Why Socialism is Necessary for Civilization - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15027064
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes, but that wouldn't be at-issue -- the component of society that's in need of egalitarianism is our *productive* capacities, primarily.

You're making it sound as though 'human nature' -- a formulation of *idealism* -- is naturally and necessarily in a mode of operation that conforms to *capitalist* social values (like the ceaseless primitive accumulation of material exchange values).

Before, I answer your points I will tell you that socialism is inevitable, but it will not happen as you envision. Socialism will happen when capitalists reach the point of redundant wealth. And you probably ask: What is redundant wealth? It is a state where added wealth to a person means NOTHING. A good example is Bill Gates who will likely get rid of 95% of his wealth as he has ZERO need for that. Imagine a world with millions of bill Gates. Not everybody can create wealth. Certainly socialists are not known for creating wealth.

Regarding the concept of conforming to capitalism. There is some truth to that. People in market economies are susceptible to manipulation by advertising and hence feel they need more and more. Today practically all humans in the west have a cell phone. My daughter volunteered as a food server in a homeless shelter and a large number of them had cell phones. Do you even realize that not long ago portable phone technology was only available to very few elite people in the planet. This is the end result of redundant wealth and technology. Redundant wealth has also created a NEW class of over fed obese poor people that do not need to work to eat.

So the goal isn't some abstract, anal-retentive, perfectionistic 'make everybody equal', because we both know that such is unrealistic. What *can* be addressed is how our human societal mode-of-production *operates* -- currently it's based in the institution of private property, so that those with capital will be rewarded with *more* capital, however absurd the size of the mountain of accumulation.

I agree with you. Sadly, not all rich entities have reached a state of redundant wealth. Many are totally anal about the principle of wealth accumulation and efficiency in keeping the overhead down. Meanwhile other companies are incredibly generous with workers and create technologies that benefit all. The issue is that in the West we measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. The gap between rich and poor is larger, but the poor are actually better off. Nevertheless, a large gap often leads to revolution because misery loves company.

If we start with the basics that human labor creates material benefits, and that consumption should be driven by individual *need*, by the individual consumer, then it follows that the things society produces should be distributed to those with actual *need* for them -- those who would be able to *consume* those materials, for their own humane ends. That's *not* how the economy operates under capitalism, because of the go-between 'realm' of *exchange values* -- one can either *afford* what one needs and/or wants, or else one cannot.

Capitalism is not designed in that manner:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith

Capitalism is based on self interest. Since the capitalist is looking out for himself and competing with others they try to improve goods and services at all times. That is why a flat screen TV is so cheap these days.

And, yet, even within the social context of dog-eat-dog capitalism, there *are* some instances of distribute-for-need, such as through charities and food banks. And, obversely, there are jobs that don't pay any wages, but rather welcome those who are able and willing to *volunteer* their labor efforts, at whatever extents.

By the way: No one is stopping anyone to form COOPs and communes in free capitalist western democracies. You and your comrades could pool resources and set up camp anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities

Once capitalist norms are overthrown, and the practice of exchange values *eliminated* (no markets whatsoever), society could then concentrate on *mass-consciously* organizing social tasks so that production and consumption (and overall *administration* of the same) can take place *rationally*, by those most concerned with any of these three main material components of society.

The only way to do the above is with oppression and a dictatorship. That is another reason why socialism does not work. It can only be imposed by force.

In this way no authoritarian / hierarchical power structure would be necessary, nor would there be any form of personal or institutional 'wealth', thus yielding a society that *functioned* in an egalitarian way, even if everyone didn't work and consume strictly equally. (And my previously mentioned 'labor credits framework' would provide a distinct societal *incentive* for the contribution of formally-needed work-efforts to society, through the receipt of tangible labor credits per work role, per work hour, which would only apply to liberated-labor work role-hours from *others* going-forward, and not to any products or materials themselves, since that would be commodification. Follow the link through to see details on that.)

In any society you create there will be people that rush to the bottom and people that reach for the top.

You *really* think that, don't you? That the world operates according to sheer merit, and that there's no *politicization* (as through favoritism) of work roles.

I despise crony capitalism as it creates NO WEALTH.

The *problem* is that there's a very tiny elite portion of the population that receives *disproportionate* material rewards, for their inputs to society. It's because of exchange values, in capitalism, as well as social dynamics.

It is a great talking point. But, the elimination of those people does not change the fact that some people are simply poor and untalented. I suggest that we create a capitalist world with a good moral conscience as in Scandinavia. Since you acknowledge equality is impossible then I cannot see why you would argue against such a system.

For some reason you blithely dismiss the *principle* of egalitarianism, even though it's a fine social principle, *and* that I've developed a model framework that *operates* in a mode of egalitarianism. I pity you for your pessimistic, fatalistic politics.

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.
Ayn Rand

What's the point of a landscape of balkanized private companies in constant wasteful competition with each other when we now have the capacities / productivity for just simply satisfying all critical human need -- ?

See the baker and butcher analogy above.

The reason socialists look to *government* in the near-term (as for health care, transportation, etc.) is because government, despite all of *its* wastefulness and bureaucracy, is because it's objectively *better organized* than the private sector. Even the private sector goes to *government* in chaotic times, as it did in 2008 for bank bailouts.

Yes, Hobbs agrees with you.
#15027087
JohnRawls wrote:I don't take sides. I try to be as impartial as possible or much as i can be. Denying the good parts of capitalism, socialism, nationalism is stupid the same way as denying the bad sides of the same.

You see it as a zero sum game of sorts where your ideology must win, i am not of the same view. Stealing good ideas from other ideologies is where it is at.




I’m inclined to agree. A pragmatic approach, solving problems in crisis, is more effective that trying to impose a preconceived ideology on reality. And what is wrong with adopting goods ideas? If someone else comes up with an idea that produces desirable consequences, why not use that idea oneself?


The English have been very successful historically. Their parliamentary democracy is the model for modern liberal democracy, their economic system became the model for modern market economies. The secret to this success was not some ‘genius inspired’ ideology to be imposed on the world but rather solving problems as those problems were encountered.


