Should america balkanize and each community to run their ethno-state or political enclave/state? - 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 ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Break up america into independent ethnostates/political states?

Yes
6
35%
No
8
47%
I don't know.
3
18%
#15105588
Local Localist wrote:
Well, clearly we have fundamentally different positions on this, so I don't think it's useful going any further. I don't see how you could honestly make the argument that free trade has led to the wealth disparities between the West and other parts of the world, because it has not been truly practiced until quite recently. Outsourcing jobs from developed countries to poorer countries allows those poorer countries to generate money to reinvest into its standard of living. This happened in the United States, this happened in South Korea and Taiwan, this is happening in underdeveloped areas of China and the rest of Asia now. Yes, it will take a very long time in certain places, such as the entirety of Subsaharan Africa, however I don't see how depriving workers of their ability to sell goods in wealthier markets which are beyond the point of needing to produce those goods is a better alternative.



I think you're using a lot of *mythology* here, because trade is never going to be 'even keel' between an imperialist power, and a colonized one. Obviously the wealthier party has far more choice over who to purchase from, and better access to a range of competitive market pricing. A *developing* country *has* to sell their product, because of relatively more economic duress, and it does not have the luxury of shopping-it-around to many prospective buyers.

I'll invoke the example of South Sudan, a new country artificially carved out of Sudan, just for the oil reserves on that particular geography. What good does that do for (original) Sudan? It's just a land grab, something that you can't factor into a presumably 'neutral' economic exchange among presumably autonomous nation-states.

When do you think that 'free trade' *began*, 'quite recently'? How was international trade done *before* this economic development? Do you acknowledge historic imperialism and colonialism at all?


Local Localist wrote:
Well, I might propose export quotas, or reverse tariffs, if you will, which would tax exports of particular unrefined resources to disincentivise this.



This is as far from 'free markets' as it can possibly get -- you're more in favor of a *command economy*, as we have with Trump? (tariffs, sanctions, etc.)
#15105618
ckaihatsu wrote:I think you're using a lot of *mythology* here, because trade is never going to be 'even keel' between an imperialist power, and a colonized one. Obviously the wealthier party has far more choice over who to purchase from, and better access to a range of competitive market pricing. A *developing* country *has* to sell their product, because of relatively more economic duress, and it does not have the luxury of shopping-it-around to many prospective buyers.

I'll invoke the example of South Sudan, a new country artificially carved out of Sudan, just for the oil reserves on that particular geography. What good does that do for (original) Sudan? It's just a land grab, something that you can't factor into a presumably 'neutral' economic exchange among presumably autonomous nation-states.

When do you think that 'free trade' *began*, 'quite recently'? How was international trade done *before* this economic development? Do you acknowledge historic imperialism and colonialism at all?


Yes, imperialism allowed Europe to industrialise before the rest of the world. I didn't realise it was controversial to suggest that the advent of the free trade deal was a recent phenomenon, however obviously mercantlism was almost universally practiced before the modern economic consensus that free trade is the preferable option, a consensus primarily established by the United States after the Second World War. I can't actually see any positive argument being provided here, so I think my point still stands that free trade assists in economic development more than the alternative.

As for the example of Sudan, I completely support the existence of South Sudan as it has a completely different ethnic and religious makeup to Sudan, and as such it makes sense for it to be an independent country. Certainly, I agree that it probably wouldn't have achieved independence had it not been conveniently situated atop bountiful oil reserves, but its people are undeniably distinct from those of Northern Sudan in every respect. Incidentally, your argument here is the reason that I support export quotas on raw materials, as once Northeast Africa has reached a certain level of economic development, it can form a free trade block to share in the wealth of the combined resources of its nations. I believe we've fairly comprehensively gone over my economic position with regard to foreign policy at this point, actually, so I don't know what else you want to do.


ckaihatsu wrote:This is as far from 'free markets' as it can possibly get -- you're more in favor of a *command economy*, as we have with Trump? (tariffs, sanctions, etc.)


