Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, What are your thoughts?

[El_Machinae]

Is "bell curve" now a dog-whistle? So using the phrase "there's a bell curve for people's ability to self-motivate or people's ability to work" is presumed reactionary?
I don't know what's meant by 'need markets', but any proposed system has to factor in that there's a spread of capability in people.

 

[Crezth]

You're using emotion-laden language, honestly.

It's called ~style~

I'm just describing the realities of the system as I understand them.

So am I: to me it seems perfectly obvious that nobody vacating a socialist economy to create a mountain of wealth elsewhere is actually contributing something valuable to others and not just accruing power to themselves: a charge we have levied against warlords and bandits since time immemorial. So it is worth considering not just the hypothetical element of a rich man buying socialist luxuries, but the real historical context that rich man is likely to exist in...

But yeah, the socialist society should sell its exports at rates that are of net benefit to the society. OR, I guess, not sell them in order to deprive outsiders of the benefit but then forgo its citizenry receiving the benefits of that trade. I think that would be a question of strategy and is impossible to describe without just waving hands at what the various factors under consideration are.

...which is also a matter of debate in actual socialist countries. Keeping in mind most socialist revolutions started in depressed nations that were being exploited by foreign imperialists, or developing nations being exploited by cruel tyrants, this question of "how do we protect ourselves from the power foreign interests naturally have over others by being wealthy?" It is indeed one of the most fundamental questions of socialist security in particular or anti-imperialist security in general, as capitalism is partially defined by the ability of capitalists to buy anything: trips to space, people, entire governments.

So it's a question worth asking, and it's worth acknowledging as well that just because someone can make more money than individuals in a community of socialists, there's no particular reason to view them differently than a prince who runs away from a republican revolution to return with an army and claim what is rightfully his.

 

[bernie14]

Is "bell curve" now a dog-whistle?

yes

.... there's a spread of capability in people.

and this is a bigoted sentiment

 

[El_Machinae]

So am I: to me it seems perfectly obvious that nobody vacating a socialist economy to create a mountain of wealth elsewhere is actually contributing something valuable to others and not just accruing power to themselves

I understand. I'm doing my best to understand your optics and that you're presenting feedback with your optics where things are 'perfectly obvious'. Sometimes it means asking a question more than once, I've learned! It's hard to answer a question if you don't know what the other person doesn't know.

My using a space station trip is kind of a weird example. It's past the threshold where someone in a socialist society could dream of affording ... and we have to understand that the price of the trip itself will change once workers are fairly compensated. If we use the number '$25 million', it seems out of reach. I'd added a zero onto the most aggressive savings plan I can think of.

"how do we protect ourselves from the power foreign interests naturally have over others by being wealthy?" It is indeed one of the most fundamental questions of socialist security in particular or anti-imperialist security in general, as capitalism is partially defined by the ability of capitalists to buy anything: trips to space, people, entire governments

I can imagine how hard this is to migrate. I cannot see any way that it's not going to be a very similar calculation for any nation, where trade bears the duality of being of benefit while also empowering people who would harm you if they could. And it's not a fair fight, since exploiting your own citizenry is the constant temptation. Every society has to socialize their own defense: this is true regardless of the external threat.

 

[Lexicus]

So using the phrase "there's a bell curve for people's ability to self-motivate or people's ability to work" is presumed reactionary?

Yeah, because from my point of view the reactionary is inventing this whole question of "different human capabilities" in order to present their preferred version of social hierarchy as the answer...

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, because from my point of view the reactionary is inventing this whole question of "different human capabilities" in order to present their preferred version of social hierarchy as the answer...

Thank you. Sometimes a person needs to learn what not to say in order to prevent the other person losing the ability to converse. Unfortunate to lose such a clear term.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hmm...markets are desirable/necessary because they reify naturally-existing human hierarchies...where have I heard this idea before....hmmmmmmm....

I mean you even threw out the term "bell curve". Liberal faith in the market is because all the liberal talk about equality and human rights is hypocritical garbage. Liberals believe, just like reactionaries, that we need markets because some people are just better than others and markets reward their superiority while punishing the inferiority of the peasants. You don't even bother to hide it.