So parliamentary democracy is a set of institutions which allow self interested parties to have sufficient trust so they and cooperate to the extent required to govern. ‘Genius inspired’ ideologies typical assume there are bad people who are exploiting good people, and the solution is to replace bad people with good people. In truth the dividing line between good and bad runs down through each of our hearts, which explains the real world observable effect that the supposed good people turn out to be bad people when they gain power. Parliamentary democracy works better in practice because it doesn’t depend on a steady supply of saints to make it work.


Similarly, the free market economy works better than ideologically imposed moral economics, due to being based on a procedural basis of problem solving. Products that succeed are those products that offer to solve people’s problems. Innovation is about solving problems. The entrepreneur will try a business. Often it fails, the entrepreneur stops throwing good money after bad, and tries other business until one of those proves successful. Typically because that business solves problems people are prepared to pay for a solution to.


So the English system is fundamentally pragmatic rather than moral. Their success is due to an accumulation of successful solutions to problems. Whereas, those who try to impose their ‘genius inspired’, preconceived ideology on the world, tend to fail. They aren’t solving problems. Rather they are persuading others as to why they should have all the power to decide how resources should be distributed. Of course, convincing people that they have been subject to injustice is a great way to gain their support. In practice, the outcome is economic failure, staring people, dissents being executed so to protect the power of the ‘good people’, and so forth.


A down to earth pragmatic approach produces a better outcome than a moralistic ideological approach.
#15027236
SSDR wrote:
I don't have to explain *how.* Those diagrams are shitty sources to use, They are useless.

No one is being "dismissive," contrary to your paranoid assumptions.



There's a diagram -- this one -- that has a useful-to-useless continuum, thereby making it a useful diagram:


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show
Image



And:


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Julian658 wrote:
Before, I answer your points I will tell you that socialism is inevitable, but it will not happen as you envision. Socialism will happen when capitalists reach the point of redundant wealth. And you probably ask: What is redundant wealth? It is a state where added wealth to a person means NOTHING. A good example is Bill Gates who will likely get rid of 95% of his wealth as he has ZERO need for that. Imagine a world with millions of bill Gates. Not everybody can create wealth. Certainly socialists are not known for creating wealth.



Oh, I get it -- so then we all need to keep showering cash onto the elite 1/10 of 1 percent until they 'feel' that's it's becoming redundant and they plead with us to turn off the tap.

Good one -- it's funny!

Once society goes moneyless there would no longer be personal 'wealth', but there *would* be various necessarily-localized degrees of material build-up ('order'), and areas of neglected decay, slowly returning to nature ('chaos'). (No one would have the power of diktat so if there was no liberated-labor ready to do x, y, or z, then it simply wouldn't get done.)


Julian658 wrote:
Regarding the concept of conforming to capitalism. There is some truth to that. People in market economies are susceptible to manipulation by advertising and hence feel they need more and more. Today practically all humans in the west have a cell phone. My daughter volunteered as a food server in a homeless shelter and a large number of them had cell phones. Do you even realize that not long ago portable phone technology was only available to very few elite people in the planet. This is the end result of redundant wealth and technology. Redundant wealth has also created a NEW class of over fed obese poor people that do not need to work to eat.



Hmmmm, you're *repeating* this point of yours, in a decidedly *patronizing* way -- I don't know what a discussion of existing various wealth levels will get you, but the *dynamics* of capitalism haven't changed one bit in all that time. Anyone and everyone who needs money to live is compelled by capitalism to work for a wage.

And please recall your *own* stance on this trade of one's labor power for a wage -- maybe you could discuss *this* aspect of the political economy a bit more instead....


Julian658 wrote:
To employ a worker is technically slavery [...]



viewtopic.php?p=15027027&sid=c2f4fa3c2f3c80f29403db4dc60e716a#p15027027



---


Julian658 wrote:
I agree with you. Sadly, not all rich entities have reached a state of redundant wealth. Many are totally anal about the principle of wealth accumulation and efficiency in keeping the overhead down. Meanwhile other companies are incredibly generous with workers and create technologies that benefit all. The issue is that in the West we measure relative poverty rather than absolute poverty. The gap between rich and poor is larger, but the poor are actually better off.


Julian658 wrote:
Nevertheless, a large gap often leads to revolution because misery loves company.



Unfortunately you're imputing a *psychological* / behaviorist dimension onto social reality, when a simple comparison of wealth ownership will show that these present-day smartphone-wielding poor people are still *homeless*, in a modern world where everyone should really be provided with a contemporary home since capitalism has brought us to the point where it's entirely possible (productive capacities).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If we start with the basics that human labor creates material benefits, and that consumption should be driven by individual *need*, by the individual consumer, then it follows that the things society produces should be distributed to those with actual *need* for them -- those who would be able to *consume* those materials, for their own humane ends. That's *not* how the economy operates under capitalism, because of the go-between 'realm' of *exchange values* -- one can either *afford* what one needs and/or wants, or else one cannot.



Julian658 wrote:
Capitalism is not designed in that manner:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith

Capitalism is based on self interest. Since the capitalist is looking out for himself and competing with others they try to improve goods and services at all times. That is why a flat screen TV is so cheap these days.



Okay, here it is -- you're unable to address both political social reality *and* (capitalist) economics at the same time. You're bringing in Adam Smith as an ideologue for capitalism's *economics*, but you're flitting-past the socio-*political* reality that those butchers, brewers, and bakers -- like any merchants -- can form *cartels* to limit their group-internal competition, to keep retail prices up in the face of ever-increasing supply from market competitors. (Consider what Western nations do in the face of *non-Western* bids for nationalist automony and self-determination -- look at Libya, for example.)

What do you think about Trump's tariffs on China? Is it nationalistic self-interest, or is it politically circumventing
the market mechanism through U.S. exceptionalism?


Julian658 wrote:
By the way: No one is stopping anyone to form COOPs and communes in free capitalist western democracies. You and your comrades could pool resources and set up camp anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Utopian_communities



'Me and my comrades could pool resources' -- ?? Really?

It's obvious you're missing the whole premise of communist politics -- it's *labor*, of all types, that produced the phenomenal wealth and technology (consumer goods) that are available these days, so the laborers of the world are fully justified in *taking back* their / our own labor-power, going-forward, so that the benefits of such *don't* simply go to private wealth-holding interests.

People shouldn't *have* to try to eke out a subsistence in localist, underfunded small groups -- the already-existing global infrastructure needs to be controlled by *workers* since the capitalists controlling it today are just parasites on workers' labor-value.