Yes, I believe my using of the term 'reverse tariff' was an implicit recognition of this. I'm not a neoliberal, though it may appear that way sometimes, from a certain perspective.
#15105630
Local Localist wrote:
Yes, imperialism allowed Europe to industrialise before the rest of the world. I didn't realise it was controversial to suggest that the advent of the free trade deal was a recent phenomenon, however obviously mercantlism was almost universally practiced before the modern economic consensus that free trade is the preferable option, a consensus primarily established by the United States after the Second World War. I can't actually see any positive argument being provided here, so I think my point still stands that free trade assists in economic development more than the alternative.



There it is -- see, you're *continuing* to act as though economics is its own autonomous realm, and that all exchanges are as simple and neutral and pure as moves on a chessboard.

Why are you unable to address economic *history*, and geopolitics? What about the role of the IMF?

Here's how some of it looked, postwar:



Washington Consensus

Main article: Washington Consensus

See also: Free Trade Area of the Americas

The set of specific economic policy prescriptions that were considered the "standard" reform package were promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Department of the Treasury during the 1980s and 1990s.

In recent years, several Latin American countries led by socialist or other left wing governments – including Argentina and Venezuela – have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus set of policies. (Other Latin countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Peru, have in practice adopted the bulk of the policies.) Also critical of the policies as actually promoted by the International Monetary Fund have been some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, who have challenged what are sometimes described as the "fundamentalist" policies of the International Monetary Fund and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a "one size fits all" treatment of individual economies.

The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and US influence on other countries' national sovereignty.

This politico-economical initiative was institutionalized in North America by 1994 NAFTA, and elsewhere in the Americas through a series of like agreements. The comprehensive Free Trade Area of the Americas project, however, was rejected by most South American countries at the 2005 4th Summit of the Americas.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Ame ... _Consensus




Operation Condor (Spanish: Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor; Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a United States-backed campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially and formally implemented in November 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America.

Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina,[6][7] and the so-called "Archives of Terror" list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned.[5][8] American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source,[9] and mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped, tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to be executed... hundreds, or thousands, of such persons—the number still has not been finally determined—were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations."[1] Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerrillas.[9] Although it was described by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,"[10] guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national security.[11][12][13] Condor's key members were the governments in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Brazil. Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral roles.[14][15]

The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture,[16] technical support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and the Reagan administrations.[2] Such support was frequently routed through the CIA.



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




Neoliberal policies

During this period of neoliberal policies, the level of debt contracted illegally by the military dictatorships reached higher levels; In Argentina, the economic policy of José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz, Minister of Economy of the dictatorship, applied from April 2, 1976, marks the beginning of a process of destruction of the productive apparatus and increase of debt with IMF.[41] Short-term financial speculation flourished, while chronic tax evasion and budget deficits remained high. Frequent wage freeze decrees continued to depress living standards generally, and income inequality increased.[42]

During his tenure, the foreign debt increased fourfold, and disparities between the upper and lower classes became much more pronounced.[42] The period ended in a tenfold devaluation and one of the worst financial crises in Argentine history.[43] In Your Money or your Life, historian and political scientist Éric Toussaint writes:[44]

Most of the loans granted to the Argentine dictatorship came from the private banks of the U.S. It should be noted the complete agreement of the authorities of the United States (either the Federal Reserve or the American administration), with this policy of indebtedness. The government, to obtain loans from private banks, demanded that Argentine companies borrow from international private banks. The public companies thus became the fundamental lever for the denationalization of the State, and the loss of national sovereignty.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... l_policies



---


Local Localist wrote:
As for the example of Sudan, I completely support the existence of South Sudan as it has a completely different ethnic and religious makeup to Sudan, and as such it makes sense for it to be an independent country. Certainly, I agree that it probably wouldn't have achieved independence had it not been conveniently situated atop bountiful oil reserves, but its people are undeniably distinct from those of Northern Sudan in every respect. Incidentally, your argument here is the reason that I support export quotas on raw materials, as once Northeast Africa has reached a certain level of economic development, it can form a free trade block to share in the wealth of the combined resources of its nations. I believe we've fairly comprehensively gone over my economic position with regard to foreign policy at this point, actually, so I don't know what else you want to do.



