[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu, Well, that is certainly a mouthful, i.e. long.
I'm not an economist. I'm very well read however. I'm retired and spend a lot of my time looking at Youtube videos on --- economics & MMT, AGW or ACC, anthropology, history of warfare, etc.
I'm smart but was a self-employed carpet cleaner. I earned the title of Master Carper Care Tech and never scored less than 97% on the tests. In 1972 or 3 I was impressed by the Club of Rome Report, "The Limits to Growth". It was claimed to have been refuted, but I strongly felt that the refutations had created a strawman and refuted that. I turned my life around and lived a much simpler life in 1973. So far the report has been spot on. It missed the fact that CO2 was a main pollutant, and AGW might kill us all or make it impossible for civilization to go on.

The way I see it, there must always be competition. Competition is a good thing because it leads to tech progress. As I see it, empowered worker utopias lack competition and so are not stable. They must always develop some way for the people to compete. Stalinism is just one way that this process can play out.
. . . Capitalism is built around competition. Capitalists strive to win and winning can be having a monopoly. When this happens competition is reduced in that part of the economy. So, the economic system and its founding laws must make it hard to gain a monopoly or reduce the benefits of having one.
. . . The nationalism you seem to attack is just another form of competition. Sort of like the sports teams I mention below

After AGW has slashed the world's population to somewhat less than a billion, I want to see a new better civilization be formed.
The 1st rule of it is population must be stabilized somehow. 2nd rule is economic growth can't grow exponentially. 3rd rule is competition must be channeled into the right forms. [Wars are destructive but sometimes necessary I see wars as part of a continuum; single muggers, organized muggers, the mafia, and aggressive nations; the last are put down with wars]. So, I see capitalism as a good starting place. It can have economic competition inside nations and between nations (in both locations mostly instead of wars or lessor violence).
. . . You keep saying that capitalists will not like it and will chaff under my rules. So what, I already know that. And I don't care. If I may use an analogy --- in the Legend of the Wild West the "takers" liked the might makes right situation, they could just take what they wanted. Some might see this as just human nature playing out in its most raw form. However, soon the mass of the people called for and got "Lawmen" to make murder and theft less of a winning strategy. They were never fully stopped but they were massively reduced. So, the key thing is that the mass of the people must keep the capitalists contained. I see this as fairly stable as long as the rules are very hard to change.
. . . Another analogy --- Professional sports have evolved to have a draft system. This was better for the owners because every team has a much more equal chance of winning. This increased ticket sales and TV revenue. The old system was not as good.
. . . So, I'm calling for economic competition between nations, but with some major rules changed. Exactly which ones, I'm not sure about yet. However, some are --- no gunboat diplomacy, no sending the CIA into a nation to destabilize it, nations like the current Germany can not keep exporting more than they import forever, understand that debts that can't be repaid will not be repaid and the fault is more on the lender than the borrower so they must be forgiven somehow (fiat currency could make it easier to do this, just forgive the debt and the bank's nation gives the bank half of what it lost in "printed" money), etc.

Got to cut this short, the wife needs me.

[Steve_American]

It seems to me [IStM] that capitalism needs to find a new better system.
If the full employment situation led to too much power for labor, and
the Neo-liberal situation now is too much power for the rich (owners of corps. who are needed to hire the working class), then
what is needed is something between these 2 extremes. I'm not sure what this might entail, though.
Asking you-all for ideas is as productive as asking the wall, though.
I'll have to think on it some more.
. . . Currently, my thoughts have to do [as I have said many times] with heavily taxing excess wealth and excess income, including a progressive corp. profits tax. Get too big and get heavily taxed. Be real small and be lightly taxed.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, Well, that is certainly a mouthful, i.e. long.
I'm not an economist. I'm very well read however. I'm retired and spend a lot of my time looking at Youtube videos on --- economics & MMT, AGW or ACC, anthropology, history of warfare, etc.
I'm smart but was a self-employed carpet cleaner. I earned the title of Master Carper Care Tech and never scored less than 97% on the tests. In 1972 or 3 I was impressed by the Club of Rome Report, "The Limits to Growth". It was claimed to have been refuted, but I strongly felt that the refutations had created a strawman and refuted that. I turned my life around and lived a much simpler life in 1973. So far the report has been spot on. It missed the fact that CO2 was a main pollutant, and AGW might kill us all or make it impossible for civilization to go on.

