How should an economy be structured?

[Mouthwash]

Sometimes. I'm not under the impression that external exile is a particularly common tool used by states today, though. I suppose I could be wrong about that. I can think of an example off the top of my head: Osama bin Laden, iirc, was basically exiled from Saudi Arabia.

Well, think about it this way: how would things be different if Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia were part of the US? Or if the entire world were part of the US?

Any opposing force would come from within that state's own society. They couldn't be driven out because there would be nowhere to go to.

 

[Lexicus]

What do you mean by tankies? I've never heard that term before.

Its origin is in the late '50s from the Communist Party in the UK, those who supported the Soviet Union's 1956 invasion of Hungary were called "tankies" by those who did not. The term now broadly refers to anyone who denies or justifies (in my experience, tankies are capable of oscillating between the two with lightning speed so that sometimes you can't tell which they're doing at any given moment) the crimes of Marxist-Leninist regimes.

Purely by coincidence, today on my Facebook this meme came up as a "memory" from 1 year ago:

(that's a picture of Stalin shaking hands with Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop).

Well, think about it this way: how would things be different if Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia were part of the US? Or if the entire world were part of the US?

Any opposing force would come from within that state's own society. They couldn't be driven out because there would be nowhere to go to.

I suppose you're right, but the US is certainly not in the habit of exiling political dissidents. I also don't quite see how this relates to the trade union/class conflict thing Traitorfish was talking about.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's telling that you feel the need to use this kind of euphemistic language, isn't it? You're talking about extrajudicial executions. If you're going to defend something, at least call it what it is.

I think defending something is different from not wanting to utterly condemn it from a perspective removed from its motivation. Governments are all bad, every single one, and every single one of them is built on violence; they can’t operate without it. Again, I’ll restate that I don’t support any regime with a leader and a bureaucracy, including ML ones. But when a government is fighting against oppressive people, especially ones organized with the intent to establish or re-establish oppression over some poor or otherwise downtrodden group, I support that government in its fight. I mean Christ, I even support the US during WWII, given the fact they were literally fighting the Nazis. It’s the same principle; supporters of the Batista regime were, literally, fascists, and reactionary groups in Cuba that tried to perpetuate capitalism after the revolution needed to be stopped, expelled or imprisoned. I wouldn’t ever support summary execution myself but I recognize the fact that the passion of a popular movement boils over sometimes, and if justice comes from anywhere it should come from the people. This is not so much support for Castro’s regime or for the institution of authoritarian government as it is denunciation of oppressive and reactionary forces who actively and violently resisted a popular revolution. I care only for the people, the bourgeois classes that oppress them should face justice even if that justice has to come from a stinky government, especially if that stinky government has popular support.

Now, just to be clear about where I stand here, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many of the Cubans who escaped Castro have very bad politics (though very few were genuinely "fascists"). Many of them were/are racist. Many were wealthy or petit-bourgeois. I just don't think any of these facts mean it's right to just kill them all or call them "worms." And it disgusts me that you evidently disagree.

I think it’s fine to call them worms, I don’t think it’s fine to kill them. But of course recognizing the fact that I’m ill qualified to pass judgement on a revolution which has demonstrably improved the lives of the working class despite violent and organized opposition from more or less the entire American bloc is equivalent to personally lining them up on the wall and killing them.

Like, disgusts me to the point that I think there is very little to distinguish you from a fascist.

Ah, yes, full circle. Here I am being called a fascist for... what exactly? Not wanting to outright condemn the actions of a popular movement just because they might make me a little queasy? Even coming from someone who has outlined why political violence isn’t a qualifier to call someone a fascist, let alone literally being slightly ambivalent towards political violence.

I’m not a tankie, I probably find more arguments with tankies than anybody else. But I do find myself “defending” (read: not wanting to ignorantly dismiss) the actions of people I’ve never met against capitalists installed there by the imperialism of the country I live in from liberals who wish so badly to condemn and illegitimize them. Self-crit sometime and make sure you don’t only support Nazi punching when it comes from brave American soldiers and college students.

 

[onejayhawk]

Wasn't this thread about the economy at some point?

J

 

[inthesomeday]

Wasn't this thread about the economy at some point?

J

Yes, yes it was, sorry. The entire reason I brought up Cuba at all is because I generally detest the presentation of the Nordic countries as some sort of perfect economic model. Without the exploitation of third world manufacturing and labor they couldn’t live how they do, so proposing intranational social democracy as any sort of viable global model doesn’t work at all except how it does already: for some privileged group of nations either exploiting or withholding resources from others because of the global concentration of agriculture and manufacturing.