Don't you want to have a *discussion* -- ? You're not following up on many of the points I'm making, such as the state-backed *command economy*, as with this partition of Sudan.

To clarify, don't you think that geopolitics impacts economics? Why do you limit yourself to only the *economic* realm while failing to mention any *geopolitical* developments, in parallel?

How do you expect to reconcile this disparity between your professed 'free market' ideology, and your support for Trumpian *command economy* government intervention in the markets?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This is as far from 'free markets' as it can possibly get -- you're more in favor of a *command economy*, as we have with Trump? (tariffs, sanctions, etc.)



Local Localist wrote:
Yes, I believe my using of the term 'reverse tariff' was an implicit recognition of this. I'm not a neoliberal, though it may appear that way some times, from a certain perspective.



So what *is* your politics, and preferred approach to economics, then?

You've used the term 'free market' several times, but now you're flip-flopping, to say that you're really more of a *statist* -- ?
#15105713
ckaihatsu wrote:There it is -- see, you're *continuing* to act as though economics is its own autonomous realm, and that all exchanges are as simple and neutral and pure as moves on a chessboard.

Why are you unable to address economic *history*, and geopolitics? What about the role of the IMF?

Here's how some of it looked, postwar:

Don't you want to have a *discussion* -- ? You're not following up on many of the points I'm making, such as the state-backed *command economy*, as with this partition of Sudan.

To clarify, don't you think that geopolitics impacts economics? Why do you limit yourself to only the *economic* realm while failing to mention any *geopolitical* developments, in parallel?


I'm afraid I'm really not getting your point here. Yes, geopolitics impacts economics. What is that supposed to make me support? You have identified an aspect of the way my ideology works: that, like a reactionary, I separate the economy from culture (though only to an extent), rather than using it as the justification for everything else. Perhaps that makes me a reactionary myself, I don't know, but if it does, at least I would be one that is able to operate in a progressive framework! Now, obviously I'm not an expert on any of this, but I don't actually see a direct contradiction in any of what I think.


ckaihatsu wrote:How do you expect to reconcile this disparity between your professed 'free market' ideology, and your support for Trumpian *command economy* government intervention in the markets?

So what *is* your politics, and preferred approach to economics, then?

You've used the term 'free market' several times, but now you're flip-flopping, to say that you're really more of a *statist* -- ?


Well, here's the thing though, I don't think I've ever actually used the term 'free market' once here, and certainly, I don't apply that logic to all spheres of life. At least in the short term, I'm a 'statist' that supports a level of free trade because it produces better material outcomes, however I'm not 100% pro-trade all the time, because as I said at the start, I'm not actually a dialectical materialist.
#15105716
Local Localist wrote:
I'm afraid I'm really not getting your point here. Yes, geopolitics impacts economics. What is that supposed to make me support? You have identified an aspect of the way my ideology works: that, like a reactionary, I separate the economy from culture, rather than using it as the justification for everything else. Perhaps that makes me a reactionary myself, I don't know, but if it does, at least I would be one that is able to operate in a progressive framework! Now, obviously I'm not an expert on any of this, but I don't actually see a direct contradiction in any of what I think.



I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, at this global / macroscopic level, it's *impossible* / inappropriate to treat the *economic* separately from the *political*, and vice-versa.

If you're only going to address the *economic* aspect then it quickly sounds like economic *mythology* because you're leaving-out the role of the *state*, such as with the IMF, the Washington Consensus for the postwar period, and the CIA mass killings in Latin America in the same period.

These geopolitical events *impact* the economic side of things, immensely -- to the point where the latest Western empire, the U.S., does it all primarily through *finance*, through the IMF, as the Wikipedia entry notes. (I would argue that the U.S. empire's hegemonic *militarism* reinforces the financial paradigm.)

You *started out* with the thesis that the 'free market' allows all nation-state trading parties to realize maximum benefit from these international trading pacts, but I've been doing what I can to point out that this is *not* the case, due to the wealth factor, and the geopolitical reality / history of colonialism and imperialism.

