Whats with the socialists?

[RGacky3]

Well first off it was positivism back during the early Industrial Revolution, that doesn't make it positivism today. I never said I disagree with everything Marx said. But, I think if you take Marx economics, and you turn his "theory of surplus" into a "theory of increasing productivity," it changes the entire political implications of Marxian economics. Not to mention in present day, nearly every reputable school of economics has taken his surplus theory into consideration, and have rejected it. Marx posted his work 150 years ago, at this point there is no reason to use his work considering thousands of intellectuals after him have already read it and talked about it. You don't see evolutionary biologists going back and quoting Darwin as a source of knowledge on present day evolutionary trends, he is held as a totem.

Actually no ... its not taken into account and then rejected, they just kind of theorize it away by using a different model, and infact empirical evidence has drawn it out. Also what theory of increasing productivity are you talking about?

The reason I still consider Marx relevant is that neo-classical economics simply ignored his analysis, and they still hold, the Capitalist system has the same basic dynamics as it did in Marx's day, and using Marx's method you have several successfull predictions ... the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, financialization of the economy, ever growing economic crisis, and so on.

Also posititive economics is positive economics, it doesn't TURN INTO normative economics over time.

France is having problems because they've regulated and taxed business into the ground. And its not just recently they had problems, their unemployment has not been below 7% for 20 years. Maybe Greece stopped collecting taxes because its citizens got tired of paying the heavy taxes?

No ... Greece stopped collecting taxes because of corruption, and rich people just found ways to get aroudn it and the government didn't enforce it.

France's problems, are much smaller than the other countries .. that became more neo-liberal ... Also France started having those problems AFTER economic liberalization ... i.e. they moved to the right.

So a country is doing one way when its to the left ... then it moves to the center and does much worse and right wingers say its because it didn't move right wing enough ...

I'm alittle skeptical that Hugo Chavez has actually reduced poverty permanently. Just think, how many of those people would stay out of poverty when the oil money dries up, and the government can no longer spend its way into oblivion?
The real poverty reduction is happening in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc. You may call them "sweatshops," but the result cannot be denied, citizens which previously starved on subsistence farming, who would go digging through mountains of trash to scavenge for food, are now being able to make a living for themselves. The difference is the factory is sustainable, oil money is not.
Currently Venezuela has to import nearly 2/3rds of its food, and almost of its clothes and electronics. Venezeula was the last South American country to emerge from the recession, and the IMF considers it have a very weak recovery. They have a weak manufacturing sector due to mismanagement, and a lack of investment.

Show me the numbers for those countries ... but I would argue that they havn't reduced poverty nearly as much as the left leaning latin American countries have ... and they've done so by creating a more equitable and democratic economy. Latin America is coming out of the third world ... Those countries you mentioned are sweatshops, where the local people DO NOT benefit from the production and resources of the country, as opposed to the more social democratic model of Latin America where the people DO benefit from increased economic activity.

And Marx was wrong on the growing crisis of capitalism. Capitalism allowed the United States to revolutionize the world, with inventions such as the assembly line, telephone, AC motor, flight, electricity, tractor, bio-engineered farming, etc. etc. Nearly every important invention from 1850 to the present day was founded under the guise of capitalism in the United States. The success of the Soviet Union depended on the technologies that we already invented. They were merely playing catch up, while we kept moving forward.

No ... Science did that ... and most of those developments happened outside of Capitalism in Publically funded non profit institutions.

Also yeah ... Capitalism creates extremely rapid growth (as Marx predicted) but along with that comes exponentionally growing externalities and internal contradictions that cause more and more economic crashes. Which we have seen. First going up to the great depression (then europe gets blown up and we flirt with social democracy and keynsianism for a while) then from the 70s going up to now ....

 

[ReformCollege]

I think your professor is brilliant.... he did his job if you are questioning him and his views.

On the other hand he failed in making you question your own views.... which seems just as bent and void of reality as his "ranting" is.

First off Communism is not the same as Socialism. This alone shows a total lack of understanding of politics.

Secondly, for every bad thing "left wing ideology" has done there is an equivalent "right wing ideology" bad thing. Fact is there is far more "right wing ideology" horrors throughout time than left, simply because the "left wing ideology" is relatively new.

Thirdly, there would be no "left wing ideology", socialism or communism if it was not for the abuses of conservative right wing ideology over 4000 years.

Fourthly, capitalism has caused problems through out history because it is based on greed. Not that greed is bad, but uncontrolled greed and regardless of the consequences is bad.

For example, the industrial revolution. Many say this is a high point in human history, and yet tend to forget the hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) killed due to lack of safety in the work place, or the use of children. People also tend to forget the horrid conditions people lived in during those times and the lack of actual rights they had. They were paid slaves with short life spans, and their masters were getting rich of the backs of people.

Another example is before the industrial revolution where capitalism also existed, but was only for the privileged. Massive companies were established on colonial actions by the world powers and caused untold massive deaths and horrors for local populations. Yes it made countries wealthy .. well the privileged in those countries any ways... but was it worth it?

While I agree in principle with capitalism, I also believe that capitalism needs to be regulated for the good of society since people are in general greedy as hell and could care less about their fellow man if the end result made them more rich. History has proven so, time and time again... hell look at this current financial crisis.... capitalism gone amok.



Actually there are far more roadblocks in an unregulated capitalist society than in what you deem as a socialist one.. especially a modern day socialist one. Uncontrolled capitalism leads to monopolies which is communism by the back door. And if you look at recent history, it was "socialist" countries that got rid of things like slavery and child labor, plus gave women and non privileged the right to vote before capitalist nations. Granted it was mostly for self preservation after the Russian revolution, but still.