 

[Mouthwash]

I suppose you're right, but the US is certainly not in the habit of exiling political dissidents. I also don't quite see how this relates to the trade union/class conflict thing Traitorfish was talking about.

Well, there wouldn't be the option of exploiting foreign workers to feed your economy. Any oppressed underclass would be internal.

Basically, I'm thinking that if one of Marxism's main stumbling blocks (nationalism) were to be removed, the whole thing becomes much more plausible.

 

[Lexicus]

I think defending something is different from not wanting to utterly condemn it from a perspective removed from its motivation.

Nah, I think extrajudicial execution is something to "utterly condemn" from any perspective. There is no legitimate "motivation" for such action.

It’s the same principle; supporters of the Batista regime were, literally, fascists, and reactionary groups in Cuba that tried to perpetuate capitalism after the revolution needed to be stopped, expelled or imprisoned.

In other words, secret police, torture chambers, and concentration camps are totally understandable when the people in charge claim to be acting on behalf of the working class.

I mean Christ, I even support the US during WWII, given the fact they were literally fighting the Nazis.

So tell me, do you justify US war crimes in that conflict on the basis that the victims were just fascists anyway? Because what you said above isn't really the equivalent of "critical support" for the US in its war against fascism (incidentally, the US entered the war less to fight the fascists than to protect its own imperial interests, but we'll leave that aside for now). What you said is the equivalent of responding to someone pointing out that the US dropped the atom bomb on Japanese civilians with "well that angle doesn't really work since all the people killed by the bombs were fascists and Japs anyway".

But of course recognizing the fact that I’m ill qualified to pass judgement on a revolution which has demonstrably improved the lives of the working class despite violent and organized opposition from more or less the entire American bloc is equivalent to personally lining them up on the wall and killing them.

Regurgitating the state's propaganda on the subject of the killings might even be worse than personally lining them up and killing them. One can be done by clueless privileged Westerners with no real idea of what they're supporting; the other at least takes some tolerance for blood on your shoes.

Here I am being called a fascist for... what exactly?

Failing to condemn vicious offenses against human rights because the people committing the offenses wave red flags and say the kinds of slogans you like to hear. Hell, it goes beyond "failing to condemn." You're literally apologizing for mass murder by applying a dehumanizing term to the victims.

Self-crit sometime and make sure you don’t only support Nazi punching when it comes from brave American soldiers and college students.

Self-crit, interesting, haven't heard that one in a while. I thought it had mostly fallen out of favor due to its association with cultish Maoism. Anyway, this sort of presentation of a trope in lieu of any actual historical analysis is quite beneath you.

Yes, yes it was, sorry. The entire reason I brought up Cuba at all is because I generally detest the presentation of the Nordic countries as some sort of perfect economic model. Without the exploitation of third world manufacturing and labor they couldn’t live how they do, so proposing intranational social democracy as any sort of viable global model doesn’t work at all except how it does already: for some privileged group of nations either exploiting or withholding resources from others because of the global concentration of agriculture and manufacturing.

No one was presenting the Nordics as some kind of perfect economic model. The Nordics are a far more relevant and effective political rallying-cry than Castro's Cuba, though. Leaving aside all the ideology for a moment, from a purely practical standpoint, which do you think is going to get more Americans to listen to you: "we want our country to be more like Scandinavia," or "we want our country to be more like Cuba"?

Using countries like Cuba and the Nordics as examples of how we want an economy structured makes perfect sense in this thread. Cuba's economy is structured essentially as a series of state monopolies on productive enterprise - not, in my view, a very good way to structure an economy, though admittedly one that makes a lot more sense if you are facing a lot of the same kinds of challenges the Castro regime was facing when it took power. It makes no sense at all, however, for a mature economy like the US to adopt such a model.

Well, there wouldn't be the option of exploiting foreign workers to feed your economy. Any oppressed underclass would be internal.

Basically, I'm thinking that if one of Marxism's main stumbling blocks (nationalism) were to be removed, the whole thing becomes much more plausible.

I don't really know what you mean by "Marxism" here. "Marxism" isn't a political project.

 

[inthesomeday]

Alright, I’m done if you’re gonna compare gusano to Jap, sorry

 

[Lexicus]

Alright, I’m done if you’re gonna compare gusano to Jap, sorry

Just like torture and murder, some ethnic slurs have a proletarian class character

 

[Traitorfish]

You are quite right! I suppose I should have been more clear, but I was referring specifically to the US Constitutional Republic.