Your suggested scenario reveals that what's at-stake are society's *productive implements*, because mass industrial factory farming is always going to be more efficient and productive than small-scale shit, per unit of produce.

So the outstanding question is the political *social organization* around such productive capacities, private versus proletariat.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Once capitalist norms are overthrown, and the practice of exchange values *eliminated* (no markets whatsoever), society could then concentrate on *mass-consciously* organizing social tasks so that production and consumption (and overall *administration* of the same) can take place *rationally*, by those most concerned with any of these three main material components of society.



Julian658 wrote:
The only way to do the above is with oppression and a dictatorship. That is another reason why socialism does not work. It can only be imposed by force.



No, this is incorrect -- you're making the common mistake of conflating *historical nation-state Stalinism* with the unrealized scope of socialism / communism itself. Here's that link again:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... manifesto/

Specifically, the workers of the world can certainly collectively self-organize their / our own labor efforts, once bourgeois rule has been usurped. No oppression because everyone would be in the same boat, but would be *uncoerced* by capitalist rule, and no dictatorship would be needed, either, because the scope of revolutionary socialism / communism would be *worldwide*, with no private-property or nationalist claims to society's productivity anymore.


Julian658 wrote:
In any society you create there will be people that rush to the bottom and people that reach for the top.



'In any society that *I* create' -- ??

It doesn't work that way -- the liberation of the world's proletariat has to be an action of the proletariat itself, meaning that it would be the first and only revolution in history that does away with the class divide. Instead of merely replacing one faction of ruling-class control with just another faction of rule, this kind of revolution -- a proletarian one -- would mean that everyone would have truly equal, proportional control over society's means of mass industrial productivity, an issue that *no* 'democracy' today can even *address*.

There also would no longer be any 'bottom' or 'top' in terms of political / power social hierarchy -- my 'labor credits' framework allows for full and equal participation at any 'level' / scale, along with all other participants, per proposed 'policy package':


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image



Also:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You *really* think that, don't you? That the world operates according to sheer merit, and that there's no *politicization* (as through favoritism) of work roles.



Julian658 wrote:
I despise crony capitalism as it creates NO WEALTH.



And yet it exists because the wealth-owning class has learned that they can self-organize internally with shared private interests in-common -- cartels. So the various private interests / groups then have *social overhead* as well as *economic overhead*, but this kind of ruling-class self-organizing is what yields *monopolies*, by which to dominate markets and command the highest of prices for the productivity that they control.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The *problem* is that there's a very tiny elite portion of the population that receives *disproportionate* material rewards, for their inputs to society. It's because of exchange values, in capitalism, as well as social dynamics.



Julian658 wrote:
It is a great talking point. But, the elimination of those people does not change the fact that some people are simply poor and untalented. I suggest that we create a capitalist world with a good moral conscience as in Scandinavia. Since you acknowledge equality is impossible then I cannot see why you would argue against such a system.



Hmmmm, this isn't about *geography*, it's about *class relations* -- those with wealth ownership are always going to be the ones calling the shots over economic matters, until a working-class revolution takes place.

Also, the revolutionary social paradigm wouldn't be affected by 'poverty' or 'lack of talent', because the working class, collectively, would *control social production*. Let that sink in a little -- those with the gold make the rules, remember -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
For some reason you blithely dismiss the *principle* of egalitarianism, even though it's a fine social principle, *and* that I've developed a model framework that *operates* in a mode of egalitarianism. I pity you for your pessimistic, fatalistic politics.



Julian658 wrote:
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence.
Ayn Rand



This isn't even *politics* -- it's *lifestylism*. Ayn Rand can go off and live that way if she wants to, but it's certainly not *economic* or materialist at all.

Do you want to return to the topic of egalitarianism at all, or are you going to *always* go spinning-off on tangents to the existing discussion -- ?


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What's the point of a landscape of balkanized private companies in constant wasteful competition with each other when we now have the capacities / productivity for just simply satisfying all critical human need -- ?



Julian658 wrote:
See the baker and butcher analogy above.



In other words I'm saying that 'single-payer' is better and more efficient for everything than some kind of decentralized, private-profit-seeking inter-communal fantasy -- the private sector does it, even, by consolidating into gigantic corporations. Government should, in the short term, provide everyone with the fulfillment of their human needs until the working class can take control of social production, out of balkanized squabbling private hands.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The reason socialists look to *government* in the near-term (as for health care, transportation, etc.) is because government, despite all of *its* wastefulness and bureaucracy, is because it's objectively *better organized* than the private sector. Even the private sector goes to *government* in chaotic times, as it did in 2008 for bank bailouts.



Julian658 wrote:
Yes, Hobbs agrees with you.



And what's the *significance* of this?
#15027241
@ckaihatsu I am not in habit of agreeing with @SSDR on anything but those are absolutely shitty diagrams. She is 100% correct on that.

Reasons why:

- void of meaningful content
- messy
- lacking a key
- lacking a source (since it has no content it could hardly have a source, I suppose)
- no data
- void of purpose

It genuinely looks like something created by a mentally ill retard after taking a double dose of LSD. I am not even joking.
#15027244
SolarCross wrote:
@ckaihatsu I am not in habit of agreeing with @SSDR on anything but those are absolutely shitty diagrams. She is 100% correct on that.

Reasons why:

- void of meaningful content
- messy
- lacking a key
- lacking a source (since it has no content it could hardly have a source, I suppose)
- no data
- void of purpose

It genuinely looks like something created by a mentally ill retard after taking a double dose of LSD. I am not even joking.



What *is* this, your community service -- ?

What kind of response were you *expecting* -- ?

If the diagrams are so shitty why are they *bothering* you so much -- ? Wouldn't you just ignore them so that they would go away?
#15027247
ckaihatsu wrote:What *is* this, your community service -- ?

What kind of response were you *expecting* -- ?

If the diagrams are so shitty why are they *bothering* you so much -- ? Wouldn't you just ignore them so that they would go away?


I have a bad habit of wasting my time, it is my vice.
#15027249
SolarCross wrote:
I have a bad habit of wasting my time, it is my vice.



