- 08 Nov 2020 18:20
#15134862
'Run' -- as if it was an *election*. It *wasn't*. It was a U.S.-backed *coup*, after Maduro had already been elected.
---
So, politically, do you support counter-democratic U.S.-backed *coups*?
---
You're ignoring the actual *politics*, of either / both -- politics isn't about being *apolitical*, and balancing on a see-saw, as you're attempting to do, it's about whether you think *elitism* is acceptable, or not. *Less* elitism equals more democratic control, and then workers control, while *more* elitism means cabal-like control over how society runs.
So you're at least purportedly *pro-democratic* -- do you think all ballots should be counted in the current U.S. election, or not?
---
Okay, so then you don't get to use the term 'free markets' whatsoever because as things are you're a *statist*, and corporations and the wealthy get *government welfare*. (Hello, zombie companies!)
---
I'm not conceding *shit* -- you're continuing to blame-the-victim, and you're not even analyzing actual *historical events*, which show the *mitigation* of revolutionary stated goals, by *external* (imperialist) factors.
---
Would you describe your politics as being 'technocratic'? It's the status-quo *now*, and is accelerating in concentration (technological elitism), according to the increasing use of automation, over industrial production.
---
A transportation worker is providing a *service* commodity, and their wages are ultimately determined by the balance of *class* forces, in class warfare -- the *less* class-conscious struggle going on among such workers, the *lower* their wages will be because the bosses / government employer will just get away with paying them less. Of course the transportation worker's work generates revenue, because they're producing a *commodity*, that customers *pay* for, that of geography-spanning transit.
To the *consumer* of transportation, transportation is just an overcost *cost* -- people commute in order to get to the *productive* work that they may or may not do.
As usual you're getting mixed-up, by digressing -- the *janitor* provides a service, but it's sheerly a *drain* on revenue, the same as all executives, because it's strictly an *internal overhead cost* to the business entity itself, without producing any commodities that can be sold for revenue (the M-C-M' cycle).
---
No, not everyone is as financially meticulous as you are -- some people just have cash lying around without having *planned* it that way.
---
Okay, that's fair, and that's the initial impression / understanding I had.
---
My understanding is that the U.S. was able to *improve* on certain industrial implementations, like the tightness of the turns in their railroad tracks, which conferred a logistical improvement / advantage at the time.
---
Was Marx really a stagist, as you're contending here? Do you have any references to corroborate this contention of yours?
---
I'm talking about *full automation*, not past-centuries *industrialization*.
Oftentimes it's *cheaper* to just hire cheap labor than to fully *automate*, so capitalism / the market mechanism favors low-wage labor, which is a *disincentive* to industrialize and automate. That's why the issue is still a *question*, theoretically, instead of being a *given*, as *you* assume.
---
These ideologies are all shown on my one-dimensional left-right political spectrum, above -- see 'Trotskyism' for Bolshevism, and 'identity politics' for radical feminism. 'Chavism' would be 'left-nationalism'.
---
You have to understand what *material* interests are -- it's not necessary strictly a *legal* thing. Once someone has capital invested, to make gains, their material interests are with that *capital*, since they can improve their lifestyle based on that source of material income.
Workers, on the other hand, only have *themselves*, collectively, against the opposite interests of the bosses and bourgeois government. They do not benefit from capital because they don't have it, as capitalists do.
Yes, workers solidarity is not automatic -- there's the countervailing social force of 'false consciousness', unfortunately.
---
'Predictions' isn't the appropriate term to use here -- you're thinking of *clinical science*. Revolutionary activity is about overthrowing existing *class hegemony* -- it's a social *development*, rather than a relatively passive *observation*, or prediction.
I *did* address your question -- the workers took control of factory production after the overthrow of the tsar, so there was no conventional 'stage' of bourgeois development in Russia, in the early 20th century, before Stalin and Stalinism (USSR).
---
Since capital is professionally managed anyway, it could just be corporate-*entity* capital entirely, with all managers / executive employees receiving a salary so that present-day private / individual *ownership* wouldn't have to be rewarded with surplus labor value -- the surplus labor value could go to the workers who are making the commodities (goods and/or services) for the company, instead of being expropriated for the sake of private / individual ownership interests.
What you call '[financial] risk' is *anachronistic* because virtually all sizeable capital is *professionally managed* today, so it's just an executive / managerial function, anyway, and is also subject to financial-industry *culture*, or coordination, internally, as with cartels and price-fixing.
---
You're conflating financial 'transaction costs', with collective-worker *coordination*, as on a *solidarity* basis. Money ('economics') is not the same thing as socio-political organizing ('politics'), for proletarian common interests.
My post-capitalist model shows that the market mechanism is *not objectively needed* for getting information about (organic) mass demand -- such could be done from mass-aggregated individuals' *shopping lists*, essentially, and provided in generalized data, from such mass aggregations, per rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.), per day, to the public.
