- 08 Jun 2022 06:14
#15232323
It objectively depends on whether there's *scarcity* around -- I'd tend to agree that the market mechanism is good at *initial economic organizing*, though historically at the human cost of genocide and slavery, but once markets are *saturated* (which develops quickly) (as for gold supplies in colonialist Spain), then the market mechanism becomes a true *monster*, since it needs *destruction*, as from warfare, to *destroy valuations* -- particularly that of the *competitor* -- to realize new markets when there otherwise *are none*. Hence two world wars, etc.
I'm not *for* Stalinist bureaucratic-elitist central planning, but it *is* as validly nationalist as what any *other* country has done, government-and-investment-wise, so a big *whatever* on that.
---
Yeaaahhhh, you're oversimplifying -- prices are *vastly* more complex than a calculator, because we're dealing with its double-duty, regarding economic information. It *begins* with the cost of producing the commodity initially, but then is subject to *post-production* market fluctuations, based on the balance of economic supply and demand, which has *nothing* to do with the initial cost of production.
Nope, again you're thinking of Stalinist-type *strongman* rule, on a *nationalist* basis.
You can stop your demonizing *stereotyping* anytime now.
Bullshit.
You can't admit that wage workers are the ones producing the actual commodity that's sold for revenue and profit, so you have to *bluster*, as here, when it's the workers who are the ones *at work*, doing the actual *labor* for the company.
Still *not necessary*, though, now, at the communications level of *walkie-talkies*, and phone calls, and greater.
Again, you're *glorifying* because today all that's needed would be a workplace-specific *wiki page*.
Well, yeah, I extend the 'non-productive' terrain right into the internal corporate *staff hierarchy*, because all 'internal' tasks *are* non-productive as well -- they *don't* produce the product that the company sells.
Okay, get that cleared with your higher-ups, and we'll go -- I'm not a 'no-government' anarchist, exactly, but it'll at least be a 'reset' away from capitalism and its private property.
Land *should* just be a raw-natural-resource *input* into the proletarian baseline, for subsequent collectivist factory-production, but unfortunately it's currently a *gargantuan* business under capitalism, by being commodified, and everyone organically needing to buy food and such.
That's a bit of *levity* for you, huh -- ? A real stretch....
Again, you're off-your-rocker, because capitalism is all about *artificial scarcity*, as through warfare, or the current unnecessary energy crisis, to tamp down otherwise capitalist *overproduction* and runaway buying power -- which threatens greater egalitarianism in the class divide.
All you're doing is blaming the victim, since the working class the world over has been victimized by *ruling class militaries* -- so, to be balanced, try addressing militarist *imperialism* and warfare, and the legacy of one-sided class violence. Your anti-statist credentials are practically *nonexistent* from disuse.
Wages are *not* fair -- wages are *economic exploitation*.
[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
---
Okay, I'll find the paperwork for that, and you can sign-off, to make it official.
You're really worried about *supplies*, and *power*, and such -- ? You're showing that workers have to have a full-scale *revolution*, so that all productive control is transferred-over more or less at *once*, otherwise, yes, there *would* be those incompatible logistical wrinkles popping up.
There's no actual, material *consumption*, though, and that's the point -- there's no *advance planning* under capitalism, because everything economic / productive is economically *speculative*, with the piling-in into hot markets, which causes overproduction, which causes a glut of unused production afterward, with satiated markets, but not necessarily satiated *people*, if they can't afford the production at the end of the day.
The political economy shouldn't be rewarding *speculators* and *hoarders* -- workers at the actual workplaces are in the position to be much more *hands on*, *internetworked*, and *intentional* over what gets produced, and how, and for whom.
---
'Robbed' is dramatic and sensationalist -- the 'producer', or equity capital investor, makes a *bet*, and is nowhere *near* the point of production itself anyway, so let's just call a 'bad bet', that they were ready to lose out on anyway. The unsold, unused 'surplus' from overproduction could always revert back to the control of those who *produced* it, the wage workers, so there's a political reform right there.
The 'producers' are really just equity investors looking out for their own acquisitive interests -- their capital takes on a life / role of its *own*, and is *not* the same thing as the investor persons themselves.