I'd just like to add that, based on a complaint from someone back at RevLeft, I now make sure to hide the image content using *spoiler* tags -- I happen to agree that any inclusion of diagrams shouldn't be a visual *imposition* on anyone, and their content is sheerly *supplementary* to my writing. (No points that I make in writing are *dependent* at all on a person then having to view the included image.)
#15027253
SolarCross wrote:It genuinely looks like something created by a mentally ill retard after taking a double dose of LSD. I am not even joking.

Those diagrams look like something that someone with down syndrome made. They are useless, and look creepy. :|
#15027255
Unthinking Majority wrote:100,000 years of human history says they actually are very human. Now, that doesn't mean they're nice people.


I agree. The fact that killing them are doing the others a favour doesn't change the fact that they are human. In fact, they are probably more human than I am, because they have a stronger sense of self-preservation or desire of superiority.
#15027279
ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, I get it -- so then we all need to keep showering cash onto the elite 1/10 of 1 percent until they 'feel' that's it's becoming redundant and they plead with us to turn off the tap.

Good one -- it's funny!

None of us is forced to shower cash 8) .
You talk about the last stage of communism all the time where there is no need for currency since all goods are available to all. I agree with that Utopia but you have an unrealistic concept on how to get there. You do not provide any information about wealth creation and how the wealth will be distributed. If there is no wealth all you have is a mass of poor people. Lack of currency can only be a reality when wealth is truly redundant and near infinite. And there must be a mechanism in place to create additional wealth or system that is very cheap (likely due to technology) to maintain. A state of redundant wealth can only be achieved with capitalism and technology.

When I hear you bemoan the rich you seem to assume wealth is a zero sum gain. In other words if a billionaire makes 5 dollars it means a poor person lost those 5 dollars. That is not how it works. Having said that, I agree with the concept of taxing the very rich to help the poor. This transfer of wealth is just. And if I was poor i would rather live in a country with plenty of rich people and a healthy tax base. In that manner the transfer of wealth is easy to do. As a poor person i would hate to live in a nation with no rich people.

Once society goes moneyless there would no longer be personal 'wealth', but there *would* be various necessarily-localized degrees of material build-up ('order'), and areas of neglected decay, slowly returning to nature ('chaos'). (No one would have the power of diktat so if there was no liberated-labor ready to do x, y, or z, then it simply wouldn't get done.)

This can only be realized when wealthy is redundant. Socialists know how to spend and distribute WEALTH. Sadly socialists produce NO WEALTH.

Hmmmm, you're *repeating* this point of yours, in a decidedly *patronizing* way -- I don't know what a discussion of existing various wealth levels will get you, but the *dynamics* of capitalism haven't changed one bit in all that time. Anyone and everyone who needs money to live is compelled by capitalism to work for a wage.

Yep, this has been the story of mankind. Hunter and gatherers had to work for a meal too. However, TODAY in many capitalist western nations the poor are obese and do not have to work to eat. That in itself is NEW in world history.

And please recall your *own* stance on this trade of one's labor power for a wage -- maybe you could discuss *this* aspect of the political economy a bit more instead….

Let's look at the baker: A man saves resources for years, buys a locale in a neighborhood, installs equipment and sets up a bakery. He works 16 hours a day and creates some wealth for himself. He creates wealth because customers believe they get a good deal when they buy bread. The customer realizes that paying for the bread is much more efficient and less expensive than baking bread at home everyday. That has a lot of value for the client. The baker makes a small profit from the client and when this profit is multiplied it gives him a nice living. Every client is benefitted by the baker and the baker is benefitted by the pool of clients. The system creates wealth for the baker, but also for the clients who would rather pay for the bread and use the time for something productive that will in turn create wealth for them.

The baker wants to produce more bread. Working by himself he can only do 100 loaves of bread a day. If he hires a worker he can produce 200 loaves of bread and therefore have a larger profit. If the baker pays the worker the exact same salary he pays to himself his profit remains the same. He now produces double the amount of bread but earns the same income as the worker who is not the creator and founder of the bakery. Why hire a worker if there is no chance to increase profit? Why give the employee the same status as the owner of the bakery if there is no extra profit or benefit? IF profit is forbidden then why create a bakery to serve the neighborhood?

Unfortunately you're imputing a *psychological* / behaviorist dimension onto social reality, when a simple comparison of wealth ownership will show that these present-day smartphone-wielding poor people are still *homeless*, in a modern world where everyone should really be provided with a contemporary home since capitalism has brought us to the point where it's entirely possible (productive capacities).

Don't be naive. You know quite well the homeless are mentally ill people or drug addicts that WANT to be on the street. There is plenty of cash to warehouse these people, but they would rather live in shanty towns in the sidewalk. And they get everything for free. And getting everything for free destroys the human condition and creates a dystopia, not an utopia.

Okay, here it is -- you're unable to address both political social reality *and* (capitalist) economics at the same time. You're bringing in Adam Smith as an ideologue for capitalism's *economics*, but you're flitting-past the socio-*political* reality that those butchers, brewers, and bakers -- like any merchants -- can form *cartels* to limit their group-internal competition, to keep retail prices up in the face of ever-increasing supply from market competitors. (Consider what Western nations do in the face of *non-Western* bids for nationalist automony and self-determination -- look at Libya, for example.)

What do you think about Trump's tariffs on China? Is it nationalistic self-interest, or is it politically circumventing
the market mechanism through U.S. exceptionalism?

I am for capitalism where ingenuity, creativity, and hard work creates wealth by improving the life of others. I am against crony capitalism and in this instance I agree with you.


Ah, China. A nation that was starved by Mao's socialism and is now becoming prosperous due to capitalism. It is hard to compete with people that do not even respect patents. I do not know enough about the issue of tariffs.

’Me and my comrades could pool resources' -- ?? Really?

Yeah, why do you want others that are not interested in socialism to create a socialist utopia for you? You could easily get together with other socialists and create a social commune and practice exactly what you preach. No one is stopping you from doing that. But, I must warn you. Socialism only works with family, close friends, and in a very small groups.

Specifically, the workers of the world can certainly collectively self-organize their / our own labor efforts, once bourgeois rule has been usurped. No oppression because everyone would be in the same boat, but would be *uncoerced* by capitalist rule, and no dictatorship would be needed, either, because the scope of revolutionary socialism / communism would be *worldwide*, with no private-property or nationalist claims to society's productivity anymore.