The *point* of workers-of-the-world socialism is to *eliminate* the market mechanism, and all exchange values and exchanges, in favor of worker-controlled production, and full-automation, to produce directly to the consumer.
---
Okay, you're acknowledging that you're more of a *statist* than a 'free market' type, because you're *okay* with the government's 'War on Drugs', that legally creates the barbaric drug-trade illicit market.
The *alternative*, as I've already mentioned, is for the *government* to be the single-payer *dispensary* for all things pharmaceutical- / drug-related, including all necessary health care and clinical services for use and abuse.
Since you're already a statist why not go *full government* and cut out the private-sector middleman *altogether*? People wouldn't have to pay for the add-on cost of private profits anymore, this way.
ckaihatsu wrote:
No conspiracy theories, and you're thinking of a past election -- I'm talking about 2018:
wat0n wrote:
One where opposition politicians weren't allowed to run freely.
'Run' -- as if it was an *election*. It *wasn't*. It was a U.S.-backed *coup*, after Maduro had already been elected.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, the U.S. supported *that* coup as well:
wat0n wrote:
Sort of, their attitude was more complex than that. We know so because their comms are public now.
So, politically, do you support counter-democratic U.S.-backed *coups*?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Pinochet wasn't a revolutionary -- he was the *opposite*, and there's now been a recent movement in Chile to overthrow the vestiges of his past dictatorship:
Chile Celebrates Voters' Decision To Scrap Constitution, Start Over
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/92785927 ... start-over
wat0n wrote:
A counter-revolution is simply another revolution, but contraposed: It is a revolution carried out by those who opposed the initial one, but who also came to realization the system did not work.
You're ignoring the actual *politics*, of either / both -- politics isn't about being *apolitical*, and balancing on a see-saw, as you're attempting to do, it's about whether you think *elitism* is acceptable, or not. *Less* elitism equals more democratic control, and then workers control, while *more* elitism means cabal-like control over how society runs.
wat0n wrote:
He didn't go back to the old system since it had proven, well, ineffective, and the military had developed an anti-democratic ideology.
So you're at least purportedly *pro-democratic* -- do you think all ballots should be counted in the current U.S. election, or not?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Corporate / business 'independence' is a *misnomer*, because the private sector got bailed-out by Trump in early 2020, and they received a *windfall* from public funding early in Trump's term:
So you can't claim that private sector businesses and the wealthy are 'independent' when they've been receiving welfare-like benefits from the U.S. government.
wat0n wrote:
So what? Workers also got bailed out this year and also got tax breaks.
Okay, so then you don't get to use the term 'free markets' whatsoever because as things are you're a *statist*, and corporations and the wealthy get *government welfare*. (Hello, zombie companies!)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
If far-left / Marxist ideological political movements have been as *self-determining* as you're implying then what threw their political ascendancies off-course? Certainly it wasn't self-sabotage, because you're making them sound *all-powerful* and somehow *invulnerable* to external social factors, like political opposition. So why aren't we living under socialism *now*, going by your reasoning?
wat0n wrote:
I'm not sure about what your point is. If you are conceding they deviate from their stated goals because of how actual reality is, then you are conceding there is something wrong in their diagnosis of it.
I'm not conceding *shit* -- you're continuing to blame-the-victim, and you're not even analyzing actual *historical events*, which show the *mitigation* of revolutionary stated goals, by *external* (imperialist) factors.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So to recap, will capitalism bring about full automation over industrial production, or won't it?
wat0n wrote:
Again, that depends on technological development. Assuming it is technically possible, yes, it will.
But I'm skeptical about it being "technically possible" to literally automate all economic activity. I think some services will remain done by humans.
Would you describe your politics as being 'technocratic'? It's the status-quo *now*, and is accelerating in concentration (technological elitism), according to the increasing use of automation, over industrial production.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
An analogy would be to ask why *anyone* pays for the costs of *transportation* when it doesn't directly add to anyone's wages, or benefits, or revenue, or profits.
It's one of those things that's simply an overhead *cost* -- and so all non-productive work roles (which don't produce commodities that can be sold for revenue, and profits, in the M-C-M' cycle) are just like that, the 'costs of doing business', as the phrase goes.
Do you finally understand this -- we've been over it several times now and it's not that difficult a concept to understand. Got it now? Here's a 'cheat sheet':
[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of ProfitSpoiler: show
wat0n wrote:
Of course I understand it
Do you understand, then, that the worker working in transportation is also participating in the revenue generating process? And therefore, you need to impute its contribution to it to make any judgment about whether they are being paid "fairly" or not.
