50th Day of Violent Protests in Portland - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15117648
wat0n wrote:It would be sad to hear that, if it were true. Although changing advisors should not be impossible, even if it's admittedly not trivial.

And if you believe I didn't write that, go ahead and run it through a plagiarism detector.

You aren't my student, so I don't give two shits. It is true. And I am no longer in the same country. And we worked together for years. So yes, while changing advisors is possible, it doesn't feel plausible. Thanks for your consideration though, and I do mean that genuinely.
#15117762
ckaihatsu wrote:
The graphic illustration that I included contains the phrase 'the declining rate of profit'.

This theory, of the tendency for the rate of profit to *decline*, *contradicts* what you just said. Here it is, in text:



wat0n wrote:
Right, and that theory is false. It falls apart when taking technological progress into account.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, because 'technological progress' is equivalent to 'fixed capital', and this happens to be the *dynamic* that causes the declining rate of profit -- as labor-power is *leveraged* to greater and greater extents by the increasing use of *technology* / fixed capital, and all business competitors do this same thing, increasing technological usage, then technology makes up the greater proportion of business *costs*, versus labor. But since *all companies* are more heavily invested in technology, with this proliferation of the *same* technological approach in general, it becomes more difficult for any individual company to gain an edge, and the market-share lessens for *all* companies in any given industry due to increasing competition. The costs of keeping up with newer technological processes, with increasing competition in the market means that profits go *down*, and it's a long-term trend over decades and centuries:

Image

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ ... d-piketty/


And:


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image




wat0n wrote:
One of the problem with discussing with Marxian economists is that there can't even be an agreement on the formula for something as mundane as "profit".



You're going off on a tangent again. It looks like you're *conceding* on the point of the declining rate of profit.

I don't think there's any controversy, ideologically, over how the measurement of 'profit' is calculated. (See my diagram from the previous post.)


wat0n wrote:
But tell me, how does this line up with having no trend in inflation-adjusted stock market returns?



The stock market is all about *speculation*, or *gambling*, more-or-less, with equity capital.

What *matters*, economically, internationally, are debt-to-GDP ratios.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, strictly-logistical optimization would not be a paramount concern, post-capitalism. My 'labor credits' / 'Emergent Central Planning' model would allow for *social organization*-derived logistical optimization, which could vary per-item and per geographic expanse / extent of productive organization.

I actually don't mind if you critique, but please don't be coarsely *dismissive*, because *that* would be meaningless, coming from you, for political / ideological reasons.



wat0n wrote:
Then it would not be a centrally planned economy, wouldn't it?



No, not necessarily, and I never said it *would* automatically be centralized -- any such 'centralization' would be *emergent*, according to empirical circumstances and intentional, consensual cross-centralization over geographies, per-item. (A post-capitalist political economy would be *entirely intentional*, by definition, so all material flows would necessarily be socially intentional and pre-planned by liberated-laborers.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
See, this is the source of my concern over your potential 'critiquing' -- you're not bothering to *understand* that which you're critiquing. I have to *clarify* your inaccurate characterizations, when I'd rather that you first *understand* my model, and then make *accurate* comments on it.

There's *no* central state-like standing government whatsoever. You're thinking of *Stalinism*, or bureaucratic-elitism, when such would *not* be necessary for a communist gift-economy. There are no fixed nation-state / political entities required for a communist-type gift economy.

Again, there are *no exchanges* and *no money / commodities / exchange values*. Localities (formulated by internal members' willingness) only formally function for *consumption* and for issuing (possibly debt-based) labor credits. Exchange is not necessary because everything that's produced is direct-distribution to the 'commons' / infrastructure, or else is prioritized for distribution according to the locality / geography-specific area, by mass-aggregated individual daily ranked (#1, #2, #3, etc.) demands lists.

It's understandable that you'd be thinking in terms of conventional (capitalist) *exchanges*, and *exchange values*, but please try to conceive of more of a 'Point-A-to-Point-B' type of distribution, more like online ordering today, with direct receipt of ordered goods, possibly directly from the manufacturer itself, with *zero* intermediate exchanges along the way.
(Which is what the *corporate* / state-sector mode of internal organization *strives* for, anyway, for the sake of internal logistical efficiency.)



wat0n wrote:
If localities will be prioritized according to their stock of labor credits, then there is effectively a system of exchange (even if between these localities and the central government).



At this point maybe you should *ask* me questions about my framework, because your *statements* here do *not* correspond to the conception, or model, that I've put forth.

Doing it *this* way, I have to first *correct* you since you've been misrepresenting the framework with *every* statement of yours so far.

Prioritization of individual daily 'demands' rankings are done by the *individual*, and no one else. Labor credits do *not* apply in this aspect because they only apply internally to the 'society' of active liberated-laborers, over active and future projects. Individual and popular (mass-aggregated) demands do *not* require or use labor credits.

There are *zero* exchanges because monetary-type exchanges are *not necessary* within a communist gift economy. Also there's *no* central government, or any *standing* government of any kind, nor nation-states.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, that's just being *glib* on your part -- again, you're out of your own political concern, so this sounds *flippant* and knee-jerk coming from your status-quo position.

You have to understand that there would be *no* private property -- the entire world would be open to everyone, with necessary personal social coordination resulting from it. Ditto for all social production.

Yes, this kind of social organization would *not* guarantee any minimum standard of living for all, across-the-board, because such a civilization / society hinges on the actual uncoerced, voluntary efforts of liberated labor, whoever that may happen to be. There would be no conventionally-capitalist monetary 'incentive' to spur liberated-work efforts, but there also wouldn't be any *artificial scarcity* -- as over food or housing -- to systematically *blackmail* people into having to work, for a wage, for modern life and living.

People in such a post-capitalist society could very well have a social norm of *foraging* (like hunter-gatherers of long ago), and so it would be that. Or, with *much* coordinated mass effort, maybe humanity would go spaceward, into the oceans, below ground, or a combination of all of it.

Also, finally, in a post-capitalist context there would be a *collective* incentive for society to *fully automate* as much work as possible so that *everyone* could fully benefit from machinery, instead of such being a strictly *private*-constrained interest today, under capitalism, and *not* fully automated, since wage-labor is often readily available and cheaper.



wat0n wrote:
Why would members of the community do any of that if, as you say, they have all their core needs taken care of regardless of what they do?



This is similar to a previous question, at a past thread:


Julian658 wrote:
You did not create it. It was never yours. Perhaps the person that created that was looking for his own interest. If you take away the motivation (self interest) then why would they create?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Craft. Social consciousness. Wanting to see the end product. Experimentation. Wanting to provide for others. Escaping boredom. Pushing the envelope. Personal goals. Wanting to be self-sufficient. Social networking. Mixing work with pleasure. Being productive. Being creative. Access to social leadership. Wanting to be a part of collective self-determination. Stewardship over the earth's resources. Wanting consumption of a very specific kind of product. Hobbyism.

The 'dead labor' (results of past labor efforts) all over the world should be controlled by laborers *collectively*, going-forward. There's no objective empirical need for private-property-type 'ownership' anymore.



viewtopic.php?p=15088612#p15088612



---


wat0n wrote:
Also, what makes you believe everyone would be happy with whatever goods they are being handed for consumption? That for instance they would be of a good quality?



I'm *not* guaranteeing any kind of 'perfection', or 'utopia'. If people happen to be demanding better-quality goods, then someone has to *make* them that way, so it always boils down to (liberated) labor. If no one wants to put forth such 'better' efforts -- as in designing a better-quality good -- in such an egalitarian, same-page kind of society, then everyone would have no one else but *themselves* to blame for substandard-quality goods.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
And what makes you believe there would be an incentive to industrialize? Was there an incentive for the USSR citizens to work to that effect, beyond the dictates of the central government?



You're *again* conflating workers-of-the-world socialism, with *state*, bureaucratic-elitist *Stalinism*. The two are *not* the same. (Re-read my previous statement about the existence of such a collective incentive to *fully automate* production, post-capitalism.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not reflecting *understanding* on this -- yes, strictly logistically, all we would need for politics today is message boards like PoFo, and possibly my 'labor credits' approach to mass-*prioritization* of proposals / policy packages.

So then why does money have such a towering *influence* over the election process -- it's obviously because of *capitalist economics*. Also note that, because of abstracted personage *representation* the election itself *is* a horse-race of its own, quite separate from whatever the societal *issues* happen to be, with no guarantees that the issues themselves will be appropriately addressed by any of the candidates or elected officials.



wat0n wrote:
What makes you believe these problems don't exist in Soviet democracy? Well, there you don't even get to choose.



You're confusing 'soviet' with 'Soviet'.

The soviets were the initial *workers councils*, while the Soviets were the Stalinist / bureaucratic-elitist state planners of the USSR -- basically the Stalinist country / government turned the 'soviet' into a *name-brand*. I don't advocate Stalinism / Sovietism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's easy to see that soviet democracy is functionally *better*, because of it being based in the workers and workplaces themselves (for social material productivity), and with *immediately recallable* representatives.

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



wat0n wrote:
Were Stalin or his stooges ever recalled in places like Ukraine while people were starving? :roll:



Nope -- which shows you the *difference*. Soviet democracy took place early-on, while Stalinism came *later*, was top-down, and heavy-handed. I do *not* defend Stalinism, except in the geopolitical context, versus the West.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Because, for the umpteenth time, your political *priorities* are mixed-up -- the killings by police need to be addressed *as a priority*. The protests / riots are a *knock-on effect* from the killer cops tolerated and abetted by the state, which is exactly why the protests and riots are taking place. Does this make sense?



wat0n wrote:
Sure, decreasing unnecessary police killings as a priority, and has been for many years now, but it shouldn't be the priority. The priority would be (quite evidently) to decrease the number of killings in general.



I can't and *don't* agree -- the distinction is that state / *government*-backed killer cops are acting and killing in the name of the *public*. That's why it's tolerated, because such killer cops are effectively *legal* since the vast majority of them go free without being treated as criminals.

All other / civilian killings may happen for various reasons, and such should be addressed by society appropriately, but the government has the power *right now* to treat killer cops as the criminals that they are, and to impose *criminal* penalties on them, as it would for any similar act by a *civilian*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, that's what I just said. (So social change and policy influence *each other*.)



wat0n wrote:
And such change is, for the most part, expressed through electoral results. Even more so in local affairs, like... Well, policing.



Okay, so then street-based and worker-based *social change* is the *independent* variable, and 'electoral results' and 'local affairs' (including policing), is the *dependent variable*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you mean the *state itself* -- the country and *its people* had problems before, during, and after, but the USSR as a political entity decided to sit-out World War I, for good reason, and so was sidelined from that point on in world events, basically, which is both good and bad (core-and-periphery dynamics, on the *world* stage).



wat0n wrote:
Right, although I meant from a more strict economic point of view. The Soviet stagnation is well known and they weren't able to ever solve it.



The dynamics of *capitalism* -- as in the stagnation of 2000 onward to today -- apply to *state capitalism* as well. Economically the USSR did quite well, using state centralized planning, so the 'stagnation' you're referring to sounds like it applies more accurately to the *government* and to its *societal progress*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Allow me to clarify -- you're again *blaming the victim*.

You keep trying to indict the *ideology itself*, and also the *historical results* of attempts at socialism, even though such didn't happen in a vacuum -- the Allies sent in their imperialist militaries, destroying the nascent soviet economy, and the USSR *crushed* the Hungarian Revolution with military force.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not simply speaking about those two examples, though.



Whatever -- my point stands that you keep trying to disparage the *politics* itself (of workers-of-the-world socialism), while demonstrably showing that you don't even *understand* the politics (as with a communist-type 'gift economy').


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Whatever. The data -- 3 vs. *thousands* -- shows that your priorities are wrong.



wat0n wrote:
No, no "whatever". If you want to decrease all killings, then the relevant figure is not 1,000 homicides a year. The relevant figure is 15,000 homicides a year in the US.