The *markets* are looking really shitty right now, is all I'm saying. Don't take it so *personally*.
If that were true then the wage workers *would* be in collective control of their own workplaces, and we'd be living in socialism right now.
That would be the wage workers then.
No one here is 'murdering' -- you're dramatizing politics, according to past *history*, in your own twisted way. Again, the larger picture is that the Allies *invaded* nascent proletarian revolutions, so your attempts at political-economy *character assassination* really don't go very far.
No argument on the China stuff, though China *was* invaded and victimized by Japanese imperialism.
You're *digressing*, though, so here's the full background on what I'm talking about:
---
*Or*, land could be treated like any *other* kind of capital -- aggrandized over the centuries by capitalists, by exploiting wage workers -- and simply *collectivized* by the world's working class, in its own, non-profit-making interests.
Yeah, still not a *Stalinist*, since the last two minutes elapsed, so you're beating a dead unicorn there.
Since you're actively defending capitalism to the point of its dynamic of *artificial scarcity*, you don't get to say that capitalism *alleviates* scarcity, because it *doesn't*, past the point of market saturation:
So which is it going to be -- are you *for* the commercial monopolization of natural-monopolies (for less market competitiveness and higher prices), or are you *against* the commercial monopolization of natural-monopolies, besides just the single case of 'land'?
You *claim* to be against monopolization, but you're *for* strong currency values, or monetarism, which is a *disincentive* to equity capital investments in the commodity-production process.
Ever considered seeing a therapist?
ckaihatsu wrote:
And yet, *all* consumer goods / utilities / use-values, *and* production goods, land, and labor are all subject to *pricing* (exchange values), under capitalism.
Truth To Power wrote:
Because unlike socialists, capitalists understand that the market is a vastly more accurate and efficient information processing system than politically appointed commissars.
It objectively depends on whether there's *scarcity* around -- I'd tend to agree that the market mechanism is good at *initial economic organizing*, though historically at the human cost of genocide and slavery, but once markets are *saturated* (which develops quickly) (as for gold supplies in colonialist Spain), then the market mechanism becomes a true *monster*, since it needs *destruction*, as from warfare, to *destroy valuations* -- particularly that of the *competitor* -- to realize new markets when there otherwise *are none*. Hence two world wars, etc.
I'm not *for* Stalinist bureaucratic-elitist central planning, but it *is* as validly nationalist as what any *other* country has done, government-and-investment-wise, so a big *whatever* on that.
Analysis of Soviet-type planning
There are two fundamental ways scholars have carried out an analysis of Soviet-type economic planning. The first involves adapting standard neoclassical economic models and theories to analyze the Soviet economic system. This paradigm stresses the importance of Pareto efficiency standard.[6]
In contrast to this approach, scholars such as Pawel Dembinski argue that neoclassical tools are somewhat inappropriate for evaluating Soviet-type planning because they attempt to quantify and measure phenomena specific to capitalist-based economies.[7] They contend that because standard economic models rely on assumptions not fulfilled in the Soviet system (especially the assumption of economic rationality underlying decision-making), the results obtained from a neoclassical analysis will distort the actual effects of STP. These other scholars proceed along a different course by trying to engage with STP on its own terms, investigating the philosophical, historical and political influences that gave rise to STP whilst evaluating its economic successes and failures (theoretical and actual) with reference to those contexts.
The USSR practiced some form of central planning beginning in 1918 with War Communism until it dissolved in 1991, although the type and extent of planning was of a different nature before imperative centralized planning was introduced in the 1930s. While there were many subtleties to the various forms of economic organization the USSR employed during this 70-year time period, enough features were shared that scholars have broadly examined advantages and disadvantages of Soviet-type economic planning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-ty ... e_planning
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you *really* disagree with such 'prices', due to capitalism, or are you just putting out a public-relations-type *press release* -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
Price just shows where quantity supplied equals quantity demanded. Disagreeing with prices is as childish as disagreeing with the calculator that shows your checking account is overdrawn: the calculator is not the problem.