Also there are many examples of right wing governments oppressing people, and having political prisoners or putting people in jail for the wrong political views... the US in the 1950s for example.. the US under Bush jr and in some regard now. Pinochets Chile, Franco's Spain and so on and so on.

But it seems that you in your hatred towards anything left have forgotten the ills of right wing leadership and capitalism... and I suspect that your professor only wanted to spark your internal debate machine instead of relying on talking points from political parties and so called political intellectuals.

If you think I'm naive enough to think that right-wing idealogy isn't flawed you are sadly mistaken.

His argument comes directly from the talking points of social justice organizations and the socialist party.

The industrial revolution may have been miserable, but it was still better then the alternative, and still paved the way for better living conditions.

 

[PeteEU]

If you think I'm naive enough to think that right-wing idealogy isn't flawed you are sadly mistaken.

Good then he did get through to you after all.

His argument comes directly from the talking points of social justice organizations and the socialist party.

And so what? Capitalistic ideology is just as flawed because it is not based in the real world. In the real world people exploit people, in the real world we dont have full information which is a fundamental part of supply and demand.... the list goes on and on.

And who says it was his argument? You might think so, but in reality is it not his job to challenge you intellectually in any way he can? If I were a professor in the US, I would certainly use the boogieman socialist talking points to do that. I remember my own macro economics professor using right wing American capitalist ideas to challenge us... and we got the discussion going and some changed their minds and others did not... but the point was always to learn to think for ones self, and on that point my professor did his job.

The industrial revolution may have been miserable, but it was still better then the alternative, and still paved the way for better living conditions.

Actually, the industrial revolution and its miserable conditions lead to the social revolution you hate so much and the threat or the direct intervention of that revolution has lead to better living conditions.

For example, in my home country, which was mainly a farming country pre industrial revolution, the serf principles were carried on into the industrial revolution, just as it was in most countries. These principles were part of the right wing conservative policies that had governed for thousands of years. A group of elite persons centered around the ruler.. aka nobles and kings/queens. That had morphed into parliament and nobles and a king/queen but the principles were very much the same in the beginning of democracy because a huge portion of the people were excluded from political life and economic life because of their social status. This only changed with the rise of socialist and worse ideologies among the masses and that let to unrest...

Now because of social unrest and the demand for equal rights, these serf rules were first removed, and then came voting rights for women and better working conditions and so on.. not because the status quo political and economical elite wanted too.. far far far from it.. they sent in the troops to kill and beat the crap out of the protesters and imprisoned the union/socialist leaders... but because of the threat of all out revolution like what happened in Russia....

In the end the injustices of a broken capitalists right wing society caused the rise of socialism and all that is related to that.... and that lead indirectly or directly to the changes in society that we know today.

 

[johnny_rebson]

This message is in response to my college professor , who decided today to go off on a rant about Karl Marx and why we should abolish capitalism.

Barack Obama is your college professor???

 

[ReformCollege]

Good then he did get through to you after all.



And so what? Capitalistic ideology is just as flawed because it is not based in the real world. In the real world people exploit people, in the real world we dont have full information which is a fundamental part of supply and demand.... the list goes on and on.

And who says it was his argument? You might think so, but in reality is it not his job to challenge you intellectually in any way he can? If I were a professor in the US, I would certainly use the boogieman socialist talking points to do that. I remember my own macro economics professor using right wing American capitalist ideas to challenge us... and we got the discussion going and some changed their minds and others did not... but the point was always to learn to think for ones self, and on that point my professor did his job.



Actually, the industrial revolution and its miserable conditions lead to the social revolution you hate so much and the threat or the direct intervention of that revolution has lead to better living conditions.

For example, in my home country, which was mainly a farming country pre industrial revolution, the serf principles were carried on into the industrial revolution, just as it was in most countries. These principles were part of the right wing conservative policies that had governed for thousands of years. A group of elite persons centered around the ruler.. aka nobles and kings/queens. That had morphed into parliament and nobles and a king/queen but the principles were very much the same in the beginning of democracy because a huge portion of the people were excluded from political life and economic life because of their social status. This only changed with the rise of socialist and worse ideologies among the masses and that let to unrest...

Now because of social unrest and the demand for equal rights, these serf rules were first removed, and then came voting rights for women and better working conditions and so on.. not because the status quo political and economical elite wanted too.. far far far from it.. they sent in the troops to kill and beat the crap out of the protesters and imprisoned the union/socialist leaders... but because of the threat of all out revolution like what happened in Russia....

In the end the injustices of a broken capitalists right wing society caused the rise of socialism and all that is related to that.... and that lead indirectly or directly to the changes in society that we know today.

No he didn't get through to me because I never thought that the right wing was perfect.

I'm not condoning the use of violence or force. If you see what I said, I actually condemn it, and always have. If you reread my original statement, what I said what he is naive for thinking socialism has anything to say when it comes to correcting those injustices. Kings and queens predate capitalism, they are not capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. Socialism relies on rigging the political system to control the economic system.

 

[ReformCollege]

Actually no ... its not taken into account and then rejected, they just kind of theorize it away by using a different model, and infact empirical evidence has drawn it out. Also what theory of increasing productivity are you talking about?

The reason I still consider Marx relevant is that neo-classical economics simply ignored his analysis, and they still hold, the Capitalist system has the same basic dynamics as it did in Marx's day, and using Marx's method you have several successfull predictions ... the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, financialization of the economy, ever growing economic crisis, and so on.

Also posititive economics is positive economics, it doesn't TURN INTO normative economics over time.



No ... Greece stopped collecting taxes because of corruption, and rich people just found ways to get aroudn it and the government didn't enforce it.

