Why I'm no longer a Marxist - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15127815
ckaihatsu wrote:Well maybe people won't continue to think on such an *individualistic* basis -- look at climate change, for example, and the ongoing disruptions to the weather and environment. Maybe *that* would be a mass political basis for ending capitalism.


It's not necessarily individualistic. The system works well for me, and by extension, my local community. That is, my family, my friends, etc. The question is, will people eventually think more about the global community? Maybe, but doubtful.

None the less, my points stands, that no revolution until the system breaks down for a much larger number of people. We're not their yet.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Fix' isn't quite the appropriate word to use here since a (proletarian) revolution would *discard* the social practice of capital / money / markets / exchanges / barter / trade / exchange-values.

Capitalism features *overproduction* and *artificial scarcity* at the same time, which is certainly *monstrous* enough to be discarded, finally.


Anything can be fix/adjusted/regulated/managed.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're making it sound like some kind of automatic psychological *fait accompli*, though -- do you control your own psychological political sentiment, or *don't* you?


I don't even understand this statement.
#15127816
ckaihatsu wrote:There would be no salaries or wages because labor would no longer be commodified.

Consider as being similar to PoFo here -- either the effort for discussion, etc., is put-in by participants here, or else it *isn't*. Likewise there could be an *identical* social process for a *post-capitalist* political economy, one in which discussions like these would actually apply to specific *real world* production processes.

We all voluntarily post on PoFo because it's interesting and we enjoy it, and would prefer to do it than any other fun/enjoyable potential activity in the room/place you're in right now. Find me some people who would prefer to clean toilets or snap plastic parts together for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week than to sit at home and play Xbox or go out and party with friends.

Since it would be inhumane to deny 'commons' and natural materials to anyone (that which is mass-produced by anyone and/or nature) -- *and* there would be no government for any 'oversight' and 'enforcement' -- then that means that *anyone* could simply live off of society and/or nature without doing a single minute of work in return, and no one could do anything about it, ultimately.

This is true insanity and completely lacking in logic. No government? What do you do about the bad actors who get jealous at the guy who their girlfriend winks at and then sticks a knife in him? Large diamonds are rare and finite. What do you do about the bad actor who steals a bunch of large diamonds from people in his town and then shows up at a party with 10 rings with large diamonds on them? Did you ever read Animal Farm? lol.

Why is it inhumane for a capable and able-bodied person who simply chooses not to work to be denied a good or service that is produced by the labour of somebody else? Does that mean people are your slave? You can sit on your butt and do nothing, but people are FORCED to work for them for nothing in return? That is tantamount to slavery.

If you're a healthy able-bodied adult who refuses to be of any use to yourself or anyone else, and willfully chooses not to contribute to society, you deserve to starve to death. It's not inhumane, that's your willful choice. I have no problem providing for the sick, elderly, children, disabled etc. If you can contribute to society and choose not to, you don't deserve the benefits of its labour.

You're *dissembling* here, and not-addressing the point I'm making about *incentive* for the worker -- workers get the short end of the stick, so there's no empirical *incentive* to identify with the boss' interests, and work harder.

It's physically easier to not-work than to *work*, so if work / effort is to be expended, it needs to be rewarded. Workers aren't at the workplace to be *volunteers* and *altruists* to the capitalist ruling class.

They're awarded by not being fired, and therefore receiving a wage, which allows them to eat and put their family in a decent house. If you have any ambition at all you work hard so that in a few years you can be promoted to supervisor, and be paid a higher wage, then several years later be promoted to manager, and get an even higher wage. Then with that experience possibly move to another senior position at another company, where the wage is even higher and the job is more interesting.
#15127818
Rancid wrote:It's not necessarily individualistic. The system works well for me, and by extension, my local community. That is, my family, my friends, etc. The question is, will people eventually think more about the global community? Maybe, but doubtful.

None the less, my points stands, that no revolution until the system breaks down for a much larger number of people. We're not their yet.

This is essentially what Marx predicted. Lenin and others put the horse in front of the cart. Unfortunately, nobody can accurately predict the future, so it's fool's errand. So just sit and wait and in the meantime enjoy the show.
#15127819
Unthinking Majority wrote:This is essentially what Marx predicted. Lenin and others put the horse in front of the cart. Unfortunately, nobody can accurately predict the future, so it's fool's errand. So just sit and wait and in the meantime enjoy the show.