Yeaaahhhh, you're oversimplifying -- prices are *vastly* more complex than a calculator, because we're dealing with its double-duty, regarding economic information. It *begins* with the cost of producing the commodity initially, but then is subject to *post-production* market fluctuations, based on the balance of economic supply and demand, which has *nothing* to do with the initial cost of production.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Meaning what, exactly -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
Meaning that your anti-economic drivel has been tried, and it has always failed as spectacularly as doing away with the farmer and letting the animals run the farm would.
ckaihatsu wrote:
My politics are for *workers power*,
Truth To Power wrote:
But in fact, your intention is to be the one who actually has the power, which you will claim to exercise on the workers' behalf.
Nope, again you're thinking of Stalinist-type *strongman* rule, on a *nationalist* basis.
You can stop your demonizing *stereotyping* anytime now.
ckaihatsu wrote:
and certainly the workers themselves don't need any formal 'institution', not even their own, for knowledge on how to run the very workplace that they've been working at
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes they do. They haven't the slightest idea how to run it any more than you do, or any more than the draft animals who pull the plow and the chickens who lay the eggs know how to run a farm. Do you really think construction workers know what to do on the job site without any architects or engineers to tell them? REALLY??? That is as absurd as your claim that assembly line workers know how to run the factory. You are merely proving that you have never actually worked at such a job: if you had, you would know better.
Bullshit.
You can't admit that wage workers are the ones producing the actual commodity that's sold for revenue and profit, so you have to *bluster*, as here, when it's the workers who are the ones *at work*, doing the actual *labor* for the company.
ckaihatsu wrote:
-- and certainly moreso than the absentee-employer.
Truth To Power wrote:
Garbage. It is the employer's decisions, initiative and labor that made the production system exist rather than not exist, and operate productively rather than sit idle and decay.
Still *not necessary*, though, now, at the communications level of *walkie-talkies*, and phone calls, and greater.
Again, you're *glorifying* because today all that's needed would be a workplace-specific *wiki page*.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Recall that we *agree* on what the *non-productive* sectors of the political economy are
Truth To Power wrote:
No we don't. You think the entrepreneur who creates the production system and the factory owner who provides the building, machinery, etc. are non-productive.
Well, yeah, I extend the 'non-productive' terrain right into the internal corporate *staff hierarchy*, because all 'internal' tasks *are* non-productive as well -- they *don't* produce the product that the company sells.
ckaihatsu wrote:
-- the bourgeois government (overhead / bureaucracy), and all rentier-type values, particularly land.
Truth To Power wrote:
If you think government is non-productive, try no government. And it is not land that has no value, it is the landowner.
Okay, get that cleared with your higher-ups, and we'll go -- I'm not a 'no-government' anarchist, exactly, but it'll at least be a 'reset' away from capitalism and its private property.
Land *should* just be a raw-natural-resource *input* into the proletarian baseline, for subsequent collectivist factory-production, but unfortunately it's currently a *gargantuan* business under capitalism, by being commodified, and everyone organically needing to buy food and such.
ckaihatsu wrote:
These two 'sectors' of the capitalist economy could be eliminated overnight and it wouldn't directly impact on the ability of workers to run their workplaces.
Truth To Power wrote:
Right, because the workers' ability to run their workplaces would still be zero.
That's a bit of *levity* for you, huh -- ? A real stretch....
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's *not* nonsense
Truth To Power wrote:
It is most definitely nonsense.
ckaihatsu wrote:
-- the social conventions, inherited from past historical developments by default,
Truth To Power wrote:
No, the institutional arrangements that have been found necessary to effect the desired outcome: relief of scarcity.
Again, you're off-your-rocker, because capitalism is all about *artificial scarcity*, as through warfare, or the current unnecessary energy crisis, to tamp down otherwise capitalist *overproduction* and runaway buying power -- which threatens greater egalitarianism in the class divide.
ckaihatsu wrote:
are to try to 'valuate' the work-product contribution, from wage labor, *regardless* of what all workers have *produced* for society in total.