France's problems, are much smaller than the other countries .. that became more neo-liberal ... Also France started having those problems AFTER economic liberalization ... i.e. they moved to the right.

So a country is doing one way when its to the left ... then it moves to the center and does much worse and right wingers say its because it didn't move right wing enough ...



Show me the numbers for those countries ... but I would argue that they havn't reduced poverty nearly as much as the left leaning latin American countries have ... and they've done so by creating a more equitable and democratic economy. Latin America is coming out of the third world ... Those countries you mentioned are sweatshops, where the local people DO NOT benefit from the production and resources of the country, as opposed to the more social democratic model of Latin America where the people DO benefit from increased economic activity.



No ... Science did that ... and most of those developments happened outside of Capitalism in Publically funded non profit institutions.

Also yeah ... Capitalism creates extremely rapid growth (as Marx predicted) but along with that comes exponentionally growing externalities and internal contradictions that cause more and more economic crashes. Which we have seen. First going up to the great depression (then europe gets blown up and we flirt with social democracy and keynsianism for a while) then from the 70s going up to now ....

The contradictions work themselves out in the long run. That is a feature of capitalism, not a flaw of it. Consciousness is a part of free-markets, not the antithesis of it. Its called corrections.

 

[Fenton]

Something tells me that his version of the
story (assuming you're not making the whole thing up) would sound a little bit different. If I were him, I would have responded by saying that first and foremost, they won't be better off without their jobs - nearly all of them will be worse off in the immediate future. But the fight taken up by the union does not just affect the 15,000-18,000 individuals losing their jobs. We're talking about setting a base level for the manner in which factory workers can be treated. Allowing concessions at the whim of the employer is damaging to the entire industry.

For instance, I've played in bands forever. The rule is that you don't play unless you get paid. But lately, owners of some bars have been booking bands with the agreement that they won't be paid. The result is that more musicians are now willing to play for free, unfortunately, because they need live shows to gain new fans. If I were to respond to one of these owners asking me to play for free, I'd tell him that he can provide the music himself if he's so concerned with saving a few bucks. And he'd undoubtedly say, "would your band be better off without a place to play?"

Well, no, we wouldn't be better off without a place to play but we don't want to contribute to this problem. We don't want other musicians saying "I guess I'll play for free, Mustachio did it so it must be ok." People come to see our band play. They pay to get in and they buy drinks to make our music less punishing to their ears. Nobody should be coerced into taking a raw deal because they have no leverage. We need regulation to fix problems like that, and unions are a huge part of that regulation process.

And you would've been wrong.

What those people did is call the bluff of a oponent who's got 4 Kings in the hole.

They made no sacrifice and took no stand for a greater tomorrow. They may have conviction but conviction based on a irrelevant outdated principles or on just a lack of intelligence or information isn't worth losing a lively hood over.

We have OSHA, a minumum wage and numerous standards that are built into our workforce already.

What Unions stand for now is greed and bullying for wages and benefits that our desperate economy can't suppprt.

Unions are going after big box stores now NOT for better treatment of the workers but for cash. Union dues period.

If Hostess bakers union wants to bitch or place blame they need to start at their President, his wife and the Democrat party.

A destructive health care act, a President who is either incompetent or complicit, higher taxes and over 4 years of a economy thats taken the brunt of his stupid policies is to blame for their shrinking wages and benefits.

Unions have no one really to blame than themselves.

The proffessor ? Hes a moron, no two ways around it. He has the luxury of projectile vomiting his useless ideology onto a captive audience without living through the consequences of his stupidity.

People like that are the enemy to a free and growing society.

 

[PeteEU]

I'm not condoning the use of violence or force. If you see what I said, I actually condemn it, and always have. If you reread my original statement, what I said what he is naive for thinking socialism has anything to say when it comes to correcting those injustices.

Err socialism is the only freaking reason that they were corrected in the first place. That is the point. Without socialism we would still be living in a feudal conservative society with a capitalist theme. Through out history "socialist" ideas were floated time and time again, often by the Church locally, but they were always hit down on hard by the powerful elite... inside the church and outside. Maintaining the status quo was the name of the game for 4000 years and it could only be done because the masses were uneducated poor slaves.

But that hit a turning point in the middle of the 1800s when the industrial revolution started and workers needed to be educated just slightly to use the machines... and that is when socialism first got its foothold in society.. among the working class poor, which accounted for a huge portion of the population... and that is where capitalism got a reality check and was forced to accept controls and accountability or else loose everything.

Kings and queens predate capitalism, they are not capitalism.

LOL of course they are. They might predate the economic theory thinkers that defined "capitalism" but kings and queens and especially nobility used capitalist principles through out history. Capitalist theory started somewhat with Adam Smith... in 1776, but companies like the East India Company was formed in 1600... there were companies and other capitalist entities for centuries before Adam Smith started to write down the theories.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one.

Its both, just as Socialism is an economic system and a political system.

Socialism relies on rigging the political system to control the economic system.

Now there you are totally wrong. Socialism does not "rig" anything just as Capitalism does not "rig" anything either. It is human nature and individuals who get power and they rig systems. Look at your own country, it is not the people who control politics, it is the corporations and the wealthy individuals who control politics and the economy. Your country is the poster child (at least on paper) of a capitalist country and yet the people dont control anything of value... the few rich elite and corporations control most of the country. Look at your media... controlled by what.. 5 companies/people? How is that capitalistic? Or your mobile phone market (national).. there are what.. 4? And the ability to get into the market is blocked by legislation written by the very same 4 companies.. not exactly capitalistic is it now?