If you read my post I made no mention of a market economy. I only said that socialism seemed to dismiss natural human inequity in its formulation of how things should work. But I see that rather talk about how socialism might solve the problem natural human inequity, you would rather just distract with a retreat to a class warfare attack on what is not part of the conversation.

I am trying to understand how a firmly socialist position handles an important question about human biology.

Why don't you start a thread on the good and bad of market economies and folks might address your concerns.

EDIT: I just learned that "bell curve" is trigger for socialists. Good to know. Does that mean all bell curves are fake? Or that I just should not use the term?

 

[red_elk]

OG: ....but I want to be a fiction writer!.....

TRIBE: but you are able to pick turnips. Write on your free time.

OG: ....but all I will know is picking turnips.....

TRIBE: so write on it's virtues....we need turnips

This is quite adequate description of the status quo in contemporary capitalist societies.
When a possibly talented fiction writer has to "pick turnips" in order to feed his family.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is quite adequate description of the status quo in contemporary capitalist societies.
When a possibly talented fiction writer has to "pick turnips" in order to feed his family.

I suspect the same description is true in contemporary socialist societies. Unlike the purely capitalist society, we can see that the description is true in the socialist societies mainly because they cannot yet afford to liberate their turnip pickers. There's hope that someday, someone's kid won't have to chose whether they're janitors or dishwashers. A person in a capitalist society can also hope to liberate future individuals, but it's probably going to be much more specific for whom they're hoping. And, obviously, it's impossible to do this without violating socialist ethics.

 

[Crezth]

IMy using a space station trip is kind of a weird example. It's past the threshold where someone in a socialist society could dream of affording ... and we have to understand that the price of the trip itself will change once workers are fairly compensated. If we use the number '$25 million', it seems out of reach. I'd added a zero onto the most aggressive savings plan I can think of.

It's a good example: it's an example of a luxury that might be simply too extravagant to allow people to have. It was possible in ancient times for kings to bathe in honey and milk while the people ate unleavened bread or millet soup. Quite frankly, that was a privilege that needed to be taken away from them, specifically because in the republican tradition we determined a noble class had no inherent right to that luxury. So it's worth asking what luxuries people who currently enjoy those luxuries would be allowed to keep. The answer is generally "no more than most people can have or are entitled to." The majority of industrial luxuries you keep, because you are still an industrial society. But some things society just can't afford.

I can imagine how hard this is to migrate. I cannot see any way that it's not going to be a very similar calculation for any nation, where trade bears the duality of being of benefit while also empowering people who would harm you if they could. And it's not a fair fight, since exploiting your own citizenry is the constant temptation. Every society has to socialize their own defense: this is true regardless of the external threat.

It's also true it's not a fair fight for the reason that, especially in our present context, few societies are actually truly economically independent of other societies. The capitalist hierarchy necessarily subjugates lesser economies to wealthier ones thanks to the simple logic and power of the global marketplace. So we introduce a socialist economy, which has an ambition to isolate itself from capitalist ravages, and we begin to see interactions such as Traitorfish pointed out where harsher and more brutal methods are resorted to in order to keep the imperialists at bay.

But suppose we flip the script and introduce socialist revolution into the very heart of imperialist capitalism, and you have a democratically united working class seizing the most advanced and numerous means of production available, and thus becoming collectively very rich even compared to the other wealthy, privatized societies. This society can afford to be more discerning without needing to resort to as harsh measures. If people want to walk away and make their fortunes striking the earth in totally independent fashion, I see no reason they cannot. But I'm a little dubious of the prospect of them making more wealth on their own, without resorting to exploitation, than they could participating in socialist society.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like it, but it's currently untested. Socialist revolution struggles with trade, and not just because of power imbalance. Because of interdependency of trade (which can even be of mutual benefit), the process of dismantling your economy means that your populace is not only losing out on local production, but is also losing out on any benefits from the trade. Capital flight has this weird binary status of being damaging and completely inconsequential. And the risk of brain-drain is real. It's a double-whammy. The ability of the socialist utopia being able to eventually outperform others is also currently unproven. China, obviously, could really have a shot at that soon. But we'll then see if they dismantle the oppression; whether the people choose to flee or it attracts migrants will (I think) be the implicit judge there.

