Ask a Red III

[AvalancheMaster]

Do you think that the economy is a zero-sum game?

If it is, how would economic transactions of any kind - trade, goods exchange and wage, be made, as this would mean to take from one person and give to another (thus destroying equality)?

If it is not, what would be the difference if somebody manages to create more without taking away from another person?

 

[aelf]

Do you think that the economy is a zero-sum game?

If it is, how would economic transactions of any kind - trade, goods exchange and wage, be made, as this would mean to take from one person and give to another (thus destroying equality)?

If it is not, what would be the difference if somebody manages to create more without taking away from another person?

My answer is it depends. I find it fascinating that the the capitalist retort is always that "the economy is not a zero-sum game" as if it's an either/or thing. Press them about how is it that certain groups have managed to enrich themselves in ways that necessarily impoverish others (as shown by the practices of the financial industry recently) and they'll try to place the blame on everything but the abstract institution of the market. It'd all be great if only everyone held true to the principles of the free market! And they say communists are naive fools.

Obviously the economy can be a zero-sum game.

 

[Takhisis]

I recently read that already Cicero was opposed to profit trading (unless fair or some such). Would be willing to bet that the same applies to those old Greek philosophers. Generally I am starting to get the impression that though-out the human history of civilization profit due to trade or interests was heavily shunned on. It is funny that today we even by the authority of the sate artificially enhance such a situation, and I mean beyond property rights. I am thinking of wholesales were only business-owners are allowed to buy. And of course, there is this whole all-money-is-debt-with-interests thing.

Bankers were/are despised in all warrior societies, because they're felt -to a larger or lesser degree of accuracy- to be enriching themselves on other people's money, by not doing anything productive themselves. Also, usury and such gives them an even worse reputation.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"Warrior societies"? o_O

 

[NedimNapoleon]

In agrarian socialism is the agrarian product (rice, wheat, potatoes, peanuts) a form of currency or is there no currency at all?

 

[Traitorfish]

Funny you should say that, because many of the Bolsheviks, including Lenin, regarded themselves as Right Communists; thus their lambasting of Luxembourg, et all as "Left-Wing Communists."

True, there's also the various spectra which are applied within a given historical movement, but because no such movement exists right now, I just meant to reply in terms of a shared, contemporary notion of left-right. (I dare say that we'll see such a movement before altogether too long, and these sort of distinctions will become important again, but that's of course speculative.)

Would someone be a Communist if he or she didn't believe in the viability of an actual Communist society?

That possibly depends what you mean by "communist society". In the Marxian or anarchist sense, I would assume that it means a mass-society, and so entails some conviction in its viability, but there are religious communists who don't actively expect communism to be practised by anything more than small communities.

And if not, can it be said that what differentiates a Communist from a Socialist is such a believe?

I don't think so, no. The distinction I would make is that "socialism" simply implies the socialisation of economic activity, while "communism" specifically implies the demolition of mediatory institutions such as money, the state, etc.

 

[Tahuti]

My answer is it depends. I find it fascinating that the the capitalist retort is always that "the economy is not a zero-sum game" as if it's an either/or thing. Press them about how is it that certain groups have managed to enrich themselves in ways that necessarily impoverish others (as shown by the practices of the financial industry recently) and they'll try to place the blame on everything but the abstract institution of the market. It'd all be great if only everyone held true to the principles of the free market! And they say communists are naive fools.

Obviously the economy can be a zero-sum game.

Generally speaking, the economy isn't a zero-sum game. As you've pointed out it is indeed possible, but for most part, measures are relative rather than absolute (as in a zero-sum game) in an economy, and this is one of the few things nearly all economists can agree on.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

Generally speaking, the economy isn't a zero-sum game. As you've pointed out it is indeed possible, but for most part, measures are relative rather than absolute (as in a zero-sum game) in an economy, and this is one of the few things nearly all economists can agree on.

Still, I must add that this does not render situations where one profits from another person's loss impossible.

 

[aelf]

Generally speaking, the economy isn't a zero-sum game. As you've pointed out it is indeed possible, but for most part, measures are relative rather than absolute (as in a zero-sum game) in an economy, and this is one of the few things nearly all economists can agree on.

Generally speaking? Yeah, I guess. It's not like the majority didn't gain anything during the good years, but there's no guarantee they won't come out of it losing more than they gained in the end. I suppose that might count as not being a zero-sum game to some.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Still, I must add that this does not render situations where one profits from another person's loss impossible.

Not impossible? On the mirco-level, it is all about taking away from others. Jobs, market share, through the medium of money resources of various kinds... Seriously, the economy is not a zero-sum-game, sure thing, but the other extreme would require an infinity of resources. Which strikes me as even at lot less sensible than the zero-sum-game-view. So while not a "pure" zero-sum-game, it still is to a significant degree (how much depending on real economic growth - so today more than in the 60s).

That possibly depends what you mean by "communist society". In the Marxian or anarchist sense, I would assume that it means a mass-society, and so entails some conviction in its viability, but there are religious communists who don't actively expect communism to be practised by anything more than small communities.