Now in "Socialist" Europe we are a tad better, but not by much. Our political systems are far healthier with actual influence from the people on politics. Corporations are hindered in contributing to political campaigns and wealthy people cant pump billions into a single candidate. Of course corporations have influence on policy, just as unions do, but more than often corporations and even unions are ignored for the benefit of the people. 40 years ago we had 1 phone company in most countries. We the people forced markets to liberalize, we forced companies to share their infrastructure and made it easy as hell to gain access to the market. Now we have a far healthier mobile phone and internet market than in the "capitalistic USA".

We are of course not perfect, far far from it... big Pharma still has the ability to create closed markets for example.. but at least we have been on the right track for the last 40 years.... in this "socialist hell hole" as many Americans think of Europe.

The problem is as always, power corrupts, and the more power individuals have over others, the more it corrupts (for most people).. and that is regardless of what economic or political system we are talking about.

For example Standard Oil bullied its way to a monopoly because the owners could pay off or intimidate politicians. When that was not possible anymore and politicians saw how harmful a company like Standard Oil was, then they enacted legislation to break up such companies. That was "socialism" and "anti-capitalistic" but it was the right thing to do. Or in Europe when we had the 1 phone company per country.. monopolies... here the companies were also very powerful nationally and fought tooth and nail against liberalization... but it happened and they now either have failed or grown into healthy profitable companies.

Opening up markets is the right thing to do as it gets the best results, but open markets without checks and balances aka uncontrolled capitalism leads to massive problems for the masses, but great profits for the few.

Capitalism is better than communism.. but it is not perfect and needs to be regulated. Right wing policies are often better than left wing policies, but both sides could learn a few things from each other to create a more balanced approach... we dont want to go back to the bad old days of feudalism, which is exactly what uncontrolled right wing polices will send us, and we certainly dont want to live in a corrupt failed communist system.

 

[ReformCollege]

Err socialism is the only freaking reason that they were corrected in the first place. That is the point. Without socialism we would still be living in a feudal conservative society with a capitalist theme. Through out history "socialist" ideas were floated time and time again, often by the Church locally, but they were always hit down on hard by the powerful elite... inside the church and outside. Maintaining the status quo was the name of the game for 4000 years and it could only be done because the masses were uneducated poor slaves.

But that hit a turning point in the middle of the 1800s when the industrial revolution started and workers needed to be educated just slightly to use the machines... and that is when socialism first got its foothold in society.. among the working class poor, which accounted for a huge portion of the population... and that is where capitalism got a reality check and was forced to accept controls and accountability or else loose everything.



LOL of course they are. They might predate the economic theory thinkers that defined "capitalism" but kings and queens and especially nobility used capitalist principles through out history. Capitalist theory started somewhat with Adam Smith... in 1776, but companies like the East India Company was formed in 1600... there were companies and other capitalist entities for centuries before Adam Smith started to write down the theories.



Its both, just as Socialism is an economic system and a political system.



Now there you are totally wrong. Socialism does not "rig" anything just as Capitalism does not "rig" anything either. It is human nature and individuals who get power and they rig systems. Look at your own country, it is not the people who control politics, it is the corporations and the wealthy individuals who control politics and the economy. Your country is the poster child (at least on paper) of a capitalist country and yet the people dont control anything of value... the few rich elite and corporations control most of the country. Look at your media... controlled by what.. 5 companies/people? How is that capitalistic? Or your mobile phone market (national).. there are what.. 4? And the ability to get into the market is blocked by legislation written by the very same 4 companies.. not exactly capitalistic is it now?

Now in "Socialist" Europe we are a tad better, but not by much. Our political systems are far healthier with actual influence from the people on politics. Corporations are hindered in contributing to political campaigns and wealthy people cant pump billions into a single candidate. Of course corporations have influence on policy, just as unions do, but more than often corporations and even unions are ignored for the benefit of the people. 40 years ago we had 1 phone company in most countries. We the people forced markets to liberalize, we forced companies to share their infrastructure and made it easy as hell to gain access to the market. Now we have a far healthier mobile phone and internet market than in the "capitalistic USA".

We are of course not perfect, far far from it... big Pharma still has the ability to create closed markets for example.. but at least we have been on the right track for the last 40 years.... in this "socialist hell hole" as many Americans think of Europe.

The problem is as always, power corrupts, and the more power individuals have over others, the more it corrupts (for most people).. and that is regardless of what economic or political system we are talking about.

For example Standard Oil bullied its way to a monopoly because the owners could pay off or intimidate politicians. When that was not possible anymore and politicians saw how harmful a company like Standard Oil was, then they enacted legislation to break up such companies. That was "socialism" and "anti-capitalistic" but it was the right thing to do. Or in Europe when we had the 1 phone company per country.. monopolies... here the companies were also very powerful nationally and fought tooth and nail against liberalization... but it happened and they now either have failed or grown into healthy profitable companies.

Opening up markets is the right thing to do as it gets the best results, but open markets without checks and balances aka uncontrolled capitalism leads to massive problems for the masses, but great profits for the few.

Capitalism is better than communism.. but it is not perfect and needs to be regulated. Right wing policies are often better than left wing policies, but both sides could learn a few things from each other to create a more balanced approach... we dont want to go back to the bad old days of feudalism, which is exactly what uncontrolled right wing polices will send us, and we certainly dont want to live in a corrupt failed communist system.

Power may corrupt, but power that can be lost via mismanagement, corrupts FAR less then power which is retained regardless of its use.

Exactly when was the United States a feudal society? Feudalism predates capitalism and the two have almost nothing to do with each other. Imperialism, which is probably what you are referring to, was dependent on the economic system of mercantilism. It sounds like capitalism, but it was really government enforced monopolies. You could only buy from one distributer.