In short, you're ignoring *power* relations altogether in favor of an idealized, abstract, blinkered description of strictly-economic market relations. The real world doesn't work the way you've been typically describing things.


Local Localist wrote:
Well, here's the thing though, I don't think I've ever actually used the term 'free market' once here, and certainly, I don't apply that logic to all spheres of life. At least in the short term, I'm a 'statist' that supports a level of free trade because it produces better material outcomes, however I'm not 100% pro-trade all the time, because as I said at the start, I'm not actually a dialectical materialist.



Okay, well, one doesn't *have* to be a dialectical materialist to have an analysis of global trade dynamics that includes *both* economics *and* politics.

If you claim to be a 'statist' then that mitigates, and even *nullifies*, any 'free market' position you may have, since (Trumpian) command-type interventions in the markets obviously make those markets non-free / non-autonomous. I don't know what 'better material outcomes' you may be thinking of here, but I'll certainly listen.

In the interests of having a common language, I'll proffer the following generic *framework*, if it's at all helpful. (Note the combination of blue 'political' points with the *green* 'economic' points, that together support a left-right linear-positioned *vertical* support at one location underneath any given 'platform', or policy.)


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image
#15105743
ckaihatsu wrote:I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, at this global / macroscopic level, it's *impossible* / inappropriate to treat the *economic* separately from the *political*, and vice-versa.

If you're only going to address the *economic* aspect then it quickly sounds like economic *mythology* because you're leaving-out the role of the *state*, such as with the IMF, the Washington Consensus for the postwar period, and the CIA mass killings in Latin America in the same period.

These geopolitical events *impact* the economic side of things, immensely -- to the point where the latest Western empire, the U.S., does it all primarily through *finance*, through the IMF, as the Wikipedia entry notes. (I would argue that the U.S. empire's hegemonic *militarism* reinforces the financial paradigm.)

You *started out* with the thesis that the 'free market' allows all nation-state trading parties to realize maximum benefit from these international trading pacts, but I've been doing what I can to point out that this is *not* the case, due to the wealth factor, and the geopolitical reality / history of colonialism and imperialism.

In short, you're ignoring *power* relations altogether in favor of an idealized, abstract, blinkered description of strictly-economic market relations. The real world doesn't work the way you've been typically describing things.


I think that it has been decided by the likes of China that the most effective way to counteract the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and such is to work within their parameters where necessary, ignore them to the greatest extent possible and set up parallel institutions as the United States voluntarily retreats into isolationism in order to contend with its own internal problems. Certainly, you cannot ignore power relations when considering the interactions between different countries, but that does not change the fact that I believe that the most effective way to develop a society when beginning at the point of traditionalism [semi-feudalism] is to promote export-oriented industrialisation as was done by Park Chung-Hee, Lee Kuan Yew and Deng Xiaoping in the 20th Century.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, well, one doesn't *have* to be a dialectical materialist to have an analysis of global trade dynamics that includes *both* economics *and* politics.

If you claim to be a 'statist' then that mitigates, and even *nullifies*, any 'free market' position you may have, since (Trumpian) command-type interventions in the markets obviously make those markets non-free / non-autonomous. I don't know what 'better material outcomes' you may be thinking of here, but I'll certainly listen.

In the interests of having a common language, I'll proffer the following generic *framework*, if it's at all helpful.


Well, I've already made clear that I'm not in favour of complete free trade, but that overall I think it's preferable to protectionism. I see no contradiction between trade organisations and statism. Perhaps if you could clarify in what specific sense you use the term 'statist', because I just mean it it the sense that that's how an anarchist would identify me.
Last edited by Local Localist on 07 Jul 2020 14:18, edited 1 time in total.
#15105818
Local Localist wrote:
I think that it has been decided by the likes of China that the most effective way to counteract the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and such is to work within their parameters where necessary, ignore them to the greatest extent possible and set up parallel institutions as the United States voluntarily retreats into isolationism in order to contend with its own internal problems. Certainly, you cannot ignore power relations when considering the interactions between different countries, but that does not change the fact that I believe that the most effective way to develop a society when beginning at the point of traditionalism [semi-feudalism] is to promote export-oriented industrialisation as was done by Park Chung-Hee, Lee Kuan Yew and Deng Xiaoping in the 20th Century.



