[ckaihatsu]

The cause of inequality is circumventing the feedback process of no work, no eat,

Would you level this kind of accusation at *all* of government -- note that nation-state personnel do not themselves produce any commodities (goods and services), for people's needs and wants. They 'administrate', for better or for worse.

Do you politically support this kind of non-commodity-productive *statism*, BS -- ?

which leads to people not appreciating the money they spend because it's provided by an innocent bystander (the tax payer) and using legislation as a weapon to drive competitive enterprise away.

Actually it's *machines* that bring food to the table. No bullshit BS moral pipeline.


Top 10 Agriculture Machines Videos

[ckaihatsu]

Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

[Potemkin]

The cause of inequality is circumventing the feedback process of no work, no eat, which leads to people not appreciating the money they spend because it's provided by an innocent bystander (the tax payer) and using legislation as a weapon to drive competitive enterprise away.

“He who does not work, neither does he eat.” Stalin called this “the fundamental slogan of socialism”. He was correct, of course. The slogan means an end to all forms of social and economic parasitism. After all, what ‘work’ does an upper-class person who lives off the dividends of their stock portfolio do? Yet they eat very well indeed.

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, Class Cold Warrior (BS), I just *found* something -- looks like domestic farming's practically *nationalized*, as things are:

The agricultural policy of the United States is composed primarily of the periodically renewed federal U.S. farm bills. The Farm Bills have a rich history which initially sought to provide income and price support to US farmers and prevent them from adverse global as well as local supply and demand shocks. This implied an elaborate subsidy program which supports domestic production by either direct payments or through price support measures. The former incentivizes farmers to grow certain crops which are eligible for such payments through environmentally conscientious practices of farming. The latter protects farmers from vagaries of price fluctuations by ensuring a minimum price and fulfilling their shortfalls in revenue upon a fall in price. Lately, there are other measures through which the government encourages crop insurance and pays part of the premium for such insurance against various unanticipated outcomes in agriculture.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture[1]

"U.S. agricultural policy—often simply called farm policy—generally follows a 5-year legislative cycle that produces a wide-ranging “Farm Bill.” Farm Bills, or Farm Acts, govern programs related to farming, food and nutrition, and rural communities, as well as aspects of bioenergy and forestry. The most recent of these Farm Bills, the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), authorizes policies in the areas of commodity programs and crop insurance, conservation on agricultural lands, agricultural trade (including foreign food assistance), nutrition (primarily domestic food assistance), farm credit, rural economic development, agricultural research, State and private forestry, bioenergy, and horticulture and organic agriculture. The 2018 Farm Bill replaces the 2014 Farm Bill, in place from 2014 through 2018."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultu ... ted_States

[ckaihatsu]

Guess ya didn't *know* that, huh -- ?


x D

[ckaihatsu]

The *early 1800s* just called, and they want their timeline back....


x D

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, wait, just *one* more....


'Yew war think-ink farm-dollar-*rouble*, maybe -- ?'


x D

[ckaihatsu]

On the *realsies*, though, remember *this* part, and why U.S. (or Chinese) economic nationalism / retrenchment, is *yet another* dead-end -- ?

[F]or capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali ... Capitalism

[Unthinking Majority]

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/vladimir_lenin_136421

Vladimir Lenin said that before he died in 1923

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[Pants-of-dog]

It depends on how strictly you define socialism and communism, but yes, it should lead to communism.

[Potemkin]

It depends on how strictly you define socialism and communism, but yes, it should lead to communism.

Socialism, just like capitalism, is designed for an economy based on scarcity. Everyone must, or at least, should, do productive work before they can eat - that is, they must contribute to the social wealth at least as many resources as they take from it. Hence the fundamental slogan of socialism: “ He who does not work, neither shall he eat”. This means, of course, eliminating all forms of social and economic parasitism, such as people who refuse to work and live by petty crime, as well as those who live off investments and personal property and do no productive work themselves.

This is clearly not ideal, and in no sense can be called a “workers’ paradise”. It is more equitable and just than capitalism, since it has eliminated parasitism, but it is still an economy based on scarcity.

Communism is the next step, and requires an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity. And communism has its own “fundamental slogan”: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” This would be the highest possible form of social and economic organisation.