I have mixed feeling on Standard Oil. Yes, they were a monopoly. But they also dramatically lowered the price on gasoline, kerosene, and other petroleum related products, which fueled growth during the industrial revolution. And I do wonder, if we would be better off with a single oil company today, as opposed to 50, as it would be easier to keep track of and regulate. Not to mention, they could run at a much lower profit margin than several seperate "big" companies could. Which was evident, because Standard Oil made far less in profit then the sum of the companies that it was broken up into. Generally, I don't mind a monopoly, as long as it is maintained by superiority, rather than force or corruption, and it benefits consumers, even if it hurts competitors. Minus the bribery of course.

I generally agree with allowing access to markets and regulation. I don't think I ever said I disagreed with that? Capitalism needs regulation, just like society needs law enforcement; and we should allow access to markets simply because it moves us towards the capitalistic idea of perfect competition. Perfect competition is the cornerstone of perfect capitalism, it is not the antithesis of it.

And I don't think I've ever said that it should be completely unregulated. Straw-man argument?

 

[ReformCollege]

Barack Obama is your college professor???

Barack Obama isn't that bad. The biggest issues I have with him, is he is standing in the way of natural gas, and has been putting money into solar and wind which should be used to fund nuclear power.

This is more like having Hugo Chavez as my professor.

 

[RGacky3]

The contradictions work themselves out in the long run. That is a feature of capitalism, not a flaw of it. Consciousness is a part of free-markets, not the antithesis of it. Its called corrections.

No they dont ... Infact that was the discovery of marx, that these contradictions he was talking about just get worse and worse overtime ... everyone aggress that there are short term contradictions, Marx was talking about the ones that continually get worse until it leads to collapse.

They are called externalities by some, and you also have other ones like the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, excess capacity, rising productivity leading to shrinking aggrigate demand, necessary compound growth and so on and so forth, these are ones that Capitalism CANNOT fix internally.

The ONLY time they are ever fixed is with GIANT government intervention, such as WW2, or Keynsianism, and even then they build up again.

You obviously havn't studied Marx carefully, under a Marxist, or someone that understands Marx.

Also these contradictions we see are empirically evident, and lead to things Marxists have predicted all along, massiave economic imperailism, growing unemployment, financialization of the economy and growing debt, the decline of manufacturing, buisiness cycles getting worse and worse until recession, and so on and so forth.

If you want to actually understand Marx let me suggest David Harvey ... or second best ... Richard Wolff, learning Marxism from a neo-classical professor is like learning Christianity from a Satanist.

 

[Panopticon]

man, the OP really misunderstood and mistranslated...wow

 

[PeteEU]

Power may corrupt, but power that can be lost via mismanagement, corrupts FAR less then power which is retained regardless of its use.

Eh? Dont understand that comment to be honest. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Exactly when was the United States a feudal society?

In many ways it has always been one, to a degree or another. Feudal type society does not require titles per say.. you dont need lords and nobles. You need landowners and wealthy people, and from the founding of the US, landowners and wealthy people have had disproportional power in US politics. It was of course worse when there was slavery or after slavery or even at the beginning of the 20th century where Irish and Poles and other new immigrants were seen as a disease by the elite rich. The larger the income inequality there is, the bigger the disproportional power gap there is and the more feudal like society becomes.

Feudalism predates capitalism and the two have almost nothing to do with each other.

Yes and no. Feudalism is a way a society set it self up, but in feudalism there are many capitalistic acts going on... mostly capitalistism gone amok. The need to acquire things and wealth is a cornerstone of capitalism thinking, and it is also so in feudalism.

Imperialism, which is probably what you are referring to, was dependent on the economic system of mercantilism. It sounds like capitalism, but it was really government enforced monopolies. You could only buy from one distributer.

I agree somewhat, but Imperialism and mercantilism does not rule out capitalism... in fact it is present regardless. But the highlighted part is important. If capitalism is unregulated, then it will lead to exactly that and that is my issue with capitalism. It is not the best thing since swiss cheese so to say.. it is the best of many alternatives, but that is about it.

I have mixed feeling on Standard Oil. Yes, they were a monopoly. But they also dramatically lowered the price on gasoline, kerosene, and other petroleum related products, which fueled growth during the industrial revolution.

They did that, along with violence, to drive competitors out of business.. and soon after they were the sole supplier, the prices went up. As soon as there came a new competitor, they either beat the crap out of him or killed him, or they dumped their prices so much he could not survive.

And I do wonder, if we would be better off with a single oil company today, as opposed to 50, as it would be easier to keep track of and regulate.

It depends. 1 oil company is easier to control but also easier to abuse. It requires a strong regulatory system and political system to pull this one off.. especially if the company is the sole supplier on the market and there is no access to others.

A good example is your healthcare system in the US. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had regional monopolies or/and cartels. This did not benefit the population in any way or form due to the lack of regulation and the belief that the "market" would take care of things... capitalism gone amok. The reality was that they had those monopolies/cartels because they had paid off the politicians to legitimize in law these monopolies/cartels. This in turn, and still does because not even Obamacare really fixed the problem... it drives up prices across the board because normal market practices are out of wack and there is no regulation to compensate for this.

Not to mention, they could run at a much lower profit margin than several seperate "big" companies could.

Not really. The way the capitalistic society works today, profit margin is not as important as stock price and dividends. As we have seen over the last 5 years in the economic crisis, companies live and fall on stock price and stock price growth... not profit margins per say. Does it help to have a nice profit margin, of course, but it is not the important thing in a company. Plus profit margins can been hidden and abused as we have seen with companies like Starbucks and others in the UK.. or in the US. It is amazing that such companies with massive profits world wide, are actually running at a loss in their main markets ... (hint they are not, they are cheating society of taxes)

Which was evident, because Standard Oil made far less in profit then the sum of the companies that it was broken up into.