Okay, thanks for the background. I'm not nearly as focused on environmental stuff since the problem with addressing all of that lies with capitalism itself -- there's no material incentive to bring such 'externalities' in-house, and the most advanced Western countries just flout any such attempted regulations over the same.

The *socialist* position is that we need to overthrow capitalism and get to an international workers state as soon as possible so that humanity *can* *collectively* address such issues that are inherently global in scope.

I'm 46 myself and have been travelling around the U.S. for four years now, over two segments, mostly backpacking but more recently in an ebike from Organic Transit. My degree is in Education (Sociology / History major), and I've taught high school history for a total of about 4 years. I've also freelanced in graphic print production (desktop publishing) (dotcom era), and done a little sales.

The way I see it, there must always be competition. Competition is a good thing because it leads to tech progress. As I see it, empowered worker utopias lack competition and so are not stable.

Well, I'd say yes-and-no to this -- I don't eschew competition altogether, but I think workers' councils (historical 'soviets') could provide a basis for far more cooperation, and more-efficient, self-planned workers' production as we saw to some extent in the USSR in the '20s and '30s, and beyond.

They must always develop some way for the people to compete. Stalinism is just one way that this process can play out.

Well, Stalinism isn't to be *advocated* -- it's simply the historical *result* of the Bolshevik Revolution, counterposed by Western invasions of it at the time. Again, we don't *need* bureaucratic elitism, or even nations, for that matter. We need collective workers' control over all social production.

. . . Capitalism is built around competition. Capitalists strive to win and winning can be having a monopoly. When this happens competition is reduced in that part of the economy. So, the economic system and its founding laws must make it hard to gain a monopoly or reduce the benefits of having one.

You're touting the *shortcomings* of capitalism here -- if 'capitalism is built around competition', and '[monopoly control] reduces competition in that part of the economy', then you should be *anti-monopoly*. I *am* anti-monopoly, and here's a self-portrait illustration of such:

. . . The nationalism you seem to attack is just another form of competition. Sort of like the sports teams I mention below

Nationalism became outdated with the advent of *industrial* production, because such can be done *anywhere* (near resources), for massive leveraging of human labor efforts. At *one* time nationalism was historically-progressive, to realize larger-scale social organization, over and above the preceding city-state form, but industrial production *obliterates* that now-constrained form of social organization -- it must be the workers themselves / ourselves to control all industrial production.

After AGW has slashed the world's population to somewhat less than a billion, I want to see a new better civilization be formed.

Natural-world impacts won't / can't themselves alter our own ways of social organization, for social production -- the latter is a *political* matter that must be addressed worldwide *politically* (for workers power).

The 1st rule of it is population must be stabilized somehow. 2nd rule is economic growth can't grow exponentially. 3rd rule is competition must be channeled into the right forms. [Wars are destructive but sometimes necessary I see wars as part of a continuum; single muggers, organized muggers, the mafia, and aggressive nations; the last are put down with wars]. So, I see capitalism as a good starting place. It can have economic competition inside nations and between nations (in both locations mostly instead of wars or lessor violence).

You make international warfare sound *inevitable*, at a time -- by your own description -- when we *can't afford* such further destruction and procrastination. The competition you're referencing is based on monetary / *exchange values*, which is a poor yardstick / basis for competition because it's rule by the dynamic of might-makes-right, which is *regressive* and reactionary.

. . . You keep saying that capitalists will not like it and will chaff under my rules. So what, I already know that.

No, you're *misrepresenting* my politics. I never said anything of the sort.

And I don't care. If I may use an analogy --- in the Legend of the Wild West the "takers" liked the might makes right situation, they could just take what they wanted. Some might see this as just human nature playing out in its most raw form. However, soon the mass of the people called for and got "Lawmen" to make murder and theft less of a winning strategy. They were never fully stopped but they were massively reduced. So, the key thing is that the mass of the people must keep the capitalists contained. I see this as fairly stable as long as the rules are very hard to change.