I've yet to be convinced that the model is properly harnessing latent greed, but that's probably because I'm being exposed to a severe version of the model rather than one that's likely to actually exist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The tangible reward is getting paid a good wage. Honestly under socialism we should probably compensate the crap jobs way better than the by-comparison comfortable jobs. I know how horrific and exploitative even small businesses can be. Increasing the wage and giving those workers rights and leverage is a good way to start, and if a kitchen can't pull in workers to do its crap job, good riddance.


Welcome to post-industrial capitalism, the age of grift, where this happens all the time and billions of dollars are wasted or stolen in the name of "innovation" and "technological progress!"

This is just shooting in the dark. There's no reason to assume this stuff can't be done under socialism. In fact we know for certain that socialist economies can develop proficiencies in, for example as you say, manufacturing and engineering.

Like you say who pays for 10,000 failing restaurants - I ask you, who really does pay for them? Under capitalism, when enough small businesses fail and enough loans default, the markets crash and *millions* lose their jobs and livelihoods. Many restaurants are opened with loans that will never be paid back, with a few greedy individuals making big money off of others' failure. The crashed markets are then bailed out by monopolists who pay themselves for being too big to fail. Under socialism, credit could be far more transparent, far fairer, far less indulging in the disbursement of MASSIVE loans that can never be paid back, and so on. Predatory lending replaced with socialist lending.

The dirty secret of capitalism is that this "growth" that exploitation achieves, growth you are anxious about now occurring under socialism, is mostly a lie. It is not "growth" of the economy, it is profits for a select few. There is a correlation there but that is not the same as saying those profits are necessary for growth. Actual growth is a matter of the physical work that people are doing, the goods and services they produce. When the population grows, and the growing population starts working, of course the economy starts growing as well. Why would people work? Because everyone would work.* Exactly the opposite of capitalism, where some people never need to work and live off of welfare skimmed from the working class.

Who needs exports? Export what you can. Make what you need. Under socialism I expect people would work a lot less and more environmentally conservative services would take up the bigger portion of the economy. Things like going to movies and getting your hair cut, which don't really require any additional input beyond labor. People would have less stress and be better positioned to enjoy the leisures of industrial society. If we're not shoveling some broken kitschy publicity stunt water pumps on African economies, so much the better.

I mean all of these nagging little details are really missing the forest for the trees. The point is there's no reason to expect that a socialist planned economy can't conduct the same basic maintenance of society objectives that capitalism can. Your mobile phone can still be designed and produced, albeit in a far less exploitative fashion and burning far less capital lining the pockets of executives who don't do anything anyway. What is a supply chain? Someone needs something, they order it from a distributor, the distributor distributes it. Why can't that be done with socialist businesses? There is no reason.

* Accounting for disabilities and people with special needs and conditions, of course, because we aren't barbarians and caring for the most vulnerable members of society ought to be a basic objective of human decency.

I don't doubt that there are be ways that socialism can find to address many of the points I raised. I would think that many of those answer are known and socialists have already come to grips with them. I'd be happy hear what they are.

Let me clarify a few things about the context of my thinking.

An economy: a defined jurisdiction from small town to metro to county to state to nation that can be measured in terms of money (dollars moving through the jurisdiction) or as jobs.
Jobs: jobs come in two types: service sector and E-Base, Service sector jobs are jobs that are paid for by local money circulating in an economy. E-base jobs are jobs that are paid for by money coming from outside the jurisdiction.

Unless you are in a tourist town, restaurants, drug stores, laundromats, locksmiths, retail shops etc. are all service sector jobs. A manufacturer who ships product out of the jurisdiction is an E-base employer. A internet company that has customers elsewhere is an E-base company. When 800,000 people visit Albuquerque for Balloon Fiesta every restaurant, gas station, retailer becomes an E-base company for two weeks. E-base jobs bring new money into an economy. Disney World is an E-base employer for Florida and Orlando. An Indian casino is an E-base employer for the owning tribe that collect money from non Indians.You cannot grow an economy by expanding the service sector. If that were true, you could grow an economy by building 10,000 car washes.