You cant compare those companies and Standard Oil. Standard oil used a lot of its liquidity to drive other companies out of business. This has a hit on profits. And when the company was broken up those costs were gone and profits returned to a more normal stage.

Generally, I don't mind a monopoly, as long as it is maintained by superiority, rather than force or corruption, and it benefits consumers, even if it hurts competitors. Minus the bribery of course.

I have a problem with monopolies simply because they can and will be abused. The leaders/owners (if in private hands) of said company will abuse not only the companies employees but also the population in general. It might not happen overnight, but it will happen.. it is simply human nature. Also monopolies make people and companies lazy.

A good example. Telecommunications. In Denmark for decades there was regional state owned companies that provided telecommunications. They could not compete in each others area. This lead to very little innovation to say the least, and expensive phone tarrifs. Along came the EEC/EU and said we had to liberalize and open up our telecommunications market. First we combined all the small companies into one to make it stronger in the future open market. Then we gave this new company certain privileges and responsibilities (connecting remote islands and maintaining and expanding the infrastructure). We still resisted the urge to liberalize at first, and it did not change the pricing by the big company in anyway. We still paid for our phone (yes... a monthly fee for having a phone.. a practice going back to the 1940s when a phone was expensive equipment), and our phone tarrifs were high. Finally we allowed access to others and over the next 20 years prices came down big time and more and more services came along. Today Denmark has one of the most modern telecommunications grids around and the pricing would make most Americans cry. Now we did it in a smart way... not the "free market full open" system that many Americans love.. but in a regulated way. First off all we set up an ombudsmand for the telecommunications market. We also said we dont want 5 companies digging up the road to put down cables, so we made the existing cable open to all (for a rent fee). Now our old monopoly had seen the writing on the wall long ago, so they wisely had already in the late 1970s invested in fiberoptic cables wherever they put down new cables or replaced old. Hence the capacity was there for this "renting out" system and it worked brilliantly.

The moral of the story is that in this case a monopoly was run badly for decades and forced to liberalize the market and that resulted in more competition, lower prices and better service and infrastructure... something the monopoly would never have done on its own, even with regulation from the top.

I generally agree with allowing access to markets and regulation. I don't think I ever said I disagreed with that? Capitalism needs regulation, just like society needs law enforcement; and we should allow access to markets simply because it moves us towards the capitalistic idea of perfect competition. Perfect competition is the cornerstone of perfect capitalism, it is not the antithesis of it.

The perfect competition does not exist and never has and never will. To have perfect competition you need full information to form the perfect price vs supply... and that aint gonna happen.

And I don't think I've ever said that it should be completely unregulated. Straw-man argument?

No you haven't ... I think, but you have also not said that it should be regulated. And knowing how rabid many American's are about capitalism and the free market (often unrealistic btw), then it is easy to assume that not saying something should be regulated (especially in consideration with the other comments on the subject you have made) can easily be interpreted as a defacto "must not be regulated". I apologize for having that assumption.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This message is in response to my college professor (who is a doctorate student of "sociology"), who decided today to go off on a rant about Karl Marx and why we should abolish capitalism.

I've read plenty of Karl Marx, and I generally like his theoretical perspective and think he had a lot of good things to add to the discourse. But, I don't understand how people 150 years later can cling to his every word without taking into account any sort of empirical evidence or using any critical thinking skills. Karl Marx, was exceptional at examining the world as he saw it. He even made a number of predictions, (many of which have been falsified by future history), one of which was predicting a dictatorship by the working class (Socialism) to end the oppression of capitalism. In practice, I have yet to see his theoretical perspective work. The Bolsheviks failed. Mao Zedong failed. Fidel Castro failed. Socialist-democratic Greece and France are failing, and Hugo Chavez will fail (quiet horrifically I might add).

Everywhere you look in civilized history, human nature, not capitalism, has been the root of violence, oppression, and war. It is immorally naive to think that socialism has any solution to solve human conflict. It is immorally naive to ignore the gruesome human rights violations and genocide that socialism has created. How convenient for those on the radical left to only discuss socialism as an ideal, while framing capitalism as the cause for all human suffering. How utterly convenient for the modern day Marxists to ignore the progress that capitalism has brought in terms of electricity, housing, transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing. How utterly hypocritical of them to blast the United States for its historical offenses, while completely ignoring the Great Leap Forward and the Great Purge. How utterly for them to describe our inmates as "oppressed," when it was their ideology which imprisoned and killed hundreds of thousands for mere dissent. How utterly misguided for them to criticize globalization as "slave labor," when it has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. How manipulative of them to then turn around that progress and call it "imposing our values on others." How manipulative of them to constantly redefine "progress" so it appears that progress is never made. How unsophisticated of them, to claim that capitalism will only enrich the rich by impoverishing the poor, and after it has become evident that capitalism has actually created wealth and improved living conditions for even the poorest workers, to turn around and claim to be "anti-consumerist" or against the wealth that they criticized wouldn't be created. And how snobbish of them to think they have all the answers, and "the powerful" are the only ones standing in their way. You and your extremist cult have not been the first ones to read Marx, or the first ones to examine the world around them. Not everyone who disagrees with you lives in a bubble. No one is standing in your way. You have absolute freedom of speech to say how you feel. You won't be arrested for your words, or condemned as a traitor. But, be warned, the system your fantasy takes you very well may arrest you and condemn you as a traitor.