Yeah -- 'whatever'. You're going off on a tangent again, to *combine* state-sanctioned killer cops, with *all*, civilian-based killings. You're mushing too much together, when the festering problem of killer cops *can* be shut-down, since they're a branch of government, and the government has the power to simply *defund* and *disempower* all police departments, so that cops aren't on the streets to commit more killings.

Another way to think of it is that the police departments have *failed* a 'health inspection', and so they need to be shut down.


wat0n wrote:
Even worse, how many of those 1,000 police killings were justified as simply self-defense/legitimate carrying out of police duties?



You tell me.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The 'deterrent effect' is not worth the cost in *human lives* ('collateral damage').



wat0n wrote:
Really? What makes you believe the amount of crime would remain constant if policing stopped?



Jesus, wat0n, I'm not *fucking* concerned about 'crime' when the *far greater* problem is the 1000+ fully-preventable killings that are caused by the government's *police*.

All *you* do is go off on tangents instead of dealing with the *main issues* of this thread's topic.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not showing any evidence for purported 'rent extraction' by the USSR, from Comecon members.



wat0n wrote:
Just read the source :roll:



You may want to present some kind of data, or *argument* here.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yes, it would be. I did *not* misrepresent your meaning. You're just being contrarian and argumentative.



wat0n wrote:
No, it's not. Again, I already provided you an example where that doesn't hold: Google. Want another? Most of the tech industry. Want yet another? All innovation carried out and patented by private businesses.



I never *denied* that the private sector does R&D of its own -- I said that it 'suckles' on the teat of government, for *much* of the R&D, and the *costs* for such, that it uses for its own profit-making. And my argument is backed-up by the data in the table that you provided.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, then provide better figures.



wat0n wrote:
I already did so. Figure 4-4, remember? Around 60% of all R&D spending comes from private businesses (especifically).



You're bullshitting -- I don't see the figure of '60%' *anywhere* on the page that contains Table 4-4.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then you're making my point *for* me -- it's *state control* over technological development in the U.S., with the benefits passed to the corporate sector, for profit-making, at public expense.



wat0n wrote:
Not when you look at all R&D spending. Your narrative only makes sense for analyzing basic science, which is not something I disagree with - basic science is harder to make a profit from (since it has no obvious direct commercial application), which is why the Government needs to play a greater role there.



So you're *admitting* that the government does the expensive, difficult R&D, at public expense, for the sake of private-sector profit-making.

I could just as validly say that *food* and *housing*, for modern life and living, is harder to make a profit from, since food costs and rent / mortgage payments make no profits, either, and should be *underwritten* by government spending.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Your political *focus* is wrong because you're emphasizing *peripheral* actions instead of the *main* politics of what the protests are about -- ending police killings / brutality.

Again, you pretend as though leftist mobilizations emerge out of *nothingness* -- you're ignoring the right-wing / fascist *precedent* that's causing leftists to mobilize, to oppose.



wat0n wrote:
The problem is that these "peripheral" actions can actually become the "main" issue as things develop, particularly as people are annoyed, let alone directly harmed, by these "peripheral" actions. The problem with using force is that everyone can play that game, so you should be reasonably sure you can actually win.



You're being *evasive* again, because it's *government police killings / brutality* that's the *independent* variable, and the protests / riots are a *knock-on* effect from *tolerating* government police overreactions.

If you solve the problem of government killer cops then you *won't have* any protests or riots.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is an *illustrative* instance of the main difference in our respective politics -- your status-quo politics cause you to orient to *electoralism*, while I see the main determinant of social change as being that of *class struggle*, as with working class interests for ending police killings / brutality.



wat0n wrote:
Good luck beating the US security establishment by annoying everyone else in the process :roll:



Again you're showing that you don't understand the cause-and-effect here -- the *cause* of protests and riots is the government toleration of killer cops. If you're so 'annoyed' by protests and riots then *get rid of* the killings at the hands of cops. You've been provided with policy *alternatives* for enacting this.

It's akin to my saying that you can prevent headaches if you don't hit your head against the wall.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The U.S. political system *is* too decentralized on issues that are in working-class interests -- take the example of police-brutality *reforms* so far, which are entirely *piecemeal* and inadequate.

On the other hand, when it comes to *military* spending, or tax breaks for the rich, or bailing out the stock market, everything is *immediate* and *very centralized* and monolithic, meaning *expedient*.



wat0n wrote:
Yet that should actually be regarded as a good thing, since local decision-making should be quite a bit more direct here. Don't like policing? Well, just change how it works where you live.

It's no different from changing how things like community policing work.



Your 'decentralization' rhetoric is at-odds with the government policies that benefit *corporations*, and the wealthy, like the government spending on R&D which is then given to the private sector for free, at public expense. There's no mention of 'decentralization' for this, or for military spending, or for tax breaks for the rich, or for bailing out the stock market.

You're expressing a *double standard* that aligns according to *class interests*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, that's *bullshit* -- you're getting caught-up in *procedural* details, when Trump / the president could probably just issue an Executive Order, *and* lobby for a constitutional amendment, to replace government control of the police with *community* power over the same.



wat0n wrote:
Policing is already determined at the local level, so there is zero reason to push for something like that.



You're being *evasive* because the governmental *hierarchy* *could* undertake a *broad-based push* to stop killer cops, and their racist killings, if it wanted to.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Where's your source describing a switch to purported 'community policing' in Kenosha?



wat0n wrote:
How about vigilantes turning out to the streets to police them themselves? That's exactly how literal community policing looks like.



No, vigilanteeism does *not* correspond to a legalized, alternative, organized 'community policing' approach.

Again you're simply being *disingenuous*, and you're basically *lying*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Defunding the police / military is *good policy* because it would free up government monies for more *social service* approaches to public needs, as in emergencies.



wat0n wrote:
Or it would lead to more crime. You don't know that.



Again, *property crimes* is *not* my political concern here -- the *priority* is stopping killings at the hands of killer cops.


---


wat0n wrote:
And since when will community policing not lead to police killings of civilians?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just making shit up with this one -- no source or reasoning, as usual, just vacuous claims.



wat0n wrote:
Right, because non-professional police forces don't show to be trigger happy, ever :roll:



'Non-professional police forces' are *not* police forces, because they're *outside* of government functioning. You just described *vigilantes*, which you seem to be *tolerant* of.


---


wat0n wrote:
Because the struggle will not necessarily turn in the way you want it to turn, as history has shown time and time again.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're back to being the 'crystal ball' guy, again -- making glib "predictions".



wat0n wrote:
It's a reasonable assessment given how these things have ended in the past.



No, I'd say that you're being *fatalistic*, just as you are with the politics of workers-of-the-world socialism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course I know what *reaction* is, and such is *not* progressive -- you're still not addressing how to decrease / eliminate killings by police.



wat0n wrote:
We already have an idea of how: Compulsory use of bodycams, constant monitoring, etc. We know because this has helped to decrease the killings of unarmed people and minorities.



Great -- and I'll all for such reforms, but the measures that would be *even more* effective would be to *shut down* police departments so that cops aren't on the street to commit killings *whatsoever*.


---


wat0n wrote:
Because the whining is the same when they are defeated by the State.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Why do you think it's appropriate to not-address the *politics* itself?

You're sounding *psychological* now, like a *behaviorist*, when politics *isn't* psychological.

Far-left is *anti-capitalist*, while far-right is *pro-capitalist*.



wat0n wrote:
Since when is politics all about ideology?



Since forever -- ideology indicates in *what direction* people want society to go towards.

Anti-capitalists like myself say that society no longer needs capital, private property, or the capitalist class divide -- that the workers of the world can organize social production in the interests of *everyone*, on de-privatized, collectivized productive machinery (factories), to benefit all on an egalitarian basis.
#15117770
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, because 'technological progress' is equivalent to 'fixed capital', and this happens to be the *dynamic* that causes the declining rate of profit -- as labor-power is *leveraged* to greater and greater extents by the increasing use of *technology* / fixed capital, and all business competitors do this same thing, increasing technological usage, then technology makes up the greater proportion of business *costs*, versus labor. But since *all companies* are more heavily invested in technology, with this proliferation of the *same* technological approach in general, it becomes more difficult for any individual company to gain an edge, and the market-share lessens for *all* companies in any given industry due to increasing competition. The costs of keeping up with newer technological processes, with increasing competition in the market means that profits go *down*, and it's a long-term trend over decades and centuries:



Rugoz wrote:
That is certainly nonsense for the US in recent decades. Markups and profits have increased substantially. Technological change must not increase competition.



Offhand it sounds like you're thinking of *finance*, which is a relatively recent development ('70s-'80s).

Sure, corporate stock *buybacks* can increase share prices, which can increase on-paper *profits*, but Marxists note that *nothing is being produced*. The government then does deficit-spending, adding liquidity into the system, but the capital doesn't *circulate* because it just gets sopped-up, all over again, into share prices and offshore tax havens. Thus there's no real economic *growth* (GDP).

Technological developments *themselves* -- like driverless cars or driverless *flying* cars -- don't *automatically* spur new markets, especially when so many are *broke* and unemployed, and *can't afford* new tech toys.

Also, such specific technological trajectories may not necessarily aid *profits*, either, and so are not considered as 'innovations', according to the market.


---


wat0n wrote:
This would also open the question as to how exactly are they defining and measuring the rate of profit. Marxian economists have a different definition from mainstream ones.



(See page 2.)


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
No disagreement there, but I think it's an important point. For a Marxian economist, some stuff mainstream economists would count as "capital costs" actually correspond to the producer's profits.



No, this is utter *horseshit* -- you're just making shit up. (See the diagram above.)


wat0n wrote:
That's why learning about the formula they are using to define the rate of profit in their estimates is extremely important. Indeed, it's probably everything.



Marxists don't *have* to fetishize the definition of 'profit', because such is still *trackable* in financial terms, according to capitalist definitions.

What Marxism brings to the *economics* table is the workers' *labor-power* aspect of the capitalist enterprise, and it notes that -- as far as the *labor* component is concerned -- such quantity of present-day labor-capacity has to be *maintained* and *reproduced* going-forward, into the future, if only so that it stays *constant* and dependable as a quantity, instead of *decreasing*, while capitalist business looks to *grow* over time while utilizing / exploiting it.

So, this is called 'necessary labor value' -- the amount of labor-value, measured in wages, that it takes to *sustain* and *reproduce* (future generations of) the current quantity of labor-power (as in a 'snapshot').



Marx's solution was to distinguish between labor-time worked and labor power. A worker who is sufficiently productive can produce an output value greater than what it costs to hire him. Although his wage seems to be based on hours worked, in an economic sense this wage does not reflect the full value of what the worker produces. Effectively it is not labour which the worker sells, but his capacity to work.

Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10 per hour. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine with which the worker produces $10 worth of work every 15 minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value#Theory



And:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image
#15117799
ckaihatsu wrote:
Offhand it sounds like you're thinking of *finance*, which is a relatively recent development ('70s-'80s).



CLARIFICATION:


Financialization (or Financialisation in British English) is a term sometimes used to describe the development of financial capitalism during the period from 1980 to present, in which debt-to-equity ratios increased and financial services accounted for an increasing share of national income relative to other sectors.

Financialization describes an economic process by which exchange is facilitated through the intermediation of financial instruments. Financialization may permit real goods, services, and risks to be readily exchangeable for currency, and thus make it easier for people to rationalize their assets and income flows.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization
#15117893
Portland protests not abating after 100 straight days
September 6, 2020

Hundreds of people gathered for Black Lives Matter rallies and marches Saturday night in Portland, Oregon, as often violent nightly demonstrations that have happened for 100 days showed no signs of ceasing.