Indeed, but the other point I wanted to point out in my previous point is that the current capitalistic mode of production is not necessarily doomed to fail as many assume. It is not outside of the realm of possibility that in the event the system breaks down, rather than revolution, we just get reform. It's very possible, that reform is what was needed, and hence, no communism.
#15127821
Rancid wrote:Indeed, but the other point I wanted to point out in my previous point is that the current capitalistic mode of production is not necessarily doomed to fail as many assume. It is not outside of the realm of possibility that in the event the system breaks down, rather than revolution, we just get reform. It's very possible, that reform is what was needed, and hence, no communism.


And even if it ends in revolution, that doesn't mean it will be a communist or socialist one.
#15127823
Unthinking Majority wrote:This is essentially what Marx predicted. Lenin and others put the horse in front of the cart. Unfortunately, nobody can accurately predict the future, so it's fool's errand. So just sit and wait and in the meantime enjoy the show.

Why do anything when our intentions are never identical the realized end? I think you must explore the risks and why someone would opt into them. Why would someone like James Connolly and his bunch undergo the Easter rising with such odds against them and ultimately failed? There must be hope for something which you do not share. Part of which i think is motivated by the sense of the falsity in reformist solutions which don’t solve problems but manage them. Theres a world of difference between charity and welfare compared to trying to understand and address the basis of poverty amidst such wealth.

Why did the founding fathers risk so much? Why does anyone?

And I think some of the discussion here focuses too much on the objective state of things to the neglect of the subjects who take the opportunity to initiate a revolution. NK despite all ots problems isn’t about to cascade with mass uprisings despite the severe repression of dissent and such.
A shitty life is insufficient. There is something more in how the contradictions in a society are experienced by many.

No doubt it must be terrible in some way with the example of severe taxes, starvation, inequality and the sense of injustice amidst those proposing an alternative path.

There is much to be critical of the reformist approach which downplays the repeated crises and their impact. The optimism that in aasserted pragmatism of reforming capitalism forever although at what point does the change one desire actually challenge the essence of capitalist production and one aspires for an end which is incompatible with it. Such as Pikettys criticism of global inequality but his solution practically requires the political strength of a global revolution which would amount to toppling capitalists. Sometimes the minor reforms in practice suggest a radical change.
This emphasizes the importance of ideology like how the Lithuanians i believe experienced the hegemony of individualism when they underwent a severe austerity in response to the global recession. What was market forces was instead interpreted as a matter of individual choice and opportunity. SOmething Zizek I guess witnessed as he explained how instead of seeing the way in which your life is disrupted by the market, instead interpret it as an opportunity for growth, a new career, to be more frugal and develop as a more sensible person. Because while their government was gutting the hell out of services, and they experienced the effects, to see it in terms of ones own life only, makes politics an impossible thought as it is obscured, you're not sensing yourself within that whole.

Ideology and the means to have people see in the same events a different meaning than that fed by a ruling class is a struggle in itself which is a precondition to any change. Reality has some weight against propaganda but is it surprising to hear how many Americans who are at the bottom of the US espouse the very ideas of a capitalist class. Much has been gained in the cold war propaganda against communism and their repression from many institutions and public life.

Even reforms arose out of the strength of unions and movements in struggle and weren’t benevolently given to the masses. So the prodpect of even a reform isn’t necessarily on the cards as the 1st world sees itself losing much of the gains of the 20th century and is going to be leveled out with the increasingly industrialized nations that aren’t fettered by the developed nations so as not to be competitive in markets.
#15127830
Rancid wrote:Indeed, but the other point I wanted to point out in my previous point is that the current capitalistic mode of production is not necessarily doomed to fail as many assume. It is not outside of the realm of possibility that in the event the system breaks down, rather than revolution, we just get reform. It's very possible, that reform is what was needed, and hence, no communism.


The Great Depression happened and some countries went communist, others went fascist, so they took another course into the unknown and went off the deep end. Others just patched up the holes, built a tougher hull and kept on course and flourished.

