[Truth To Power]

The choice between capitalism and socialism is a political choice.

But more importantly, it's a false dichotomy fallacy.

In a political choice, you compare the advantages of different modes of organisation. You do not give a moral judgement.

How do you judge what constitutes an advantage, hmmmmm?

[ckaihatsu]

Well that's not my only concern. But capitalism isn't what makes some men horny abusive assholes. Rape existed before capitalism and will exist after. Every society needs rules to prevent chaos.

One is the idea that the key features of successive societies and human history have been a result of an ‘unchanging’ human nature. It is a prejudice that pervades academic writing, mainstream journalism and popular culture alike. Human beings, we are told, have always been greedy, competitive and aggressive, and that explains horrors like war, exploitation, slavery and the oppression of women. This ‘caveman’ image is meant to explain the bloodletting on the Western Front in one world war and the Holocaust in the other. I argue very differently. ‘Human nature’ as we know it today is a product of our history, not its cause. Our history has involved the moulding of different human natures, each displacing the one that went before through great economic, political and ideological battles.

The second prejudice, much promulgated in the last decade, is that although human society may have changed in the past, it will do so no more.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. iv-v

[ckaihatsu]

Right. Imagine what would happen if everyone in the world suddenly agrees to get rid of all governments and live in a system of anarchy. Different factions would quickly form to protect themselves from each other and each would institute their own rules and such. That's exactly what the international system of states is. The people who didn't form factions would just get their butts invaded and forced to become part of that faction.

Why do you think that *dystopia* would be the inevitability? Are you a *dys*-topian?

[Truth To Power]

That would be the particular people / workers of that particular society.

I.e., the state.

If *that's* your only concern, I'd say go ahead and *exhale* -- such anti-social egotistical behaviors would *not* have any substrate in a post-capitalist / post-alienation society. Everyone would be fully *socialized* from birth, and no one would be alienated from their proportionate active, co-determining role in society as a whole.

Marxism-socialism still clings to its pre-Darwinian conception of the world and humanity.

Social participation and co-determination would *not* have capital ownership as a prerequisite, like *now*, under capitalism.

You can't repeal evolution, sorry.

[Truth To Power]

Why do you think that *dystopia* would be the inevitability? Are you a *dys*-topian?

The immense advantage of the destroyer over the producer means that extortion will always be an attractive strategy, so society needs a way to stop the extortionists, and the only way is by organized force. And once society advances beyond the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages, there are only two alternatives -- the state or feudalism -- because there is no way to allocate exclusive land tenure but by force.

[Mike12]

[Unthinking Majority]

Why do you think that *dystopia* would be the inevitability? Are you a *dys*-topian?

Well, mainly because that's exactly what has happened every time we've run this state of nature experiment. The New World hadn't touched the Americas for tens of thousands of years and when Columbus et al. finally went over there that's exactly how the indigenous there organized themselves too, just like Europe only in smaller units. They organized themselves into tribes, alliances, and violent empires (Incas, Aztecs) and warred, raped, tortured, and pillaged against each other just the same. Capitalism was nowhere to be found.

Now i'm not saying humans can't organize themselves now into a more peaceful, prosperous, and fair system, i'm just saying that without enforceable rules (laws) i don't see this as possible. Laws keep nefarious actors in their place, and we're all capable of succumbing to the temptation of sins. Being rid of private property would remove some of these temptations, but not all.

[Mike12]

This one's the South Korea.

crazy..

[ckaihatsu]

Who will decide the rules of society with no state?

That would be the particular people / workers of that particular society.

I.e., the state.

No, not necessarily -- again, it would be up to *them*, because they're "there", and we're *here*.

If there *was* a state then anyone who's political, like myself, could ask *whose interests* that state served, why does it exist, maybe everyone could do *without* a state, etc.

If *that's* your only concern, I'd say go ahead and *exhale* -- such anti-social egotistical behaviors would *not* have any substrate in a post-capitalist / post-alienation society. Everyone would be fully *socialized* from birth, and no one would be alienated from their proportionate active, co-determining role in society as a whole.

Marxism-socialism still clings to its pre-Darwinian conception of the world and humanity.

Not a Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist), but you're simply erroneously conflating politics with *biology*, for whatever reason.

Social participation and co-determination would *not* have capital ownership as a prerequisite, like *now*, under capitalism.

You can't repeal evolution, sorry.

(See the previous segment.)


---

Well that's not my only concern. But capitalism isn't what makes some men horny abusive assholes. Rape existed before capitalism and will exist after. Every society needs rules to prevent chaos.

The question here is whether that really requires a *state*, though, or not. Consider:

Marriage customs

At seven or eight years of age, Trobriand children begin to play erotic games with each other and imitate adult seductive attitudes. About four or five years later, they begin to pursue sexual partners. They change partners often. Women are just as assertive and dominant as men in pursuing or refusing a lover.[1] This is not only allowed, but encouraged.