See the baker story above. The employee did not save resources for years to start the bakery business. The employee did not create the reputation and quality in bread making that made the bakery a success. To expect a brand new employee to make the same income as the owner is foolish. Why hire an employee if there is no hope to increase profit?

Nope, the owners created a system that generates wealth and that is not a small feat. The workers without a factory are nothing.

The only way to impose socialism is by coercion. Enough said!



No one is preventing workers from uniting and creating a business. In fact, this is done every day in America. People like Bill Gates and Steve jobs started the business on in a garage. Thousands of businesses are created by a small group of friends and they get to enjoy the profits. This requires a tremendous work ethic.

Groups need leadership and the leadership calls the shots. This is true in all systems of government.

If you think a collective of workers will somehow take care of the poor you have not examined the history of socialism in the entire 20th century and early 21st century.

As for Hobbes:

See Leviathan
#15027566
SSDR wrote:
Those two diagrams are shitty and useless. :lol:


SSDR wrote:
Those diagrams look like something that someone with down syndrome made. They are useless, and look creepy. :|



You're just repeating yourself, and being disparaging -- *you're* being useless.

If you think you're contributing anything with your opinionating, you're not. You *could* provide a *critique* of any or several of the diagrams, but you're not even doing that, so stop with the insults.


---


Julian658 wrote:
None of us is forced to shower cash 8) .



*All* corporate subsidies are basically this -- I'd rather see *Main Street* get bailed-out than the system as a whole, since that's just more capitalism.


Julian658 wrote:
You talk about the last stage of communism all the time where there is no need for currency since all goods are available to all. I agree with that Utopia but you have an unrealistic concept on how to get there. You do not provide any information about wealth creation and how the wealth will be distributed. If there is no wealth all you have is a mass of poor people. Lack of currency can only be a reality when wealth is truly redundant and near infinite. And there must be a mechanism in place to create additional wealth or system that is very cheap (likely due to technology) to maintain. A state of redundant wealth can only be achieved with capitalism and technology.



You have a systems-fetish with wealth, when all it is is a mechanism that purports to represent real-world material *value*, which it *fails* at doing (note all of the market crashes throughout history).

As I've said before, what's needed is for *exchange values* to be eliminated, so that there's no longer this middleman-type 'realm' of exchanges even *necessary*. In other words collectively-produced goods can be free-access and direct-distribution so that those who need stuff can take stuff, and without exchanges the goods would just go directly from the manufacturer to the consumer, with no exchanges or exchange-value required.

This isn't 'utopian' because it's not pie-in-the-sky -- the 'labor credits' model framework I created defines and handles all of the logistics necessary for this kind of moneyless system.

If the people of such a post-capitalist society don't want to work much, then they all won't realize any material world of convenience and luxury, and that would be okay since it's their society. If a post-capitalist social order happened to be more *ambitious*, then maybe everyone would pitch in to *automate* all regular productive processes, to realize highly-leveraged goods and services, at mass scales, for common lives of conveniences and luxuries.

'Wealth' in the sense of 'currency (exchange) values' is no longer technically / logistically necessary when society, using present-day communications technologies, can readily coordinate and produce to satisfy everyone's needs and/or wants, from collectivized mass industrial means. This isn't a gauzy 'utopia' -- it's a *plan*.


Julian658 wrote:
When I hear you bemoan the rich you seem to assume wealth is a zero sum gain. In other words if a billionaire makes 5 dollars it means a poor person lost those 5 dollars. That is not how it works. Having said that, I agree with the concept of taxing the very rich to help the poor. This transfer of wealth is just. And if I was poor i would rather live in a country with plenty of rich people and a healthy tax base. In that manner the transfer of wealth is easy to do. As a poor person i would hate to live in a nation with no rich people.



I don't *bemoan* the rich -- as long as capitalism exists they'll exist as well. People with money may use it for socially *progressive* and enlightening purposes (books, films, art, whatever), or they may not. I *know* it's not a zero-sum system because the sum of products of labor is ever-increasing, especially with our world population of billions.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Once society goes moneyless there would no longer be personal 'wealth', but there *would* be various necessarily-localized degrees of material build-up ('order'), and areas of neglected decay, slowly returning to nature ('chaos'). (No one would have the power of diktat so if there was no liberated-labor ready to do x, y, or z, then it simply wouldn't get done.)



Julian658 wrote:
This can only be realized when wealthy is redundant. Socialists know how to spend and distribute WEALTH. Sadly socialists produce NO WEALTH.



Hmmmm, this is *another* facile stereotyping *caricature* from you.

Socialists are mostly from the working class, so *yes*, of course they produce wealth through the expending of their efforts (blue-, white-, and pink-collar) while at work.

In terms of *government*, sure, in power socialists would distribute wealth more equally, particularly to those who don't have it, instead of giving tax breaks to the rich from public coffers.

And, for whatever it's worth, you just said that you *agree* with this kind of government:


Julian658 wrote:
I agree with the concept of taxing the very rich to help the poor. This transfer of wealth is just.



---


Julian658 wrote:
Yep, this has been the story of mankind. Hunter and gatherers had to work for a meal too. However, TODAY in many capitalist western nations the poor are obese and do not have to work to eat. That in itself is NEW in world history.



I still think that you're making a caricature-like *exaggeration* on this -- if you're so keen on finding 'fluff' in government expenditures you could look at tax breaks for the rich, military spending, imperialism, etc.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And please recall your *own* stance on this trade of one's labor power for a wage -- maybe you could discuss *this* aspect of the political economy a bit more instead….



Julian658 wrote:
Let's look at the baker: A man saves resources for years, buys a locale in a neighborhood, installs equipment and sets up a bakery. He works 16 hours a day and creates some wealth for himself. He creates wealth because customers believe they get a good deal when they buy bread. The customer realizes that paying for the bread is much more efficient and less expensive than baking bread at home everyday. That has a lot of value for the client. The baker makes a small profit from the client and when this profit is multiplied it gives him a nice living. Every client is benefitted by the baker and the baker is benefitted by the pool of clients. The system creates wealth for the baker, but also for the clients who would rather pay for the bread and use the time for something productive that will in turn create wealth for them.



The baker, though, is not just a worker, working for a wage -- the baker is *petty bourgeois*, meaning that he or she owns the means of production that they're using to create commodities for sale, in this instance bread.