Truth To Power wrote:
Right: each individual worker is being paid for what HE does, not what all the other workers have done, because they were already paid for their contributions, just as he is being paid for his. You are trying to put over the bizarre notion that each worker should also be paid for what all the other workers have done throughout history. It's just transparent idiocy.
All you're doing is blaming the victim, since the working class the world over has been victimized by *ruling class militaries* -- so, to be balanced, try addressing militarist *imperialism* and warfare, and the legacy of one-sided class violence. Your anti-statist credentials are practically *nonexistent* from disuse.
Wages are *not* fair -- wages are *economic exploitation*.
[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
Spoiler: show
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
This is sheerly *economic gatekeeping*, meaning capitalist *overproduction* and leaving cities' worth of vehicles (or whatever) to bake in the sun instead of actually put into people's hands, for actual usage.
Truth To Power wrote:
See? You refuse to know what is right in front of your face. What do you think happens if you give away the vehicles a factory owner has produced to people who want one? Do you think the recipients of the free vehicles are going to want to pay for production of the next lot of vehicles? And when those don't sell because you gave away the previous lot to the people who were in the market for a vehicle, are you going to give away the next lot, too? How long do you think a factory can operate that way? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: the workers will somehow keep the factory humming despite having no revenue to pay for supplies, power, etc.
Okay, I'll find the paperwork for that, and you can sign-off, to make it official.
You're really worried about *supplies*, and *power*, and such -- ? You're showing that workers have to have a full-scale *revolution*, so that all productive control is transferred-over more or less at *once*, otherwise, yes, there *would* be those incompatible logistical wrinkles popping up.
Truth To Power wrote:
Give your head a shake. Seriously. It's time.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Your politics would rather uphold *artifical scarcity*, than to make social use of that which exists, for people who *need* that which has been produced.
Truth To Power wrote:
There is nothing artificial about the fact that production has to be paid for, and the most appropriate people to pay for it are those who consume it.
There's no actual, material *consumption*, though, and that's the point -- there's no *advance planning* under capitalism, because everything economic / productive is economically *speculative*, with the piling-in into hot markets, which causes overproduction, which causes a glut of unused production afterward, with satiated markets, but not necessarily satiated *people*, if they can't afford the production at the end of the day.
The political economy shouldn't be rewarding *speculators* and *hoarders* -- workers at the actual workplaces are in the position to be much more *hands on*, *internetworked*, and *intentional* over what gets produced, and how, and for whom.
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Need is self-evidently already decoupled from work. What you want is to decouple production from consumption, deserving from getting. I.e., you want injustice.
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Injustice' for *who* -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
For the producers. You want the productive to be systematically robbed of the fruits of their labor.
'Robbed' is dramatic and sensationalist -- the 'producer', or equity capital investor, makes a *bet*, and is nowhere *near* the point of production itself anyway, so let's just call a 'bad bet', that they were ready to lose out on anyway. The unsold, unused 'surplus' from overproduction could always revert back to the control of those who *produced* it, the wage workers, so there's a political reform right there.
ckaihatsu wrote:
For *capitalist valuations* -- that are already *tanking*, as we speak -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
You are trying to change the subject again. You often do that when you realize you have been proved wrong.
The 'producers' are really just equity investors looking out for their own acquisitive interests -- their capital takes on a life / role of its *own*, and is *not* the same thing as the investor persons themselves.
The *markets* are looking really shitty right now, is all I'm saying. Don't take it so *personally*.
ckaihatsu wrote:
You want to *couple* equity valuations to everything that's been produced, regardless of social-legitimacy
Truth To Power wrote:
People owning what they produce is socially legitimate.
If that were true then the wage workers *would* be in collective control of their own workplaces, and we'd be living in socialism right now.
ckaihatsu wrote:
or pricing volatility, even to where stuff just *rots away in the sun* instead of being made available for actual unmet social needs.
Truth To Power wrote:
I want those who produce to own what they produce, because that is the path not only to accurate incentives and allocative efficiency, but to justice.
That would be the wage workers then.
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's *still* thinking that whatever happened in the past automatically *condemns* us to the identical fate as before.