In the Trobriand Islands, there is no traditional marriage ceremony. A young woman stays in her lover's house instead of leaving it before sunrise. The man and woman sit together in the morning and wait for the bride's mother to bring them cooked yams.[1] The married couple eat together for about a year, and then go back to eating separately. Once the man and woman eat together, the marriage is officially recognized.[1]

When a Trobriand couple want to marry each other, they show their interest by sleeping together, spending time together, and staying with each other for several weeks. The girl's parents approve of the couple when a girl accepts a gift from a boy. After that, the girl moves to the boy's house, eats her meals there, and accompanies her husband all day. Then word goes out that the boy and girl are married.[6]

A married couple may get divorced after one year if the woman in the relationship is unhappy with her husband. A married couple may also get divorced if the husband chooses another woman. The man may try to go back with the woman he left by giving her family yams and other gifts, but it is ultimately up to the woman if she wants to be with that man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobriand ... ge_customs

---

Why do you think that *dystopia* would be the inevitability? Are you a *dys*-topian?

The immense advantage of the destroyer over the producer means that extortion will always be an attractive strategy, so society needs a way to stop the extortionists, and the only way is by organized force. And once society advances beyond the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages, there are only two alternatives -- the state or feudalism -- because there is no way to allocate exclusive land tenure but by force.

You and UM have these really *fixed* ideas of what motivates human behavior -- 'sociobiology' (at *best*).

I used the following excerpt recently at another thread. Thank the stars for copy-and-paste, huh -- ? (grin)

Before class

The world as we enter the 21st century is one of greed, of gross inequalities between rich and poor, of racist and national chauvinist prejudice, of barbarous practices and horrific wars. It is very easy to believe that this is what things have always been like and that, therefore, they can be no different. Such a message is put across by innumerable writers and philosophers, politicians and sociologists, journalists and psychologists. They portray hierarchy, deference, greed and brutality as ‘natural’ features of human behaviour. Indeed, there are some who would see these as a feature throughout the animal kingdom, a ‘sociobiological’ imperative imposed by the alleged ‘laws’ of genetics.1 There are innumerable popular, supposedly ‘scientific’ paperbacks which propagate such a view—with talk of humans as ‘the naked ape’ (Desmond Morris),2 the ‘killer imperative’ (Robert Ardrey),3 and, in a more sophisticated form, as programmed by the ‘selfish gene’ (Richard Dawkins).4

Yet such Flintstones caricatures of human behaviour are simply not borne out by what we now know about the lives our ancestors lived in the innumerable generations before recorded history. A cumulation of scientific evidence shows that their societies were not characterised by competition, inequality and oppression. These things are, rather, the product of history, and of rather recent history. The evidence comes from archaeological findings about patterns of human behaviour worldwide until only about 5,000 years ago, and from anthropological studies of societies in different parts of the world which remained organised along similar lines until the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century. The anthropologist Richard Lee has summarised the findings:

Before the rise of the state and the entrenchment of social inequality, people lived for millennia in small-scale kin-based social groups, in which the core institutions of economic life included collective or common ownership of land and resources, generalised reciprocity in the distribution of food, and relatively egalitarian political relations.5

In other words, people shared with and helped each other, with no rulers and no ruled, no rich and no poor. Lee echoes the phrase used by Frederick Engels in the 1880s to describe this state of affairs, ‘primitive communism’. The point is of enormous importance. Our species (modern humans, or Homo sapiens sapiens) is over 100,000 years old. For 95 percent of this time it has not been characterised at all by many of the forms of behaviour ascribed to ‘human nature’ today. There is nothing built into our biology that makes present day societies the way they are. Our predicament as we face a new millennium cannot be blamed on it.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 3-4

---

Why do you think that *dystopia* would be the inevitability? Are you a *dys*-topian?

Well, mainly because that's exactly what has happened every time we've run this state of nature experiment. The New World hadn't touched the Americas for tens of thousands of years and when Columbus et al. finally went over there that's exactly how the indigenous there organized themselves too, just like Europe only in smaller units. They organized themselves into tribes, alliances, and violent empires (Incas, Aztecs) and warred, raped, tortured, and pillaged against each other just the same. Capitalism was nowhere to be found.

Now i'm not saying humans can't organize themselves now into a more peaceful, prosperous, and fair system, i'm just saying that without enforceable rules (laws) i don't see this as possible. Laws keep nefarious actors in their place, and we're all capable of succumbing to the temptation of sins. Being rid of private property would remove some of these temptations, but not all.

First of all, it's not / *never* 'an experiment'. Class societies play-out along class *lines* / interests, so *someone* / some-group is pulling-the-strings in terms of normative economics, production, culture (historically), etc.

We can *talk* about what motivates 'bad behavior' (anti-social behavior).