Protesters, most wearing black, gathered around sunset Saturday at a grassy park in the city. Wooden shields were placed on the grass for protesters to use as protection.

Demonstrations in Portland started in late May after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. During the clashes, some have broken windows, set small fires and pelted police with rocks and frozen water bottles.

On the 100th day of protests in Portland, demonstrators vowed to keep coming into the streets.

Tupac Leahy, a 23-year-old Black man from Portland, said he had probably been out to protests for about 70 of the 100 days of demonstrations.

Leahy said he wanted to see a significant reduction to the local police budget, with the money directed to other community needs. He said the demonstrations would continue for some time.

“I think it’s going to keep going on until the election,” Leahy said. “I don’t see it slowing down.”

Chelsea Jordan, 30, of Portland, said: “I feel the people here have a lot of heart and a lot of commitment."

Jordan was helping spray yellow paint on cutouts to mark the names of Black people killed by police.

“I want to keep at it until the full abandonment of the police, so I think it’s going to be a long fight,” she said

Earlier Saturday, hundreds of people gathered in a park just north of Portland in Vancouver, Washington, for a memorial service for Aaron “Jay” Danielson, a supporter of a right-wing group called Patriot Prayer, who was killed Aug. 29. The suspect was himself shot and killed by police Thursday.

Families showed up at the event with their kids, lining up for the free BBQ and picnicking on the grass at Esther Short Park. As various speakers addressed the audience on stage, attendees waved their flags enthusiastically, occasionally breaking out into chants of “U-S-A!”

Many of the crowd were President Donald Trump supporters, wearing MAGA hats and shirts or holding Trump-Pence flags. Some also waved flags and wore T-shirts showing support for the police.

The crowded regularly erupted in boos with any mention of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, whom Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson demanded apologize to Danielson’s family because they felt he had been unfairly portrayed.

“This is about truth and lies,” Gibson said. “Jay was not a white supremacist.”

Authorities released additional court documents late Friday detailing the moments before Danielson’s slaying.

The documents included shots of security footage that showed the suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, ducked into a parking garage and reached toward a pocket or pouch at his waist before emerging to follow the victim. Danielson was holding bear spray and an expandable baton and had a loaded Glock handgun in a holster at his waist, according to the documents.

Witnesses told police that just before they heard gunshots someone said something like, “wanna go,” which is frequently a challenge to a fight. Danielson, 39, was shot in the chest and died at the scene.

The court documents were filed to support second-degree murder charges against Reinoehl, who was a supporter of antifa — shorthand for anti-fascists and an umbrella description for far-left-leaning militant groups.

Late Friday and early Saturday morning protests continued in Portland, with police declaring an unlawful assembly and arresting 27 people.

https://news.yahoo.com/portland-protest ... 39347.html

Rally commemorates 100 days of protests for Black Lives Matter in Portland


100 Days of Protest A Chasm Grows Between Portland and the Rest of Oregon
#15117902
Fasces wrote:God bless em, smash the police. Long live Micah Xavier Johnson

Who the heck is that? Can't you post about someone relevant?
#15117914
Wulfschilde wrote:Who the heck is that?

Micah Xavier Johnson was* an Afghan War War veteren who ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others.

* The police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot.


:)
#15117916
ckaihatsu wrote:Offhand it sounds like you're thinking of *finance*, which is a relatively recent development ('70s-'80s).


:eh:

Finance is from way, way before the 20th century.

ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, corporate stock *buybacks* can increase share prices, which can increase on-paper *profits*, but Marxists note that *nothing is being produced*. The government then does deficit-spending, adding liquidity into the system, but the capital doesn't *circulate* because it just gets sopped-up, all over again, into share prices and offshore tax havens. Thus there's no real economic *growth* (GDP).


Buybacks don't explain 100 year long trend.

ckaihatsu wrote:Technological developments *themselves* -- like driverless cars or driverless *flying* cars -- don't *automatically* spur new markets, especially when so many are *broke* and unemployed, and *can't afford* new tech toys.

Also, such specific technological trajectories may not necessarily aid *profits*, either, and so are not considered as 'innovations', according to the market.


Of course they won't be adapted immediately. But they will, eventually, if they are invented and profitable.

ckaihatsu wrote:(See page 2.)


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image


ckaihatsu wrote:No, this is utter *horseshit* -- you're just making shit up. (See the diagram above.)


Would you put this into a mathematical formula? It doesn't have to be using accounting definitions, it can be simply conceptual/theoretical... For a start.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're going off on a tangent again. It looks like you're *conceding* on the point of the declining rate of profit.

I don't think there's any controversy, ideologically, over how the measurement of 'profit' is calculated. (See my diagram from the previous post.)


Well, I would say there is definitely a controversy at least as far as actually testing the theory empirically is concerned:

Wikipedia wrote:Various efforts have been conducted since the 1970s to empirically examine the TRPF. Studies supporting or arguing in favour of it include those by Michael Roberts,[75][76] Minqi Li,[77] John Bradford,[78] and Deenpankar Basu (2012).[79] Studies critical or contradicting the TRPF include those by Themistoklis Kalogerakos,[80] Marcelo Resende,[81] Òscar Jordà[82] and Simcha Barkai.[83] Other studies, such as those by Basu (2013),[84] Elveren[85] Thomas Weiß[86] and Ivan Trofimov,[87] report mixed results or argue that the answer is not yet certain due to conflicting findings and issues with appropriately measuring the TRPF.


So yes, the issue of definitions is indeed important.

ckaihatsu wrote:Marxists don't *have* to fetishize the definition of 'profit', because such is still *trackable* in financial terms, according to capitalist definitions.

What Marxism brings to the *economics* table is the workers' *labor-power* aspect of the capitalist enterprise, and it notes that -- as far as the *labor* component is concerned -- such quantity of present-day labor-capacity has to be *maintained* and *reproduced* going-forward, into the future, if only so that it stays *constant* and dependable as a quantity, instead of *decreasing*, while capitalist business looks to *grow* over time while utilizing / exploiting it.

So, this is called 'necessary labor value' -- the amount of labor-value, measured in wages, that it takes to *sustain* and *reproduce* (future generations of) the current quantity of labor-power (as in a 'snapshot').

And:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image


On the other hand, even some Marxian economists would concede that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall rests on several assumptions, some of which are not particularly great news. The idea that technological progress can increase profits goes as back as Okishio's Theorem (1961), which was established as a result by a Marxian economist.

It also does not easily follow from neoclassical economics, where most mainstream growth models (particularly more recent ones) suggest that growth itself depends (largely) on productivity growth in the long run, which is itself a result of technological development.

ckaihatsu wrote:The stock market is all about *speculation*, or *gambling*, more-or-less, with equity capital.


Not in the long run.

ckaihatsu wrote:What *matters*, economically, internationally, are debt-to-GDP ratios.


You'll need to elaborate a bit here.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, not necessarily, and I never said it *would* automatically be centralized -- any such 'centralization' would be *emergent*, according to empirical circumstances and intentional, consensual cross-centralization over geographies, per-item. (A post-capitalist political economy would be *entirely intentional*, by definition, so all material flows would necessarily be socially intentional and pre-planned by liberated-laborers.)


How would the level of centralization be determined then?

ckaihatsu wrote:At this point maybe you should *ask* me questions about my framework, because your *statements* here do *not* correspond to the conception, or model, that I've put forth.

Doing it *this* way, I have to first *correct* you since you've been misrepresenting the framework with *every* statement of yours so far.

Prioritization of individual daily 'demands' rankings are done by the *individual*, and no one else. Labor credits do *not* apply in this aspect because they only apply internally to the 'society' of active liberated-laborers, over active and future projects. Individual and popular (mass-aggregated) demands do *not* require or use labor credits.

There are *zero* exchanges because monetary-type exchanges are *not necessary* within a communist gift economy. Also there's *no* central government, or any *standing* government of any kind, nor nation-states.


How would labor credits be allocated and how would you stop people from simply taking whatever they want, by force?

ckaihatsu wrote:This is similar to a previous question, at a past thread:


Do these motives hold for society at large most of the time? How many people regard their jobs as a hobby?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm *not* guaranteeing any kind of 'perfection', or 'utopia'. If people happen to be demanding better-quality goods, then someone has to *make* them that way, so it always boils down to (liberated) labor. If no one wants to put forth such 'better' efforts -- as in designing a better-quality good -- in such an egalitarian, same-page kind of society, then everyone would have no one else but *themselves* to blame for substandard-quality goods.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image


Good to read this. But then, since when do people blame themselves for their failures?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *again* conflating workers-of-the-world socialism, with *state*, bureaucratic-elitist *Stalinism*. The two are *not* the same. (Re-read my previous statement about the existence of such a collective incentive to *fully automate* production, post-capitalism.)


Fair point, but the USSR was a real example. As such, do you share that criticism of the Soviet system?

ckaihatsu wrote:You're confusing 'soviet' with 'Soviet'.

The soviets were the initial *workers councils*, while the Soviets were the Stalinist / bureaucratic-elitist state planners of the USSR -- basically the Stalinist country / government turned the 'soviet' into a *name-brand*. I don't advocate Stalinism / Sovietism.


ckaihatsu wrote:Nope -- which shows you the *difference*. Soviet democracy took place early-on, while Stalinism came *later*, was top-down, and heavy-handed. I do *not* defend Stalinism, except in the geopolitical context, versus the West.


Ah, so I'm guessing you are more of an anarchist type of person (this doesn't mean you necessarily like Proudhon's or Bakunin's systems).

But even at that scale, democracy can sometimes fail to work. It is still more democratic than Sovietism, though.

ckaihatsu wrote:I can't and *don't* agree -- the distinction is that state / *government*-backed killer cops are acting and killing in the name of the *public*. That's why it's tolerated, because such killer cops are effectively *legal* since the vast majority of them go free without being treated as criminals.

All other / civilian killings may happen for various reasons, and such should be addressed by society appropriately, but the government has the power *right now* to treat killer cops as the criminals that they are, and to impose *criminal* penalties on them, as it would for any similar act by a *civilian*.


ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah -- 'whatever'. You're going off on a tangent again, to *combine* state-sanctioned killer cops, with *all*, civilian-based killings. You're mushing too much together, when the festering problem of killer cops *can* be shut-down, since they're a branch of government, and the government has the power to simply *defund* and *disempower* all police departments, so that cops aren't on the streets to commit more killings.

Another way to think of it is that the police departments have *failed* a 'health inspection', and so they need to be shut down.


Well, as it stands, I think it depends a lot on the circumstances. You are assuming all police killings are unjustified, which is probably not the case.

If a civilian was met with an armed person trying to enter his home, he would generally have the right to use force, even deadly force, to repel the trespasser. If the same civilian was met with an armed person at his job, had a legal right to carry firearms and the said person was using his firearm to commit a crime, he would also have a right to stop him using his own guns - particularly if there was no professional police. The cops' job is precisely to leave these kind of tasks to the State itself as much as possible, and it's also why more activities of this kind are being regarded as vigilantism (which is illegal by definition) over time.

Then, yes, cops engaging in crime is of course a problem. But defunding or abolition does not guarantee the alternative would be any better. I can imagine civilians carrying policing out in their own way would almost surely be actually worse at the job and be more trigger happy than the cops are, for a whole lot of reasons (for starters, they are not trained professionals and are likely to want to avoid taking risks even more than the cops do - one way to do that is to be trigger happy).

As such, you cannot fully separate dealing with both types of crimes (i.e. those committed by both cops and civilians) from how should policing be conducted itself. And then, yes, of course one needs to consider the effects of these proposals on overall crime and killings.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so then street-based and worker-based *social change* is the *independent* variable, and 'electoral results' and 'local affairs' (including policing), is the *dependent variable*.


Is it? Government action can also influence how well street-based and worker-based social change works. It seems there is a system of equations here.