The reason why bourgeois law is inadequate -- as you're recognizing -- is because the state only has an interest *in the state*, in its own perpetuation regardless of the *content* that it purports to address in the larger society.

. . . Another analogy --- Professional sports have evolved to have a draft system. This was better for the owners because every team has a much more equal chance of winning. This increased ticket sales and TV revenue. The old system was not as good.
. . . So, I'm calling for economic competition between nations, but with some major rules changed. Exactly which ones, I'm not sure about yet. However, some are --- no gunboat diplomacy, no sending the CIA into a nation to destabilize it, nations like the current Germany can not keep exporting more than they import forever, understand that debts that can't be repaid will not be repaid and the fault is more on the lender than the borrower so they must be forgiven somehow (fiat currency could make it easier to do this, just forgive the debt and the bank's nation gives the bank half of what it lost in "printed" money), etc.

You're a reformist nationalist, or a 'liberal', at best. You're just daydreaming and opinionating regardless of the real world, Steve.

Got to cut this short, the wife needs me.

[Steve_American]

@ckaihatsu, you wrote, 'Natural-world impacts won't / can't themselves alter our own ways of social organization, for social production -- the latter is a *political* matter that must be addressed worldwide *politically* (for workers power)."
This is just flatly wrong. The natural world set many limits on what sorts of production are possible. For example, some scientist think that it is possible that it will get so hot that grain can't be grown on a mass scale. If this happens humanity may find itself thrown back into hunting and gathering or animal herding. If this happens then industrial production stops. Also, universities become impossible. It may not be possible to keep all the knowledge that we have painfully learned over the last 3000 years. It will take the natural world many 1000s of years at least to absorb all the CO2, and maybe close to a million years.
. . . I suppose that it may be unlikely; but you made a blanket statement. One counter example disproves such blanket statements.
. . . You accuse me of being a pie in the sky dreamer. Well, pot stop calling this kettle black. Worldwide workers overthrowing the capitalists is far less likely than my dream.

Also, you need to look closely at AGW and the other side of that argument. This is by far the most important problem humanity faces [if the scientists are to be believed]. There are some pretty good post in the Science and Environment page here. Both sides have posted their best evidence. So, it ought to get you started.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, you wrote, 'Natural-world impacts won't / can't themselves alter our own ways of social organization, for social production -- the latter is a *political* matter that must be addressed worldwide *politically* (for workers power)."
This is just flatly wrong. The natural world set many limits on what sorts of production are possible. For example, some scientist think that it is possible that it will get so hot that grain can't be grown on a mass scale.

Steve, I think we're starting to talk past each other here -- you're missing the *point* I'm making, which is that capitalism is an insufficient kind of social organization to address an issue like global warming. The UN doesn't cut it, because it's more like a international *club*, rather than a real world government that could cut against corporate rule.

If this happens humanity may find itself thrown back into hunting and gathering or animal herding. If this happens then industrial production stops. Also, universities become impossible. It may not be possible to keep all the knowledge that we have painfully learned over the last 3000 years. It will take the natural world many 1000s of years at least to absorb all the CO2, and maybe close to a million years.

Yes, no disagreement on the empirical facts.

. . . I suppose that it may be unlikely; but you made a blanket statement. One counter example disproves such blanket statements.
. . . You accuse me of being a pie in the sky dreamer. Well, pot stop calling this kettle black. Worldwide workers overthrowing the capitalists is far less likely than my dream.

Not at all -- it's actually already *happened* in history, in Russia in 1917, though it was barely industrialized at the time. The social organization of *soviets* (workers councils) was introduced to the world, but things have *regressed* since that high point. That's why revolutionaries look at that historical period so much.

Also, you need to look closely at AGW and the other side of that argument. This is by far the most important problem humanity faces [if the scientists are to be believed]. There are some pretty good post in the Science and Environment page here. Both sides have posted their best evidence. So, it ought to get you started.

You're assuming that I *disagree* with the reality of global warming, but I don't. What would be your best choice of a way to *handle* this existential threat, as through politics?