If the sociobiologists are correct then aren't we all just *fucked*, anyway? No true 'free will', we're-all-just-assholes, and so on -- ?

So are you a dystopian or are you a *statist* -- ? Looks like you gotta pick.

[ckaihatsu]

Right. Imagine what would happen if everyone in the world suddenly agrees to get rid of all governments and live in a system of anarchy. Different factions would quickly form to protect themselves from each other and each would institute their own rules and such. That's exactly what the international system of states is. The people who didn't form factions would just get their butts invaded and forced to become part of that faction.

Since your politics conflates society with *biology* ('sociobiology'), you're arguing against (political) anarchism *from-the-right*.

It happens to be a good critique of anarchism, though, one that I would argue myself, but from-the-*left*, politically. (The same argument is included, more-or-less, in the following illustration.)


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

---

The choice between capitalism and socialism is a political choice.

But more importantly, it's a false dichotomy fallacy.

No, it's *not* a false dichotomy -- it's a *real* dichotomy, because society would inevitably have to ask / determine how major productive means (factories), are to be *valued*, and that's where you would see the difference instantly.

In a political choice, you compare the advantages of different modes of organisation. You do not give a moral judgement.

How do you judge what constitutes an advantage, hmmmmm?

Inputs, outputs -- of labor, etc. Just compare the mode of production of *slavery* / feudalism, to modern mass industrial production, for example.

Why do you think that *dystopia* would be the inevitability? Are you a *dys*-topian?

The immense advantage of the destroyer over the producer means that extortion will always be an attractive strategy, so society needs a way to stop the extortionists, and the only way is by organized force. And once society advances beyond the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages, there are only two alternatives -- the state or feudalism -- because there is no way to allocate exclusive land tenure but by force.

But why are you a *statist* -- ?

What happens when a society / nation gets to the point of (relative) *post-scarcity*, as for the basic humane lives of its people, as in advanced (Western) countries, historically -- ?

*That's* what the Cold War was / is about, and what's to be done geopolitically about *still*-underdeveloped areas on the globe.

[Unthinking Majority]

First of all, it's not / *never* 'an experiment'. Class societies play-out along class *lines* / interests, so *someone* / some-group is pulling-the-strings in terms of normative economics, production, culture (historically), etc.

We can *talk* about what motivates 'bad behavior' (anti-social behavior).

If the sociobiologists are correct then aren't we all just *fucked*, anyway? No true 'free will', we're-all-just-assholes, and so on -- ?

So are you a dystopian or are you a *statist* -- ? Looks like you gotta pick.

That's like saying nature itself is a dystopia. Maybe it is. It certainly is violent, cruel, and made up almost entirely of brutal hierarchies.

I'm with Hobbes on this one. The state exists because laws and civil order are better than the chaos and insecurity of the state of nature.

I don't like states the way they are, they favor the rich and elites far too much. But the difference between you and I is that I'm more of a reformer and you're a revolutionary. I also believe some (reasonable) hierarchies, even economic ones, are desirable and just.

[ckaihatsu]

That's like saying nature itself is a dystopia. Maybe it is. It certainly is violent, cruel, and made up almost entirely of brutal hierarchies.

I'm with Hobbes on this one. The state exists because laws and civil order are better than the chaos and insecurity of the state of nature.

I don't like states the way they are, they favor the rich and elites far too much. But the difference between you and I is that I'm more of a reformer and you're a revolutionary. I also believe some (reasonable) hierarchies, even economic ones, are desirable and just.

Let's set-aside the [egalitarian]-versus-hierarchy thing for a moment, and just address *practicalities*, like how does your system *dispose of its surplus* -- !

Economic Surplus

By economic surplus is meant all production which is not essential for the continuance of existence. That is to say, all production about which there is a choice as to whether or not it is produced. The economic surplus begins when an economy is first able to produce more than it needs to survive, a surplus to its essentials.

Alternative definitions are:

1. The difference between the value of a society's annual product and its socially necessary cost of production. (Davis, p.1)

2. The range of economic freedom at its [society's] disposal, extent able to engage in socially discretionary spending that satisfies more than the basic needs of its producers. (Dawson & Foster in Davis, p.45)

3. Income minus essential consumption requirements. (Lippit in Davis p.81)

4. The difference between what a society can produce and what a society must produce to reproduce itself. (Standfield in Davis, p.131)

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

In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.

The demand side equivalent is underconsumption; some consider supply and demand two sides to the same coin – excess supply is only relative to a given demand, and insufficient demand is only relative to a given supply – and thus consider overproduction and underconsumption equivalent.[1]

Overproduction is often attributed as due to previous overinvestment – creation of excess productive capacity, which must then either lie idle (or under capacity), which is unprofitable, or produce an excess supply.