We agree that nobody can predict the future. Most of the time an economics degree isn't worth the paper its printed on in terms of predictions. Much easier to analyze the past than to predict the future. Marx could do the former but he was shit at the latter and so was Lenin and Mao and every other Marxist. The vast majority of professional Wall Street brokers & Joe Blow investor can't outperform the market either with their predictions, they just run around like a chicken with their heads cut off panicking at every market drop and overreacting to every juicy opportunity by over-speculating, and investors have been doing this CONSISTENTLY for the last several hundred years.

With this debt-fueled economy and ever-rising income inequality and stagnant wages, right now we're just driving down the road at 120mph with dirty oil in the engine that hasn't been changed for a very long time so shit is going to hit the fan eventually, the car is going to blow a gasket. What might happen then is everyone just loses their shit, they slap massive taxes on the rich and corporations, tell the banks to go suck their dicks by slapping a whole much of new regulations on them, expand the welfare state once again FDR New Deal style with healthcare and education yada yada, and then get back on the road again.

OR we burn the rich, steal all their shit, create ckaihatsu's borderless worldwide Marxist utopia and I still get clothed & fed while playing Xbox all day. Occom's razor...
#15127833
Rancid wrote:
It's not necessarily individualistic. The system works well for me, and by extension, my local community. That is, my family, my friends, etc. The question is, will people eventually think more about the global community? Maybe, but doubtful.

None the less, my points stands, that no revolution until the system breaks down for a much larger number of people. We're not their yet.



Funny that you should mention about the system breaking down....



With the number of workers unemployed for more than six months hitting an all-time high and millions running out of federal and state jobless benefits, the US government has made it clear that providing unemployment benefits for workers is not a priority.

After the $600-a-week federal supplement to state unemployment benefits expired on July 31, Trump approved a stopgap measure called the Lost Wage Assistance program, which cut federal assistance in half, providing six weekly payments of $300, starting retroactively on August 1. But even this meager money is now running out.

More than two million Californians are getting their last $300 check this week. Another 2.4 million New Yorkers will lose their benefits in the next two weeks, and the program has already ended in Texas, Utah, Iowa, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, New Hampshire and Missouri.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/1 ... s-o15.html



---


Rancid wrote:
Anything can be fix/adjusted/regulated/managed.



No, capitalism operates / functions according to the assumption that there will necessarily be future market demand, and so it produces commodities *speculatively*, with the result of *overproduction*, and economic *deflation*, as we see today, requiring government bailouts of the markets, using public funds.

It's too 'hands-off', and we could do the same as what the market does, just by using consumer-focused *surveys*, or 'daily individually prioritized ranked demands lists', as seen in my 'labor credits' model:



consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily



consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination



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



---


Rancid wrote:
In short, better the devil I know (capitalism), than the devil I don't know (communism).



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're making it sound like some kind of automatic psychological *fait accompli*, though -- do you control your own psychological political sentiment, or *don't* you?



Rancid wrote:
I don't even understand this statement.



In other words you're applying an aphorism, which is inherently *algorithmic*.

It's very 'high-level' thinking, but, because of that 'high-level' quality, it may not be *entirely accurate*, meaning that it may not necessarily encompass all of the *dynamics* and *details* within the subject that it's covering, that of political economy, basically.

Another example, an analogue, is the 'lesser evil' guideline when it comes to *voting* for a candidate. Sure, it's nice to be able to make a decision *quickly*, but that decision may turn out to be quite *superficial* and hasty, compared to a more *in-depth* look at the options being weighed.

I'm saying that you're *not really* examining all of the options carefully. You're employing a high-level 'rule' over a decision space that's inherently *very* complex, with much detail, without even examining any of the *factors* within.
#15127847
Unthinking Majority wrote:
So if there's 10 people on your team and 9 are working hard, and you want to work half-assed, the cost to society is low, but your personal gains are high (less work to do, can relax a bit, chat with friends, text your bestie).



ckaihatsu wrote:
There would be no salaries or wages because labor would no longer be commodified.

Consider as being similar to PoFo here -- either the effort for discussion, etc., is put-in by participants here, or else it *isn't*. Likewise there could be an *identical* social process for a *post-capitalist* political economy, one in which discussions like these would actually apply to specific *real world* production processes.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
We all voluntarily post on PoFo because it's interesting and we enjoy it, and would prefer to do it than any other fun/enjoyable potential activity in the room/place you're in right now.



Whoa -- knee-jerk *defensive* there.