Sure, industrialization is a must, and these late arrivals (relative to the West) of South Korea and China have no *option* but to do it within the framework of capitalism, these days. Singapore is more of a *trading* entity, so it's the exception to the rule.

Probably the biggest stumbling-block at this point in bourgeois international economic relations is the U.S.' privilege of having the world's *reserve currency*, the U.S. dollar. I won't elaborate here, but I will if you like.

Iran and Venezuela are making some progress on this front, but the U.S. is doing what it can to interfere militarily (of course) in peer-to-peer international transactions.


Local Localist wrote:
Well, I've already made clear that I'm not in favour of complete free trade, but that overall I think it's preferable to protectionism. I see no contradiction between trade organisations and statism. Perhaps if you could clarify in what specific sense you use the term 'statist', because I just mean it it the sense that that's how an anarchist would identify me.



Let's put it this way: What do you think of the Trumpian command-type economic policies so far -- the tariffs and the sanctions?


Local Localist wrote:
Also, I'd like to ask a question so as to have a better understanding of your position: what exactly would differentiate you from a Marxist-Leninist?



I have my own political spectrum for just such occasions as this -- start with the first one and then go on to the second one, if you like:


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image
#15105829
ckaihatsu wrote:Sure, industrialization is a must, and these late arrivals (relative to the West) of South Korea and China have no *option* but to do it within the framework of capitalism, these days. Singapore is more of a *trading* entity, so it's the exception to the rule.


Yes, I agree that Singapore was my weakest example, because it's a special case and Lee Kuan Yew was explicitly capitalist in his approach.

ckaihatsu wrote:Probably the biggest stumbling-block at this point in bourgeois international economic relations is the U.S.' privilege of having the world's *reserve currency*, the U.S. dollar. I won't elaborate here, but I will if you like.

Iran and Venezuela are making some progress on this front, but the U.S. is doing what it can to interfere militarily (of course) in peer-to-peer international transactions.


Yes, I think that we will move into a more multipolar world order, which accordingly will see the rise of multiple reserve currencies.

ckaihatsu wrote:Let's put it this way: What do you think of the Trumpian command-type economic policies so far -- the tariffs and the sanctions?


Reckon I've already answered that one, mate.

ckaihatsu wrote:I have my own political spectrum for just such occasions as this -- start with the first one and then go on to the second one, if you like.


Yes, I've seen those. You seem to indicate that you're a doctrinaire Marxist who would be closer to the Cuban model than the Soviet model, but you differentiate between 'Marxist', 'Communist' and 'Socialist' for some reason. I have to say, I don't believe in the framing of the conventional political spectrum myself, and among other issues I have with your model, I don't at all understand how you've decided that fascists are more reactionary than traditionalists. Where fascists tend to advocate for a corporatist economic model, traditionalists can go as far as to advocate for a complete return to feudalism, which is inherently more reactionary than capitalism.
#15105833
@ckaihatsu Alright, I've finally figured out a way to do this.


This is thing I did on ms paint to give you and idea of how I conceive of politics. To unpack it: fascists, proponents of corporatism, 'economic nationalism' or 'the third position' can be more progressive or more reactionary, and there can be more overlap with socialists (Jucheism and Nazbolism) or more overlap with reactionaries (clerical fascism and such). Likewise, liberals, proponents of liberalism and capitalism, can be more progressive (socdems) or more reactionary (Hoppeans). Socialists are inherently more progressive than the other three main ideologies, and traditionalists are inherently more reactionary than the other three ideologies.
#15105835
Local Localist wrote:
Yes, I agree that Singapore was my weakest example, because it's a special case and Lee Kuan Yew was explicitly capitalist in his approach.



Singapore is a capitalist's *wet dream* -- it's import-export, like the nation-state equivalent of Walmart, and now is also a *tax haven*:



Singapore has a highly developed market economy, based historically on extended entrepôt trade.