[QatzelOk]

nYou're touting the *shortcomings* of capitalism here -- if 'capitalism is built around competition', and '[monopoly control] reduces competition in that part of the economy', then you should be *anti-monopoly*. I *am* anti-monopoly, and here's a self-portrait illustration of such:]

Any suggesting that capitalism "just needs to be tinkered with to work" ignores the historical fact that capitalism has been tinkered with many times during the last few centuries, and its failures have only become more gigantic with each fail.

[Stardust]

You're touting the *shortcomings* of capitalism here -- if 'capitalism is built around competition', and '[monopoly control] reduces competition in that part of the economy', then you should be *anti-monopoly*. I *am* anti-monopoly, and here's a self-portrait illustration of such:

Any suggesting that capitalism "just needs to be tinkered with to work" ignores the historical fact that capitalism has been tinkered with many times during the last few centuries, and its failures have only become more gigantic with each fail.

There's no logical connection between what you are suggesting, and that quote by Ckaihatsu above. Ckaihatsu is clearly against 'tinkering' with Capitalism. It's the statement by Steve_American that he has referred to; and the one you should be quoting here:

. . . Capitalism is built around competition. Capitalists strive to win and winning can be having a monopoly. When this happens competition is reduced in that part of the economy. So, the economic system and its founding laws must make it hard to gain a monopoly or reduce the benefits of having one.

As he is obviously a reformist, and confines his politics to merely changing Capitalism one way or another for improvement, rather than changing it from the core; as the revolutionary politics posit. If you pay more attention to the posts in this thread, then you'll realize that Ckaihatsu is against tinkering with Capitalism, or limiting the demands of the working class to reforms only.

And sure, he has mentioned that he's 'anti-monopoly'- but from the view point of anti-capitalism with all its forms of exploitation, and profit making for a few...

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, You don't need to post your self illustrations, you're embarrassing yourself...

[QatzelOk]

There's no logical connection between what you are suggesting, and that quote by Ckaihatsu above. Ckaihatsu is clearly against 'tinkering' with Capitalism...

I am referring to his "I am anti Monopoly" text and visual.

By suggesting that capitalism would "work" if only we could get rid of the monopolies... is like saying college hazing rituals would work if we could just get rid of the alcohol abuse.


Duh. That's what a hazing ritual is.

[Stardust]

I am referring to his "I am anti Monopoly" text and visual.

By suggesting that capitalism would "work" if only we could get rid of the monopolies... is like saying college hazing rituals would work if we could just get rid of the alcohol abuse.


Duh. That's what a hazing ritual is.

I have nothing against your point of view, when opposing capitalism in all its forms and its profit-seeking strategies to fix and manage the unavoidable recessions, and its efforts to hang on to a system that has long passed its expiry date.

However, my objection to you is that you see Ckaihatsu in the opposition platform to your line of thoughts regarding this. Well, he isn't...

I agree that paragraph of his you have quoted, could be a little vague for some readers. As he adds that he is an anti-monopoly, without explaining (there and then) why he makes that statement. This lack of clarification, may sound like he is 'also' an anti-monopoly because he wishes the system to continue with its 'unhealthy' competitions- the only kind of competition that could exist 'under Capitalism'.

But if you'd already read his arguments from elsewhere, and were familiar with his political standings, then you would understand that this objection to the capitalist monopolies; does not emerge from a reformist viewpoint, as he doesn't see them as the starting, nor the ending issues of Capitalism. This is so, because a revolutionary perspective, tends to see and analyse the system with all its connected elements from the core, at present and historically.

This is my understanding, but hopefully Ckaihatsu will enter the conversation to clarify his viewpoint on the subject.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, You don't need to post your self illustrations, you're embarrassing yourself...

What's wrong with self-portraits, with a political meaning? You're too casually opinionated.

I am referring to his "I am anti Monopoly" text and visual.

By suggesting that capitalism would "work" if only we could get rid of the monopolies...

You're putting words in my mouth -- I never said or implied that capitalism would work if monopolies could be eliminated. More to the point is that the self-portrait graphic simply shows that I'm anti-monopoly. I also happen to be anti-capitalism, so I'm not a reformist looking to 'fix' capitalism. It's the workers themselves / ourselves who need to control the world's social production.

is like saying college hazing rituals would work if we could just get rid of the alcohol abuse.