[ckaihatsu]

Socialism, just like capitalism, is designed for an economy based on scarcity. Everyone must, or at least, should, do productive work before they can eat - that is, they must contribute to the social wealth at least as many resources as they take from it. Hence the fundamental slogan of socialism: “ He who does not work, neither shall he eat”. This means, of course, eliminating all forms of social and economic parasitism, such as people who refuse to work and live by petty crime, as well as those who live off investments and personal property and do no productive work themselves.

This is clearly not ideal, and in no sense can be called a “workers’ paradise”. It is more equitable and just than capitalism, since it has eliminated parasitism, but it is still an economy based on scarcity.

Communism is the next step, and requires an economy based on abundance rather than scarcity. And communism has its own “fundamental slogan”: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” This would be the highest possible form of social and economic organisation.

I'll argue, Potemkin, that both the *ethos*, *and* the structure of socialism / communism, are better suited to a material economics / reality of *satisfaction* / fulfillment, across-the-board, rather than one of market-driven, industry-constrained 'relieving-scarcity'. Socialism and communism are obviously more egalitarian-minded, and egalitarian, in their outlook and distribution of social production.

I really think that the market mechanism is *better* suited to addressing a situation of material scarcity, but it *quickly* accomplishes that task, yet continues to operate in 'primitive-accumulation' mode, mindlessly extracting ever-more surplus labor value, despite now-accomplished conditions of material *abundance*. (Consider that the market only deals with *economic* demand, and not actual, organic *human* need, as for the basics of modern life and living -- *economic* demand is quickly satiated, as for *luxury* production, but anything speculatively produced and unsold is meant to be *destroyed* in practice so as to keep it off the market, to prevent such speculative surplus overproduction from pulling prices / values down.)

Capitalism mechanically enforces its *artificial scarcity*, requiring actual *material destruction*, up through *world wars*, for its bottom-line functioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity


---


More 'internally', I have a specific standing critique with the Marxist 'labor chit', or 'labor voucher' conception:

His [Robinson Crusoe's] stock-book contains a catalogue of the various objects he possesses, of the various operations necessary for their production, and finally, of the labour-time that specific quantities of these products have on average cost him.


We shall assume, but only for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time.

Okay, but there's no guarantee of quantities adding-up, inventory-wise, on the whole -- just *saying* 'rewards-for-labor-[time]' doesn't necessarily mean that quantities produced will properly correspond to materials consumed, because quantities-produced is apples-and-oranges in comparison to quantities-consumed, since workers individually produce at different rates, over different items, than they consume-at.

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15172107#p15172107

---

And:


Again, though, I'm not taking issue with people's own varying *work* abilities, and the varying individualized *compensation*, per individual, indexed to the overall average rate of socially-necessary productivity, per work role, per hour -- what I'm finding lacking, technically-speaking, is what the most fundamental, key-indexing factor / variable is to be. With all labor notes / labor vouchers / labor chit proposals, it's work-role time (hours), indexed to *other* work-role time (hours), and I'm saying that, technically, that's *problematic*, because people are still being incentivized *individually*, with labor notes, while there's an overarching socio-political political interest in collective *egalitarianism*, for all rates of productivity, to the common good, to be equivalent (per work role, per hour of work).

In other words the *politics* of collectivism is lacking and taking a hit if the post-capitalist political economy isn't taking per-hour varying *productivity* into account, which these conventional labor-notes-type proposals / frameworks *don't*.

To be stark, if I work at the factory for 8 hours doing socially necessary work that produces 1,000,000 widgets, while the next person does 8 hours of the same but only produces 800,000 widgets, and we both get the same compensation, of an 8-hours-note, this is *not* equal productivity to *the collective*.

There would be a macro-level (socio-political) *societal* interest in all 8-hour-notes being issued to workers for work done with the same *productivity* resulting. Why should one person be off by 200,000 units compared to someone else, for the same compensation *from* the social commons?

viewtopic.php?p=15171952#p15171952

[Mike12]

The UAHuntsville studygroups puts Korean Presbyterian Church Abroad identifiers with nativeborn American self-identifier Presbyterians in an over-arching Presbyterian schema study group to cutdown on Presbyterian discrimination, there's also a fatso segregation for Tammy so they get preached too better then there's the communists, I talked fine with the chairman.