Many / most people *cannot* save up enough from wages to realize capital for investments -- thus, no profits enjoyed. It's revolutionary politics that speaks to *this* kind of class interests in society: Those who have no way of participating in the economy except by selling their own labor-power, or ability to work, for a constantly exploitative *wage*. Working class interests are *with other proletarians*, as through to collective labor actions and even an ongoing *general strike*, so as to mass-leverage this collective labor power against the interests of those who *benefit* from it at industrial scales, the *ruling class* (through exploitation and profit-making).


Julian658 wrote:
The baker wants to produce more bread. Working by himself he can only do 100 loaves of bread a day. If he hires a worker he can produce 200 loaves of bread and therefore have a larger profit. If the baker pays the worker the exact same salary he pays to himself his profit remains the same. He now produces double the amount of bread but earns the same income as the worker who is not the creator and founder of the bakery. Why hire a worker if there is no chance to increase profit? Why give the employee the same status as the owner of the bakery if there is no extra profit or benefit? IF profit is forbidden then why create a bakery to serve the neighborhood?



Correct -- this shows the *limitations* of capitalism, especially at such small scales. Most likely this productive and profitable bakery would be *bought out* by larger financial interests, and would in that way receive the kind of capital investment necessary to expand the operation to something more suitable to the bread market in that area.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Unfortunately you're imputing a *psychological* / behaviorist dimension onto social reality, when a simple comparison of wealth ownership will show that these present-day smartphone-wielding poor people are still *homeless*, in a modern world where everyone should really be provided with a contemporary home since capitalism has brought us to the point where it's entirely possible (productive capacities).



Julian658 wrote:
Don't be naive. You know quite well the homeless are mentally ill people or drug addicts that WANT to be on the street. There is plenty of cash to warehouse these people, but they would rather live in shanty towns in the sidewalk. And they get everything for free. And getting everything for free destroys the human condition and creates a dystopia, not an utopia.



I'm not being naive -- I'm pointing out that *everyone* is 'people', and that we all have the same basic biological and social needs for housing, heat and a/c, water, food, electricity, Internet, transportation, etc.

The only reason the homeless situation looks like dystopia is because there's no incentive, under capitalism, to *provide* for these unmet human needs. The market mechanism is incapable of seeing human need in economic or governmental terms, because there's no profit to be made there.

I happen to *disagree* with you that 'getting everything for free destroys the human condition' -- those who benefit from leveraging their wealth *also* get stuff for free that they haven't worked for, so you may as well include the idle (non-productive) rich in that category of 'social dystopia'. The homeless, lacking the material options of wealth, are in that 'non-productive' social reality *not* by choice.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, here it is -- you're unable to address both political social reality *and* (capitalist) economics at the same time. You're bringing in Adam Smith as an ideologue for capitalism's *economics*, but you're flitting-past the socio-*political* reality that those butchers, brewers, and bakers -- like any merchants -- can form *cartels* to limit their group-internal competition, to keep retail prices up in the face of ever-increasing supply from market competitors. (Consider what Western nations do in the face of *non-Western* bids for nationalist automony and self-determination -- look at Libya, for example.)



Julian658 wrote:
I am for capitalism where ingenuity, creativity, and hard work creates wealth by improving the life of others. I am against crony capitalism and in this instance I agree with you.



'Crony capitalism' is a *misnomer*, because *all* of capitalism is 'crony capitalism' -- the ruling class is self-consciously *organized* as a class, with its own international states, just as the working class is organized, too, but to relatively lesser extents, and thus the underdog.

Most, if not *all*, of business 'ingenuity', 'creativity', and 'innovation', was derived from *government sponsorship* / r&d in the first place, like ARPANET being the publicly-funded predecessor of the Internet.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What do you think about Trump's tariffs on China? Is it nationalistic self-interest, or is it politically circumventing
the market mechanism through U.S. exceptionalism?



Julian658 wrote:
Ah, China. A nation that was starved by Mao's socialism and is now becoming prosperous due to capitalism. It is hard to compete with people that do not even respect patents. I do not know enough about the issue of tariffs.



I raised this issue to point out the inevitable *contradictions* that arise in national economic policy, due to the contradictory nature of capitalism *itself* -- Mao at least was anti-imperialist, so I give him credit for that versus the nationalists, but with many criticisms over his leadership internally.

Present-day U.S. policy has put up tariff walls of up to 25% against China imports, which is essentially a *command economy* over international trade agreements, and over the so-called 'free market' itself. So I was wondering which you would favor -- Trump's rule by *diktat* over the international economy / markets, or the previously *unimpeded* international trade between the U.S. and China.


Julian658 wrote:
Yeah, why do you want others that are not interested in socialism to create a socialist utopia for you? You could easily get together with other socialists and create a social commune and practice exactly what you preach. No one is stopping you from doing that. But, I must warn you. Socialism only works with family, close friends, and in a very small groups.



You're really glorifying decentralized, small-scale production ('the petty bourgeoisie'), when this is *not* the world we live in today. Any commune is necessary *localist*, and limited in its productive capacities, while today's economy is *international* and *corporate*, to the point of re-introducing historically backwards colonialism over defenseless Third-World-type economies (Latin America, Africa, Asia).

You're again conflating *lifestylism* with politics, and lifestylism is *not* necessarily political -- it really tends to be politically *abstentionist* by retreating into itself and ignoring the larger world's workings.

Socialism *has* to be worldwide because it's *against* capitalist commodity production -- the workers of the world should be the ones to control the means of mass industrial production, globally, for the good of humanity as a whole.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Specifically, the workers of the world can certainly collectively self-organize their / our own labor efforts, once bourgeois rule has been usurped. No oppression because everyone would be in the same boat, but would be *uncoerced* by capitalist rule, and no dictatorship would be needed, either, because the scope of revolutionary socialism / communism would be *worldwide*, with no private-property or nationalist claims to society's productivity anymore.



Julian658 wrote:
See the baker story above. The employee did not save resources for years to start the bakery business. The employee did not create the reputation and quality in bread making that made the bakery a success. To expect a brand new employee to make the same income as the owner is foolish. Why hire an employee if there is no hope to increase profit?