In recent years, the country has been identified as an increasingly popular tax haven[241] for the wealthy due to the low tax rate on personal income and tax exemptions on foreign-based income and capital gains.



In 2009, Singapore was removed from the OCDE "liste grise" of tax havens,[243] but ranked fourth on the Tax Justice Network's 2015 Financial Secrecy Index of the world's off-shore financial service providers, banking one-eighth of the world's offshore capital, while "providing numerous tax avoidance and evasion opportunities".[244]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Economy



---


Local Localist wrote:
Yes, I think that we will move into a more multipolar world order, which accordingly will see the rise of multiple reserve currencies.



Yes on the multipolar geopolitics, but you don't understand what a reserve currency is.



A reserve currency (or anchor currency) is a foreign currency that is held in significant quantities by central banks or other monetary authorities as part of their foreign exchange reserves. The reserve currency can be used in international transactions, international investments and all aspects of the global economy. It is often considered a hard currency or safe-haven currency.

The United Kingdom's pound sterling was the primary reserve currency of much of the world in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.[1] However, by the end of the 20th century, the United States dollar was considered the world's dominant reserve currency.[2] The world's need for dollars has allowed the United States government as well as Americans to borrow at lower costs, giving the United States an advantage in excess of $100 billion per year.[3]



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



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Let's put it this way: What do you think of the Trumpian command-type economic policies so far -- the tariffs and the sanctions?



Local Localist wrote:
Reckon I've already answered that one, mate.



Turning Australian?

Please indulge me and point me to -- or reproduce -- what you've said regarding this point.


---


Local Localist wrote:
Yes, I've seen those. You seem to indicate that you're a doctrinaire Marxist who would be closer to the Cuban model than the Soviet model,



No, the Cuban model is *nationalist* since it's limited to the geographical island of Cuba -- that's Stalinism, or Marxism-Leninism.

The Bolshevik Revolution is instructive, and I've recently warmed up to the Hungarian Revolution.


Local Localist wrote:
but you differentiate between 'Marxist', 'Communist' and 'Socialist' for some reason.




Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development to understand class relations and social conflict, as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, there is currently no single definitive Marxist theory.[1]

Some Marxian schools place greater emphasis on certain aspects of classical Marxism while rejecting or modifying other aspects. Some schools have sought to combine Marxian concepts and non-Marxian concepts which has then led to contradictory conclusions.[2] It has been argued that there is a movement toward the recognition of historical and dialectical materialism as the fundamental conceptions of all Marxist schools of thought.[3]



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




Non-market socialism substitutes factor markets and money with integrated economic planning and engineering or technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing a different economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws and dynamics than those of capitalism.[16][17][18][19] A non-market socialist system therefore eliminates the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system in capitalism.[20][21][22][23]



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




Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state.[5][6]



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



---


Local Localist wrote:
I have to say, I don't believe in the framing of the conventional political spectrum myself, and among other issues I have with your model, I don't at all understand how you've decided that fascists are more reactionary than traditionalists. Where fascists tend to advocate for a corporatist economic model, traditionalists can go as far as to advocate for a complete return to feudalism, which is inherently more reactionary than capitalism.



Corporatism is just modern feudalism -- I tend to use the term 'neofeudalism', or 'global medievalism'.
#15105839
ckaihatsu wrote:Yes on the multipolar geopolitics, but you don't understand what a reserve currency is.


I understand well enough that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency owing to its establishment of the global postwar institutions and that it is used as the petrodollar and such, however I was suggesting that it's well possible to that there will be multiple reserve currencies in the future, as I don't believe these institutions will be particularly relevant forever.


ckaihatsu wrote:Turning Australian?

Please indulge me and point me to -- or reproduce -- what you've said regarding this point.


Not a fan, tariffs bad, TPP good. I thought I already said that.
#15105842
Local Localist wrote:
@ckaihatsu Alright, I've finally figured out a way to do this.