A transportation worker is providing a *service* commodity, and their wages are ultimately determined by the balance of *class* forces, in class warfare -- the *less* class-conscious struggle going on among such workers, the *lower* their wages will be because the bosses / government employer will just get away with paying them less. Of course the transportation worker's work generates revenue, because they're producing a *commodity*, that customers *pay* for, that of geography-spanning transit.
To the *consumer* of transportation, transportation is just an overcost *cost* -- people commute in order to get to the *productive* work that they may or may not do.
As usual you're getting mixed-up, by digressing -- the *janitor* provides a service, but it's sheerly a *drain* on revenue, the same as all executives, because it's strictly an *internal overhead cost* to the business entity itself, without producing any commodities that can be sold for revenue (the M-C-M' cycle).
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Not all who have some surplus cash on-hand, in a hole in the ground, or inside a mattress, are necessarily executing some intentional 'financial plan', as you're making it out to be. Again, if someone happens to simply not-spend some cash then they have a *surplus*, but that doesn't automatically make them a *capitalist*, which was your original erroneous contention.
Please avoid making assumptions.
wat0n wrote:
They are doing the same type of calculation a capitalist does - they simply want to maximize what they perceive their expected risk-adjusted return.
No, not everyone is as financially meticulous as you are -- some people just have cash lying around without having *planned* it that way.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
In the past I myself thought that these two terms conferred some kind of semantic distinction, but I asked about it, and it turns out that the two terms are actually *synonymous*. I'd be open to hearing your understanding, though.
wat0n wrote:
I recall reading it from people who like Marx, actually.
Marxist refers to the political program and general ideology associated with Marx's work. In other words, it's a normative analysis.
Marxian refers to the paradigm and tools used by Marx and his followers to analyze and explain reality. In other words, it's a positive analysis.
It is possible to Marxian without being Marxist - some early social democrats could arguably be an example.
Okay, that's fair, and that's the initial impression / understanding I had.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Good question. The first two Western countries to industrialize benefitted from prior colonialist *mercantilism* abroad, and were well-situated to reconfigure their societies to *industrial* mass production:
wat0n wrote:
Right, that's one way. American industrialization doesn't follow any of the preceding patterns so far either.
My understanding is that the U.S. was able to *improve* on certain industrial implementations, like the tightness of the turns in their railroad tracks, which conferred a logistical improvement / advantage at the time.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup:
wat0n wrote:
...Which is why Marx would have trouble explaining the Russian Revolution. He may even find it an aberration (in terms of his theory), since they skipped industrial capitalism and industrialized through a (allegedly?) Marxist system.
Was Marx really a stagist, as you're contending here? Do you have any references to corroborate this contention of yours?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You tell me -- you're a capitalist / status-quo supporter. I'd be interested to know how likely you think full automation of industrial mass production is under current conditions of capitalism.
wat0n wrote:
It depends on whether the technology to allow for it is developed. This is primarily a scientific question, not an economic one.
If it does, then I think it's very likely. If it's cheaper to industrialize there is the incentive to do so, isn't it?
I'm talking about *full automation*, not past-centuries *industrialization*.
Oftentimes it's *cheaper* to just hire cheap labor than to fully *automate*, so capitalism / the market mechanism favors low-wage labor, which is a *disincentive* to industrialize and automate. That's why the issue is still a *question*, theoretically, instead of being a *given*, as *you* assume.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Correct -- political ideologies are *relative* to one-another, on a left-right political *continuum*, as I have in this political-spectrum diagram:
Ideologies & Operations -- FundamentalsSpoiler: show
wat0n wrote:
Indeed, and shows the inadequacy for a one dimensional spectrum.
ckaihatsu wrote:
How so?
wat0n wrote:
Is Bolshevism the same as Stalinism? As 21st century progresism? As left-wing anarchism/anarcho-communism? As radical feminism? As chavism?
These ideologies are all shown on my one-dimensional left-right political spectrum, above -- see 'Trotskyism' for Bolshevism, and 'identity politics' for radical feminism. 'Chavism' would be 'left-nationalism'.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Yup again -- you're basically making my theoretical argument *for* me here. I'm saying that disparate workers co-ops is a non-starter, since they first need the capital necessary to buy-out *current* ownership, and then, as owners, they would no longer have the same *political* interests, for proletarian revolution (anti-exploitation, anti-oppression), that they have as dispossessed *workers* (only).
wat0n wrote:
But that is not something they are legally forbidden to do. If they don't, it's because they face a coordination problem (an example of a transaction cost, mind you).
You have to understand what *material* interests are -- it's not necessary strictly a *legal* thing. Once someone has capital invested, to make gains, their material interests are with that *capital*, since they can improve their lifestyle based on that source of material income.
Workers, on the other hand, only have *themselves*, collectively, against the opposite interests of the bosses and bourgeois government. They do not benefit from capital because they don't have it, as capitalists do.