Truth To Power wrote:
How many times does history have to prove you wrong -- how many more millions do you have to murder -- before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually are wrong?
No one here is 'murdering' -- you're dramatizing politics, according to past *history*, in your own twisted way. Again, the larger picture is that the Allies *invaded* nascent proletarian revolutions, so your attempts at political-economy *character assassination* really don't go very far.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Remember, the *actual history* of 'socialism' (loosely), is one of international imperialist *invasion*, so anyone could readily say that socialism has been *stunted* historically, from without.
Truth To Power wrote:
That is utter garbage with no basis in fact. The socialist USSR was doing a fine job of invading and annexing its neighbors and slaughtering its own citizens long before the Nazis invaded it. There was no international invasion of socialist China. Quite the contrary: socialist China invaded Korea, Tibet (which it conquered and annexed), and even fellow socialist Vietnam. The horrors of the Great Leap Forward (in which the workers' incompetence wrecked the nation's industrial base) and the Cultural Revolution speak for themselves. The botched "invasion" of Cuba was so insignificant it can be dismissed.
No argument on the China stuff, though China *was* invaded and victimized by Japanese imperialism.
You're *digressing*, though, so here's the full background on what I'm talking about:
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War consisted of a series of multi-national military expeditions which began in 1918. The Allies first had the goal of helping the Czechoslovak Legion in securing supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports. At times between 1918 and 1920 the Czechoslovak Legion controlled the entire Trans-Siberian Railway and several major cities in Siberia. By 1919 the goal was to help the White forces in the Russian Civil War. When the Whites collapsed the forces were withdrawn by 1920 (or 1922 in the case of Japan).[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
How is a circulating cash-based economy supposed to circulate cash when virtually *all valuations* are economically with *capital ownership* since the number of actual wage workers, receiving wages, has shrunk down to *trifling* numbers -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
By compensating everyone justly for the removal of their rights to liberty by exclusive land tenure. The more those rights are worth -- i.e., the greater the unimproved rental value of the land -- the greater the necessary compensation.
*Or*, land could be treated like any *other* kind of capital -- aggrandized over the centuries by capitalists, by exploiting wage workers -- and simply *collectivized* by the world's working class, in its own, non-profit-making interests.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Extending the scenario to one of *full* automation, how is *anyone* to be able to *purchase* anything off the assembly line when *no one* is afforded employment, or wages / money, due to *full automation* -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
The Anti-Economist Marx to the contrary, employment was never the problem. Scarcity has always been the problem. With full automation in a geoist economy, scarcity is abolished and everyone has enough to live well on by being justly compensated for the removal of their rights to liberty by exclusive land tenure. Socialism can never produce abundance because its basic tenet is to hate, rob and kill the producers.
Yeah, still not a *Stalinist*, since the last two minutes elapsed, so you're beating a dead unicorn there.
Since you're actively defending capitalism to the point of its dynamic of *artificial scarcity*, you don't get to say that capitalism *alleviates* scarcity, because it *doesn't*, past the point of market saturation:
Economic actions that create artificial scarcity
Cartels, monopolies and/or rentier capitalism
Competition regulation, where regulatory uncertainty and policy ambiguity deters investment.
Copyright, when used to disallow copying or disallow access to sources. Proprietary software is an example. Copyleft software is a counterexample where copyleft advocates use copyright licenses to guarantee the right to copy, access, view, and change the source code, and allow others to do the same to derivatives of that code.[4]
Patent
The Agricultural Adjustment Act
Hoarding, including cornering the market
Deliberate destruction[5][6]
Paywalls[7]
Torrent poisoning such as poisoning bittorrent with half broken copies of music and videos to drive up prices when instead streamed from places the author has deals with
Non-fungible tokens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificia ... l_scarcity
So which is it going to be -- are you *for* the commercial monopolization of natural-monopolies (for less market competitiveness and higher prices), or are you *against* the commercial monopolization of natural-monopolies, besides just the single case of 'land'?
You *claim* to be against monopolization, but you're *for* strong currency values, or monetarism, which is a *disincentive* to equity capital investments in the commodity-production process.
Ever considered seeing a therapist?