But how Governments even get to power, in electoral democracy, falls largely upon voters. And that includes those who don't actively set out to the streets as means to get whatever they want.

ckaihatsu wrote:The dynamics of *capitalism* -- as in the stagnation of 2000 onward to today -- apply to *state capitalism* as well. Economically the USSR did quite well, using state centralized planning, so the 'stagnation' you're referring to sounds like it applies more accurately to the *government* and to its *societal progress*.


I would say "stagnation" is only a partial description of what has been going on in capitalist economies. It depends on what has stagnated and where.

The USSR did indeed suffer from stagnation in many dimensions, including how its Government worked and its societal progress. But it also suffered from economic stagnation from the 1970s onwards, indeed, its Government's stagnation was one of the causes of the general economic stagnation of the time.

ckaihatsu wrote:Whatever -- my point stands that you keep trying to disparage the *politics* itself (of workers-of-the-world socialism), while demonstrably showing that you don't even *understand* the politics (as with a communist-type 'gift economy').


No, the issue is that I don't trust your predictions of how would such an economy work. What I do trust however is how these attempts have ended.

ckaihatsu wrote:You tell me.


Hard to know on the go since it needs to be done on a case by case basis. But it should be noted the vast majority of people killed were armed or using objects such as cars as weapons, so although this doesn't mean all those killings were justified it does mean one needs to dig deep on each one.

ckaihatsu wrote:Jesus, wat0n, I'm not *fucking* concerned about 'crime' when the *far greater* problem is the 1000+ fully-preventable killings that are caused by the government's *police*.

All *you* do is go off on tangents instead of dealing with the *main issues* of this thread's topic.


Why are police killings a greater problem than other killings? Why would the life of a person become more valuable when unjustifiably taken by a police officer as opposed to it be unjustifiably taken by a civilian?

The idea that it's because cops work for the State seems to be quite arbitrary since in that case no one would care about killings committed by vigilantes (who don't work for the State) more than they care about killings committed by gang members.

It seems to me all should be regarded as problematic in their own right. Yes, cops have law enforcement duties and as such anything that erodes trust in how the law is enforced, such as illegal killings, should be regarded as a serious problem. But that doesn't mean one should abolish the police and effectively let vigilantes replace them.

And this is definitely on topic.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may want to present some kind of data, or *argument* here.


Why bother when you refuse to consult the data or sources when they are provided to you?

ckaihatsu wrote:I never *denied* that the private sector does R&D of its own -- I said that it 'suckles' on the teat of government, for *much* of the R&D, and the *costs* for such, that it uses for its own profit-making. And my argument is backed-up by the data in the table that you provided.


No, your argument refers only to basic research, not overall R&D - including applied research with commercial applications. Overall, at least in the US, most funding comes from businesses themselves.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're bullshitting -- I don't see the figure of '60%' *anywhere* on the page that contains Table 4-4.


I'm speaking of Figure 4-4, on page 18. Table 4-4 is on page 20, shows most R&D investment is not done in basic research and:

NSF wrote:Basic Research

Higher education institutions continued to be the largest performer of U.S. basic research in 2017, while the federal government remained the largest source of funding for basic research. Higher education performed just under half (48%) of basic research, and the federal government funded about 42% of all basic research performed (Table 4-3). The business sector was also a substantial performer (27%) and funder (29%) of basic research. The federal government (agency intramural laboratories and FFRDCs) and other nonprofit organizations were smaller performers, accounting, respectively, for 11% and 13% of the U.S basic research performance total in 2017.

Applied Research

The business sector was both the largest performer (57%) and largest funder (54%) of applied research in 2017— accounting for over half of each (Table 4-3). Higher education (18%), the federal government (17%), and nonprofit organizations (7%) were the next largest performers of applied research.
The vast majority of business sector funding for applied research remained within the sector (Table 4-3). The federal government provided a third of applied research funding, with its funding spread broadly across different sectors; higher education and federal intramural laboratories and FFRDCs received the largest amounts.

Experimental Development

The business sector predominates in experimental development, performing 90% of the R&D in this category in 2017 (Table 4-3).9 The federal government accounted for another 7%, much of it defense related, with the federal government itself the primary user of the results. By contrast, higher education and other nonprofit organizations perform relatively little development (respectively, 2% and 1% of the total in 2017).

The business sector provided 85% of the funding for the experimental development performed in 2017, nearly all of which remained in that sector (Table 4-3). Federal funding accounted for about 13% of the development total, with the business sector (especially defense-related industries) and federal intramural laboratories as the largest recipients.


ckaihatsu wrote:So you're *admitting* that the government does the expensive, difficult R&D, at public expense, for the sake of private-sector profit-making.


But most research is not basic science, and it isn't necessarily easy either.

ckaihatsu wrote:I could just as validly say that *food* and *housing*, for modern life and living, is harder to make a profit from, since food costs and rent / mortgage payments make no profits, either, and should be *underwritten* by government spending.


One difference, though, is that the Government gets part of that money back when such basic research leads to commercial applications since firms eventually pay taxes.

And actually, the Government does subsidize some of that for people who earn little enough to qualify.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're being *evasive* again, because it's *government police killings / brutality* that's the *independent* variable, and the protests / riots are a *knock-on* effect from *tolerating* government police overreactions.

If you solve the problem of government killer cops then you *won't have* any protests or riots.


ckaihatsu wrote:Again you're showing that you don't understand the cause-and-effect here -- the *cause* of protests and riots is the government toleration of killer cops. If you're so 'annoyed' by protests and riots then *get rid of* the killings at the hands of cops. You've been provided with policy *alternatives* for enacting this.

It's akin to my saying that you can prevent headaches if you don't hit your head against the wall.


No, you won't have protests or riots over police killings. You can perfectly have them over other things, something leftists are good at is finding those other things so that's patently false. And indeed, people can also be annoyed about those riots over other things, and then leave us where we are.

But you are missing the point. The issue of riots can have electoral (and thus political) consequences, some of which the rioters did not expect or want. Whether they are about police killings or something else is of little relevance when that moment comes.

ckaihatsu wrote:Your 'decentralization' rhetoric is at-odds with the government policies that benefit *corporations*, and the wealthy, like the government spending on R&D which is then given to the private sector for free, at public expense. There's no mention of 'decentralization' for this, or for military spending, or for tax breaks for the rich, or for bailing out the stock market.

You're expressing a *double standard* that aligns according to *class interests*.


Not really. Issues like national defense are better dealt by the Federal Government (do I need to explain why? States only spend on their National Guard), and actually States are also free to e.g. raise taxes on the rich or tax financial transactions if they want. So even that isn't quite true.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're being *evasive* because the governmental *hierarchy* *could* undertake a *broad-based push* to stop killer cops, and their racist killings, if it wanted to.


There are limits to that under the US Constitution.

What the Federal Government can do is set minimum standards and deny funding to States and localities who don't comply. But policing, ultimately, is a local affair.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, vigilanteeism does *not* correspond to a legalized, alternative, organized 'community policing' approach.

Again you're simply being *disingenuous*, and you're basically *lying*.


That's exactly what happens with no police. If you want to force PDs to adopt community policing strategies, that's a different matter but you can't do that if you abolish the police.

I would say it is you who is being disingenuous here, trying to fool the reader about what "abolishing the police" means.

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, *property crimes* is *not* my political concern here -- the *priority* is stopping killings at the hands of killer cops.


Again, more disingenuous trash here. I never mentioned property crimes.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Non-professional police forces' are *not* police forces, because they're *outside* of government functioning. You just described *vigilantes*, which you seem to be *tolerant* of.


And that's what you get when you abolish the police. I would say it is you who is tolerant of vigilantism.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I'd say that you're being *fatalistic*, just as you are with the politics of workers-of-the-world socialism.


Or you are trying to sell smoke. After all, what successful historical examples do you have to offer?

ckaihatsu wrote:Great -- and I'll all for such reforms, but the measures that would be *even more* effective would be to *shut down* police departments so that cops aren't on the street to commit killings *whatsoever*.


Hope you enjoy the vigilantes!

ckaihatsu wrote:Since forever -- ideology indicates in *what direction* people want society to go towards.

Anti-capitalists like myself say that society no longer needs capital, private property, or the capitalist class divide -- that the workers of the world can organize social production in the interests of *everyone*, on de-privatized, collectivized productive machinery (factories), to benefit all on an egalitarian basis.


That is a naive idea at best. After all, clientelism is a very old political phenomenon that does not deal with whatever direction people want society to go.
#15117918
ingliz wrote:Micah Xavier Johnson was* an Afghan War War veteren who ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others.

* The police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot.


:)

Cop killer trivia and dramatically placed smiley faces. How old are you bro?
#15117920
Wulfschilde wrote:Cop killer trivia

You asked the question. "Who the heck is that?", invited a response.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 06 Sep 2020 10:26, edited 1 time in total.
#15117923
^

I don't think s/he is.

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."

— George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

but,

Yes, it seems odd that s/he can make the pro-gun 'political' arguments and get all in a tizzy when people use them.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 06 Sep 2020 11:07, edited 7 times in total.
#15117924
Fasces wrote:Don't tell me you're against the second amendment, Wulfschilde!

Please don't try to be clever, I come here for jokes, not cringe. Aside from not being good at it, it speaks volumes about you that you are posting about a guy like that in 2020, so why would I care even if you somehow succeeded in making a zinger?

:)
#15118035
A bit more detail on Portland’s hundredth day of in kind contributions to the Republicans. And the first mail-in ballots are going out:

Police dodge fire bombs as Portland protesters mark 100 straight days

    Portland erupted in a new round of violence Saturday night as rioters engaged in a street battle with police, throwing firebombs and firing fireworks at officers who responded with tear gas.

    Officers say they arrested more than 50 people — the most for any night since near-nightly protests broke out 100 days ago, after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis sparked demands for racial justice and anti-police demonstrations.
    Demonstrators pelted police with rocks taken from the tracks of a commuter railway, and officers said they saw one person with a “wrist rocket” slingshot firing objects at them.

    As protesters lobbed Molotov cocktails and fired commercial-grade fireworks at police, one landed on a protester whose pants caught fire. The person had to be taken to the hospital.

    The protesters’ target was a police station, but given past mayhem, officers blocked their route, sparking the street battle.

    Police say the demonstrators began the melee by throwing molotov cocktails at them, then escalated from there.

    Officers had to be called in from other police stations, leaving other service calls unanswered.

    “At about 2:00a.m., there were almost 150 calls for service holding in the City of Portland,” police said.

    During 100 days of protests, Portland police have declared riots on 26 days.
    Fires have been set on more than half of the days.
So, I wonder how many people have been injured, even killed, because police weren’t available to respond to service calls?
#15118091
ckaihatsu wrote:
Offhand it sounds like you're thinking of *finance*, which is a relatively recent development ('70s-'80s).



wat0n wrote:
:eh:

Finance is from way, way before the 20th century.



Yeah, I realized I was being imprecise, so I added the 'CLARIFICATION' post.