This is thing I did on ms paint to give you and idea of how I conceive of politics. To unpack it: fascists, proponents of corporatism, 'economic nationalism' or 'the third position' can be more progressive or more reactionary, and there can be more overlap with socialists (Jucheism and Nazbolism) or more overlap with reactionaries (clerical fascism and such). Likewise, liberals, proponents of liberalism and capitalism, can be more progressive (socdems) or more reactionary (Hoppeans). Socialists are inherently more progressive than the other three main ideologies, and traditionalists are inherently more reactionary than the other three ideologies.



Socialism doesn't overlap with fascism because fascists support the corporatist state, while (workers-of-the-world) socialists are *anti-capitalist*, and call for workers power, and workers councils to collectively control social production.

You continue to equate 'socialism' with Stalinism, whereas the *point* of workers-of-the-world socialism is to *transcend* capitalism's commodity-production mode of production, and abolish all capitalist nation-states. Workers everywhere could simply produce for human need, no money / finance / private property / exchange values needed.



Views on democracy

Main article: Democracy: The God That Failed

In 2001, Hoppe published Democracy: The God That Failed which examines various social and economic phenomena which, Hoppe argues, are problems caused by democratic forms of government. He attributes democracy's failures to pressure groups which seek to increase government expenditures and regulations. Hoppe proposes alternatives and remedies, including secession, decentralization of government, and "complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration".[31] Hoppe argues that monarchy would preserve individual liberty more effectively than democracy.[32]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe



The problem with any kind of economic decentralization is that it requires duplication-of-effort, meaning that more people, everywhere, would have to do *farming*, for example, out of their regular work schedule, due to a lack of *mass-production* and *centralization* for the same, or 'economies-of-scale'.

I have a unique approach to the feasible *implementation* of workers-of-the-world socialism, which is my 'labor credits' model framework:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
#15105844
ckaihatsu wrote:Socialism doesn't overlap with fascism because fascists support the corporatist state, while (workers-of-the-world) socialists are *anti-capitalist*, and call for workers power, and workers councils to collectively control social production.

You continue to equate 'socialism' with Stalinism, whereas the *point* of workers-of-the-world socialism is to *transcend* capitalism's commodity-production mode of production, and abolish all capitalist nation-states. Workers everywhere could simply produce for human need, no money / finance / private property / exchange values needed.


Well that diagram I drew is actually intended so that each sphere covers a range of different ideologies which I would consider to have the same driving force. As I indicated, the 'liberal' sphere would cover everyone from Bernie Sanders to Hans-Herman Hoppe, and similarly, the 'socialist' sphere covers Fabians, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists and everyone else broadly inspired by socialist ideals. In this sense, I would say, Jucheism, for example, in the very broadest sense, is socialistic and fascistic at the same time, and is an example of the overlap.
Last edited by Local Localist on 07 Jul 2020 20:56, edited 1 time in total.
#15105846
Local Localist wrote:
I understand well enough that the US dollar is the world's reserve currency owing to its establishment of the global postwar institutions and that it is used as the petrodollar and such, however I was suggesting that it's well possible to that there will be multiple reserve currencies in the future, as I don't believe these institutions will be particularly relevant forever.



The 'reserve currency' has been functionally irrelevant for some time now, and is basically politically *hegemonic*, since a simple basket-of-currencies could do the same thing that the U.S. dollar currently does.

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


Also:

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


I would argue that, with contemporary communications technologies, *everything* transactional could simply be *qualitative* instead of quantitative -- meaning that an international ledger could read '500 tons of petroleum for 1000 tons of fertilizer', or whatever. (That's what Iran and Venezuela are currently doing, to some degree.)


Local Localist wrote:
Not a fan, tariffs bad, TPP good. I thought I already said that.



Thanks.

You've obviously *for* bourgeois nation-states, since you don't mind *regulations* on international markets:


Local Localist wrote:
Well, I might propose export quotas, or reverse tariffs, if you will, which would tax exports of particular unrefined resources to disincentivise this.



viewtopic.php?p=15105573#p15105573
#15105848
ckaihatsu wrote:The 'reserve currency' has been functionally irrelevant for some time now, and is basically politically *hegemonic*, since a simple basket-of-currencies could do the same thing that the U.S. dollar currently does.

