Which of these two you agree or disagree with and why?
y deja que mi alma se- pierda en- tus riachuelos
para buscar la fuente que te robó de niño
y en un ímpetu loco te devolvió al sendero.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
late wrote:A realistic discussion is what mix of public and private would work best in a particular economy. But that wouldn't be easy.
No, it would be easy.
late wrote:You can go down the list. Fixing education would be a doddle were it not for the fact that Americans either loathe or despise education reform.
Have you been watching the craziness in the primaries. Medicare for All would save the country a ton of money. But it has too many enemies, so all you hear is BS.
Modern economies are mixed. Meaning a mix of public and private. There is no choice there, a modern economy is a dance between business, government and knowledge institutions.
Look at the history of England.
That makes that debate a bit academic. Even if there is a new way to organise a country, a debate is not where you would want to introduce the idea.
IOW, this turns economic understanding into the old, boring, chicken v egg argument. You can't have chickens without eggs, and vice versa.
A realistic discussion is what mix of public and private would work best in a particular economy. But that wouldn't be easy.
Also in the direction of B0ycey's line, I'll note that one's own private sphere is just *too small* to effect any significant economic participation -- and if the enterprise gets large enough, as with corporations, then it should all be *socialized* into the hands of the workers, so it can be operated as a public concern and institution.
One way of visualizing this was stated at a post some time ago over on the now-defunct RevLeft discussion forum -- I made a graphic out of it at the time, showing that major productive facilities could benefit *everyone* through the communistic gift-economy, but there could be controlled-backsliding to lesser forms, including the market-mechanism, especially for less-common, more-specialized types of production:
Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy
The image in the link was too small for me to read.
I'd have to see the specifics.
Yeah, for any image that I post just click on it to be taken to the image-hosting site -- you can then 'Download original image' and use an image viewer on your computer to zoom in and out and scroll around that full-sized image at your leisure.
Read it, not sure I understood it. Seems to be talking about a command economy that has a degree of local control.
Not really a fan of command economies.
Of course not -- *no one* should be a fan of state-capitalism-type strongman regimes from 20th century history.
The tricky part, though, is that *some* kind of centralization has to take place for any move away from the hands-off market mechanism, because certain *standards* would have to be consistently upheld over wide expanses of geography.
As pro-centralization as I am, though, I don't think that a global-scale centralization over a worldwide workers' control of production could just be inserted-in, necessarily in a top-down kind of way, because then that would be a *specialization* of social administration over collective production, which would necessarily be state-like and class-like -- a societal schism -- and thus bureaucratic elitism.
So, yeah, this 'Multi-Tiered' illustration shows that centralization could initially happen -- not fully -- but in *emergent*, bottom-up kinds of ways, with increasing consolidation over greater and greater geography, over time, without resorting to separatist, specialist, bureaucratic administration.
Recall that the only "alternative" to a bottom-up approach is the Wolffian 'commune' approach of localist workers-owned cooperatives, which isn't even anti-capitalist -- it *retains* private property and exchange values for property valuations, and would only recreate capitalist balkanization, just at an inter-communal level, necessitating exchange values for intercommunal economics of any kind.
I advocate my own 'labor credits' model for a post-capitalist communist-type political economy, which *surpasses* commodity production altogether while addressing all concerns over potential post-capitalist political and economic dynamics:
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'
Labor credits Frequently Asked Questions
https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions
I tried to read your post at RevLeft. Didn't really understand it.
I'd like to see regulation to limit income inequality. I could see requiring labor having a seat on the board. I wouldn't object to part of the increase in pay come in the form of stocks or partial direct ownership.
I could even see giving the UN authority to regulate aspects of commerce, starting with carbon emissions.
Like I said, specifics.
money needs to be abolished
You need a system that is an order of magnitude more sophisticated to replace it.
What it seems like I am seeing is something less sophisticated.
"I" need a system... -- ?
As though my life in the capitalist world is significantly different than anyone else within these same circumstances -- !
Now *you're* beginning to be vague in your meanings, which is certainly not-specific.
Again, take a look at the model framework illustration I've provided, and at the FAQ link, for more detail. Take your time with it, and report-back any concerns or issues you may have with the particulars.
Tainari88 wrote:I liked listening to this debate between my favorite Marxist economist Richard Wolff and a prominent Capitalist expert:
Which of these two you agree or disagree with and why?
This is fucking disgusting. Hard times bring out […]
Drlee, will you be supporting Senator Sanders if […]
I agree with Ardern. Traditionally Australia and N[…]
There's definitely a difference between austerity […]