To grow an economy you have to grow the e-base jobs/revenue faster than the population. This is how a place gets more prosperous. As the E-base jobs grow, it can support more service sector jobs. When Amazon builds a warehouse in Austin, it creates E-base jobs there (because Amazon money collected from all over the world pays the salaries). Austin gets more prosperous because new money enters the economy. More restaurants open, move people need dry cleaning and new underwear.

When an E-base company leaves a community (moves to Austin, Mexico or China), the jobs leave, the service sector shrinks and the place is less prosperous. In the 10 years of the recovery from the Great Recession 50% of all the new jobs were created in just 30 counties in the US. Those cities prospered greatly and most of the rest of the country languished.

All this is to say that when I think about how economies work, I think in terms of jobs created and source of the money used to pay those employees. It does not address many of your concerns about wealth and capital ownership, but those issues are higher up in the model. To have a vibrant local economy you need certain things: skilled workers that match the current needs of companies; you need employers whose customers are outside the local (however you define it) economy and you need the lifestyle amenities that will attract and keep skilled workers.

 

[El_Machinae]

Let me test your bolded statement, BirdJaguar.
The economy of Earth cannot grow, because we are not bringing money (your proxy for trade in goods and services) in from outside of the Earth.

Your thesis was pretty good, it was just that one statement that leaps out. An economy can grow merely by increasing the efficiency of what you're calling service sector. Not necessarily quantity, but efficiency. This then frees up other resources in order to be re-tasked. How the profits are sorted is a different question, but the profits are created by the efficiency.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Let me test your bolded statement, BirdJaguar.
The economy of Earth cannot grow, because we are not bringing money (your proxy for trade in goods and services) in from outside of the Earth.

Your thesis was pretty good, it was just that one statement that leaps out. An economy can grow merely by increasing the efficiency of what you're calling service sector. Not necessarily quantity, but efficiency. This then frees up other resources in order to be re-tasked. How the profits are sorted is a different question, but the profits are created by the efficiency.

There is much more detail to it than can be conveyed in few hundred words, but I did list the key elements necessary to understand how it works. Also this isn't some speculative idea; it is how the world actually works and there is a whole model built around using it in real life. It does not address all the issues that socialism wants addressed, but it does very well with how one creates better jobs.

Now about your how does the earth economy grow? First we are not at the point where the planet is a single jurisdiction yet, but once we are, then bringing resources from off earth would be the path for growth. Those resources would allow for job growth and would be a proxy for dollars.

Importing goods and services, exports money to other economies so import substitution can be used to minimize exporting. For example if your small town doesn't have a Wal Mart, and the town 20 miles away does, then you can keep those exported dollars home by building your own Wal Mart or Costco. locals will shop at the new Costco rather than drive 20 miles to the Wal Mart.

This model also works when E<P and an economy is declining and provides ways to soften the blows or turn things around. And because it is jobs based, you can actually measure changes and results in real time.

Oh and on efficiency. Yes, more efficiency in the service sector would allow more service sector jobs allowing for a better multiplier to apply to each E-base job created.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As an additional note: the Chinese burst of prosperity over the past three decades was because of their growth in E-base jobs building goods to export to the US and Europe. That influx of non local (to China) money (created by E-base jobs) allowed a huge growth in their service sector. China prospered and reduced unemployment and raised its standard of living.

In the US we used to import all of our "foreign" cars from Europe and Asia. As foreign automakers built factories in the US we reduced our exported dollars and grew our service sector. If those new factories shipped any cars overseas, then those cars contribute to our E-base jobs. Once you get larger than a State jurisdiction things can get very complicated and sorting out all the details is difficult, but the principles remain true.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, I haven't finished the book yet and I'm hardly an expert on classical economics either, so it's just an impression. However, a big thing for Piketty is his second fundamental law of capitalism, which dictates that in the long run the ratio of capital over (national) income well be equal to the ratio of savings over economic growth or, B=s/g, which is an equation that has its origins in classical models. The notion of capital as a single countable whole is also very classical, even if he defines capital differently (as the financial value of all assets). He argues that as population and productivity growth shall return to the tepid pace that was common before the industrial revolution, the s/g ratio will shoot up and therefore the wealth/income ratio as well. The notion that technological change (from which productivity growth derives) is exogenous is again very classical and runs counter to the beliefs of institutional economists that technological change is endogenous and the result of secure property rights, impartial courts enforcing contracts, investments in education and healthcare etc.
He then argues that as the marginal product of capital (again a very classical notion) will fall proportionally less than the ratio of capital over income will increase. The return on capital comes from the marginal product on capital, so the end result will be that income from capital as a share overall income will inexorably rise, at the expense of income from labour.

