Marxism for beginners

One of those producers is a not for profit business entity known as our public sector. Why would producers not also benefit from a decline in prices or gains in efficiency, to the extent they also function as consumers in our economy?

In my opinion, there is no reason why the public sector cannot compete with basic or Constitutional infrastructure on a not for profit basis. What you describe is more of a leadership issue or committee issue.

I am not sure why you believe a public policy choice which could act as an economic stimulus on a perpetual basis and function in a manner analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats through that increase in the circulation of money in our money based, mixed market economy, would be a bad thing.

Why would any private sector be worse off, without a poverty of money in money based markets?

 

The market is a balance, there's no artificial way to "stimulated it" perpetually. Without profit incentive public sector industries tend to be inefficient, so their competitiveness is weak, which means they either charge high prices and do little business or operate at a loss, charging below market value. This undercutting costs taxpayers exorbitantly, while only benefiting those who use the service. However, the ability to operate at a loss ruins the profitability of all competitors in the same sector (UPS, FEDEX, etc.) Basically, state subsidy can definitely affect the markets, but without normal business incentives it merely distorts prices in favor of some at the expense of others, all the while netting a loss for the system because of its lack of responsibility to shareholders.

 

What I propose wouldn't work at all with even a minimal government; if there is a government around to protect property, it won't work. I suppose it would be possible for governments to survive a socialist revolution, if they stopped protecting property and totally changed their outlook on the world. I think that is rather unlikely, and they would go to the floor trying to protect their masters.

An ultra libertarian society is one with no government at all, and I agree that it would be the only political system compatible with the socialist ideal. Unfortunately it is also compatible with feudalism by force. That, I think, is the core of our differences; I don't see how my vision could be achieved as long as property is protected by force.

In that sense, a right-libertarian government--the anemic one you propose--really just strips the government down to its very basic nature... as an institutional protector of elite privilege.

Not so. Government-owned institutions ought to rightly be considered corporate, not public. There are three types of ownership; corporate, public, or private. Public ownership means ownership and control by the public itself; not through a system of elites, as is the case in representative "democracies".

Private ownership is as abhorrent as corporate ownership; the issue is property, and ownership.

I deny the state protection at all-- the issue at the heart of the division between right-libertarians and left-libertarians is that idea that there should be some basic government around to protect property privileges. Maybe there could be some sort of collaborative defensive organization, but I'm not even sure what character it would take in a socialist society other than local militias. Which is clearly not going to be adequate to resist organized professional militaries fielded by fascist states. It is possible that collective defense requires some limited form of government, which might be acceptable as long as it does not acknowledge or protect property privilege.

 

How do you account for the existing infrastructure known as unemployment compensation in any at-will employment State? Eliminating the economic phenomena of induction into a natural rate of unemployment can be done as easily as administering our current minimum wage laws are now. Since providing for the general welfare and the general prosperity should require a positive multiplier effect on our economy, simply increasing the circulation of money in money based markets can accomplish that easily by providing that public sector good and service.

 

I agree to disagree that the public sector cannot be as efficient as the private sector, but on a not for profit basis. Why do you believe, ceteris paribus, that any business that must cover costs plus generate a profit, may produce better products at lower prices than a business that must also cover cost but not need to make a profit?

 

I've never bought the argument that somehow they have a greater incentive for efficiency because they're entitled to the right to skim off the top. What they really have an incentive for is collusion and price fixing. Of courser a not-for-profit could operate more efficiently; and often do. There's plenty of non-profits that do a tremendous amount of work on a shoestring budget that no for-profit company could manage.

 

Sounds like someone wants to give a Marx bro some credit for other countries succes. I don't buy it. Propaganda BS IMO. There is no blueprint for a government. Idologies are like relioions, a dime a dozen with no real logic.

 

Well I'm sorry friend, I have to be blunt and say that what you envision is incompatible with human subjects. Selfishness and survival instincts are already in our nature at birth. I'm not a pessimist, I'm just stating the truth.

It seems you've put a lot of faith in human altruism, something that has repeatedly proven itself unworthy of faith (systemically).

As for profit incentive, it almost falls into the same very category, and history has proven millions of times that profit motivated business must trim costs or fail. History (and every human science) proves that very few people exert themselves in the absence of necessity or selfish interest. It's only in the cases of public support, meaning expenses are covered by coercion (taxes) that you see business run indefinitely at a loss.

You all can claim to hold the opposite view, but unfortunately I can't hold any mutual respect for that theory, it's not simply a difference of opinion. This one is historically and statistically unambiguous.

 

Our Founding Fathers gave us a blue print for Government, and called it our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

No, you are stating an opinion. And even if we were selfish at birth, babies are not even close to fully developed cognitively speaking. They're not even self-aware. Children change a lot around 7 or so. They develop an ability to empathize with others, and to understand the benefits of cooperation, and so on.

I would suggest to you that it isn't in our nature to engage in such a self-destructive goal... I would suggest that it is a consequence of our culture. We are selfish only because our culture promotes selfishness and meaningless production and consumption. We know for a fact that contemporary hunter-gatherer societies (of which there are a few, but not many) did not organize themselves along those lines, and in fact had social mechanisms to prevent selfishness and overproduction (namely ridicule for doing too much work).

By nature, I would propose to you that humans are fundamentally social beings, capable of understanding the benefits of cooperation and limited self-sacrifice in the name of the group. It certainly makes more sense than some innate selfish nature that leads us to things like long-term planning of deferred benefits in exchange for immediate investment. Man as the lone hunter seems like a fundamentally wrong vision, since there is no way that such a person would have been able to survive.