Here's more from that Wikipedia entry about 'financialization':



As a result of this rapid financialization, the financial sector scaled up vastly in the span of a few decades. In 1978, the financial sector comprised 3.5% of the American economy (that is, it made up 3.5% of U.S. GDP), but by 2007 it had reached 5.9%. Profits in the American financial sector in 2009 were six times higher on average than in 1980, compared with non-financial sector profits, which on average were just over twice what they were in 1980. Financial sector profits grew by 800%, adjusted for inflation, from 1980 to 2005. In comparison with the rest of the economy, U.S. nonfinancial sector profits grew by 250% during the same period. For context, financial sector profits from the 1930s until 1980 grew at the same rate as the rest of the American economy.[18]

By way of illustration of the increased power of the financial sector over the economy, in 1978 commercial banks held $1.2 trillion (million million) in assets, which is equivalent to 53% of the GDP of the United States. By year's end 2007, commercial banks held $11.8 trillion in assets, which is equivalent to 84% of U.S. GDP. Investment banks (securities broker-dealers) held $33 billion (thousand million) in assets in 1978 (equivalent to 1.3% of U.S. GDP), but held $3.1 trillion in assets (equivalent to 22% U.S. GDP) in 2007. The securities that were so instrumental in triggering the financial crisis of 2007-2008, asset-backed securities, including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were practically non-existent in 1978. By 2007, they comprised $4.5 trillion in assets, equivalent to 32% of U.S. GDP.[19]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial ... ted_Growth



Again, the financial sector is *non-productive* -- it does not produce any commodities.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, corporate stock *buybacks* can increase share prices, which can increase on-paper *profits*, but Marxists note that *nothing is being produced*. The government then does deficit-spending, adding liquidity into the system, but the capital doesn't *circulate* because it just gets sopped-up, all over again, into share prices and offshore tax havens. Thus there's no real economic *growth* (GDP).



wat0n wrote:
Buybacks don't explain 100 year long trend.



You're not being clear -- do you mean the Declining Rate of Profit data that I shared previously -- ?


Image

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ ... d-piketty/


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Technological developments *themselves* -- like driverless cars or driverless *flying* cars -- don't *automatically* spur new markets, especially when so many are *broke* and unemployed, and *can't afford* new tech toys.

Also, such specific technological trajectories may not necessarily aid *profits*, either, and so are not considered as 'innovations', according to the market.



wat0n wrote:
Of course they won't be adapted immediately. But they will, eventually, if they are invented and profitable.



Well, again, that's not *automatic* -- look at the Great Depression, for example, when consumer buying power was *sharply* reduced. (Etc.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
(See page 2.)


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image




wat0n wrote:
No disagreement there, but I think it's an important point. For a Marxian economist, some stuff mainstream economists would count as "capital costs" actually correspond to the producer's profits.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, this is utter *horseshit* -- you're just making shit up. (See the diagram above.)



wat0n wrote:
Would you put this into a mathematical formula? It doesn't have to be using accounting definitions, it can be simply conceptual/theoretical... For a start.



Well, I can't *stop* you from doing it -- I provided sample data for it, and there's always Wikipedia as well....


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going off on a tangent again. It looks like you're *conceding* on the point of the declining rate of profit.

I don't think there's any controversy, ideologically, over how the measurement of 'profit' is calculated. (See my diagram from the previous post.)



wat0n wrote:
Well, I would say there is definitely a controversy at least as far as actually testing the theory empirically is concerned:




Various efforts have been conducted since the 1970s to empirically examine the TRPF. Studies supporting or arguing in favour of it include those by Michael Roberts,[75][76] Minqi Li,[77] John Bradford,[78] and Deenpankar Basu (2012).[79] Studies critical or contradicting the TRPF include those by Themistoklis Kalogerakos,[80] Marcelo Resende,[81] Òscar Jordà[82] and Simcha Barkai.[83] Other studies, such as those by Basu (2013),[84] Elveren[85] Thomas Weiß[86] and Ivan Trofimov,[87] report mixed results or argue that the answer is not yet certain due to conflicting findings and issues with appropriately measuring the TRPF.



wat0n wrote:
So yes, the issue of definitions is indeed important.



Regarding the measurement used for 'profit', I just remembered that such is implied / included in my 'Labor & Capital' diagram that I posted last time. Here it is again:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image
[/quote]


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Marxists don't *have* to fetishize the definition of 'profit', because such is still *trackable* in financial terms, according to capitalist definitions.

What Marxism brings to the *economics* table is the workers' *labor-power* aspect of the capitalist enterprise, and it notes that -- as far as the *labor* component is concerned -- such quantity of present-day labor-capacity has to be *maintained* and *reproduced* going-forward, into the future, if only so that it stays *constant* and dependable as a quantity, instead of *decreasing*, while capitalist business looks to *grow* over time while utilizing / exploiting it.

So, this is called 'necessary labor value' -- the amount of labor-value, measured in wages, that it takes to *sustain* and *reproduce* (future generations of) the current quantity of labor-power (as in a 'snapshot').

And:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
On the other hand, even some Marxian economists would concede that the tendency of the rate of profit to fall rests on several assumptions, some of which are not particularly great news. The idea that technological progress can increase profits goes as back as Okishio's Theorem (1961), which was established as a result by a Marxian economist.

It also does not easily follow from neoclassical economics, where most mainstream growth models (particularly more recent ones) suggest that growth itself depends (largely) on productivity growth in the long run, which is itself a result of technological development.



You *could* address the empirical data, in the graph, that I've now provided *twice*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The stock market is all about *speculation*, or *gambling*, more-or-less, with equity capital.



wat0n wrote:
Not in the long run.



ckaihatsu wrote:
What *matters*, economically, internationally, are debt-to-GDP ratios.



wat0n wrote:
You'll need to elaborate a bit here.



Well, look at Lebanon, for a recent example -- it suffered *hyperinflation* due to U.S. sanctions on its economics, so creditors weren't willing to lend it money to bolster its currency, and it turned to the IMF.

What good is its *stock market* when the 'real economy' itself was no longer functioning in any meaningful way?



Within weeks, as the currency’s value plummeted and inflation soared, Diab announced that Lebanon would default on its $30 billion foreign debts and turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a loan. But access to international loans and economic support pledged at the 2018 Cedre conference, policed by Washington and Paris, was always going to be dependent on the imperialists’ foreign and economic policy agenda.

The Trump administration has been applying pressure in support of its local stooges, intensifying its sanctions on Hezbollah and those organisations, including the banks, dealing with it, and imposing new sanctions on Syria, whose economy is closely linked to Lebanon’s.

The Diab government submitted a plan to the IMF that would have involved Lebanon’s banks, the country’s chief creditors, taking a substantial “haircut,” as well as a raft of austerity measures and privatisations. But the banks, owned by the Christian and Sunni plutocrats around Hariri’s Future Movement, rejected it.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... a-a15.html



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, not necessarily, and I never said it *would* automatically be centralized -- any such 'centralization' would be *emergent*, according to empirical circumstances and intentional, consensual cross-centralization over geographies, per-item. (A post-capitalist political economy would be *entirely intentional*, by definition, so all material flows would necessarily be socially intentional and pre-planned by liberated-laborers.)



wat0n wrote:
How would the level of centralization be determined then?



You're *still* thinking conventionally and in a *state*-based way. Again, there's *no* standing government, or government / state of any kind. There are no financial institutions, or businesses, or companies, because there's *no need* for such in communism. No exchange values / finance / money / currency / exchanges.

Centralization would *only* happen over productive means in common (factories / workplaces), by combined consent of the respective active liberated laborers, per-item, for generalization over any given item, like face masks.

Here's a sample scenario -- let's say that face masks are being produced by liberated laborers in the factories roughly in the vicinity of Locality 'A'. It just so happens that liberated laborers near Locality 'B' are *also* making face masks at several factories around *their* area. Journalists around that industry are publishing a blog, and they pick up on what's happening with the Locality B area and that area's production of face masks. The active face-mask liberated-workers around Locality A read the industry press and they come across a series of articles on the face-mask industry around Locality B, and some of them decide as a group to take the initiative to reach out to Locality-B-area face-mask liberated laborers, and they suggest that, given the numbers reported, the face mask factories of *both* areas could see an increase in productivity by as much as 28% if they combine their respective supply chains to feed into *both* geographic areas, for face masks, realizing economies-of-scale as a result. (Factories near Locality A could concentrate just on the elastic string, while factories near Locality B could focus on just producing the fabric material, with final assembly at both locations, making the process more materially efficient, and faster.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
At this point maybe you should *ask* me questions about my framework, because your *statements* here do *not* correspond to the conception, or model, that I've put forth.

Doing it *this* way, I have to first *correct* you since you've been misrepresenting the framework with *every* statement of yours so far.

Prioritization of individual daily 'demands' rankings are done by the *individual*, and no one else. Labor credits do *not* apply in this aspect because they only apply internally to the 'society' of active liberated-laborers, over active and future projects. Individual and popular (mass-aggregated) demands do *not* require or use labor credits.

There are *zero* exchanges because monetary-type exchanges are *not necessary* within a communist gift economy. Also there's *no* central government, or any *standing* government of any kind, nor nation-states.



wat0n wrote:
How would labor credits be allocated and how would you stop people from simply taking whatever they want, by force?



There *can't* be any such 'stealing' because no one *owns* anything, not even the machinery / factories, or the products of them. No one receives anything directly in exchange for their efforts to produce for the common good, so no one can get 'paid' more or less than anyone else, in a strictly 'pure' (*zero*-labor-credits) communist gift economy.

I introduce the vehicle of labor credits into the baseline communist gift economy so as to cover the possibility that *no one* would want to do certain labor roles that are socially necessary but are too hazardous / difficult / distasteful. (I've previously used the example of manually cleaning out clogged sewers in a municipal sewer system, like that in Mexico City.)

To sum up, people *could* simply take whatever they want, whenever they want, without money, and they wouldn't have to resort to using force, because everything produced post-capitalism would be *free-access* and *directly distributed*. Worst case would be that factories would keep a certain *surplus* -- maybe 20% -- of whatever it is that they produce, on-hand, according to the liberated-workers there, for any such 'walk-ups' (which would be outside of the formal daily individual self-ranked 'demands' lists, for mass-aggregation). Over time and experience this percentage could be tailored to each particular workplace. (In alignment with the overall description of 'a landscape of piles of stuff'.)

Labor credits would be allocated to *proposals* and *projects*, per plan, and such plans / proposals / projects would *compete*, and would be open to inclusion on individuals' daily self-ranked 'demands' lists (as socio-political 'demands', either abstractly, or specificly, by plan).

Perhaps one active proposal would allocate more labor credits to 'elastic string makers', while another active proposal in circulation would allocate more labor credits to 'face mask material makers'. In both cases the 'funding' of labor credits would necessarily have to come from liberated laborers who *have* such potential funding, in part, *in hand*, necessarily from their *own* past liberated-labor efforts.

*Localities* could also issue their own *debt-based* labor credits, if necesssary, per proposal, but it would be public knowledge that such labor credits (by serial number, and batch) are *debt-based*, until enough people from that locality then go out and do work elsewhere to bring back sufficient amounts of labor credits to *neutralize* the debt that they issued as a locality. That information would be public knowledge as well, and the labor credits themselves would continue to circulate, regardless. (Think of the labor credits as 'IOUs', for actual liberated-labor done, that are debt-based until covered / neutralized by labor credits earned and brought-back to that locality that issued the debt-based labor credits, to cancel the debt. All labor credits *always* continue to circulate, regardless.)


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


---


wat0n wrote:
Why would members of the community do any of that if, as you say, they have all their core needs taken care of regardless of what they do?



ckaihatsu wrote:
This is similar to a previous question, at a past thread:



wat0n wrote:
Do these motives hold for society at large most of the time? How many people regard their jobs as a hobby?



It depends on the *scale* on the endeavor. Work roles could be for the common good, in concert with others, as on industrial machinery of mass production.

*Or* efforts could be at *any other* scale, conceivably, even person-to-person, as with handicrafts. Which work roles would be considered to be a *social priority*, for *socially necessary* production, would be a socio-political thing.

I've entertained the thought-experiment of 'a post-capitalist society of rock stars', meaning that maybe, post-capitalism, everyone would just want to work on their own music, and on performing -- many socially necessary work roles, like food production, would go untendered in that case, and society would have to adjust somehow, perhaps by *automating* all food production so that everyone could get back to playing guitar, or whatever.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm *not* guaranteeing any kind of 'perfection', or 'utopia'. If people happen to be demanding better-quality goods, then someone has to *make* them that way, so it always boils down to (liberated) labor. If no one wants to put forth such 'better' efforts -- as in designing a better-quality good -- in such an egalitarian, same-page kind of society, then everyone would have no one else but *themselves* to blame for substandard-quality goods.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
Good to read this. But then, since when do people blame themselves for their failures?