I dont see how you can read Marx and not think that he was a fanatical raving idiot. Through out his writings he expected the reader to make the grand assumptions that he did and just kept adding more grand assumptions it didnt take long for him to be way beyond a rational assertion off into lala land. It reminds me of reading that crazy **** in the bible.

 

[ReformCollege]

No they dont ... Infact that was the discovery of marx, that these contradictions he was talking about just get worse and worse overtime ... everyone aggress that there are short term contradictions, Marx was talking about the ones that continually get worse until it leads to collapse.

They are called externalities by some, and you also have other ones like the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, excess capacity, rising productivity leading to shrinking aggrigate demand, necessary compound growth and so on and so forth, these are ones that Capitalism CANNOT fix internally.

The ONLY time they are ever fixed is with GIANT government intervention, such as WW2, or Keynsianism, and even then they build up again.

You obviously havn't studied Marx carefully, under a Marxist, or someone that understands Marx.

Also these contradictions we see are empirically evident, and lead to things Marxists have predicted all along, massiave economic imperailism, growing unemployment, financialization of the economy and growing debt, the decline of manufacturing, buisiness cycles getting worse and worse until recession, and so on and so forth.

If you want to actually understand Marx let me suggest David Harvey ... or second best ... Richard Wolff, learning Marxism from a neo-classical professor is like learning Christianity from a Satanist.

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall and his value theory have been criticized by a number of intellectuals, most notably V. K. Dmitriev and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, as being internally inconsistent meaning his conclusions do not follow his major premises.
Its also been questioned, such as Okisho's theorm "if the newly introduced technique satisfies the cost criterion [i.e. if it reduces unit costs, given current prices] and the rate of real wage remains constant", then the rate of profit must increase (Okishio, 1961, p. 92).

Decline of manufacturing has only happened regionally, manufacturing is booming on a global scale. Unemployment has been trending down, "economic imperialism" has actually lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

 

[ReformCollege]

Eh? Dont understand that comment to be honest. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm suggesting that the power of the president is much less corruptible then the power of a lord or king, even if both have the same duties.

In many ways it has always been one, to a degree or another. Feudal type society does not require titles per say.. you dont need lords and nobles. You need landowners and wealthy people, and from the founding of the US, landowners and wealthy people have had disproportional power in US politics. It was of course worse when there was slavery or after slavery or even at the beginning of the 20th century where Irish and Poles and other new immigrants were seen as a disease by the elite rich. The larger the income inequality there is, the bigger the disproportional power gap there is and the more feudal like society becomes.

Ah yes, slavery does constitute as feudalism. But as long as workers are paid a wage which follows market rates, regardless of how low it is, then the working wages will rise over time.

It depends. 1 oil company is easier to control but also easier to abuse. It requires a strong regulatory system and political system to pull this one off.. especially if the company is the sole supplier on the market and there is no access to others.

A good example is your healthcare system in the US. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had regional monopolies or/and cartels. This did not benefit the population in any way or form due to the lack of regulation and the belief that the "market" would take care of things... capitalism gone amok. The reality was that they had those monopolies/cartels because they had paid off the politicians to legitimize in law these monopolies/cartels. This in turn, and still does because not even Obamacare really fixed the problem... it drives up prices across the board because normal market practices are out of wack and there is no regulation to compensate for this.

I don't think capitalism means "the market takes care of it." Like you said, perfect competition does not ever exist, so I think one must "examine the market" to understand the roadblocks to perfect competition, and devise a response appropriately. I agree with nearly everything except the expansion of Medicaid, and I'm worried that it will raise premiums on healthy individuals to pay for "pre-existing conditions" (hint hint, obesity and its related diseases).

The perfect competition does not exist and never has and never will. To have perfect competition you need full information to form the perfect price vs supply... and that aint gonna happen.

Of course it does not ever exist. But I don't think its a dichotomy either. I think you can measure the character with which a market is perfect, and understand how to make that character closer to 100%, even if you never reach 100%. Its like saying an engine will never be 100% efficient, so investments in efficiency are a waste of money.

 

[poweRob]

Way too much conflating socialism with communism as if they are the same thing. Ruins the debate right away.

 

[Dem]

The US will not survive as the greatest country in the world without integration of both political ideologies. Moderation is the key. I don't see either party at this point having a clue what moderation means though.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The US will not survive as the greatest country in the world without integration of both political ideologies. Moderation is the key. I don't see either party at this point having a clue what moderation means though.

Well thats because both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that if they could just get control of the House, the Presidency, and the courts then they will once and for all get rid of all other competition. Neither side realizes that at that point they will have created a dictatorship, but hey no one said that either side was smart.

 

[RGacky3]

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall and his value theory have been criticized by a number of intellectuals, most notably V. K. Dmitriev and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, as being internally inconsistent meaning his conclusions do not follow his major premises.
Its also been questioned, such as Okisho's theorm "if the newly introduced technique satisfies the cost criterion [i.e. if it reduces unit costs, given current prices] and the rate of real wage remains constant", then the rate of profit must increase (Okishio, 1961, p. 92).

Decline of manufacturing has only happened regionally, manufacturing is booming on a global scale. Unemployment has been trending down, "economic imperialism" has actually lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

THe tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, has been criticized, but never successfully, those criticisms are generally based on false premisis and strawmen. Every criticism I've read doesn't actually deal with the problem itself. You're also missing tons of other internal contradictions of capitalism.

As far as Okishio ... he AGREED with marx, because the tendancy invovles competition lowering prices due to increased productive ability, that theory relied on stable prices.

The decline of manufacturing PROFITABILITY has happened globally, or the rate of profit.

Unemployment has been down during growth periods, but ever growing during recessions.