Back to the topic, my point stands that, *overall*, it really *doesn't matter* if people are hard workers or not, post-capitalism -- it's just that, on-the-whole, either there's a 'critical mass' of uncoerced liberated labor participation for the whole *society* to have good modern lifestyles, or else it won't, and more people *should* participate with their work efforts.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Find me some people who would prefer to clean toilets or snap plastic parts together for 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week than to sit at home and play Xbox or go out and party with friends.



Wilde *agrees* with you:



And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Since it would be inhumane to deny 'commons' and natural materials to anyone (that which is mass-produced by anyone and/or nature) -- *and* there would be no government for any 'oversight' and 'enforcement' -- then that means that *anyone* could simply live off of society and/or nature without doing a single minute of work in return, and no one could do anything about it, ultimately.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
This is true insanity and completely lacking in logic. No government? What do you do about the bad actors who get jealous at the guy who their girlfriend winks at and then sticks a knife in him?



Well, what's being done about it today?

There's *nothing* that anyone, under *any* kind of socio-political order, can do about impetuous / spontaneous 'crimes of passion' because they happen instantaneously, without warning. Such isn't really *political*, anyway, and so there's no obligation for any kind of *politics* to address it.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Large diamonds are rare and finite. What do you do about the bad actor who steals a bunch of large diamonds from people in his town and then shows up at a party with 10 rings with large diamonds on them? Did you ever read Animal Farm? lol.



Wow. Boundless pessimism and dark clouds, huh?

Note that all possessions, post-capitalism, would be *personal* property, or else 'the commons', since all *extra*-personal private accumulations would be no more. Sure, people could have diamonds, but they could also *secure* them, and, more to the point, society could produce *synthetic* diamonds, with full automation, to the point that they litter the streets.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Why is it inhumane for a capable and able-bodied person who simply chooses not to work to be denied a good or service that is produced by the labour of somebody else?



Because what you're describing would require a *government*, and then there would be *specialized* administrative roles (called 'administrators') who would not actually produce goods or services (formerly 'commodities') for the common good.

Basically you're advocating *Stalinism* here, which requires a *schism* of work roles within the working class / post-capitalist humanity, which would be too problematic because that administration would then necessarily be *detached* and *elitist*, doing administrative stuff.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Does that mean people are your slave?



Why *would* they be? If capitalism were overthrown tomorrow, I would have no special status because communism is all about *no power*. No class division, no power.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
You can sit on your butt and do nothing, but people are FORCED to work for them for nothing in return? That is tantamount to slavery.



Where would the hypothetical 'force' *come* from, exactly? There's no government. Who's 'them'?

Again, society would be *fully collectivized* -- this means that society would rise and fall as one, because that society would prioritize *human needs*. Do you think that the people of today's world would be sufficiently generous to do *some* work, *some* of the time, for the greater good, post-capitalism?

The worst case, if no one does *anything*, is that everyone would have to *forage*, from nature, for their daily sustenance and other needs.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
If you're a healthy able-bodied adult who refuses to be of any use to yourself or anyone else, and willfully chooses not to contribute to society, you deserve to starve to death.



Moralism. What if that post-capitalist society had enough mass motivation and cooperation to finally implement *full automation* over all of the industrial implements from the era of capitalism -- it would be able to produce an *abundance* of whatever, by merely writing a few lines of code and leveraging AI. *And* the *ethos* of this society is 'production for human need', so the *priority* would be the very person that you're describing, since everyone else wuld be proactively looking after *themselves*.

Again, I would have no special status or exceptional position in a post-capitalist society because there would be *zero* power bases in communism.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
It's not inhumane, that's your willful choice.



Don't you see that the person's own 'life-choices' -- and *your* moralism -- would be entirely *irrelevant* -- ?

Do we talk about people 'not deserving' air or water? These life-necessary materials are *critical* to life itself, at a biological level, so that always comes *first*, with social-moral / -ethical concerns *afterward*.

Anyone who's perpetually inactive, for whatever reason, of course should get whatever they need to *stay alive*, as a prerequisite for whatever it is they decide to do with their lives, if anything. Social life is 'higher-level' than sheer biological *existence*:


Image


Also:


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
I have no problem providing for the sick, elderly, children, disabled etc. If you can contribute to society and choose not to, you don't deserve the benefits of its labour.