Well, you're taking this rather *morally*, in a *moralistic* way, which is your prerogative, of course, but in the *socio-political* context, it realistically means that everyone in such a society would have to collectively set their own 'standards', or social norms.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *again* conflating workers-of-the-world socialism, with *state*, bureaucratic-elitist *Stalinism*. The two are *not* the same. (Re-read my previous statement about the existence of such a collective incentive to *fully automate* production, post-capitalism.)



wat0n wrote:
Fair point, but the USSR was a real example. As such, do you share that criticism of the Soviet system?



The USSR was a real example of *Stalinism*. No one before Stalin came to power *wanted* Stalin to come to power -- it was a historical *accident*, basically.

Of course I share the criticism of Stalinism in that it's *not* workers-of-the-world socialism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're confusing 'soviet' with 'Soviet'.

The soviets were the initial *workers councils*, while the Soviets were the Stalinist / bureaucratic-elitist state planners of the USSR -- basically the Stalinist country / government turned the 'soviet' into a *name-brand*. I don't advocate Stalinism / Sovietism.



ckaihatsu wrote:
It's easy to see that soviet democracy is functionally *better*, because of it being based in the workers and workplaces themselves (for social material productivity), and with *immediately recallable* representatives.

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



wat0n wrote:
Were Stalin or his stooges ever recalled in places like Ukraine while people were starving? :roll:



ckaihatsu wrote:
Nope -- which shows you the *difference*. Soviet democracy took place early-on, while Stalinism came *later*, was top-down, and heavy-handed. I do *not* defend Stalinism, except in the geopolitical context, versus the West.



wat0n wrote:
Ah, so I'm guessing you are more of an anarchist type of person (this doesn't mean you necessarily like Proudhon's or Bakunin's systems).

But even at that scale, democracy can sometimes fail to work. It is still more democratic than Sovietism, though.



No, I've never been an anarchist -- it's too *localist*, but, that said, I *am* in favor of *bottom-up* organizing of social productivity, post-capitalism, as seen in this diagram of mine (also a *critique* of anarchism):


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



For the proletarian revolution I'm a *vanguardist*, and I have a treatment of that here:



From all the discussions on vanguardism I've ever been around, including on this thread, it seems that there are really only a handful of issues involved.

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st century.

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.



https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/117736-Vanguardism



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I can't and *don't* agree -- the distinction is that state / *government*-backed killer cops are acting and killing in the name of the *public*. That's why it's tolerated, because such killer cops are effectively *legal* since the vast majority of them go free without being treated as criminals.

All other / civilian killings may happen for various reasons, and such should be addressed by society appropriately, but the government has the power *right now* to treat killer cops as the criminals that they are, and to impose *criminal* penalties on them, as it would for any similar act by a *civilian*.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah -- 'whatever'. You're going off on a tangent again, to *combine* state-sanctioned killer cops, with *all*, civilian-based killings. You're mushing too much together, when the festering problem of killer cops *can* be shut-down, since they're a branch of government, and the government has the power to simply *defund* and *disempower* all police departments, so that cops aren't on the streets to commit more killings.

Another way to think of it is that the police departments have *failed* a 'health inspection', and so they need to be shut down.



wat0n wrote:
Well, as it stands, I think it depends a lot on the circumstances. You are assuming all police killings are unjustified, which is probably not the case.

If a civilian was met with an armed person trying to enter his home, he would generally have the right to use force, even deadly force, to repel the trespasser. If the same civilian was met with an armed person at his job, had a legal right to carry firearms and the said person was using his firearm to commit a crime, he would also have a right to stop him using his own guns - particularly if there was no professional police. The cops' job is precisely to leave these kind of tasks to the State itself as much as possible, and it's also why more activities of this kind are being regarded as vigilantism (which is illegal by definition) over time.

Then, yes, cops engaging in crime is of course a problem. But defunding or abolition does not guarantee the alternative would be any better. I can imagine civilians carrying policing out in their own way would almost surely be actually worse at the job and be more trigger happy than the cops are, for a whole lot of reasons (for starters, they are not trained professionals and are likely to want to avoid taking risks even more than the cops do - one way to do that is to be trigger happy).

As such, you cannot fully separate dealing with both types of crimes (i.e. those committed by both cops and civilians) from how should policing be conducted itself. And then, yes, of course one needs to consider the effects of these proposals on overall crime and killings.



You're really *exaggerating* violent civilian crime, as though such *needs* policing, when crime rates are at historic *lows* -- again, the greater societal threat right now comes from *killer cops*, moreso than *killer civilians*, especially since the killer cops are state-sanctioned and mostly are not treated as criminals, unfortunately.

This is where *deterrence* is called-for, because in *any other* situation there would be changes made to *deter* such overreactions on the part of professionals.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so then street-based and worker-based *social change* is the *independent* variable, and 'electoral results' and 'local affairs' (including policing), is the *dependent variable*.



wat0n wrote:
Is it? Government action can also influence how well street-based and worker-based social change works. It seems there is a system of equations here.



No, I can't agree, because my political perspective is that government is a *plutocracy* and primarily -- almost *exclusively* -- serves the interests of the wealthy. I think a particular anarchist saying is appropriate here:



If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Emma Goldman



https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/emma_goldman_107325



The bourgeois establishment favors the *status quo* -- as you do -- or even *rolling back* social progress, as with civil rights, working conditions, gender roles, etc.


wat0n wrote:
But how Governments even get to power, in electoral democracy, falls largely upon voters. And that includes those who don't actively set out to the streets as means to get whatever they want.



You're failing to see that *class* is paramount, and you're too caught-up in the *procedurals* of intra-national political rituals.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The dynamics of *capitalism* -- as in the stagnation of 2000 onward to today -- apply to *state capitalism* as well. Economically the USSR did quite well, using state centralized planning, so the 'stagnation' you're referring to sounds like it applies more accurately to the *government* and to its *societal progress*.



wat0n wrote:
I would say "stagnation" is only a partial description of what has been going on in capitalist economies. It depends on what has stagnated and where.

The USSR did indeed suffer from stagnation in many dimensions, including how its Government worked and its societal progress. But it also suffered from economic stagnation from the 1970s onwards, indeed, its Government's stagnation was one of the causes of the general economic stagnation of the time.



Okay, I won't simply *ignore* this point, as you do for so many of the points *I* make -- here's the proof:



The value of all consumer goods manufactured in 1972 in retail prices was about 118 billion rubles ($530 billion).[54] The Era of Stagnation in the mid-1970s was triggered by the Nixon Shock and aggravated by the war in Afghanistan in 1979 and led to a period of economic standstill between 1979 and 1985. Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development kept the Soviet Union's GDP at the same level during the first half of the 1980s.[55] The Soviet planned economy was not structured to respond adequately to the demands of the complex modern economy it had helped to forge. The massive quantities of goods produced often did not meet the needs or tastes of consumers.[56]

The volume of decisions facing planners in Moscow became overwhelming. The cumbersome procedures for bureaucratic administration foreclosed the free communication and flexible response required at the enterprise level for dealing with worker alienation, innovation, customers, and suppliers. During 1975–1985, corruption and data fiddling became common practice among bureaucracy to report satisfied targets and quotas thus entrenching the crisis. At the same time, the effects of the central planning were progressively distorted due to the rapid growth of the second economy in the Soviet Union.[24]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... %80%931990



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Whatever -- my point stands that you keep trying to disparage the *politics* itself (of workers-of-the-world socialism), while demonstrably showing that you don't even *understand* the politics (as with a communist-type 'gift economy').



wat0n wrote:
No, the issue is that I don't trust your predictions of how would such an economy work. What I do trust however is how these attempts have ended.



I'm not predicting *shit* -- such would be *presumptuous* on my part. What I *have* done is to put forward a comprehensive communist-gift-economy-based *model framework*, which has its own internal logic and functioning.

Your position, though, is based on analyzing historical *Stalinism*, and I'm certainly not for such bureaucratic-elitism. I'm for workers-of-the-world *socialism*.


---


wat0n wrote:
Even worse, how many of those 1,000 police killings were justified as simply self-defense/legitimate carrying out of police duties?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You tell me.



wat0n wrote:
Hard to know on the go since it needs to be done on a case by case basis. But it should be noted the vast majority of people killed were armed or using objects such as cars as weapons, so although this doesn't mean all those killings were justified it does mean one needs to dig deep on each one.



And the data comes from *police reports*, I'd estimate.

Don't you think that even *one* death at the hands of the police, by overreaction, is one death too many -- ? The government has the means to *shut that shit down*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Jesus, wat0n, I'm not *fucking* concerned about 'crime' when the *far greater* problem is the 1000+ fully-preventable killings that are caused by the government's *police*.

All *you* do is go off on tangents instead of dealing with the *main issues* of this thread's topic.



wat0n wrote:
Why are police killings a greater problem than other killings? Why would the life of a person become more valuable when unjustifiably taken by a police officer as opposed to it be unjustifiably taken by a civilian?



Because the life of a person taken by a cop is a life that could have been *saved*.

Why are you so stubborn against getting cops off the streets so that there *are no* cops to commit killings? Human lives are more important than *property*.

I'm open to any observations you may have as to why *civilians* kill other people.


wat0n wrote:
The idea that it's because cops work for the State seems to be quite arbitrary since in that case no one would care about killings committed by vigilantes (who don't work for the State) more than they care about killings committed by gang members.

It seems to me all should be regarded as problematic in their own right. Yes, cops have law enforcement duties and as such anything that erodes trust in how the law is enforced, such as illegal killings, should be regarded as a serious problem. But that doesn't mean one should abolish the police and effectively let vigilantes replace them.

And this is definitely on topic.



But don't you see that you're *not suggesting* any realistic way to *address* this 'serious problem' -- ? At most, over dozens and dozens of posts, you might *acknowledge* that this is a 'serious problem', and then you go back to your main political line of defending the status quo. Your words ('serious problem') have *no weight* to them, whatsoever.

Look at all the state resources that are dedicated to chasing 'bad guys', internationally, with full military spending and shitloads of killing gear. Maybe the 'bad guys' are *here*, on the streets, in blue uniforms. Shouldn't we send the military in after *them*?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not showing any evidence for purported 'rent extraction' by the USSR, from Comecon members.



wat0n wrote:
Just read the source :roll:



ckaihatsu wrote:
You may want to present some kind of data, or *argument* here.



wat0n wrote:
Why bother when you refuse to consult the data or sources when they are provided to you?



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I never *denied* that the private sector does R&D of its own -- I said that it 'suckles' on the teat of government, for *much* of the R&D, and the *costs* for such, that it uses for its own profit-making. And my argument is backed-up by the data in the table that you provided.



wat0n wrote:
No, your argument refers only to basic research, not overall R&D - including applied research with commercial applications. Overall, at least in the US, most funding comes from businesses themselves.



Whatever -- you're splitting hairs again, since business is obviously *suckling on the government teat*, regarding the difficult-and-expensive 'basic research'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're bullshitting -- I don't see the figure of '60%' *anywhere* on the page that contains Table 4-4.



wat0n wrote:
I'm speaking of Figure 4-4, on page 18. Table 4-4 is on page 20, shows most R&D investment is not done in basic research and:



NSF wrote:
Basic Research

Higher education institutions continued to be the largest performer of U.S. basic research in 2017, while the federal government remained the largest source of funding for basic research. Higher education performed just under half (48%) of basic research, and the federal government funded about 42% of all basic research performed (Table 4-3). The business sector was also a substantial performer (27%) and funder (29%) of basic research. The federal government (agency intramural laboratories and FFRDCs) and other nonprofit organizations were smaller performers, accounting, respectively, for 11% and 13% of the U.S basic research performance total in 2017.