It all feels very similar to how Marx would draw on the work of the classical economists of his time, using rigid models and tenuous assumptions. Moreover, he's completely bypassing the whole body of institutional economics (of which I've given an example higher up) in his analysis of prosperity and inequality.

My exposure to this level of technical economic study is admittedly limited, but isn't his tenuous assumptions using rigid models explaining the last 50 years of the relation between capital and labor pretty spot on. I mean it didn't get so much attention because it was ignorant of reality.

For fifty years in the US we have gone down a path that inevitably is leading to the volatility of property rights, impartial courts, and investments in education and healthcare. IE we are heading towards the very path institutional economist warn us against according to you hear and yet you seem to want to defend that course? Or am I just reading into your anti-marxism too much?

 

[Estebonrober]

If you read my post I made no mention of a market economy. I only said that socialism seemed to dismiss natural human inequity in its formulation of how things should work. But I see that rather talk about how socialism might solve the problem natural human inequity, you would rather just distract with a retreat to a class warfare attack on what is not part of the conversation.

I am trying to understand how a firmly socialist position handles an important question about human biology.

Why don't you start a thread on the good and bad of market economies and folks might address your concerns.

EDIT: I just learned that "bell curve" is trigger for socialists. Good to know. Does that mean all bell curves are fake? Or that I just should not use the term?

This entire post seems disingenuous. Natural human inequity is not an excuse for exploitation and abuse and its is used as such even by you throughout this thread. Everything is class warfare especially your takes on market economies tyvm.

The trigger is not the bell curve itself (and no, its not a trigger for all socialists by any means obviously), its that you are using it in a Darwinian capitalist narrative that provides the excuse for exploitation and abuse of humans.

To all involved in this conversation, where is the shortage of labor around the world for any job?

 

[Estebonrober]

I don't doubt that there are be ways that socialism can find to address many of the points I raised. I would think that many of those answer are known and socialists have already come to grips with them. I'd be happy hear what they are.

Let me clarify a few things about the context of my thinking.

An economy: a defined jurisdiction from small town to metro to county to state to nation that can be measured in terms of money (dollars moving through the jurisdiction) or as jobs.
Jobs: jobs come in two types: service sector and E-Base, Service sector jobs are jobs that are paid for by local money circulating in an economy. E-base jobs are jobs that are paid for by money coming from outside the jurisdiction.

Unless you are in a tourist town, restaurants, drug stores, laundromats, locksmiths, retail shops etc. are all service sector jobs. A manufacturer who ships product out of the jurisdiction is an E-base employer. A internet company that has customers elsewhere is an E-base company. When 800,000 people visit Albuquerque for Balloon Fiesta every restaurant, gas station, retailer becomes an E-base company for two weeks. E-base jobs bring new money into an economy. Disney World is an E-base employer for Florida and Orlando. An Indian casino is an E-base employer for the owning tribe that collect money from non Indians.You cannot grow an economy by expanding the service sector. If that were true, you could grow an economy by building 10,000 car washes.

To grow an economy you have to grow the e-base jobs/revenue faster than the population. This is how a place gets more prosperous. As the E-base jobs grow, it can support more service sector jobs. When Amazon builds a warehouse in Austin, it creates E-base jobs there (because Amazon money collected from all over the world pays the salaries). Austin gets more prosperous because new money enters the economy. More restaurants open, move people need dry cleaning and new underwear.

When an E-base company leaves a community (moves to Austin, Mexico or China), the jobs leave, the service sector shrinks and the place is less prosperous. In the 10 years of the recovery from the Great Recession 50% of all the new jobs were created in just 30 counties in the US. Those cities prospered greatly and most of the rest of the country languished.