Yes, workers solidarity is not automatic -- there's the countervailing social force of 'false consciousness', unfortunately.
---
wat0n wrote:
I'm aware of it. So, was the bourgeoisie usurped in the USSR?
ckaihatsu wrote:
Russia in 1917 was uniquely politically advanced, especially compared to China, because it overthrew its monarchy and then went straight to workers soviets and the Bolshevik Revolution on their behalf -- it *skipped* the bourgeois-revolution developmental / industrialization 'stage', and asserted that its proletariat could do this (Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution'), but it depended on *spreading* the proletarian revolution *internationally*, particularly to Germany and the rest of Europe, which didn't happen, obviously. This was *prior* to Stalin and the Stalinism that you refer to.
wat0n wrote:
Yup, a refutation of one of Marx's key predictions... But you did not answer my question.
'Predictions' isn't the appropriate term to use here -- you're thinking of *clinical science*. Revolutionary activity is about overthrowing existing *class hegemony* -- it's a social *development*, rather than a relatively passive *observation*, or prediction.
I *did* address your question -- the workers took control of factory production after the overthrow of the tsar, so there was no conventional 'stage' of bourgeois development in Russia, in the early 20th century, before Stalin and Stalinism (USSR).
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, no, you're *not* -- you've never mentioned 'the cost of profit', nor are you now, nor have 'free market' types ever mentioned it, either.
I've noted -- probably on another thread -- that the 'entrepreneurial' / ownership role could simply be a regular salaried white-collar position, along with all others in the corporate bureaucracy so that it wouldn't be so inflated in compensation from receiving workers' surplus labor value. Workers could then *receive* the surplus labor value that's currently being *expropriated* from them.
[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & DividendsSpoiler: show
wat0n wrote:
You are forgetting here the role of risk taking. A white collar worker is taking less risks than a business owner - and while he may have a lower income as a result, .
Since capital is professionally managed anyway, it could just be corporate-*entity* capital entirely, with all managers / executive employees receiving a salary so that present-day private / individual *ownership* wouldn't have to be rewarded with surplus labor value -- the surplus labor value could go to the workers who are making the commodities (goods and/or services) for the company, instead of being expropriated for the sake of private / individual ownership interests.
What you call '[financial] risk' is *anachronistic* because virtually all sizeable capital is *professionally managed* today, so it's just an executive / managerial function, anyway, and is also subject to financial-industry *culture*, or coordination, internally, as with cartels and price-fixing.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You obviously haven't taken a look at my 'labor credits' proposal, for a communist-type *gift economy* -- the only 'cost', post-capitalism, would be for a sorting function on a regular desktop computer.
wat0n wrote:
You are seriously underestimating the role of transaction costs here. If they were so low, there would (for instance) be a lot more worker co-ops around
You're conflating financial 'transaction costs', with collective-worker *coordination*, as on a *solidarity* basis. Money ('economics') is not the same thing as socio-political organizing ('politics'), for proletarian common interests.
My post-capitalist model shows that the market mechanism is *not objectively needed* for getting information about (organic) mass demand -- such could be done from mass-aggregated individuals' *shopping lists*, essentially, and provided in generalized data, from such mass aggregations, per rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.), per day, to the public.
The *point* of workers-of-the-world socialism is to *eliminate* the market mechanism, and all exchange values and exchanges, in favor of worker-controlled production, and full-automation, to produce directly to the consumer.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're showing your bad habit of *assuming* again -- all of these superstructural details that you're outlining are ultimately *arbitrary*, and certainly not 'givens'.
Black markets can only exist due to *legal* decrees, from government -- there are no black markets for *popcorn* or *whiskey*, because such goods are not decreed to be illegal, according to prevailing legal norms. So, no, they don't simply 'pop out' on their own -- the government tacitly creates and supports the barbaric illicit markets through its legal paradigm of choice.
The *major* difference that *can* be implemented on a reformist basis is how users and abusers are *treated* by government -- will they continue to be considered as 'criminals', or will they be considered to be 'clients', and tended to with government *social services* instead of by heavy-handed and even murderous *police* -- ?
wat0n wrote:
Of course they are "black" markets because they are made illegal by the Government. That's the point: People are willingly participating in them regardless of whatever the Government wants.
Okay, you're acknowledging that you're more of a *statist* than a 'free market' type, because you're *okay* with the government's 'War on Drugs', that legally creates the barbaric drug-trade illicit market.
The *alternative*, as I've already mentioned, is for the *government* to be the single-payer *dispensary* for all things pharmaceutical- / drug-related, including all necessary health care and clinical services for use and abuse.
Since you're already a statist why not go *full government* and cut out the private-sector middleman *altogether*? People wouldn't have to pay for the add-on cost of private profits anymore, this way.