"Constitutional republic" just means that you made up a bunch of rules that tell you how you're allowed to make up additional rules. You can change all of those rules tomorrow, if you wished. You're still grasping for a higher authority that doesn't exist.

I believe he was referring to what he might consider an ethical government.

Okay, well, there's your first problem.

Surely this would be easier within a single state than in an international system?

Quite possibly it would, but the reality is that we live in an international system, rather than in a single state. Capital does, at any rate. The cudgel of capital flight is often wielded against any attempt to decrease socieconomic inequality, and while it's exaggerated- WalMart can't just pick up and move operations to China, how that even work?- it hits on an inescapable truth, that capital is an international class, that capitalism is an international system, that national governments, nation-states themselves, are the tools of capital rather than a constraint upon it.

Just like torture and murder, some ethnic slurs have a proletarian class character

You'll pry the phrase "dirty great Hun" out of my cold, dead hands.

 

[caketastydelish]

• I think we should let the Jews handle it. And I mean that non-sarcastically, in a non-antisemetic way. I mean seriously, they are the best at handling it. They don't get promoted/elected to those positions because of "corruptions" but because they are just the best at it. The Germans got rid of the Jews running their money in WW2. Fat load of good that did their economy. Ditto for the Spanish during the Spanish Inquisition. Yes the Jews are running the money, but there's a reason it's them in the first place. It's that they're better at it than we are, not that they "cheat". Suck it up and deal with it.

Moderator Action: Singling out specific people with a generalization might be offensive to some, particularly a stereotypical generalization like you've made here. Be mindful of what you post. --LM

 

[inthesomeday]

You'll pry the phrase "dirty great Hun" out of my cold, dead hands.

You... fascist

 

[Mise]

At the risk of sounding like a cleverdick, I'm not convinced there is any "should", so far as it comes to the structure of the economy, at least not one that can be imposed from above. Economies are moving, changing things, there's no perfect order, not even a distant future into which the economy might grow. I'm more concerned with who gets to structure the economy, who is allowed to shape the movement and the change.

The root problem of capitalism is not simply that it is inefficient or acquisitive or even inhumane (and it is all of those things), but that it excludes the great majority of people from any really significant role in decision-making. The great majority of people are no longer producers, they are a factor in production, like a wrench or a barrel of oil. Any movement towards a human-centred economy is going to have to begin at that level.

But that is structuring the economy. You're saying our economic structure should involve more union participation (or ownership), because this is more equitable. And that can be imposed from above. They're doing something similar in a lot of countries now, e.g. in South Africa they have BEE.

I don't know why I'm nitpicking on this because it isn't substantial to your argument or position. I guess I just don't understand your reluctance to stick your neck out. If you want more labour-owned companies (or more prosaically, companies whose decision-making bodies have greater worker representation) then there's not much stopping you from making that a reality. Especially when we have Jeremy Corbyn as the Prime Minister in waiting. There is no better time than now to stand up and say "we want to restructure the economy in favour of the people who do the work, rather than those who already have a lot of money" (or something more pithy, perhaps). This is the time for it! And you know, I'd never write JC's manifesto, but I and millions of other left-centrists like me would sure as hell vote for it. I'm not sure what you're waiting for.

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't really know what you mean by "Marxism" here. "Marxism" isn't a political project.

It isn't one, correct, but many political projects were based off of its claims.

Quite possibly it would, but the reality is that we live in an international system, rather than in a single state. Capital does, at any rate. The cudgel of capital flight is often wielded against any attempt to decrease socieconomic inequality, and while it's exaggerated- WalMart can't just pick up and move operations to China, how that even work?- it hits on an inescapable truth, that capital is an international class, that capitalism is an international system, that national governments, nation-states themselves, are the tools of capital rather than a constraint upon it.

See, that's the mistake. I think that capitalism is a byproduct of national division, not the cause, and any attempt to eliminate things like ethnicity and religion is going to fare as well as cutting off your nose to keep from sneezing.

 

[Lexicus]

See, that's the mistake. I think that capitalism is a byproduct of national division, not the cause, and any attempt to eliminate things like ethnicity and religion is going to fare as well as cutting off your nose to keep from sneezing.

He didn't say capitalism is the cause of national division as far as I can tell.

"Constitutional republic" just means that you made up a bunch of rules that tell you how you're allowed to make up additional rules. You can change all of those rules tomorrow, if you wished. You're still grasping for a higher authority that doesn't exist.