As far as economic imperialism lifting millions out of poverty .... yes and no, influx of foreign controlled capital will always make some rich and middle class people, but will do so at the expense of future development and creating a permanent underclass, what actually brings millions out of poverty are when local peoples take over their own economy. Economic imperialism will make some rich, and create some growth, but at the same time drain an economy of resources and create a permanent underclass.

 

[ReformCollege]

THe tendancy for the rate of profit to fall, has been criticized, but never successfully, those criticisms are generally based on false premisis and strawmen. Every criticism I've read doesn't actually deal with the problem itself. You're also missing tons of other internal contradictions of capitalism.

As far as Okishio ... he AGREED with marx, because the tendancy invovles competition lowering prices due to increased productive ability, that theory relied on stable prices.

The decline of manufacturing PROFITABILITY has happened globally, or the rate of profit.

Unemployment has been down during growth periods, but ever growing during recessions.

As far as economic imperialism lifting millions out of poverty .... yes and no, influx of foreign controlled capital will always make some rich and middle class people, but will do so at the expense of future development and creating a permanent underclass, what actually brings millions out of poverty are when local peoples take over their own economy. Economic imperialism will make some rich, and create some growth, but at the same time drain an economy of resources and create a permanent underclass.

From the perspective of a Marxist, wouldn't a falling rate of profit be a good thing? It means higher wages for workers, and better products for consumers.

And I disagree that it does so at future development and creating a permanent under class. Africa has a permenant underclass. At least in China, they have opportunity for growing wages.


I've always thought Marx had plenty to say as an economist on capitalism. I must have missed the part where he had anything to say about how communism/socialism would actually work as an alternative. I see Karl Marx's critiques as things that need to be worked around, rather than reasons for removing the system. There are just as many contradictions in his "dictatorship of the working class."

 

[RGacky3]

From the perspective of a Marxist, wouldn't a falling rate of profit be a good thing? It means higher wages for workers, and better products for consumers.

Not really ... because a falling rate of profit doesn't necessarily entail those 2 things, infact in the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall theory, it doesn't entail those 2 things.

And I disagree that it does so at future development and creating a permanent under class. Africa has a permenant underclass. At least in China, they have opportunity for growing wages.

Actually so does China, also China isn't an example of economic imperialism, rather it's an example of the state controling investment heavily.

I've always thought Marx had plenty to say as an economist on capitalism. I must have missed the part where he had anything to say about how communism/socialism would actually work as an alternative. I see Karl Marx's critiques as things that need to be worked around, rather than reasons for removing the system. There are just as many contradictions in his "dictatorship of the working class."

Marx never really talked about an alternative in debth, which is a good thing and a bad thing, it's a good thing I think because we need to be open minded and there can be many alternatives for different times and places, but its a bad thing because horrible alternatives such as the Leninist system ends up tarnishing Marxism which as a whole is a criticism of capitalism that everyone interested in economics needs to take into account.

Keynsianism is an attempt at working around those contradictions, but I, and other anti-capitalists, consider those failures. But that is a different argument.

 

[Surtr]

Take equal portions of capitalism and socialism, mix them together, serve it up, and I am happy.

We have a mixed economy. Still didn't work out, but it wasn't the formula's fault. The human element has a way of ****ing things up. The solution, in my opinion, is not one of economic policy, but of societal and governmental policy. It'll never be done all at once, but progression through life is always determined by a lot of time coupled with little changes throughout.

 

[ReformCollege]

Not really ... because a falling rate of profit doesn't necessarily entail those 2 things, infact in the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall theory, it doesn't entail those 2 things.

Constant capital investment isn't some arbitrary entity. It represents an improvement of something. A better product, reduced costs, higher productivity, etc; if it weren't improving something then why make the capital investment. Marx saw surplus value as being a form of exploitation, paying the worker less than s/he produces. I see the capitalist as being the source of the workers productivity.
I agree with British economist Alfred Marshall, who said, "It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory ... is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed."
So if the rate of profit is indeed falling, then there is less surplus value going into the capitalists pocket, and more of it going into the product. Since the product is to be consumed in exchange for a wage, we can conclude that increased constant capital investment is benefical to wage laborers as a whole.

Also, his theory relies on the Malthusian perspective that profit can only grow linearly. Mathematically, if the rate of profit falls fatalistically, then it can be said that there are diminishing returns on capital investment, and therefore diminishing returns on production. Should that be the case, then shouldn't we see an absolute ceiling for production?

Actually so does China, also China isn't an example of economic imperialism, rather it's an example of the state controling investment heavily.

They also rely heavily on market economics. China has always been heavily controlled by the state, it wasn't until they started opening themselves up to forgein investment or "economic imperialism" that they really began to grow. Not to mention it was this foreign capital and economic development which grew China's market, and actually gave that government control some teeth in the global economy. And the "permenant underclass" of China lives far better than the "permenant underclass" of Sub-Saharan Africa I would argue.

Marx never really talked about an alternative in debth, which is a good thing and a bad thing, it's a good thing I think because we need to be open minded and there can be many alternatives for different times and places, but its a bad thing because horrible alternatives such as the Leninist system ends up tarnishing Marxism which as a whole is a criticism of capitalism that everyone interested in economics needs to take into account.

Oh, so you get to criticize capitalism emperically, but only talk about socialism theoretically? Consider me not convinced.

 

[ReformCollege]

We have a mixed economy. Still didn't work out, but it wasn't the formula's fault. The human element has a way of ****ing things up. The solution, in my opinion, is not one of economic policy, but of societal and governmental policy. It'll never be done all at once, but progression through life is always determined by a lot of time coupled with little changes throughout.

Societal and government policy is formulated by humans last time I checked.