Applied Research

The business sector was both the largest performer (57%) and largest funder (54%) of applied research in 2017— accounting for over half of each (Table 4-3). Higher education (18%), the federal government (17%), and nonprofit organizations (7%) were the next largest performers of applied research.
The vast majority of business sector funding for applied research remained within the sector (Table 4-3). The federal government provided a third of applied research funding, with its funding spread broadly across different sectors; higher education and federal intramural laboratories and FFRDCs received the largest amounts.

Experimental Development

The business sector predominates in experimental development, performing 90% of the R&D in this category in 2017 (Table 4-3).9 The federal government accounted for another 7%, much of it defense related, with the federal government itself the primary user of the results. By contrast, higher education and other nonprofit organizations perform relatively little development (respectively, 2% and 1% of the total in 2017).

The business sector provided 85% of the funding for the experimental development performed in 2017, nearly all of which remained in that sector (Table 4-3). Federal funding accounted for about 13% of the development total, with the business sector (especially defense-related industries) and federal intramural laboratories as the largest recipients.



I don't see the '60%' figure anywhere in the text you've excerpted here.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So you're *admitting* that the government does the expensive, difficult R&D, at public expense, for the sake of private-sector profit-making.



wat0n wrote:
But most research is not basic science, and it isn't necessarily easy either.



You're not *addressing* what I've said -- you're going off on a tangent, and talking about something else, the private sector.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I could just as validly say that *food* and *housing*, for modern life and living, is harder to make a profit from, since food costs and rent / mortgage payments make no profits, either, and should be *underwritten* by government spending.



wat0n wrote:
One difference, though, is that the Government gets part of that money back when such basic research leads to commercial applications since firms eventually pay taxes.

And actually, the Government does subsidize some of that for people who earn little enough to qualify.



To *summarize*, I'd call the U.S. system of R&D to be a *bourgeois technocracy*, since government R&D is funded by bureaucratic planning, and done by academia, to directly benefit companies' profits.

(In other words it's *not* free-market competition among self-funded companies, competing over market share, because none of them would even *exist* if they had to do *their own* basic research, in market-redundant ways, instead of getting that for *free* from the government, meaning *public funds*.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're being *evasive* again, because it's *government police killings / brutality* that's the *independent* variable, and the protests / riots are a *knock-on* effect from *tolerating* government police overreactions.

If you solve the problem of government killer cops then you *won't have* any protests or riots.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you're showing that you don't understand the cause-and-effect here -- the *cause* of protests and riots is the government toleration of killer cops. If you're so 'annoyed' by protests and riots then *get rid of* the killings at the hands of cops. You've been provided with policy *alternatives* for enacting this.

It's akin to my saying that you can prevent headaches if you don't hit your head against the wall.



wat0n wrote:
No, you won't have protests or riots over police killings.



Um, have you seen the *topic of this thread* -- ?

What do you think the 'violent protests in Portland' are *about* -- ?


wat0n wrote:
You can perfectly have them over other things, something leftists are good at is finding those other things so that's patently false. And indeed, people can also be annoyed about those riots over other things, and then leave us where we are.

But you are missing the point. The issue of riots can have electoral (and thus political) consequences, some of which the rioters did not expect or want. Whether they are about police killings or something else is of little relevance when that moment comes.



*Or*, the *new* asshole gets into power and the *issues* remain unaddressed, so the protestors / rioters have cause to do the same thing that they're doing *now*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Your 'decentralization' rhetoric is at-odds with the government policies that benefit *corporations*, and the wealthy, like the government spending on R&D which is then given to the private sector for free, at public expense. There's no mention of 'decentralization' for this, or for military spending, or for tax breaks for the rich, or for bailing out the stock market.

You're expressing a *double standard* that aligns according to *class interests*.



wat0n wrote:
Not really. Issues like national defense are better dealt by the Federal Government (do I need to explain why? States only spend on their National Guard), and actually States are also free to e.g. raise taxes on the rich or tax financial transactions if they want. So even that isn't quite true.



I could just as easily say that issues like defunding the police are better dealt by the Federal Government, as are festering issues like COVID-19, unemployment, hazardous workplace conditions due to COVID-19, rent, etc.

You're more interested in legalistic aspects of government *procedure* than with the unaddressed social *issues* themselves.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're being *evasive* because the governmental *hierarchy* *could* undertake a *broad-based push* to stop killer cops, and their racist killings, if it wanted to.



wat0n wrote:
There are limits to that under the US Constitution.

What the Federal Government can do is set minimum standards and deny funding to States and localities who don't comply. But policing, ultimately, is a local affair.



You're saying the *wrong* thing -- protestors don't need to hear the run-around.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, vigilanteeism does *not* correspond to a legalized, alternative, organized 'community policing' approach.

Again you're simply being *disingenuous*, and you're basically *lying*.



wat0n wrote:
That's exactly what happens with no police. If you want to force PDs to adopt community policing strategies, that's a different matter but you can't do that if you abolish the police.

I would say it is you who is being disingenuous here, trying to fool the reader about what "abolishing the police" means.



Abolishing the police means that we can save 1000+ lives each and every year. That's worth it.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, *property crimes* is *not* my political concern here -- the *priority* is stopping killings at the hands of killer cops.



wat0n wrote:
Again, more disingenuous trash here. I never mentioned property crimes.



Yes, you did -- you call it 'crime' and you specifically cited 'home invasions' and 'vehicle thefts', by my recollection.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Non-professional police forces' are *not* police forces, because they're *outside* of government functioning. You just described *vigilantes*, which you seem to be *tolerant* of.



wat0n wrote:
And that's what you get when you abolish the police. I would say it is you who is tolerant of vigilantism.



No, I never *called for* vigilantism. You're *assuming* that all hell will break loose if the police are disbanded, which is your *own* preferred nightmarish vision.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I'd say that you're being *fatalistic*, just as you are with the politics of workers-of-the-world socialism.



wat0n wrote:
Or you are trying to sell smoke. After all, what successful historical examples do you have to offer?



Duh. If workers-of-the-world socialism was historically successful then we'd be living in it *today*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Great -- and I'll all for such reforms, but the measures that would be *even more* effective would be to *shut down* police departments so that cops aren't on the street to commit killings *whatsoever*.



wat0n wrote:
Hope you enjoy the vigilantes!



Why don't you first personally undertake to make sure that all police departments *are* shut down, and then I'll enjoy the vigilantes, okay -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Since forever -- ideology indicates in *what direction* people want society to go towards.

Anti-capitalists like myself say that society no longer needs capital, private property, or the capitalist class divide -- that the workers of the world can organize social production in the interests of *everyone*, on de-privatized, collectivized productive machinery (factories), to benefit all on an egalitarian basis.



wat0n wrote:
That is a naive idea at best. After all, clientelism is a very old political phenomenon that does not deal with whatever direction people want society to go.



Well, you're just being *pessimistic*, to imagine that proletarian revolution will automatically fatalistically devolve into capitalist-type clientelism, or patronage.
#15118093
Doug64 wrote:
So, I wonder how many people have been injured, even killed, because police weren’t available to respond to service calls?



I just did a cost-benefit analysis on my computer, and it turns out that we could save over a *thousand* lives per year if we get the cops off the streets so that they don't kill anyone in the "line of duty", versus your speculative imaginings.
#15118100
ckaihatsu wrote:I just did a cost-benefit analysis on my computer, and it turns out that we could save over a *thousand* lives per year if we get the cops off the streets so that they don't kill anyone in the "line of duty", versus your speculative imaginings.

Your “thousand lives a year saved” doesn’t take into account the explosion of deaths that would happen if we took all the cops off the street, both the victims of those criminals and the criminals killed by all their would-be victims that arm themselves seeking the protection the police no longer provide—the 2nd Amendment would rule.
#15118108
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, I realized I was being imprecise, so I added the 'CLARIFICATION' post.

Here's more from that Wikipedia entry about 'financialization':

Again, the financial sector is *non-productive* -- it does not produce any commodities.


Is that why Marxists want to nationalize the financial sector? Because it produces nothing? :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not being clear -- do you mean the Declining Rate of Profit data that I shared previously -- ?


Image

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/ ... d-piketty/


I'm referring to stock market returns. Buybacks are a red herring, designed to distract from the issue at hand: If the profit rate is falling, why hasn't it shown in stock market returns for the last century?

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, again, that's not *automatic* -- look at the Great Depression, for example, when consumer buying power was *sharply* reduced. (Etc.)


That was simply cyclical variation - a particularly bad one, indeed, as a result of many factors (including of the regulatory kind), but it's still not a trend.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, I can't *stop* you from doing it -- I provided sample data for it, and there's always Wikipedia as well....


ckaihatsu wrote:Regarding the measurement used for 'profit', I just remembered that such is implied / included in my 'Labor & Capital' diagram that I posted last time. Here it is again:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image


No, I want a clear definition from your own formulae.

For instance, one definition of profits I would use:

Profits = p*f(K,L)-wL-rK

Where p = the good's price; f(K,L) = the production function (in terms of labor and capital); L = labor; K = capital; w = real wage a.k.a. the price of labor; r = real interest rate, a.k.a. the price of capital.

ckaihatsu wrote:You *could* address the empirical data, in the graph, that I've now provided *twice*.


I already did by quoting the following:

Various efforts have been conducted since the 1970s to empirically examine the TRPF. Studies supporting or arguing in favour of it include those by Michael Roberts,[75][76] Minqi Li,[77] John Bradford,[78] and Deenpankar Basu (2012).[79] Studies critical or contradicting the TRPF include those by Themistoklis Kalogerakos,[80] Marcelo Resende,[81] Òscar Jordà[82] and Simcha Barkai.[83] Other studies, such as those by Basu (2013),[84] Elveren[85] Thomas Weiß[86] and Ivan Trofimov,[87] report mixed results or argue that the answer is not yet certain due to conflicting findings and issues with appropriately measuring the TRPF.


The empirical evidence is far from clear, differences arise because the rate of profit is not necessarily easy to define. Hence why I'm asking you to state your definition. First a conceptual one, but we will sooner or later turn into the operative definitions used to calculate the data in that plot.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, look at Lebanon, for a recent example -- it suffered *hyperinflation* due to U.S. sanctions on its economics, so creditors weren't willing to lend it money to bolster its currency, and it turned to the IMF.

What good is its *stock market* when the 'real economy' itself was no longer functioning in any meaningful way?


Lebanon has had high inflation, but is not suffering from hyperinflation (at least for now). Now, Venezuela on the other hand...

Either way, this doesn't have all that much to do with the stock market.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *still* thinking conventionally and in a *state*-based way. Again, there's *no* standing government, or government / state of any kind. There are no financial institutions, or businesses, or companies, because there's *no need* for such in communism. No exchange values / finance / money / currency / exchanges.

Centralization would *only* happen over productive means in common (factories / workplaces), by combined consent of the respective active liberated laborers, per-item, for generalization over any given item, like face masks.

Here's a sample scenario -- let's say that face masks are being produced by liberated laborers in the factories roughly in the vicinity of Locality 'A'. It just so happens that liberated laborers near Locality 'B' are *also* making face masks at several factories around *their* area. Journalists around that industry are publishing a blog, and they pick up on what's happening with the Locality B area and that area's production of face masks. The active face-mask liberated-workers around Locality A read the industry press and they come across a series of articles on the face-mask industry around Locality B, and some of them decide as a group to take the initiative to reach out to Locality-B-area face-mask liberated laborers, and they suggest that, given the numbers reported, the face mask factories of *both* areas could see an increase in productivity by as much as 28% if they combine their respective supply chains to feed into *both* geographic areas, for face masks, realizing economies-of-scale as a result. (Factories near Locality A could concentrate just on the elastic string, while factories near Locality B could focus on just producing the fabric material, with final assembly at both locations, making the process more materially efficient, and faster.)