Moralism over *physical items* would be mostly *moot* in a post-scarcity / abundant society. Sure there would still be 'socio-political' issues within, such as what to do, what to build where, etc., but we wouldn't have to use a *scarcity-based* morality to fuss over this-or-that item, as you're doing right now.

Maybe the social norms of that society *would* regulate many categories of items, and I'm sure you would advocate for that kind of approach, but now we're both just speculating on the particulars.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *dissembling* here, and not-addressing the point I'm making about *incentive* for the worker -- workers get the short end of the stick, so there's no empirical *incentive* to identify with the boss' interests, and work harder.

It's physically easier to not-work than to *work*, so if work / effort is to be expended, it needs to be rewarded. Workers aren't at the workplace to be *volunteers* and *altruists* to the capitalist ruling class.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
They're awarded by not being fired, and therefore receiving a wage, which allows them to eat and put their family in a decent house. If you have any ambition at all you work hard so that in a few years you can be promoted to supervisor, and be paid a higher wage, then several years later be promoted to manager, and get an even higher wage. Then with that experience possibly move to another senior position at another company, where the wage is even higher and the job is more interesting.



So it's the carrot-and-the-stick, as things are today, correct?

Who gets to select what the carrot will be, and what the stick will be?
#15127848
Unthinking Majority wrote:
This is essentially what Marx predicted. Lenin and others put the horse in front of the cart. Unfortunately, nobody can accurately predict the future, so it's fool's errand. So just sit and wait and in the meantime enjoy the show.



How did 'Lenin and others' 'put the horse in front of the cart'?

You're starting to sound like a *localist*.
#15127850
Unthinking Majority wrote:
We agree that nobody can predict the future. Most of the time an economics degree isn't worth the paper its printed on in terms of predictions. Much easier to analyze the past than to predict the future. Marx could do the former but he was shit at the latter and so was Lenin and Mao and every other Marxist.



As an innocent question, please tell me why you think that revolutionaries need to 'predict' the future. In my understanding revolutionaries *make* the future.

Mao was a *sell-out*, by-the-way.
#15127854
We all voluntarily post on PoFo because it's interesting and we enjoy it, and would prefer to do it than any other fun/enjoyable potential activity in the room/place you're in right now.


ckaihatsu wrote:Whoa -- knee-jerk *defensive* there.

No you misinterpreted what I meant. What I meant is this:

We all voluntarily post on PoFo because it's interesting and we enjoy it, and would prefer to do it than any other fun/enjoyable potential activity in the room/place we're in right now.

In other words, we post on PoFo because we like it. Nobody likes spending hours cleaning other people's toilets for fun.
#15127857
ckaihatsu wrote:No, capitalism operates / functions according to the assumption that there will necessarily be future market demand, and so it produces commodities *speculatively*, with the result of *overproduction*, and economic *deflation*, as we see today, requiring government bailouts of the markets, using public funds.

It's too 'hands-off', and we could do the same as what the market does, just by using consumer-focused *surveys*, or 'daily individually prioritized ranked demands lists', as seen in my 'labor credits' model:


I get it, you believe that capitalism cannot possibly evolve or be adjusted, even though it constantly has been adjusted and evolved over the last few centuries.

Arguably, what we have today isn't even capitalism.

Ultimately, I don't really care about capitalism itself.
#15127858
ckaihatsu wrote:No, capitalism operates / functions according to the assumption that there will necessarily be future market demand, and so it produces commodities *speculatively*, with the result of *overproduction*, and economic *deflation*, as we see today, requiring government bailouts of the markets, using public funds.


That's not the result of overproduction, it's the result of financialization. Casino capitalism is the problem, not the real market based economy.

The real economy concerns the production, purchase and flow of goods and services (like oil, bread and labour) within an economy. It is contrasted with the financial economy, which concerns the aspects of the economy that deal purely in transactions of fiat money and other financial assets, which represent ownership or claims to ownership of real sector goods and services.


Finance capitalism or financial capitalism is the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.

Financial capitalism is thus a form of capitalism where the intermediation of saving to investment becomes a dominant function in the economy, with wider implications for the political process and social evolution. Since the late 20th century, in a process sometimes called financialization, it has become the predominant force in the global economy, whether in neoliberal or other form.
#15127873
So where does China fit into this, with its Communist government and capitalist economy? It's defying what you say by its very existence. China is no USSR.
#15127926
Unthinking Majority wrote:
In other words, we post on PoFo because we like it. Nobody likes spending hours cleaning other people's toilets for fun.