I'm not *expecting* any kind of economic egalitarianism from the petty bourgeois, or from the bourgeoisie as a whole -- you're just empirically describing the social conditions of capitalism, which we all know about already.


---


Julian658 wrote:
Nope, the owners created a system that generates wealth and that is not a small feat. The workers without a factory are nothing.



But the owners rely on the brute violent force of the capitalist state to uphold this kind of employment hell -- socialism states that the *workers* should collectively control their own workplaces, without regards to the interests of private ownership -- *that's* socialism.


Julian658 wrote:
The only way to impose socialism is by coercion. Enough said!



Of course, because the bourgeoisie uses the police and military, with violence, to maintain its rule over the world's working class. If workers could successfully realize socialism *nonviolently*, then they would, but that's an impossibility while the ruling class continues to use systematic violence to maintain its elitist rule.


Julian658 wrote:
No one is preventing workers from uniting and creating a business. In fact, this is done every day in America. People like Bill Gates and Steve jobs started the business on in a garage. Thousands of businesses are created by a small group of friends and they get to enjoy the profits. This requires a tremendous work ethic.



There are *other* kinds of success, like that of a workers state, that do not have to perpetuate capitalist elitist rule.

Bill Gates used *legal* power to shore-up his financial / ownership position:



Microsoft's Altair BASIC was popular with computer hobbyists, but Gates discovered that a pre-market copy had leaked out and was being widely copied and distributed. In February 1976, he wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists in the MITS newsletter in which he asserted that more than 90 percent of the users of Microsoft Altair BASIC had not paid Microsoft for it



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#BASIC



...And Steve Jobs was just a *marketer* -- he never assembled a single computer.



In 1976, Wozniak designed and developed the Apple I computer and showed it to Jobs, who suggested that they sell it.



Daniel Kottke, recalled that as an early Apple employee, he "was the only person who worked in the garage ... Woz would show up once a week with his latest code. Steve Jobs didn't get his hands dirty in that sense." Kottke also stated that much of the early work took place in Jobs's kitchen, where he spent hours on the phone trying to find investors for the company.[15]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Job ... %80%931985)



---


Julian658 wrote:
Groups need leadership and the leadership calls the shots. This is true in all systems of government.



Yes and no -- yes, leadership has traditionally / conventionally *centralized* operations, as in a workers vanguard or vanguard party, to *facilitate* and *expedite* the class struggle against the world's bourgeois ruling-class interests, but substitutionist specialized leadership / administration is *not necessarily* required, especially long-term, post-capitalism.

My 'labor credits' model framework has a process / protocol for how individually-prioritized mass socio-political sentiment could be tallied, per proposal, for emergent mass-prioritized sentiment to be discerned:

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... -Questions


---


Julian658 wrote:
If you think a collective of workers will somehow take care of the poor you have not examined the history of socialism in the entire 20th century and early 21st century.



I think you're bullshitting, but if you have any evidence / details to present I'll take a look at them.


Julian658 wrote:
As for Hobbes:

See Leviathan



What about 'Leviathan' -- ? You're being vague.
#15027574
ckaihatsu wrote:I don't *bemoan* the rich -- as long as capitalism exists they'll exist as well. People with money may use it for socially *progressive* and enlightening purposes (books, films, art, whatever), or they may not. I *know* it's not a zero-sum system because the sum of products of labor is ever-increasing, especially with our world population of billions.


As I said before. Marx was correct in his analysis of capitalism and the description of the flaws and inequalities is correct. The problem is that we do not have a better system. The prescriptions to implement socialism have been a major disaster. North and South Korea were equally poor in 1950. Today South Korea is as advanced as any Western nation. How? By adopting capitalism and western values. North Korea remains dirt poor with starvation and many citizens with a belly full of worms.

The moment Chávez nationalized farms in Venezuela there was a shortage of food. Say what you say about capitalism, but it seems no other system can produce goods like capitalism.
Your words about the workers owning the means of production is old terminology that Marx used to described the system during the industrial era when factories and heavy machinery was abundant. Today the means of production may actually be the brain of a software engineer. How are the workers going to own the brain of a software engineer? How are the masses of blue collar workers be able to run a complex system? This has been tried before with disastrous consequences. Don't get me wrong I am all for COOPs where every worker owns a share of the company. No one is stopping the workers of the world to create a workers owned business.

Your words about the Utopia are naive. The only reason we have plenty in the West is simple:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

The above is simple and yet the key to a society with plenty of goods. Does it resolve the discrepancies of the natural hierarchy among humans? No! And that is a valid criticism.

The Leviathan book basically states that pure capitalism (the jungle) is not good and that some sort of strong government is needed. This was a landmark publication back in the day.
#15027594
Julian658 wrote:
As I said before. Marx was correct in his analysis of capitalism and the description of the flaws and inequalities is correct. The problem is that we do not have a better system.



You obviously still haven't taken a look at my 'labor credits' system.


Julian658 wrote:
The prescriptions to implement socialism have been a major disaster. North and South Korea were equally poor in 1950. Today South Korea is as advanced as any Western nation. How? By adopting capitalism and western values. North Korea remains dirt poor with starvation and many citizens with a belly full of worms.



I don't defend North Korea as a fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto, mostly because the workers aren't fully in control of production over there. And I'm definitely *not* for Western capitalism and imperialism. I defend any quasi-collectivized "socialist" state (like Venezuela) in the *geopolitical* context.

Your descriptions sound exaggerated and propagandistic, nonetheless -- biased.


Julian658 wrote:
The moment Chávez nationalized farms in Venezuela there was a shortage of food. Say what you say about capitalism, but it seems no other system can produce goods like capitalism.



I'm not a Chavista, but I am in the context of geopolitics. Again, it's the *workers themselves* who need to be in collective control of production, worldwide.


Julian658 wrote:
Your words about the workers owning the means of production is old terminology that Marx used to described the system during the industrial era when factories and heavy machinery was abundant. Today the means of production may actually be the brain of a software engineer.



More hilarity from you -- as though cars and computers are physically assembled by the brain of a software engineer -- ! Oh, industrialism is still how goods are produced, via workers' labor.


Julian658 wrote:
How are the workers going to own the brain of a software engineer? How are the masses of blue collar workers be able to run a complex system? This has been tried before with disastrous consequences. Don't get me wrong I am all for COOPs where every worker owns a share of the company. No one is stopping the workers of the world to create a workers owned business.