Duh. That's what a hazing ritual is.

---


I posted that image in response to a post from SA:

. . . Capitalism is built around competition. Capitalists strive to win and winning can be having a monopoly. When this happens competition is reduced in that part of the economy. So, the economic system and its founding laws must make it hard to gain a monopoly or reduce the benefits of having one.

You're touting the *shortcomings* of capitalism here -- if 'capitalism is built around competition', and '[monopoly control] reduces competition in that part of the economy', then you should be *anti-monopoly*. I *am* anti-monopoly, and here's a self-portrait illustration of such:

[QatzelOk]

You're putting words in my mouth -- I never said or implied that capitalism would work if monopolies could be eliminated.

Thanks for the clarification.

I posted about this because this wasn't perfectly clear to me, so it probably wasn't perfectly clear to a lot of other readers as well. But now it is. Carry on.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, There is nothing incorrect with self portraits. It is just that your personally illustrated portraits look like a mild form of autism.

All I see is a fat yankee kicking a cartoon.

[Godstud]

Incredibly Unfair: Even Though Billionaires Work Way Harder Than Everyone Else, They Only Earn 4,000 Times As Much Money
America has always prided itself on being a country that provides opportunities and rewards for all who strive for a better life, but the sad reality is that our society is deeply unfair and riddled with injustice. For definitive proof that our country is broken, simply consider the fact that, in the year 2019, billionaires still only earn 4,000 times as much money as the average American, even though they work way harder than everyone else.

It’s incredibly depressing and sobering to realize that the incredible billionaires among us are still not getting their due.

In our current economic climate, it is so difficult to become a billionaire that there are actually only about 540 in the entire United States, and yet it seems that our country takes for granted these precious individuals who are special and talented enough to make such a staggering amount of money. It just doesn’t seem right that a billionaire should put in the herculean effort needed to run his own company while at the same time, one of his ordinary employees who isn’t even an executive is earning as much as one-four-thousandth of his income.

You have to admit the system has failed if it is funneling thousands of dollars into the hands of middle and lower class Americans who, on average, are .01 percent as experienced with money as any single billionaire. That money should be going to people who were already talented and hard-working enough to have a billion dollars and run their own company.

At the end of the day, if you really want to understand why billionaires deserve to be making way more money than everyone else, all you have to do is look at the numbers: Most people who are worth over one billion dollars currently only make enough money to last 600 lifetimes when, based on how much more important and meaningful their lives are than the average person, they should be making enough for 1,500 lifetimes at least.

Let that sink in. Even though one billionaire’s life is roughly as important as 1,500 normal people, they’re still compensated as if their lives are only as important as 600 people. It’s shameful.

This isn’t rocket science: Billionaires are simply owed a fair share of the pie for the work they do, and right now, the paltry billions of dollars they are receiving every year do not reflect how much harder they work than the typical American. It’s time to finally give billionaires the money that their money entitles them to.
https://www.clickhole.com/incredibly-un ... v66_jFgICs

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for the clarification.

I posted about this because this wasn't perfectly clear to me, so it probably wasn't perfectly clear to a lot of other readers as well. But now it is. Carry on.

No prob. Cool.

@ckaihatsu, There is nothing incorrect with self portraits. It is just that your personally illustrated portraits look like a mild form of autism.

All I see is a fat yankee kicking a cartoon.

Always in with a disparaging comment, huh, SSDR -- ?

Incredibly Unfair: Even Though Billionaires Work Way Harder Than Everyone Else, They Only Earn 4,000 Times As Much Money

Hey, I didn't know The Onion was still around -- !


x D

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, You're the one who can't even make direct replies lmfaoooo. You can't state your own opinions either lol...

[ckaihatsu]

Whatever, troll.

[QatzelOk]

@ckaihatsu, You're the one who can't even make direct replies lmfaoooo. You can't state your own opinions either lol...

I consider this nasty post another example of rentierism sucking the thread dry.

Rather than interacting with other poster's ideas, SSDR has decided to use other people's contributions as troll-food to satisfy his anti-social yearning for other people's pain

I like when disreputable posters accidenally prove someone else's point so effectively.