Well, to be precise, this isn't my idea of *fun*, exactly, though it's the best way to do politics that I've ever done in my life. My own personal interests lie elsewhere.

To me, this is *politics*, and not 'lifestyle' -- though, yes, there is obviously *overlap*, since one must *use* part of one's life to *do* politics, which can then arguably be called a 'lifestyle', if done often enough. I'll argue that 'politics' is *not* lifestyle, though, strictly speaking, because one must focus on the *politics*, which isn't necessarily what one would like to do for oneself.


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

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Rancid wrote:
I get it, you believe that capitalism cannot possibly evolve or be adjusted, even though it constantly has been adjusted and evolved over the last few centuries.



*Has* it, though?

We could say that *industrialization* was a major paradigm shift, but the *system* (mode-of-production) of capitalism has *remained*, unfortunately, through that technological paradigm shift, *stunting* the distribution of industrialization's productive prowess -- people are still starving while elsewhere food rots.


Rancid wrote:
Arguably, what we have today isn't even capitalism.



What would you call it then?


Rancid wrote:
Ultimately, I don't really care about capitalism itself.



So we can go ahead and overthrow it, then? Okay by you? (grin)


Sivad wrote:
That's not the result of overproduction, it's the result of financialization. Casino capitalism is the problem, not the real market based economy.



But how do you draw the line, then? How can there be capitalism without *finance*? (!)


Sivad wrote:
The real economy concerns the production, purchase and flow of goods and services (like oil, bread and labour) within an economy. It is contrasted with the financial economy, which concerns the aspects of the economy that deal purely in transactions of fiat money and other financial assets, which represent ownership or claims to ownership of real sector goods and services.



Oh, okay, so you're bourgeois-historically-progressive, then, meaning that you're all for *equity* capital (which organizes production), but you're critical of *rentier* capital (which is *non-productive* and feudal-like).


Sivad wrote:
Finance capitalism or financial capitalism is the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.

Financial capitalism is thus a form of capitalism where the intermediation of saving to investment becomes a dominant function in the economy, with wider implications for the political process and social evolution. Since the late 20th century, in a process sometimes called financialization, it has become the predominant force in the global economy, whether in neoliberal or other form.



*Or* it could be called 'deflation' since that's the result it brings -- a *glut* of savings that *reduces* the face-value of all of it. I'd also call it the *balkanization* of savings, as into offshore tax havens, which means it's *non-circulating*, and, ironically, the government has to use *public funds* for liquidity to underwrite bad loans and stock market crashes, propping up 'zombie companies' in the process. No wonder I'm a socialist.
#15127934
ckaihatsu wrote:*Has* it, though?

We could say that *industrialization* was a major paradigm shift, but the *system* (mode-of-production) of capitalism has *remained*, unfortunately, through that technological paradigm shift, *stunting* the distribution of industrialization's productive prowess -- people are still starving while elsewhere food rots.


It has adjusted. What can be argued is that it hasn't adjusted enough. In the 1600s (rough birth century of capitalism), we did not have public managed things like say, socialized health care, government pension plans, publicly run unemployment insurance programs, etc. etc. These are adjustments to capitalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:What would you call it then?


It's mixed economy. There are public managed things in society, like energy, education, water, roads, some safety nets (unemployment insurance, social security, etc.). It is possible to adjust/fix/retool any/all of those.

ckaihatsu wrote:So we can go ahead and overthrow it, then? Okay by you? (grin)


No, because when revolutions happen, there are often NUMEROUS warning factions vying for power. Those factions will run the gamut of the political spectrum, so it's very possible the communist would lose, even if they started the revolution. The chance of a really horrible tyrannical faction or non-communist faction succeeding and taking over is pretty high. This could put everyone worse off than before the revolution.

As I said, from a risk management perspective, adjustments/regulation/retooling the current Mix mode economy has a lower risk profile. You seem to be assuming that a revolution would most certainly be won by communists. That's a level of faith that makes me question your ability to asses the real world properly.
Last edited by Rancid on 16 Oct 2020 18:28, edited 5 times in total.
#15127935
ckaihatsu wrote:What would you call it then?