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

And:

Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation.[28] The fully developed communist economic system is postulated to develop from a preceding socialist system. Marx held the view that socialism—a system based on social ownership of the means of production—would enable progress toward the development of fully developed communism by further advancing productive technology. Under socialism, with its increasing levels of automation, an increasing proportion of goods would be distributed freely.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scar ... my#Marxism

---


What's to prevent your social-lip-service nationalism / statism from 'devolving' into *this*:

The New World hadn't touched the Americas for tens of thousands of years and when Columbus et al. finally went over there that's exactly how the indigenous there organized themselves too, just like Europe only in smaller units. They organized themselves into tribes, alliances, and violent empires (Incas, Aztecs) and warred, raped, tortured, and pillaged against each other just the same. Capitalism was nowhere to be found.

[ckaihatsu]

Ruh-roh.


x D

[ckaihatsu]

I also believe some (reasonable) hierarchies, even economic ones, are desirable and just.

This is the 'the-private-sector-is-an-incubator' kind of argument -- admittedly I myself am kind of *ambivalent* about any posited pro-active role for capital regarding development / civilization. I've said elsewhere that capitalism is certainly dynamic *initially*, but quickly runs into the problem of *market saturation* / overproduction, even to the point of objectively requiring market-necessary *economic destruction* (world wars), for any given bloated nationalist industry or industries.

I'll proffer *my own* approach to this kind of 'economic-paradigm' thing -- one that's suited to material conditions of *post-scarcity* / post-capitalism, thus allowing for some 'internal upgrading' while we have the time, as during this current global lull / stagnation.

So with both the animal-products, and the landscape-artist scenarios, one could reasonably ask 'What if humane-need demand for social production *outstrips* the pool of available-and-willing liberated labor that could see the demands through to completion?' Perhaps no one on the *entire planet* wants to do livestock farming or be an artist's assistant for the sake of someone's *else's* artistic conceptions. Yet the society would have the general objective *capacity*, or material *potential*, to accomplish the provision of ham and yogurt, or a landscape artwork, for the general social good. The social use of the 'labor credits' vehicle would bridge this gap, and would also allow for keeping the material-economic and socio-political realms *separate*, so that one would *not necessarily* have to be personally invested in what they're doing as (liberated) labor, as would be inherently necessary in a strictly-voluntary communist-type gift economy. (One could work at *whatever* work roles are available, if allowed-to by whatever project, simply to amass *labor credits* instead of necessarily having to 'like' a work-role both personally *and also* for its material output to the social good, as would happen in a non-labor-credits communistic gift economy.)

...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:

- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[Truth To Power]

Since your politics conflates society with *biology* ('sociobiology'),

Society IS part of human biology. Human beings evolved to live in society and cannot continue to exist without it.

No, it's *not* a false dichotomy -- it's a *real* dichotomy, because society would inevitably have to ask / determine how major productive means (factories), are to be *valued*, and that's where you would see the difference instantly.

No. If factories -- producer goods -- were the only means of production, then you would be right. But they aren't. The dichotomy is false because the means of production -- producer goods and natural resources -- are fundamentally different, and can -- and should -- be treated differently. That means there are more than two (and at least four) fundamental alternatives: capitalism, socialism, geoism and (for lack of a better term) anti-geoism. The anti-geoist option -- private ownership of land, collective ownership of producer goods -- can be ignored as too far from practicality as well as justification.

Inputs, outputs -- of labor, etc. Just compare the mode of production of *slavery* / feudalism, to modern mass industrial production, for example.

On what basis? How do you even distinguish costs from benefits?

But why are you a *statist* -- ?

It's better than feudalism.

What happens when a society / nation gets to the point of (relative) *post-scarcity*, as for the basic humane lives of its people, as in advanced (Western) countries, historically -- ?

Other priorities -- like status -- come to the fore. Status is something that will always inherently be scarce.

*That's* what the Cold War was / is about, and what's to be done geopolitically about *still*-underdeveloped areas on the globe.

The Cold War was about power. What's to be done about under-developed areas depends on whether you want to help them or rob and exploit them.

[ckaihatsu]

Since your politics conflates society with *biology* ('sociobiology'),

Society IS part of human biology. Human beings evolved to live in society and cannot continue to exist without it.

Are you a 'genetics-*determinist*', though -- some, even at PoFo, will posit that human behavior can be ascribed to genetics alone, so that we're 'doomed' to play-out our genetic programming.


The great free will debate _ Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Robert Sapolsky, Steven Pinker & more

---

The choice between capitalism and socialism is a political choice.

But more importantly, it's a false dichotomy fallacy.

No, it's *not* a false dichotomy -- it's a *real* dichotomy, because society would inevitably have to ask / determine how major productive means (factories), are to be *valued*, and that's where you would see the difference instantly.

No. If factories -- producer goods -- were the only means of production, then you would be right. But they aren't. The dichotomy is false because the means of production -- producer goods and natural resources -- are fundamentally different, and can -- and should -- be treated differently. That means there are more than two (and at least four) fundamental alternatives: capitalism, socialism, geoism and (for lack of a better term) anti-geoism. The anti-geoist option -- private ownership of land, collective ownership of producer goods -- can be ignored as too far from practicality as well as justification.