Such specializations (software engineer, blue collar work, complex systems engineering) wouldn't even *be* necessary once all workers are collectively in control of social production. They could just use project-based learning and work-backwards from the intended production goal. No more work specializations needed anymore, especially with modern-day Internet-based communications technologies.


Julian658 wrote:
Your words about the Utopia are naive. The only reason we have plenty in the West is simple:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.



No, it's because of capitalism's inherent dynamic towards *overproduction*, combined with the large workforce in the U.S., *and* U.S. imperialism, that the U.S. economy is so much more stable and supported economically by everyone else in the world. (The U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency.)

So since you're acknowledging inherent, objective *interests*, it's within the working class' inherent interests to organize on their own / our own terms, against the economic predations of the elitist ownership class.


Julian658 wrote:
The above is simple and yet the key to a society with plenty of goods. Does it resolve the discrepancies of the natural hierarchy among humans? No! And that is a valid criticism.

The Leviathan book basically states that pure capitalism (the jungle) is not good and that some sort of strong government is needed. This was a landmark publication back in the day.



An economy can be strong and prosperous, as it was in the postwar era (late '40s, '50s, and early '60s), but that's at the expense of other national economies which fall into the U.S.'s protection racket, not to mention the ongoing class divide. If someone *can't afford* something with what little wages they're being paid, then the health of the whole economy is *irrelevant* to them personally.

So what's *your* position regarding the role of the capitalist government within capitalist economics?
#15027600
F.y.i...


---


Venezuela: Worker control vs. Trump's blockade

By Sean Orr

Image

Chicago, IL - Venezuela is a country where the dreams of the conscious workers of the world are being made real. It is a nation of 30 million people where, every day, the working class is becoming more conscious of its historic role in building socialism and taking steps to achieve it in the not so distant future. And in the face of an imperialist offensive that threatens them with starvation, where the threat of military invasion hangs over their heads like a storm cloud, they continue their struggle undeterred.

This past week, at the National Gathering of the Productive Worker Councils (CPTs), this stage of the struggle was made apparent. Formed by workers to directly control production at their workplaces, the CPTs are revolutionary formations. Today, over 1100 companies are run by worker councils, in every state and every sector of the economy. Addressing the assembled delegates, President Nicolás Maduro placed the councils in their proper context, referring to the as "the principal instrument of the nation and the working class in building our Bolivarian socialism."

https://fightbacknews.us1.list-manage.c ... de79fb44fe
#15027650
ckaihatsu wrote:You obviously still haven't taken a look at my 'labor credits' system.

No I haven't. I am skeptical because socialism has never worked. At best, it works in families or very small groups with kinship. Otherwise, people are not altruistic.

I don't defend North Korea as a fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto, mostly because the workers aren't fully in control of production over there. And I'm definitely *not* for Western capitalism and imperialism. I defend any quasi-collectivized "socialist" state (like Venezuela) in the *geopolitical* context.

It turns out that socialist countries are often authoritarian fascist like states with massive oppression. You have failed to tell me how you can impose socialism without an authoritarian repressive state. What will you do if someone wants to be a capitalist within a socialist nation?

Your descriptions sound exaggerated and propagandistic, nonetheless -- biased.

Sure, I am biased, but one cannot argue with success. Capitalism has given us the most prosperity in world history.

I'm not a Chavista, but I am in the context of geopolitics. Again, it's the *workers themselves* who need to be in collective control of production, worldwide.


Venezuelans are leaving the country in large numbers. The food stands in grocery stores are empty and most people are now quite thin due to caloric restriction. The state is repressive and violent with dissidents. I would say the workers are not running the system in a very efficient manner. And BTW, they are a petroleum rich nation. Why are they doing so poorly?

More hilarity from you -- as though cars and computers are physically assembled by the brain of a software engineer -- ! Oh, industrialism is still how goods are produced, via workers' labor.

I agree, but workers on their own cannot produce anything unless they are directed by an organization with talent. The employee of the bakery is useless if there is no wise man with vision and incredible work ethic that founded a successful bakery (insert any kind of factory).

Such specializations (software engineer, blue collar work, complex systems engineering) wouldn't even *be* necessary once all workers are collectively in control of social production. They could just use project-based learning and work-backwards from the intended production goal. No more work specializations needed anymore, especially with modern-day Internet-based communications technologies.

Why would they work that hard? What is the motivation?


No, it's because of capitalism's inherent dynamic towards *overproduction*, combined with the large workforce in the U.S., *and* U.S. imperialism, that the U.S. economy is so much more stable and supported economically by everyone else in the world. (The U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency.)

Overproduction makes everything extremely cheap. Why do you think homeless people have cell phones?

So since you're acknowledging inherent, objective *interests*, it's within the working class' inherent interests to organize on their own / our own terms, against the economic predations of the elitist ownership class.

As I said: Anyone that lives in a the gutter or is dirt poor benefits from socialism. But. how about the rest of the people that are doing OK in a capitalist nation?

So what's *your* position regarding the role of the capitalist government within capitalist economics?

The government should be hands off. The only role is to provide a framework of no aggression between the parties that exchange services or goods. All capitalists need is freedom and a pact of no violence or aggression.
#15027758
ckaihatsu wrote:You're just repeating yourself, and being disparaging -- *you're* being useless.

Those diagrams look like SHIT and are Useless. :lol:
If you think you're contributing anything with your opinionating, you're not. You *could* provide a *critique* of any or several of the diagrams, but you're not even doing that, so stop with the insults.

You are not contributing anything with those useless diagrams. Stop using SHIT diagrams as sources. No one is insulting you, contrary to that paranoid assumption.
Last edited by SSDR on 20 Aug 2019 01:39, edited 3 times in total.
#15027907
SSDR wrote:
Those diagrams look like SHIT and are Useless. :lol:

You are not contributing anything with those useless diagrams. Stop using SHIT diagrams as sources. No one is insulting you, contrary to that paranoid assumption.



I asked you to please stop. If you persist with your antics I'll call in a board moderator to take a look at what you're doing.

September 16, Monday At Lexington, Missouri, Ma[…]

The Popular Vote...

No it doesn't. It works as it was designed. Stop[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1173496164[…]

Al Jazeera is indeed the most proper news source f[…]