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is a classical political-economic argument which states that in advanced capitalist societies, state policies assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor.

— Wiki

I am surprised you didn't know that.


:lol:
#15127945
Rancid wrote:
It has adjusted. What can be argued is that it hasn't adjusted enough. In the 1600s (rough birth century of capitalism), we did not have public managed things like say, socialized health care, government pension plans, publicly run unemployment insurance programs, etc. etc. These are adjustments to capitalism.



You're indicating a past government paradigm of 'the welfare state', which no longer exists -- the prevailing trend of the past few decades has been *neoliberalism*, or *austerity* regarding government social spending / social services.



United States

Further information: Budget Control Act of 2011 and United States budget sequestration in 2013

The United States' response to the 2008 economic crash was largely influenced by Wall Street and IMF interests, who favored fiscal retrenchment in the face of the economic crash. Evidence exists to suggest that Pete Peterson (and the Petersonites) have heavily influenced US policy on economic recovery since the Nixon era,[82] and presented itself in 2008, despite Austerity Measures being "wildly out of step with public opinion and reputable economic policy...[and showing] anti-Keynesian bias of supply side economics and a political system skewed to favor Wall Street over Main Street".[83] The nuance of the economic logic of Keynesianism is, however, difficult to put across to the American Public, and compares poorly to the simplistic message which blames government spending, which might explain Obama's preferred position of a halfway point between economic stimulus followed by austerity, which led to him being criticized by economists such as Stiglitz.[84]

Controversy

Main article: Anti-austerity protests

Austerity programs can be controversial. In the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) briefing paper "The IMF and the Third World", the ODI addresses five major complaints against the IMF's austerity conditions. Complaints include such measures being "anti-developmental", "self-defeating", and tending "to have an adverse impact on the poorest segments of the population".

In many situations, austerity programs are implemented by countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that citizens are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.[85][86][87]

In 2009, 2010, and 2011, workers and students in Greece and other European countries demonstrated against cuts to pensions, public services, and education spending as a result of government austerity measures.[88][89]



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




According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health.[2] The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases.[2] Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.[3] Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 842 million people, or about one in eight (12.5%) people in the world population.[4]



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



---


Rancid wrote:
It's mixed economy. There are public managed things in society, like energy, education, water, roads, some safety nets (unemployment insurance, social security, etc.). It is possible to adjust/fix/retool any/all of those.



No, even what you're indicating, *governmental bureaucratic administration* ('single-payer') is an *outmoded* approach because the workers of the world can collectively co-administrate over their respective productive tasks, especially easily now with the Internet.

Today's society doesn't *have* to settle for 'Stalinism-Lite', when the workers can simply be the ones to directly collectively control industrial mass-production, to fulfill human *need* as the paramount priority.


Rancid wrote:
No, because when revolutions happen, there are often NUMEROUS warning factions vying for power. Those factions will run the gamut of the political spectrum, so it's very possible the communist would lose, even if they started the revolution. The chance of a really horrible tyrannical faction or non-communist faction succeeding and taking over is pretty high. This could put everyone worse off than before the revolution.

As I said, from a risk management perspective, adjustments/regulation/retooling the current Mix mode economy has a lower risk profile.



You're just being blithely *pessimistic* -- the whole *point* is that workers don't *need* bosses or their capital, because they can collectively self-organize production for themselves -- while capitalists *need* workers, to work, to create profits for them, even if the health risk at the workplace from COVID is potentially hazardous or even deadly for workers.

You're just coming at the question / issue from the perspective of a *capitalist manager*, which certainly does not reflect the interests of the world's working class.
#15127946
Rancid wrote:
Arguably, what we have today isn't even capitalism.



ckaihatsu wrote:
What would you call it then?



Rancid wrote:
It's mixed economy. There are public managed things in society, like energy, education, water, roads, some safety nets (unemployment insurance, social security, etc.). It is possible to adjust/fix/retool any/all of those.



ingliz wrote:
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is a classical political-economic argument which states that in advanced capitalist societies, state policies assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor.

— Wiki

I am surprised you didn't know that.


:lol:



I vote for 'shithole political economy'.

The voice of dissent is growing here. It's just[…]

Election 2020

What corruption? Like Biden’s business in Ukraine[…]

Since antiquity, the difference between being sma[…]

Tyson vs Roy Jones Jr

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr[…]