(grin) And I guess that *I'm* the villainous 'anti-geoist', and I don't even get to play with capitalists or socialists, because I'm not any of *that*, either -- !


x D


Kidding -- really, I've never heard of any of that 'anti-geoist' politics, and it sounds remarkably synonymous with *socialism*, anyway, since one would have one's own 'personal property', but producer goods / the-means-of-mass-industrial-production would be *collectivized*, under *workers* control.

But I understand that you're parameterizing 'natural resources', and 'producer goods' -- why stop *there*, though? Isn't Monti *correct* in connoting that the political choice is really an 'either-or', like a fork in the road -- ?

For whatever idiosyncratic reason, *you* think that this can all be mix-n-match, like clothing outfits, or whatever -- maybe natural resources are under *private* control over here, but in my *other* computer setup the factories are under collective control.

I hope you know how *foolish* you sound, with your decidedly *consumeristic* attitude towards all of this. Your geoism can only go so far, being parameterized (in the bad sense) as it is, and now the spinning wheel has slowed and stopped to show a 'private / collective' combo. How fun.


---

In a political choice, you compare the advantages of different modes of organisation. You do not give a moral judgement.

How do you judge what constitutes an advantage, hmmmmm?

Inputs, outputs -- of labor, etc. Just compare the mode of production of *slavery* / feudalism, to modern mass industrial production, for example.

On what basis? How do you even distinguish costs from benefits?

GDP -- ?

But why are you a *statist* -- ?

It's better than feudalism.

We live in a world of smartphones and *social media* -- would it really be so difficult for everyone to just keep an eye on what cops do, because over 1000 people are killed by them every year in the U.S.

The point here, of course, is that even *anarchy* would probably perform better than the statism we have now, not that I'm arguing for anarchy, or for (political) anarchism, for that matter.

Better yet, the *workers* should be the formal, acknowledged *basis* for society's organization, particularly of its material world, meaning social-production on collectively controlled implements of mass industrial production.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

---

What happens when a society / nation gets to the point of (relative) *post-scarcity*, as for the basic humane lives of its people, as in advanced (Western) countries, historically -- ?

Other priorities -- like status -- come to the fore. Status is something that will always inherently be scarce.

We'd *already* be living in utopia if this description were the real-world today, but it's *not* -- even advanced Western-type countries have rich-and-poor, and social privations, even here in 2022. (Think 'income inequality', and the wealth gap.)

*That's* what the Cold War was / is about, and what's to be done geopolitically about *still*-underdeveloped areas on the globe.

The Cold War was about power. What's to be done about under-developed areas depends on whether you want to help them or rob and exploit them.

Me, personally -- ? Why, *thank* you. (Monty Python.)

United States

Main article: American imperialism

Made up of former colonies itself, the early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its own Manifest Destiny, through policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. However the US may have unsuccessfully attempted to capture Canada in the War of 1812. The United States achieved very significant territorial concessions from Mexico during the Mexican-American War. Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s interventionism in Central America and Woodrow Wilson’s mission to "make the world safe for democracy"[117] changed all this. They were often backed by military force, but were more often affected from behind the scenes. This is consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical empires.[118][119] In 1898, Americans who opposed imperialism created the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose the US annexation of the Philippines and Cuba. One year later, a war erupted in the Philippines causing business, labor and government leaders in the US to condemn America's occupation in the Philippines as they also denounced them for causing the deaths of many Filipinos.[120] American foreign policy was denounced as a "racket" by Smedley Butler, a former American general who had become a spokesman for the far left.[121]

At the start of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was opposed to European colonialism, especially in India. He pulled back when Britain's Winston Churchill demanded that victory in the war be the first priority. Roosevelt expected that the United Nations would take up the problem of decolonization.[122]

Some have described the internal strife between various people groups as a form of imperialism or colonialism. This internal form is distinct from informal U.S. imperialism in the form of political and financial hegemony.[123] It also showed difference in the United States' formation of "colonies" abroad.[123] Through the treatment of its indigenous peoples during westward expansion, the United States took on the form of an imperial power prior to any attempts at external imperialism. This internal form of empire has been referred to as "internal colonialism".[124] Participation in the African slave trade and the subsequent treatment of its 12 to 15 million Africans is viewed by some to be a more modern extension of America's "internal colonialism".[125] However, this internal colonialism faced resistance, as external colonialism did, but the anti-colonial presence was far less prominent due to the nearly complete dominance that the United States was able to assert over both indigenous peoples and African-Americans.[126] In a lecture on April 16, 2003, Edward Said described modern imperialism in the United States as an aggressive means of attack towards the contemporary Orient stating that "due to their backward living, lack of democracy and the violation of women’s rights. The western world forgets during this process of converting the other that enlightenment and democracy are concepts that not all will agree upon".[127]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#United_States

[Truth To Power]

Are you a 'genetics-*determinist*', though -- some, even at PoFo, will posit that human behavior can be ascribed to genetics alone, so that we're 'doomed' to play-out our genetic programming.

Genetics is much more important in human behavior than political sensitivities can admit. That is an implication of evolution.

The great free will debate _ Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Robert Sapolsky, Steven Pinker & more

Free will vs determinism is a pseudo-issue.

Kidding -- really, I've never heard of any of that 'anti-geoist' politics, and it sounds remarkably synonymous with *socialism*, anyway, since one would have one's own 'personal property', but producer goods / the-means-of-mass-industrial-production would be *collectivized*, under *workers* control.

So, the worst of all worlds.

But I understand that you're parameterizing 'natural resources', and 'producer goods' -- why stop *there*, though?

I only stop there when considering the economic problem -- relief of scarcity -- because those are the only two concrete factors -- assets -- that can be allocated to relieve scarcity. There is also labor, which relieves scarcity but is not an asset, and the assets -- i.e., privileges -- that redistribute and aggravate scarcity rather than relieving it.

Isn't Monti *correct* in connoting that the political choice is really an 'either-or', like a fork in the road -- ?

No, because while there is only one path -- the geoist one -- that leads to liberty, justice and prosperity, there are many paths that lead to tyranny, injustice and poverty.

For whatever idiosyncratic reason,

I have identified the facts of objective physical reality that prove my views are correct.

*you* think that this can all be mix-n-match, like clothing outfits, or whatever -- maybe natural resources are under *private* control over here, but in my *other* computer setup the factories are under collective control.

Control of production factors has to rest with the producers. But control is only one of the four components of ownership.

I hope you know how *foolish* you sound, with your decidedly *consumeristic* attitude towards all of this.

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

Your geoism can only go so far, being parameterized (in the bad sense) as it is, and now the spinning wheel has slowed and stopped to show a 'private / collective' combo. How fun.

I have no idea what on earth you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about.

GDP -- ?

Measured how?

We live in a world of smartphones and *social media* -- would it really be so difficult for everyone to just keep an eye on what cops do, because over 1000 people are killed by them every year in the U.S.

No idea how you imagine that could be relevant.

The point here, of course, is that even *anarchy* would probably perform better than the statism we have now, not that I'm arguing for anarchy, or for (political) anarchism, for that matter.

No. If history teaches us anything, it is that a state has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no state.

Better yet, the *workers* should be the formal, acknowledged *basis* for society's organization,

No, that's just infantile Marxist tripe. Before too much longer, there will be no workers, because AI will be able to perform all jobs better than any human being. That proves Marx was objectively wrong. It proves the basic problem in capitalist society is not and has never been the employer-employee ("capitalist-worker") relationship. It proves the workers are fundamentally not the point.

particularly of its material world, meaning social-production on collectively controlled implements of mass industrial production.

Collective control of producer goods will ensure that production is negative.

<silly Marxist trash snipped>

We'd *already* be living in utopia if this description were the real-world today,

No, you'd be living in Cuba or Venezuela, because collectives are not capable of the knowledge or understanding needed to manage production.

but it's *not* -- even advanced Western-type countries have rich-and-poor, and social privations, even here in 2022. (Think 'income inequality', and the wealth gap.)

I've already proved that situation is caused by privilege, not the employer-employee relationship.

[ckaihatsu]

Genetics is much more important in human behavior than political sensitivities can admit. That is an implication of evolution.

Free will vs determinism is a pseudo-issue.

If genetics is so 'overriding' (or else *you* provide a qualitative description), then there *can't* be any free-will, because it's our *genes* that are doing the talking.

Obviously, from looking at various cultures and religions, anyone can see that personal beliefs are very much *socially determined* (the political 'superstructure', which is dialectically related to the 'base' of socio-material social production).


---

Kidding -- really, I've never heard of any of that 'anti-geoist' politics, and it sounds remarkably synonymous with *socialism*, anyway, since one would have one's own 'personal property', but producer goods / the-means-of-mass-industrial-production would be *collectivized*, under *workers* control.

So, the worst of all worlds.

Snideness for the sake of snideness, huh -- ?

A *moment* ago you were treating socialism rather even-handedly, but now your handlers have yanked on the leash, and you're back to your blase casual dissing of anything non-market-values.

I only stop there when considering the economic problem -- relief of scarcity -- because those are the only two concrete factors -- assets -- that can be allocated to relieve scarcity. There is also labor, which relieves scarcity but is not an asset, and the assets -- i.e., privileges -- that redistribute and aggravate scarcity rather than relieving it.

Go on. (I'm hoping to catch you in a fleeting sun-breaking-through-the-clouds moment of *critical* / enlightened political sentiment.)

No, because while there is only one path -- the geoist one -- that leads to liberty, justice and prosperity, there are many paths that lead to tyranny, injustice and poverty.

Aren't you supposed to have some kind of *indestructable weapon* for what you're doing -- ? (grin)

Point-A-to-Point-B -- ? Anyone?

I have identified the facts of objective physical reality that prove my views are correct.

Control of production factors has to rest with the producers. But control is only one of the four components of ownership.

What *you* mean is 'Those who do the paperwork and who are at the Board of Trustees meetings' when you say 'producers'. That's quite a *stretch*, really, since the executive class hasn't produced a single commodity, so are hardly 'producers'. Nice try, though.

The ultimate purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

Set aside the comic book lingo and talk normally, and there'll be some reason to reply -- many would *disagree* with your 'theory' there, since there *is* such a thing as economic *factionalism* under capitalism. Should interest rates be *raised*, to tamp-down economic activity and benefit *savers* / rentier capitalists, or should interest rates be *lowered* (as has mostly been the case in recent decades) to benefit *investors* and money-capitalists -- ?

Here's "another" type of economic activity that's kinda *hard to bury*:

A bad bank is a corporate structure which isolates illiquid and high risk assets (typically non-performing loans) held by a bank or a financial organisation, or perhaps a group of banks or financial organisations.[1] A bank may accumulate a large portfolio of debts or other financial instruments which unexpectedly become at risk of partial or full default. A large volume of non-performing assets usually make it difficult for the bank to raise capital, for example through sales of bonds. In these circumstances, the bank may wish to segregate its "good" assets from its "bad" assets through the creation of a bad bank. The goal of the segregation is to allow investors to assess the bank's financial health with greater certainty.[1] A bad bank might be established by one bank or financial institution as part of a strategy to deal with a difficult financial situation, or by a government or some other official institution as part of an official response to financial problems across a number of institutions in the financial sector.

In addition to segregating or removing the bad assets from parent banks' balance sheets, a bad bank structure permits specialized management to deal with the problem of bad debts. The approach allows good banks to focus on their core business of lending while the bad bank can specialize in maximizing value from the high risk assets.[2]

Such bad bank institutions have been created to address challenges arising during an economic credit crunch to allow private banks to take problem assets off their books.[3] The financial crisis of 2007–2010 resulted in bad banks being set up in several countries. For example, a bad bank was suggested as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to help address the subprime mortgage crisis in the US. In the Republic of Ireland, a bad bank, the National Asset Management Agency was established in 2009, in response to the financial crisis in that country.

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

---

I have no idea what on earth you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about.

---

On what basis? How do you even distinguish costs from benefits?

GDP -- ?

Measured how?

You tell me -- this was *your* metric. (You may want to specify a particular political-economy paradigm.)

No idea how you imagine that could be relevant.

No. If history teaches us anything, it is that a state has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no state.

Then how do you account for the 1,000 deaths per year in the U.S. at the hands of cops? That's the *state* in action.


---

Better yet, the *workers* should be the formal, acknowledged *basis* for society's organization,

No, that's just infantile Marxist tripe. Before too much longer, there will be no workers, because AI will be able to perform all jobs better than any human being. That proves Marx was objectively wrong. It proves the basic problem in capitalist society is not and has never been the employer-employee ("capitalist-worker") relationship. It proves the workers are fundamentally not the point.

What metric then would determine people's *access* to the fruits of AI (by extension) if there are 'no workers', getting *no wages*.


---

particularly of its material world, meaning social-production on collectively controlled implements of mass industrial production.

Collective control of producer goods will ensure that production is negative.

That's just *naysaying*.

<silly Marxist trash snipped>

No, you'd be living in Cuba or Venezuela, because collectives are not capable of the knowledge or understanding needed to manage production.

I've already proved that situation is caused by privilege, not the employer-employee relationship.

No, you *haven't* -- you just *claim* so, and out of the *other* side of your mouth you do-acknowledge that employment is the *exploitation* of labor.

Collectivization has to be by the workers, around the sites / workplaces of *social production*.

You definitely underestimate the role of labor in society's productivity.

[ckaihatsu]

Your geoism can only go so far, being parameterized (in the bad sense) as it is, and now the spinning wheel has slowed and stopped to show a 'private / collective' combo. How fun.

I have no idea what on earth you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about.

You spoke of 'natural resources' and 'producer goods' as *variables*, each of which may be under private-property-type 'ownership', *or* may be under collectivized proletarian control, but to *you* it's a toss-up, and could very well be *random*, due to your lack of a class analysis.

Here's where the 'class' thing becomes *unignorable*:


New UK rail strike brings train services to a crawl

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... l-87476471


Over 1600 London bus drivers to join rail and underground strike

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/over-1 ... 022-08-05/

[Truth To Power]

If genetics is so 'overriding' (or else *you* provide a qualitative description), then there *can't* be any free-will, because it's our *genes* that are doing the talking.

What are you talking about? Your genes largely determine who you are. If you are doing the choosing, that's free will by definition.

See? A pseudo-issue.

Obviously, from looking at various cultures and religions, anyone can see that personal beliefs are very much *socially determined*

Beliefs are not the same as personality and choices, and statistics do not describe individuals.

(the political 'superstructure', which is dialectically related to the 'base' of socio-material social production).

Nope. That's just more anti-scientific Marxist bull$#!+.

Snideness for the sake of snideness, huh -- ?

No, truth for the sake of humanity.

A *moment* ago you were treating socialism rather even-handedly, but now your handlers have yanked on the leash, and you're back to your blase casual dissing of anything non-market-values.

You were talking about anti-geoism, not socialism.

Go on. (I'm hoping to catch you in a fleeting sun-breaking-through-the-clouds moment of *critical* / enlightened political sentiment.)

Your absurd Marxist critical theory is not enlightened, it is a form of brain damage.

Aren't you supposed to have some kind of *indestructable weapon* for what you're doing -- ? (grin)

The truth is certainly indestructible. But that does not mean it is omnipotent, because people -- like socialists and capitalists -- are free to choose lies over the truth.

Point-A-to-Point-B -- ? Anyone?

First, understand the problem. Hence my efforts here.

What *you* mean is 'Those who do the paperwork and who are at the Board of Trustees meetings' when you say 'producers'.

No I don't. I mean those who contribute to relief of scarcity.

That's quite a *stretch*, really, since the executive class

There is no "executive class." There are just people who have been hired as managers because they have the intelligence, skills, knowledge and experience to understand, plan, coordinate, direct and control production and solve related problems.

hasn't produced a single commodity,

That is of course an outright falsehood. Relief of scarcity takes many forms in addition to "production of commodities"; and the manager's application of his skills is most definitely labor -- human effort devoted to production -- that contributes far more to production of commodities than the labor of the semi-literate machine-tenders you so absurdly claim are capable of managing a productive enterprise.

so are hardly 'producers'.

As previously noted, you have obviously never held a job in any productive capacity, so you have not the slightest idea what producers do or who they are. I have.

Set aside the comic book lingo and talk normally,

I will continue to identify the relevant facts of objective physical reality in clear, simple, grammatical English.

and there'll be some reason to reply

I don't care if you reply. You are just here as a negative example, a stalking horse, someone for me to demolish and humiliate for the benefit of readers who are open to learning something (i.e., not you).

-- many would *disagree* with your 'theory' there,

It's not a theory. It's a plain fact.

since there *is* such a thing as economic *factionalism* under capitalism.

That's just another non sequitur fallacy from you.

Should interest rates be *raised*, to tamp-down economic activity and benefit *savers* / rentier capitalists, or should interest rates be *lowered* (as has mostly been the case in recent decades) to benefit *investors* and money-capitalists -- ?

That depends on whose consumption you want to enable, and when. It's also a false dichotomy fallacy.

Here's "another" type of economic activity that's kinda *hard to bury*:

The sad thing is, you think that is relevant to something. It's actually easy to bury if you are committed to justice (hint: you aren't).

You tell me -- this was *your* metric.

No it wasn't. It was yours. I proposed market value as the metric of cost and benefit. You claimed you could do it using GDP. OK. How?

(You may want to specify a particular political-economy paradigm.)

I have: the geoist paradigm of liberty, consent, and justice.

Then how do you account for the 1,000 deaths per year in the U.S. at the hands of cops? That's the *state* in action.

No, it's a particular state. It's also a very small number compared to how many would be killed by fellow civilians in the absence of a state, as history proves.

What metric then would determine people's *access* to the fruits of AI (by extension) if there are 'no workers', getting *no wages*.

Previous contributions to production and just compensation for the abrogation of people's rights by exclusive tenure.

That's just *naysaying*.

No, it's a plain fact, confirmed by historical experience.

No, you *haven't*

I most certainly have, and I will thank you to remember it.

-- you just *claim* so,

Any reader can confirm the truth of my statement.

and out of the *other* side of your mouth you do-acknowledge that employment is the *exploitation* of labor.

NO!!
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU?
FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME: EMPLOYMENT CAN ONLY EXPLOIT WORKERS WHEN -- AS UNDER CAPITALISM -- THEIR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY REMOVED WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR OPTIONS AND THUS THEIR BARGAINING POWER.
THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION IN A GEOIST ECONOMY.

Collectivization has to be by the workers,

If they want to die by starvation or violence.

around the sites / workplaces of *social production*.

Production is inherently private, not social.

You definitely underestimate the role of labor in society's productivity.

No, I identify its contribution accurately: the value it would produce in the absence of the producer goods the entrepreneur, investor and factory owner contribute to the production process.