I said, the people in this municipality are not bureucrats, they are citizens who are just local delegates that are easily re-callable. They only have duty make sure this works. They do not get extra official identities.
    This would eventually make the experienced people more influential, but it is important that this is kept in check through a constitutional mechanism. Leaders are supposed to arise, but are not supposed have structural power. Therefore, it is important to turn politics into an area of social needs rather than factions-ideologies who want their people at the strong positions.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  20. #100

    Default Re: Will Capitalism Last Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    I lived 20 years in a communist country
    I have lived 40+ years in a country where, generally, and to make a long story short, at the beginning of that 40 year period being a citizen and native of that country seemed to mean something, and had tangible, positive effects. It was generally a rather nice place to live, even for the working class/ the peasantry, and I was working class / peasantry. And generally even the working class / peasantry had an embarrassment of riches .....or, at the very least you didn't fear going to prison basically on account of , and as a consequence of, going broke. Along the line, though the nationalist propaganda has gotten ever more shrill , the reality has become that the country, and citizenship ; means dollars and cents, and revenue, and really nothing but . And this reality has, and is, eroding and evaporating , and even rendering irrelevant, those very dollars and cents that are valued so much. Granted, this isn't communism, but I have seen and experienced something better , and this is not better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    In capitalism, the entrepreneurs simply make bets about how the economy would behave in the future. Since there are many bets, at any moment in time some will result in loses but others will result in wins. Given people learn from mistakes, while on short term we might have serious crises like the Great Depression or the subprime crisis, on the long term progress is made.
    I would say that this narrative, like the Marxist narrative , is true.......in a certain narrow context. Otherwise , the actual ( grim) history is that people are fallible and whimsical and perverse , and so make some really stupid choices , adopt some really self-destructive values, and bring their own party to an end. They destroy their own environment ; never mind tree-hugging environmentalist political hacks with ph.d's milking the cause for all it is worth, there were 19th century Whalers who couldn't write their own name who could foresee that they were exhausting the whale resource. Technologies, critical technologies , plateau , or even dead end .-- Or maybe not , perhaps in many cases the key issue is not , " Can you produce it, or how much of it can you produce ? " Perhaps the key issue is , " You MUST produce it CHEAPLY --- AND SIMPLY , or the math simply doesn't really pencil out , fancy gizmo's or not, good organizational charts or not ? Near as I can tell, both capitalists and communists basically both think 10,000 previous generations were complete idiots , and we relative teenagers know better , and have it all figured out !
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    The best proof is that while wealth accumulates more and more in the hands of the rich, the "poor" of the Western countries live better than their parents and grandparents. This apparent paradox is easy to solve: while the piece of pie the rich get is larger and larger, the pie itself also grows on long term.
    Now this I really must protest ! As for the aristocracy ; I think their share of the pie is actually rather beside the point, and I strongly suspect that many among their number indeed see it that way .( That is, to put it in a simple phrase ; Money is really really important --- if you don't have it. The rich know that money isn't where the real gravy is. ) Where the aristocracy has really gained in the past 500 years is not in their share of the pie, but, generally , a paring down of their obligations, and an expansion of their discretion. The Holy Roman Emperor , rather than being a tyrant, was rather practically a serf. Henry Ford , really something of a con artists chump. But now the cheap pornographer Kim Kardashian , who has given so little and gained so fantastically ? Now there is a sharp customer who has made real progress for her class ! But, well , the poor live better and better........?Well, sorta yes, and sorta NO. As I have already briefly mentioned in passing, in my country I venture to say that a lot of people want to make as much money as they can , not because they are greedy or ambitious. No, not at all .Why then ? Because they FEAR what will happen to them if they do not. And they need lots of money , there is never really enough , and why ? Because basically there stand outside their doors multiple mafias , demanding essentially their protection money. it is not at all a case of, " pay to play " or, if you don't pay for the goods and services, then you won't get the goods or services. No, not at all. You BETTER pay, even if you get NOTHING. 30 years ago we had vinyl records and turntables , now we have Ipods . So now we have more and better ? Well, I am not being nostalgic, and my memory is not in error , 30 years ago if you had said to the average peasant , " Some day you will be obliged to pee into a cup to get a job at Burger King, and some day you will have to answer to some anonymous , obscure , nonentity because you spit on the sidewalk 40 years previous ( I'm referring to these wonderful Nazi records we are keeping on every toddler now ) ." Then the average peasant in my country would have looked at you like you were insane , and doubtless would have remarked on such a thing as being a kind of moral and intellectual obscenity .If that is the price of Ipods as opposed to turntables , I would not call it a bargain , or even a fair trade. I would call it being taken to the cleaners.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Now about the topic of capitalism being replaced by something else.
    Now for a brief essay ; -- Extinction .-- Feudalism -- Hunter-gatherers . That would be my 5 dollar bet at the casino on the most likely possibilities for the future .
    Last edited by kesa82; May 02, 2016 at 08:02 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •