Time for a Leftist (and Post-Leftist) learning thread

[Org]

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the first form of capitalism, so how can we say it is "Pure" capitalism?

I don't think the word "pure" is useful. Capitalism has existed in numerous forms, but they've all basically been in line with it's definition. And it's still changing, as we see with Denmark and Sweden.

 

[Spriggs05]

What?

Venezuela battles shortages and inflation - FT.com

high above central Caracas, the patience of merchants and residents is running thin – just like supplies. “Thanks to price controls I am forced to sell my goods at a loss; thanks to inflation every day I can buy less and less; and thanks to shortages every day there is less and less that I can sell,” says Argenis, a butcher in Petare

Socialism leads to empty shops.
In Socialism if firms do not cover their costs then the state protects them from bankruptcy. This means that costs (materials and labour) do not have to be matched to output or demand. Empty Shops is the result.

 

[Spriggs05]

I don't think the word "pure" is useful. Capitalism has existed in numerous forms, but they've all basically been in line with it's definition. And it's still changing, as we see with Denmark and Sweden.

By pure we mean that it is in a form as desirable as possible (for capitalism it is Free markets and Laissez faire policies and for communism it is Anarcho communism, as Marx intended the long term goal)

 

[Buck Ewer]

What?

There are many myths and lies created about the country of Venezuela since Chavez became the "Hitler D'jour" for many right wing Americans.
Chavez became Satin incarnate when he, like Saddam and Iran threatened to sell his oil in Euros instead of American dollars.

 

[Spriggs05]

There are many myths and lies created about the country of Venezuela since Chavez became the "Hitler D'jour" for many right wing Americans.
Chavez became Satin incarnate when he, like Saddam and Iran threatened to sell his oil in Euros instead of American dollars.

A) I'm not American
B) Chavez deprived the Venezuelan economy of basic goods and instead gave them high prices and inflation.

Venezuela battles shortages and inflation - FT.com

high above central Caracas, the patience of merchants and residents is running thin – just like supplies. “Thanks to price controls I am forced to sell my goods at a loss; thanks to inflation every day I can buy less and less; and thanks to shortages every day there is less and less that I can sell,” says Argenis, a butcher in Petare Socialism leads to empty shop

In Socialism if firms do not cover their costs then the state protects them from bankruptcy. This means that costs (materials and labour) do not have to be matched to output or demand. Empty Shops is the result.

 

[Buck Ewer]

By pure we mean that it is in a form as desirable as possible (for capitalism it is Free markets and Laissez faire policies and for communism it is Anarcho communism, as Marx intended the long term goal)

This part of the problem. Why must we look at Marx's platitudes about the theories of what he thought socialism should be instead of looking at successful forms of modified socialism co-existing with capitalism in modern countries all over the world?
Modified socialism is a vital part of the governments and economies in many many countries while many insist on debating it in terms of an extremest theorist who has been dead for over 120 years.
It reminds me of people who insist on debating modern evolutionary science based only on the primitive observations and conclusions laid down by Darwin.
Modern modified socialism is not Marxism anymore than modern evolutionary science is Darwinism and a lot has happened in it's development in 120 years.
It's is not religion ...it's political science.

 

[Org]

Venezuela battles shortages and inflation - FT.com



Socialism leads to empty shops.
In Socialism if firms do not cover their costs then the state protects them from bankruptcy. This means that costs (materials and labour) do not have to be matched to output or demand. Empty Shops is the result.

So, first, let me clear some things up. The inflation hasn't actually had such a negative effect on the economy, given that the government increased prices and the minimum wage to match it - though inflation has a pretty terrible effect here, where we don't do that.

And they are having troubles with shortages, but it's not so bad that all basic goods have disappeared. You realize how insane that sounds, right? I mean, I'd rather they be (a lot) more lax on the price controls, but as the government is literally at war with the business class - this is their way of limiting the control of that class, which has a history of raising prices to exploit consumers.

 

[Org]

By pure we mean that it is in a form as desirable as possible (for capitalism it is Free markets and Laissez faire policies and for communism it is Anarcho communism, as Marx intended the long term goal)

Then that would make "pure" subjective.

 

[Buck Ewer]

A) I'm not American
B) Chavez deprived the Venezuelan economy of basic goods and instead gave them high prices and inflation.

Venezuela battles shortages and inflation - FT.com



In Socialism if firms do not cover their costs then the state protects them from bankruptcy. This means that costs (materials and labour) do not have to be matched to output or demand. Empty Shops is the result.

I have no intention to defend Chavez nor any totalitarianism form of socialism. But we all must realize that there has been a concerted effort to demonize Chavez and his government by the right wing in America.
Modified socialism is a vital part of any successful capitalistic democratic government and economy today... including the USA.
Marx is dead and his platitudes about socialism are as out of touch with the real world as ancient fundamental religious law is .
Get real.

 

[German guy]

As we're at it, maybe I can explain a few terms as I'm used to them here in Germany:

Capitalism with a few social safety nets is usually not considered "socialism" here, as it's even written in our Constitution that Germany is supposed to be "a social state". Those who generally agree with capitalism, just demand some social safety nets, are usually called "social democrats". To a lesser degree, our major right-wing party, the Christian Democrats, support such safety nets and redistribution too.

"Socialists" are people who want not to tame capitalism, but replace it with a state-run economy. That was the case in the "communist" East German dictatorship. Socialists who do want to replace capitalism, but strictly abide to the rules of the democratic process, are called "democratic socialists". They are fundamentally different to "social democrats".

If you agree capitalism needs to be balanced with some forms of redistribution, but you don't go as far as social democrats, and/or emphasize classically liberal constitutional values at the same time, you are called "social liberal".

Authoritarian socialism (state-run economy without a democratic system, but dictatorship) like in the East Bloc was colloquially often called "communism", because those dogmatic socialists (usually Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists) claimed communism (a classless society) is their long-term goal, and often named their parties accordingly.


That's why I think it's absurd when Americans call Obama's policies "socialism". They're not socialist. The Dems don't want to replace capitalism, they just want to put a few social fig leaves in front of it. They're social liberals, at most social democrats.

 

[Org]

I have no intention to defend Chavez nor any totalitarianism form of socialism.
Modified socialism is a vital part of any successful capitalistic democratic government and economy ... including the USA.
Marx is dead and his platitudes about socialism are as out of touch with the real world as fundamental religion is today.
Get real.

I do agree with that. While Marx's analysis of capitalism has enormous value to modern economics, there's a lot he said that we should discard. Like, especially, the actualization of communism. It's a complicated process, and one we don't fully understand how to carry out yet.

We've had a number of relatively successful socialisms, but when it comes to the communism talked about by Marx and Bakunin, Spain and Israel would be the only examples - both of which didn't last for long.

 

[Buck Ewer]

That's why I think it's absurd when Americans call Obama's policies "socialism". They're not socialist. The Dems don't want to replace capitalism, they just want to put a few social fig leaves in front of it. They're social liberals, at most social democrats.

Thank you.
It should be noted that President Obama has been called a Nazi as well as a fundamentalist Muslim and a Socialist/Communist/Marxist by America's right wing nuts. As a German you must find this equally absurd and amusing.

 

[Spriggs05]

This part of the problem. Why must we look at Marx's platitudes about the theories of what he thought socialism should be instead of looking at successful forms of modified socialism co-existing with capitalism in modern countries all over the world?
Modified socialism is a vital part of the governments and economies in many many countries while many insist on debating it in terms of an extremest theorist who has been dead for over 120 years.
It reminds me of people who insist on debating modern evolutionary science based only on the primitive observations and conclusions laid down by Darwin.
Modern modified socialism is not Marxism anymore than modern evolutionary science is Darwinism and a lot has happened in it's development in 120 years.
It's is not religion ...it's political science.

We were talking about the purest form, and the purist form of socialism is communism.

 

[Spriggs05]

So, first, let me clear some things up. The inflation hasn't actually had such a negative effect on the economy, given that the government increased prices and the minimum wage to match it - though inflation has a pretty terrible effect here, where we don't do that.

And they are having troubles with shortages, but it's not so bad that all basic goods have disappeared. You realize how insane that sounds, right? I mean, I'd rather they be (a lot) more lax on the price controls, but as the government is literally at war with the business class - this is their way of limiting the control of that class, which has a history of raising prices to exploit consumers.

So the business class, which drives the economy of the world and in their interest to sell as much of their good as possible, why raise prices? its a bad business strategy, its due to inflation rather than "the Business class", stop blaming governmental failures on the businessman who want the economy going again and low inflation since the currency he is receiving (Pesos) is becoming more and more worthless compared to the dollar. Ok, the disappearance was an exaggeration, however they are on the decline, for example there is little toilet roll, which ensures a lack of hygiene and the spread of diseases. Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world and the government has failed to invest in infrastructure and tourism because of the one-dimensional economy. The Inflation also raises prices to a degree that, though the workers have a high paying wage, they cannot by anything with it since inflation drives up the prices so much (40% as of this month).

 

[Spriggs05]

Then that would make "pure" subjective.

Do you have an opinion on what constitute pure capitalism/socialism?

 

[Spriggs05]

I have no intention to defend Chavez nor any totalitarianism form of socialism. But we all must realize that there has been a concerted effort to demonize Chavez and his government by the right wing in America.
Modified socialism is a vital part of any successful capitalistic democratic government and economy today... including the USA.
Marx is dead and his platitudes about socialism are as out of touch with the real world as ancient fundamental religious law is .

I agree that but the second statement, since the modified socialism you speak of is only present in social programs and social policies.

 

[Org]

So the business class, which drives the economy of the world and in their interest to sell as much of their good as possible, why raise prices? its a bad business strategy, its due to inflation rather than "the Business class", stop blaming governmental failures on the businessman who want the economy going again and low inflation since the currency he is receiving (Pesos) is becoming more and more worthless compared to the dollar. Ok, the disappearance was an exaggeration, however they are on the decline, for example there is little toilet roll, which ensures a lack of hygiene and the spread of diseases. Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world and the government has failed to invest in infrastructure and tourism because of the one-dimensional economy. The Inflation also raises prices to a degree that, though the workers have a high paying wage, they cannot by anything with it since inflation drives up the prices so much (40% as of this month).

It's simple capitalist economics. Businessmen will push prices up to the highest level which consumers will accept, and wages to the lowest level workers will accept. Trying to make things easier for it's people during the transition, the Venezuelan government has put in place controls on firms - it has resulted in shortages, which they're trying to deal with, but also an increase in individual purchasing power.

Like it or not, the red menace has actually led to better living standards and economic/political empowerment.

 

[Spriggs05]

It's simple capitalist economics. Businessmen will push prices up to the highest level which consumers will accept, and wages to the lowest level workers will accept. Trying to make things easier for it's people during the transition, the Venezuelan government has put in place controls on firms - it has resulted in shortages, which they're trying to deal with, but also an increase in individual purchasing power.

Like it or not, the red menace has actually led to better living standards and economic/political empowerment.

Venezuela has better access to safe drinking water, housing, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.. than a western capitalist state such as UK or USA?
The government deciding what price people should pay for a good does not increase individual purchasing power, what it does is make the state more powerful, and rather than give the working man more power, it takes it from his union and gives it to the government to decide a wage. It is not a good thing.

 

[Org]

Do you have an opinion on what constitute pure capitalism/socialism?

Sure. For capitalism, I'd say the kind of thing Smith talked about: free markets with the government only interfering to protect basic human rights. Everybody's happy, living standards are great, the government limits the authority of those capitalists Smith hated, so political power is equal. But that all only works in theory.

For socialism, I'd say the "grand hotels" of Fourier. After the vibrations stop (as I believe it goes), a period of perfect harmony begins; we're all organized into communities; everybody chooses their job - and thus their living standards - based on preference; a minimum standard of living is guaranteed for all; anti-animals help humans in all their doings. --- But of course, this is all insane, and I don't believe there's a "pure" socialism. Although there is a general definition which a system must meet to be called a socialism.

Anyway, as you can see, no capitalism or socialism that can actually exist can be considered pure.

 

[Org]

Venezuela has better access to safe drinking water, housing, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.. than a western capitalist state such as UK or USA?
The government deciding what price people should pay for a good does not increase individual purchasing power, what it does is make the state more powerful, and rather than give the working man more power, it takes it from his union and gives it to the government to decide a wage. It is not a good thing.

But are you challenging my assessment of capitalism?

The price controls and minimum wage mapped to inflation have indeed increased purchasing power. It's kept wages and prices relatively close, when they'd otherwise drift away.

You really think a developing country should have the same living standards as the US and Britain? Is that a joke?

 

[Spriggs05]

But are you challenging my assessment of capitalism?

The price controls and minimum wage mapped to inflation have indeed increased purchasing power. It's kept wages and prices relatively close, when they'd otherwise drift away.

You really think a developing country should have the same living standards as the US and Britain? Is that a joke?

Your claim was that "Like it or not, the red menace has actually led to better living standards and economic/political empowerment." whilst capitalism has lead to even higher developed nations whilst socialist states are stuck in the 2nd world. Rather than mapping it to inflation raise it. Any inflation during a period of near zero growth is not good at all, and is often a sign of currency manipulation. which damages the economy and makes the currency even more worthless and unable to by food with or other necessities
I probably aren't going to be able to explain it clearly, so here's an article:

The Capitalist

If the minimum wage had simply tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour -- three times what it is now.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production and hiring.

So the minimum wage should not be tied to inflation.

 

[Org]

Your claim was that "Like it or not, the red menace has actually led to better living standards and economic/political empowerment." whilst capitalism has lead to even higher developed nations whilst socialist states are stuck in the 2nd world. Rather than mapping it to inflation raise it. Any inflation during a period of near zero growth is not good at all, and is often a sign of currency manipulation. which damages the economy and makes the currency even more worthless and unable to by food with or other necessities
I probably aren't going to be able to explain it clearly, so here's an article:

The Capitalist





So the minimum wage should not be tied to inflation.

You presented a case for why the minimum wage should be tied to growth, which I agree with. But I also contend that when the value of a country's currency drops, wages and prices should reflect that - do you care to argue against that?

 

[Spriggs05]

But I also contend that when the value of a country's currency drops, wages and prices should reflect that - do you care to argue against that?

When the value of a country's currency drops, prices do reflect that in the form of inflation. Wage controls are only effective when coupled with policies designed to reduce the underlying causes of inflation, tying the wage to inflation is negative when inflation is down or deflation is occurring. If inflation is tied to the wage, people may not be able to by the goods and services, despite the amount of money they have, there are less goods to be bought.

 

[Org]

When the value of a country's currency drops, prices do reflect that in the form of inflation. Wage controls are only effective when coupled with policies designed to reduce the underlying causes of inflation, tying the wage to inflation is negative when inflation is down or deflation is occurring. If inflation is tied to the wage, people may not be able to by the goods and services, despite the amount of money they have, there are less goods to be bought.

That's true when a country's not trying to reduce the rate of profit - prices will rise and fall according to demand and inflation. But the Venezuelan government is trying to keep prices below what the level at which market would ordinarily have them. So in that context, it's a positive thing that controls are mobile - because fixed prices and wages would lead to a disaster.

 

[Spriggs05]

That's true when a country's not trying to reduce the rate of profit - prices will rise and fall according to demand and inflation. But the Venezuelan government is trying to keep prices below what the level at which market would ordinarily have them. So in that context, it's a positive thing that controls are mobile - because fixed prices and wages would lead to a disaster.

However its the Venezuelan governments controls on prices that have created this potential disaster. However in context, due to the faults of the Venezuelan government it is a positive thing. However moving against market forces is never wise :naughty
There will be consequences in the future.