I mean communist in a political sense, which I think excludes small private endeavors (unless the aim is some kind of local Independence or what not). So may I take your answer as "yes"? What particular caused to me ask this is a post by Cribb in the very first Ask-a-Red-thread, where he said to have doubts weather an actually Communist (mass)society could work. Which made me wonder if that is what in the end defines Communism or if it is more like the historic root of Communist thought which isn't that relevant anymore to being a Communist.

I don't think so, no. The distinction I would make is that "socialism" simply implies the socialisation of economic activity, while "communism" specifically implies the demolition of mediatory institutions such as money, the state, etc.

That to me seems like you just rephrased what I suggested? Just that you bothered to get more specific in what it means for society be communist and what the alternative in this political spectrum is (socialization).

 

[Traitorfish]

I mean communist in a political sense, which I think excludes small private endeavors (unless the aim is some kind of local Independence or what not). So may I take your answer as "yes"? What particular caused to me ask this is a post by Cribb in the very first Ask-a-Red-thread, where he said to have doubts weather an actually Communist (mass)society could work. Which made me wonder if that is what in the end defines Communism or if it is more like the historic root of Communist thought which isn't that relevant anymore to being a Communist.

Well, I suppose if one is a Marxist of the old school, as I understand Mr. Cribb to be, then one could identify as a "Communist" without necessarily having much faith in the possibility of communism. In this case, it would imply an identification with a particular political and organisational tradition, rather than an active advocacy of any sort of communisation.

Now, I would claim is that while this may make someone a Communist, it would not make them a communist, in broadly the same sense that somebody who might identify as a support of the British Conservative Party without themselves being strictly speaking a conservative; the former label is derived from the latter, but not equivalent to it. It's one of these semantic snarls that this sort of topic is unfortunately littered with.

That to me seems like you just rephrased what I suggested? Just that you bothered to get more specific in what it means for society be communist and what the alternative in this political spectrum is (socialization).

Eh, mebbe.

 

[Tahuti]

Generally speaking? Yeah, I guess. It's not like the majority didn't gain anything during the good years, but there's no guarantee they won't come out of it losing more than they gained in the end. I suppose that might count as not being a zero-sum game to some.

Considering zero-sum games means profit at the expense of another, I wouldn't count the current financial crisis as exactly a great example of a zero-sum game, since absolutely no one benefitted from the financial crisis. The common people obviously didn't win, nor did business, nor government nor the bankers for that matter, however large their role might have been in creating the crisis.

Still, I must add that this does not render situations where one profits from another person's loss impossible.

That was already mentioned.

 

[aelf]

Considering zero-sum games means profit at the expense of another, I wouldn't count the current financial crisis as exactly a great example of a zero-sum game, since absolutely no one benefitted from the financial crisis. The common people obviously didn't win, nor did business, nor government nor the bankers for that matter, however large their role might have been in creating the crisis.

Orly?

 

[Takhisis]

They didn't win, they just did earn.

 

[Tahuti]

Orly?

Last I've heard, bankers lost reputation, banks had to bailed out while some banks just simply collapsed. It is reasonable to say bankers were largely insulated from the effects of the financial crisis, but they certainly didn't gain, let alone at the expense of others.

 

[AvalancheMaster]

A rather broad question, but what is your opinion on Paul Krugman and Keynesian economics?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Last I've heard, bankers lost reputation, banks had to bailed out while some banks just simply collapsed. It is reasonable to say bankers were largely insulated from the effects of the financial crisis, but they certainly didn't gain, let alone at the expense of others.

Don't you confuse bankers with institutions?

@Traitorfish Thanks that answers it

 

[caketastydelish]

A stereotype I hear is that "religion and communism don't mix". Would you say this is true? Can someone be a devout religious follower yet still be a communist?

 

[aelf]

Last I've heard, bankers lost reputation, banks had to bailed out while some banks just simply collapsed. It is reasonable to say bankers were largely insulated from the effects of the financial crisis, but they certainly didn't gain, let alone at the expense of others.

Wait, what? You don't consider all those bonuses they earned a gain for them? Strange universe you inhabit. I'm even tempted to think it's the same as the morally bankrupt bankers'.

 

[Traitorfish]

A stereotype I hear is that "religion and communism don't mix". Would you say this is true? Can someone be a devout religious follower yet still be a communist?

That really depends on the religion in question. One could be a Quaker and a anarchist-communist, for example, because the former represents a pacifistic, anti-hierarchical form of religious belief and practice, which is self-evidently compatible with a stateless, propertyless form of social organisation. On the other hand, it would be much more difficult to be a Catholic and an anarchist-communist, because Catholicism is both in its belief and practice a very hierarchical, authoritarian form of religion, with a history of support for repressive institutions of state and property. (It should be noted that there have been attempts to reconcile the two, but in practice they either compromise crucial aspects of their radicalism, or depart so far from Catholic doctrine as to be deemed heterodox if not heretical by the Church.) "Religion" is an extremely broad heading, a genre of activity than an activity itself, so it's not possible to generalise.