What?? Everyone knows the US Constitution was written by God.

 

[Mouthwash]

He didn't say capitalism is the cause of national division as far as I can tell.

He came pretty close, and I believe it's a tenet of Marxism? Either way, TF once told me that he doesn't think national identity would persist after a worker's revolution, so by corollary it must have been created by capitalism.

 

[Lexicus]

I believe it's a tenet of Marxism?

...no? Not that I know of anyway. I mean, I know there are some "Marxists" out there who attribute literally everything they don't like to capitalism, but I think most non-dogmatic Marxists would say that national divisions predate capitalism, and so cannot be an 'effect' of it. Of course, the form of the modern national state is largely a function of capitalism, but national divisions themselves? No.

Either way, TF once told me that he doesn't think national identity would persist after a worker's revolution, so by corollary it must have been created by capitalism.

That doesn't follow, though. It could as easily be conceived of as a remnant of the pre-capitalist past that will nonetheless be swept away by the revolution.
Of course, my own view is that all the talk of what will and won't persist after the "worker's revolution" is not only a waste of time, it actually sets the left back as it gets us thinking about society in terms of counterproductive ideal types and other kinds of nonsense. This is why, for example, time is wasted on the left debating seriously such issues as whether "ending capitalism will end racism". It's a silly debate the springs from commitments to theoretical positions that turn the messy reality into Platonic ideal types. Don't get me wrong, it's fine to get down with Platonic ideal types but ultimately they're like Duplos. You'll eventually want to move on to the much more intricate LEGO pieces.

 

[Traitorfish]

But that is structuring the economy. You're saying our economic structure should involve more union participation (or ownership), because this is more equitable. And that can be imposed from above. They're doing something similar in a lot of countries now, e.g. in South Africa they have BEE.

I don't know why I'm nitpicking on this because it isn't substantial to your argument or position. I guess I just don't understand your reluctance to stick your neck out. If you want more labour-owned companies (or more prosaically, companies whose decision-making bodies have greater worker representation) then there's not much stopping you from making that a reality. Especially when we have Jeremy Corbyn as the Prime Minister in waiting. There is no better time than now to stand up and say "we want to restructure the economy in favour of the people who do the work, rather than those who already have a lot of money" (or something more pithy, perhaps). This is the time for it! And you know, I'd never write JC's manifesto, but I and millions of other left-centrists like me would sure as hell vote for it. I'm not sure what you're waiting for.

No, it's a fair criticism. I suppose I should clarify that I'm taking "structure" to mean something more specific than just "more unions, less toffs". It's a question of what kind of work people do and how they do, as much as who's name is on the deed. For example, I'd imagine that a post-capitalist economy would see a sharp decrease in people doing "service work", a lot of which exists simply as ground-level management of capitalism. (My own current job produces basically zero social good, perhaps negative social good.)

In part, this is because the outcome I'd like to see is by definition democratic and participatory, so people are going to need to figure out any such structure for themselves. I don't expect that a participatory economy would be more just simply because I trust in the wisdom of crowds (I'm agnostic on that point) but because a just economy is definitionally a participatory one- popular participation isn't just a practical condition for economic justice, it's what makes an economy just. So, all you can commit to blueprints is the means by which justice might be achieved, rather than justice itself.

As for my reluctance to commit to any program- you might say I'm just a pessimist, at least so far as we're talking about the sorts of institutions such a program might refer to. I don't have any real faith in the state, or the Labour Party, to make good on even the moderate promises it's likely to make. Not unless they're forced to do so. We couldn't make even the moderate vision of Attlee stick in 1945, with an avowedly socialist government, a powerful trade union movement, and the looming specter of Communist revolution- what makes us think we'll make it stick in 2022? To put it simply, if socialism was just around the corner, it would have happened by now.

See, that's the mistake. I think that capitalism is a byproduct of national division, not the cause, and any attempt to eliminate things like ethnicity and religion is going to fare as well as cutting off your nose to keep from sneezing.

Capitalism does pretty well in multiethnic or multinational states, though. Like at the British Empire; minimum of four distinct ethnic groups in the metropole and dozens if not hundreds of further groups brought under the imperial yoke. The tendency towards nationalism is irregular and often self-rationalising; a particular group of people find themselves under a common government, or under seperate governments, and as many "nations" are invented as are required to make that whole situation seem reasonable. Else, how could we reach a situation by which Kurds and Azeris and Balochs are part of an "Iranian nation", but the Persians of Russian Bukhara turn out to be members of a wholly separate and distinct "Tajik nation"?