I would argue that, with contemporary communications technologies, *everything* transactional could simply be *qualitative* instead of quantitative -- meaning that an international ledger could read '500 tons of petroleum for 1000 tons of fertilizer', or whatever. (That's what Iran and Venezuela are currently doing, to some degree.)


I agree, essentially.


ckaihatsu wrote:You've obviously *for* bourgeois nation-states, since you don't mind *regulations* on international markets:


I think I've already conceded that, at least in the short term, that is the case, yes.
#15105856
Local Localist wrote:
Well that diagram I drew is actually intended so that each sphere covers a range of different ideologies which I would consider to have the same driving force. As I indicated, the 'liberal' sphere would cover everyone from Bernie Sanders to Hans-Herman Hoppe, and similarly, the 'socialist' sphere covers Fabians, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists and everyone else broadly inspired by socialist ideals. In this sense, I would say, Jucheism, for example, in the very broadest sense, is socialistic and fascistic at the same time, and is an example of the overlap.



I happen to think that the aspect / dimension of *scale* is crucial in any political analysis, and your model, unfortunately, *glosses over* the factor of scale -- Bernie Sanders is ultimately a *nationalist* in scale, and is *not* for workers-of-the-world (worldwide) socialism. Trotskyists (worldwide-scale) aren't comparable to necessarily-nationalist Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) / Jucheists, because workers-of-the-world socialism is *worldwide* in scope / scale.

Also, I really don't think that Stalinists are *corporatist* -- rather, any implementation of Stalinism / state capitalism is roughly *equivalent* to a corporation and its structuring, and I have a fuller treatment of this at another thread.

viewtopic.php?p=15095654#p15095654


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You've obviously *for* bourgeois nation-states, since you don't mind *regulations* on international markets:



Local Localist wrote:
I think I've already conceded that, at least in the short term, that is the case, yes.



Okay, thanks for the clarification.
#15105974
ckaihatsu wrote:I happen to think that the aspect / dimension of *scale* is crucial in any political analysis, and your model, unfortunately, *glosses over* the factor of scale -- Bernie Sanders is ultimately a *nationalist* in scale, and is *not* for workers-of-the-world (worldwide) socialism. Trotskyists (worldwide-scale) aren't comparable to necessarily-nationalist Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) / Jucheists, because workers-of-the-world socialism is *worldwide* in scope / scale.

Also, I really don't think that Stalinists are *corporatist* -- rather, any implementation of Stalinism / state capitalism is roughly *equivalent* to a corporation and its structuring, and I have a fuller treatment of this at another thread.


Yes, I called Bernie Sanders a 'liberal' because that's ultimately the framework he operates in. I believe Trotskyists are in fact comparable to Marxist-Leninists, as they both justify themselves with the same end goals. Each individual would be located at a different point in one of the spheres, so I do actually believe that my model covers scale. Marxist-Leninist are not corporatist, however fascism does not inherently require corporatism, and I believe that it is actually possible to be a fascistic socialist or a socialistic fascist, though of course you might disagree that Marxist-Leninists are indeed socialistic at all...
#15106037
Local Localist wrote:
Yes, I called Bernie Sanders a 'liberal' because that's ultimately the framework he operates in. I believe Trotskyists are in fact comparable to Marxist-Leninists, as they both justify themselves with the same end goals. Each individual would be located at a different point in one of the spheres, so I do actually believe that my model covers scale. Marxist-Leninist are not corporatist, however fascism does not inherently require corporatism, and I believe that it is actually possible to be a fascistic socialist or a socialistic fascist, though of course you might disagree that Marxist-Leninists are indeed socialistic at all...



Your treatment is very *glib* and superficial since you're *muddling* different political 'camps' together, more than making *distinctions* among them.

There's a *reason* there are different *names*, or 'labels', for these different kinds of politics, but you're disregarding all of that in favor of making a mound of mush.

Wikipedia is your *friend*.

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]