All this is to say that when I think about how economies work, I think in terms of jobs created and source of the money used to pay those employees. It does not address many of your concerns about wealth and capital ownership, but those issues are higher up in the model. To have a vibrant local economy you need certain things: skilled workers that match the current needs of companies; you need employers whose customers are outside the local (however you define it) economy and you need the lifestyle amenities that will attract and keep skilled workers.

Under earth bound reality as it stands this is not sustainable. I get the idea behind it, but we need to start thinking about how to make this less relevant and learn how to adapt out of it.

 

[Crezth]

I like it, but it's currently untested. Socialist revolution struggles with trade, and not just because of power imbalance. Because of interdependency of trade (which can even be of mutual benefit), the process of dismantling your economy means that your populace is not only losing out on local production, but is also losing out on any benefits from the trade. Capital flight has this weird binary status of being damaging and completely inconsequential. And the risk of brain-drain is real. It's a double-whammy. The ability of the socialist utopia being able to eventually outperform others is also currently unproven. China, obviously, could really have a shot at that soon. But we'll then see if they dismantle the oppression; whether the people choose to flee or it attracts migrants will (I think) be the implicit judge there.

Untested, unproven, sure. For all anyone knows there's nothing to look forward to. In the big scheme of things capitalism and industrial civilization in general is still young. The purpose of Marxist analysis is to determine where the capitalist road leads. Frankly that means a lot of the evidence will only be unearthed by the passage of time. How will America deal with its powerful capitalist class? How will its political system evolve to deny their influence? How will the economy survive when the people can no longer afford to buy goods? How will the workers reclaim a shred of dignity? Well, I have my views.

Something I do want to share with you as long as we're talking about socialist performance: Harvard recently published a study they completed 4 years ago examining the Chinese situation over the past couple decades. What they found was that not only had the approval rating of the government gone up, satisfaction with the outcomes of interaction with local officials had increased, satisfaction had mostly gone up among rural and urban poor with the biggest increases being in the peripheral/underserved regions, public services have been greatly re-expanded from the Iron Rice Bowl, and 2/3 of Chinese feel motivated to publicly protest against the government for the environment. It certainly paints a different picture of life under socialism and the possibility of growth and change.

 

[Lexicus]

Thank you. Sometimes a person needs to learn what not to say in order to prevent the other person losing the ability to converse. Unfortunate to lose such a clear term.

I don't know what's meant by 'need markets', but any proposed system has to factor in that there's a spread of capability in people.

If you read my post I made no mention of a market economy. I only said that socialism seemed to dismiss natural human inequity in its formulation of how things should work. But I see that rather talk about how socialism might solve the problem natural human inequity, you would rather just distract with a retreat to a class warfare attack on what is not part of the conversation.

I am trying to understand how a firmly socialist position handles an important question about human biology.

Why don't you start a thread on the good and bad of market economies and folks might address your concerns.

EDIT: I just learned that "bell curve" is trigger for socialists. Good to know. Does that mean all bell curves are fake? Or that I just should not use the term?

I haven't "lost my ability to converse,", nor am I 'triggered' by the mention of a bell curve, thank you very much. I'm simply pointing things out that liberals may not like to hear.

The reactionary pro-market argument is that markets are inevitable/desirable because they, to use your terminology, "factor in that there's a spread of capability in people." What this means in plain language is that the market is a type of social organization that allows people to rise in society according to their worth. Janitors get paid very little because they are worth very little; conversely, CEOs get paid a lot because they're worth a lot.

There is just no way to reconcile such a defense of markets with other Enlightenment concepts supposedly held dear by liberals, like a belief in basic human equality.

I mean, here we have Birdjaguar literally saying socialism is impossible because humans are biologically unequal. I see very little difference between an argument like this and someone saying, circa 1845, that abolishing slavery wouldn't accomplish anything because black people are biologically incapable of appreciating or using freedom.

These are the classic arguments of reactionaries, since time out of mind. Humans are "naturally" unequal (or, depending on the specific flavor of reaction, human inequality is ordained by the Divine Authorities) and so petty attempt to "reform society" are doomed as they run up against the fact that social inequality is actually just a reproduction of this 'natural', in this case biological, inequality.