I see. But what you are saying would (among other things) require a constant effort for transparency, publishing production statistics of all kinds, etc. Am I correct?

ckaihatsu wrote:There *can't* be any such 'stealing' because no one *owns* anything, not even the machinery / factories, or the products of them. No one receives anything directly in exchange for their efforts to produce for the common good, so no one can get 'paid' more or less than anyone else, in a strictly 'pure' (*zero*-labor-credits) communist gift economy.

I introduce the vehicle of labor credits into the baseline communist gift economy so as to cover the possibility that *no one* would want to do certain labor roles that are socially necessary but are too hazardous / difficult / distasteful. (I've previously used the example of manually cleaning out clogged sewers in a municipal sewer system, like that in Mexico City.)

To sum up, people *could* simply take whatever they want, whenever they want, without money, and they wouldn't have to resort to using force, because everything produced post-capitalism would be *free-access* and *directly distributed*. Worst case would be that factories would keep a certain *surplus* -- maybe 20% -- of whatever it is that they produce, on-hand, according to the liberated-workers there, for any such 'walk-ups' (which would be outside of the formal daily individual self-ranked 'demands' lists, for mass-aggregation). Over time and experience this percentage could be tailored to each particular workplace. (In alignment with the overall description of 'a landscape of piles of stuff'.)


They would only be introduced as a form of compensatory earnings? If so, why would anyone work (generally)? After all, I can get free stuff and simply "work" as a hobby.

ckaihatsu wrote:Labor credits would be allocated to *proposals* and *projects*, per plan, and such plans / proposals / projects would *compete*, and would be open to inclusion on individuals' daily self-ranked 'demands' lists (as socio-political 'demands', either abstractly, or specificly, by plan).

Perhaps one active proposal would allocate more labor credits to 'elastic string makers', while another active proposal in circulation would allocate more labor credits to 'face mask material makers'. In both cases the 'funding' of labor credits would necessarily have to come from liberated laborers who *have* such potential funding, in part, *in hand*, necessarily from their *own* past liberated-labor efforts.

*Localities* could also issue their own *debt-based* labor credits, if necesssary, per proposal, but it would be public knowledge that such labor credits (by serial number, and batch) are *debt-based*, until enough people from that locality then go out and do work elsewhere to bring back sufficient amounts of labor credits to *neutralize* the debt that they issued as a locality. That information would be public knowledge as well, and the labor credits themselves would continue to circulate, regardless. (Think of the labor credits as 'IOUs', for actual liberated-labor done, that are debt-based until covered / neutralized by labor credits earned and brought-back to that locality that issued the debt-based labor credits, to cancel the debt. All labor credits *always* continue to circulate, regardless.)


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


Who would allocate labor credits? That is, who would decide how many credits would each community get?

ckaihatsu wrote:It depends on the *scale* on the endeavor. Work roles could be for the common good, in concert with others, as on industrial machinery of mass production.

*Or* efforts could be at *any other* scale, conceivably, even person-to-person, as with handicrafts. Which work roles would be considered to be a *social priority*, for *socially necessary* production, would be a socio-political thing.

I've entertained the thought-experiment of 'a post-capitalist society of rock stars', meaning that maybe, post-capitalism, everyone would just want to work on their own music, and on performing -- many socially necessary work roles, like food production, would go untendered in that case, and society would have to adjust somehow, perhaps by *automating* all food production so that everyone could get back to playing guitar, or whatever.


Honestly, it sounds a bit like wishful thinking. After all, who would produce those capital goods? Who would work in their maintenance? Seems like a boring job, so I am not sure if enough people would be willing to do that as a hobby.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, you're taking this rather *morally*, in a *moralistic* way, which is your prerogative, of course, but in the *socio-political* context, it realistically means that everyone in such a society would have to collectively set their own 'standards', or social norms.


Well, you introduced that concept of "taking responsibility for your failures" into this discussion, didn't you?

ckaihatsu wrote:The USSR was a real example of *Stalinism*. No one before Stalin came to power *wanted* Stalin to come to power -- it was a historical *accident*, basically.

Of course I share the criticism of Stalinism in that it's *not* workers-of-the-world socialism.


I see. Well, the thing is, the USSR was not the only country where Sovietism was implemented.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I've never been an anarchist -- it's too *localist*, but, that said, I *am* in favor of *bottom-up* organizing of social productivity, post-capitalism, as seen in this diagram of mine (also a *critique* of anarchism):


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



For the proletarian revolution I'm a *vanguardist*, and I have a treatment of that here:


I see.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're really *exaggerating* violent civilian crime, as though such *needs* policing, when crime rates are at historic *lows* -- again, the greater societal threat right now comes from *killer cops*, moreso than *killer civilians*, especially since the killer cops are state-sanctioned and mostly are not treated as criminals, unfortunately.

This is where *deterrence* is called-for, because in *any other* situation there would be changes made to *deter* such overreactions on the part of professionals.


Crime is at historic lows indeed, and yet police killings still represent a minor part of all crime. Of course it's important to consider whatever effects would abolishing the police have. Crime rates are low but not zero.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I can't agree, because my political perspective is that government is a *plutocracy* and primarily -- almost *exclusively* -- serves the interests of the wealthy. I think a particular anarchist saying is appropriate here:

The bourgeois establishment favors the *status quo* -- as you do -- or even *rolling back* social progress, as with civil rights, working conditions, gender roles, etc.


So I'm guessing US society today must be the same as that in 1790. After all, voting doesn't change anything.

Right? :|

ckaihatsu wrote:You're failing to see that *class* is paramount, and you're too caught-up in the *procedurals* of intra-national political rituals.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image


This view of society stopped being useful quite a long time ago. Class reductionism cannot explain events such as WWI properly (why did the working classes in many countries preferred to kill each other in trench warfare rather than coordinating a Revolution? This is a question Marxists have never been able to address).

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, I won't simply *ignore* this point, as you do for so many of the points *I* make -- here's the proof:


This is not in disagreement with what I said.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not predicting *shit* -- such would be *presumptuous* on my part. What I *have* done is to put forward a comprehensive communist-gift-economy-based *model framework*, which has its own internal logic and functioning.

Your position, though, is based on analyzing historical *Stalinism*, and I'm certainly not for such bureaucratic-elitism. I'm for workers-of-the-world *socialism*.


No, your proposal has your predicted internal logic and functioning. You don't know for sure if that's how would things pan out.

ckaihatsu wrote:And the data comes from *police reports*, I'd estimate.


Not necessarily. They can also come from other sources, such as eyewitness testimony and court cases.

ckaihatsu wrote:Don't you think that even *one* death at the hands of the police, by overreaction, is one death too many -- ?


Sure...

ckaihatsu wrote:The government has the means to *shut that shit down*.


...But even a single death at the hands of a common criminal is also one too many, and that justifies the very existence of the police.

ckaihatsu wrote:Because the life of a person taken by a cop is a life that could have been *saved*.


And the life taken by a criminal couldn't? Should people be armed 24/7 to deter people from killing them?

ckaihatsu wrote:Why are you so stubborn against getting cops off the streets so that there *are no* cops to commit killings? Human lives are more important than *property*.


Since when did I say cops exclusively protect property? Pretty disingenuous implication here.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm open to any observations you may have as to why *civilians* kill other people.


I can think of many reasons, actually.

ckaihatsu wrote:But don't you see that you're *not suggesting* any realistic way to *address* this 'serious problem' -- ? At most, over dozens and dozens of posts, you might *acknowledge* that this is a 'serious problem', and then you go back to your main political line of defending the status quo. Your words ('serious problem') have *no weight* to them, whatsoever.

Look at all the state resources that are dedicated to chasing 'bad guys', internationally, with full military spending and shitloads of killing gear. Maybe the 'bad guys' are *here*, on the streets, in blue uniforms. Shouldn't we send the military in after *them*?


I already provided proposals that would help deal with unjustified police killings. It ironically happens to be what BLM was demanding back in 2015.

What I don't understand is why would one simply not care at all if, for every police killing that is prevented, one or more civilian-on-civilian killings are committed.

ckaihatsu wrote:Whatever -- you're splitting hairs again, since business is obviously *suckling on the government teat*, regarding the difficult-and-expensive 'basic research'.


What makes you believe basic research is necessarily more expensive than applied research and development?

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't see the '60%' figure anywhere in the text you've excerpted here.


That's because the number is in Figure 4-4.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not *addressing* what I've said -- you're going off on a tangent, and talking about something else, the private sector.


I think I did: Sure, basic research is not directly profitable and hence the private sector will tend to do less of it than ideal. But basic research does not represent most R&D activity, at all.

ckaihatsu wrote:To *summarize*, I'd call the U.S. system of R&D to be a *bourgeois technocracy*, since government R&D is funded by bureaucratic planning, and done by academia, to directly benefit companies' profits.

(In other words it's *not* free-market competition among self-funded companies, competing over market share, because none of them would even *exist* if they had to do *their own* basic research, in market-redundant ways, instead of getting that for *free* from the government, meaning *public funds*.)


Sure, and the Government also gets a return for that.

ckaihatsu wrote:Um, have you seen the *topic of this thread* -- ?

What do you think the 'violent protests in Portland' are *about* -- ?


About their pet topic for the day. But actually I don't think police killings are the only reason for the protests.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Or*, the *new* asshole gets into power and the *issues* remain unaddressed, so the protestors / rioters have cause to do the same thing that they're doing *now*.


Or even if the issue of police killings was addressed, they will find some other issue to justify rioting.

ckaihatsu wrote:I could just as easily say that issues like defunding the police are better dealt by the Federal Government, as are festering issues like COVID-19, unemployment, hazardous workplace conditions due to COVID-19, rent, etc.


States can and do deal with all those issues. Of course, the Federal Government can participate too, at least in terms of providing funding.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're more interested in legalistic aspects of government *procedure* than with the unaddressed social *issues* themselves.


That happens to be important in practice, so yes, I do care about procedure.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're saying the *wrong* thing -- protestors don't need to hear the run-around.


Indeed, in fact they don't care about that. Again, deal with policing and they will find some other issue to justify protests. I can imagine rent being one.

ckaihatsu wrote:Abolishing the police means that we can save 1000+ lives each and every year. That's worth it.


No, you don't know that. You don't know how many lives would be lost as a result of increased crime resulting from having no police around.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, you did -- you call it 'crime' and you specifically cited 'home invasions' and 'vehicle thefts', by my recollection.


Those are examples, not an exhaustive list of crimes. I could have mentioned rape and murder too.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I never *called for* vigilantism. You're *assuming* that all hell will break loose if the police are disbanded, which is your *own* preferred nightmarish vision.


And yet that's what happened during these riots as police was overloaded. A couple of examples:





ckaihatsu wrote:Duh. If workers-of-the-world socialism was historically successful then we'd be living in it *today*.


Exactly, so what can you infer from that? Why would I believe you now?

ckaihatsu wrote:Why don't you first personally undertake to make sure that all police departments *are* shut down, and then I'll enjoy the vigilantes, okay -- ?


No, I don't want vigilantes so I'll pass.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, you're just being *pessimistic*, to imagine that proletarian revolution will automatically fatalistically devolve into capitalist-type clientelism, or patronage.


I'm simply pointing out that clientelism/patronage isn't about ideology. Of course socialism can devolve into that... Why not?
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 21

I think you're missing the forest for the trees[…]

Rules. What Rules. Right is right. The Court w[…]

Yeah, that's what's happening. :D

Not sure about that. I don't think Covid mutates […]