He came pretty close, and I believe it's a tenet of Marxism? Either way, TF once told me that he doesn't think national identity would persist after a worker's revolution, so by corollary it must have been created by capitalism.

I don't think it was create by capitalism, in so many words. I think both are products of the same forces, the shift to modernity, essentially. I think that capitalism has done more to structure nationalism than the other way around, because the former could impose concrete realities on the latter which the latter could never really return, not in any enduring way. My belief that nations are not likely to persist in a socialist society is because I think nations- as opposed to ethnicities, or cultures- are bound up with the state, or at least a particular version of the state which doesn't really make sense, as an institution, outside of the framework of a capitalist society.

 

[Lexicus]

For example, I'd imagine that a post-capitalist economy would see a sharp decrease in people doing "service work", a lot of which exists simply as ground-level management of capitalism. (My own current job produces basically zero social good, perhaps negative social good.)

That's interesting, because I actually imagine the opposite. Though I envision the service sector becoming dominated more by 'care' work than by 'administrative' work, which I'm assuming is what you're referring to as producing negative social good. But as more and more "socially necessary production" is automated as part of the ongoing process of capital accumulation etc, it seems inevitable that we will need to center more of our jobs around taking care of each other rather than around producing things.

As for my reluctance to commit to any program- you might say I'm just a pessimist, at least so far as we're talking about the sorts of institutions such a program might refer to. I don't have any real faith in the state, or the Labour Party, to make good on even the moderate promises it's likely to make. Not unless they're forced to do so. We couldn't make even the moderate vision of Attlee stick in 1945, with an avowedly socialist government, a powerful trade union movement, and the looming specter of Communist revolution- what makes us think we'll make it stick in 2022? To put it simply, if socialism was just around the corner, it would have happened by now.

To my way of thinking, it has happened. As you put it in another thread not so long ago, the socialization of production is just a fact. I could make a more detailed argument involving some citations from Capital Volume III but I think the real issue there is that socialism is not the utopia many people expected (or still expect) it to be. The socialization of production hasn't even brought about the destruction of the capitalist class, though it laid the foundation for that destruction by making the "capitalist" a totally useless figure, a pure parasite who contributes absolutely nothing whatever to any productive process.

 

[Mise]

No, it's a fair criticism. I suppose I should clarify that I'm taking "structure" to mean something more specific than just "more unions, less toffs". It's a question of what kind of work people do and how they do, as much as who's name is on the deed. For example, I'd imagine that a post-capitalist economy would see a sharp decrease in people doing "service work", a lot of which exists simply as ground-level management of capitalism. (My own current job produces basically zero social good, perhaps negative social good.)

In part, this is because the outcome I'd like to see is by definition democratic and participatory, so people are going to need to figure out any such structure for themselves. I don't expect that a participatory economy would be more just simply because I trust in the wisdom of crowds (I'm agnostic on that point) but because a just economy is definitionally a participatory one- popular participation isn't just a practical condition for economic justice, it's what makes an economy just. So, all you can commit to blueprints is the means by which justice might be achieved, rather than justice itself.

As for my reluctance to commit to any program- you might say I'm just a pessimist, at least so far as we're talking about the sorts of institutions such a program might refer to. I don't have any real faith in the state, or the Labour Party, to make good on even the moderate promises it's likely to make. Not unless they're forced to do so. We couldn't make even the moderate vision of Attlee stick in 1945, with an avowedly socialist government, a powerful trade union movement, and the looming specter of Communist revolution- what makes us think we'll make it stick in 2022? To put it simply, if socialism was just around the corner, it would have happened by now.

FWIW I agree that a future Labour government (whether it's JC in charge or, perhaps, someone more able) wouldn't do half the things they said they'd do, and only do half the other half. But doing 25% of a manifesto that gets 10% of the way to your ideal future is still better than doing 0% of a manifesto, or doing any % in the wrong direction. I guess this really is just a personality thing because I'm finding it difficult to see it from your POV. Even I'm excited about the prospect of bringing public services back in-house, or having a nationalised rail franchise on one or two lines, just to see if it is a good idea after all, if it can provide a template for future re-nationalisations, perhaps in other industries, etc. And if I was fully committed to the goal of bringing all this stuff under worker ownership, I'd expect I'd be even more excited, even if I knew that 75% of it would be rolled back the next time the public feel like "it's time for a change". We all know this stuff isn't going to stick, that socialism isn't right around the corner, and that the Tories will tear it all down anyway, but small steps are better than no steps at all. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good!