I agree that systemically, human beings are forced to abandon altruism in the name of survival. I am fully willing to admit that human beings are not rational thinkers when our survival is being threatened. My proposition for social reforms does not rest on any need for altruism, only a recognition that cooperation is better than competition, and that we can only make our lives better by working together.

All I am proposing is a change of social organization... not a change in human nature. You are simply quoting boilerplate libertarian objections; you assume that my alternative is rooted in altruism, when really it is rooted in enlightened self-interest beyond the savage self-interest you propose. Humans are capable of complex instincts, not just simple ones. You only get down to the simple ones when you start denying someone food, water, sleep, etc.

Profit is morally abhorrent and socially destructive.

That's a false dichotomy; it is not a choice between profit or loss. It is a choice between adequate compensation for labor and extorting it from others by compulsion. I am not proposing that anyone do work for less than its value. Only the proponents of profit would say that it is right to pay someone less than their labor is worth. After all, that's one of exactly two ways to earn a profit--the other being to overcharge the customer (usually through the exploitation of informational disparities).

 

There is nothing to stop people in a socialist society from achieving things and having freedom. Far from it. You only get socialism when the masses start using their initiative. You would have a greater chance of achieving, as education and opportunities would be greater.

In capitalism only the self employed and employers control their own destiny. Most people just work for an employer and that's it.

In socialism you wouldnt get told what job to do. You would choose what to study and if it was oversubscribed you might have to take your second choice or whatever. The jobs would be there after graduation. I doubt we would train more than we could employ in any given field.

So, if you wanna be a doctor it's up to you to get good enough results at school to get on the degree course.

Actually in socialism it might be possible to let people study what they want and not necessarily let exams decide. Lenin said that anyone could go into the universities and study.

 

In communism there is no need for a state, a state is a means of class rule. Marx talked about the state withering away. The state is army, police, prisons etc. The capitalist state is there primarily to defend the property of the capitalist class.

 

We know primitive societies can do it. That was most of human evolution. So its not human nature to have a class system.

well I am, that's the ultimate goal of socialism for Marxists.

 

Socialism would gradually get rid of private business. You arent a Marxist are you? I would say socialism definitely can and must improve material output, otherwise people wont want it.

 

In my opinion, only forms of socialism can ensure full employment of resources in any given market via public sector intervention.

 

I'm really curious about these "primitive, classless, collective" societies that keep being referred to as making up "the majority of history". From my recollection 90% of civilization has been controlled by one warlord or another, with varying degrees of stability.

What I also am increasingly convinced of is the ease with which history is re-written by the mainstream to suit their worldview, and I don't expect this one is any different. After all, history is no more scientific than a bunch of conflicting opinions on events which most of those recording didn't experience themselves...

 

Whither went the wither? There must have been something basically wrong with socialism for it to be so easily taken over by power-hungry opportunists. It was created in the sheltered and naive environment of upper-class brats who hated their fathers but accepted what they had been told by them about being "born to rule." Socialism is Capitalism, Jr.

 

Easily one of the cleverest observations on the subject. Whether "wrong" or simply "unstable" it's quite poignant that such societies are so ridiculously hard to find, in fact many true socialists claim it has never been done right...

IMO it is merely shows how flawed the idea is... if it's nigh on impossible to get it just right, how are we to expect it to stay that way? It illustrates to me how much it is based on a dreamer's perception of humanity rather than reality. People are by no means perfect and there's no indication that we're getting better on an individual basis.

 

So, when is any form of Communism, going to be able to put the right people in the right places at the right times?

 

Class society only emerged in the Neolithic, ie about 10,000 years ago, and even then the first ones were overthrown and people went back to primitive communism.

Earlier, in the paleolithic, there were no classes as there were no real permanent possessions. Also we know from modern hunter gatherer tribes that they are largely egalitarian and exhibit reciprocal altruism (sharing food etc).
[/QUOTE]

You can google Cayonu and Catalhoyuk for info on the revolution in the Neolthic against the early class society. Catalhokuk is the world's premier Neolithic site and people live an egalitarian life. Lots of evidence for that.

No idea what you are on about. When was socialism taken over by power hungry opportunists? You mean Stalin?

And why say it was created in a sheltered environment? Trotsky lived in a mud house in a farm and was jailed for revolutionary activity at the age of 18. He was lower middle class. Marx was middle class but he mostly lived in poverty. Lenin was middle class but he also have it all up for revolution.

Lenin had no intention of 'ruling'.

Ok, let me explain the basics:

1. No country has ever been socialist or communist.

2. Socialism was only really attempted in one country, Russia.

3. Basic Marxist ABC - socialism is impossible in one country, and especially a backward one like Russia.

4. The Russian revolution could only succeed if it spread to advanced countries who could then in turn help Russia achieve socialism.

5. The revolution however was let down by other countries, especially Germany, where the revolution was crushed by the troops of the Kaiser and the freicorps. The Hungarian one was also crushed. I think there was one in Finland too. A civil war developed.

6. The revolutions happen in backward countries because of the failure of capitalism to play a progressive role in these places.

feel free to question any of these points.

7. Isolated in a backward country, the revolution in Russia was doomed. Lenin could see it coming, so could Trotsky. They inherited a massive bureaucracy from the Tsar's regime. They also had to have some temporary private enterprise after the civil war. The bureaucracy and the rich and middle class had the specialist knowledge, and so could actually direct the communists rather than vice versa.

8. The bureaucracy consolidated power in Russia and took it off the socialists. Stalin simply went with the flow. It all changed in 1924. Lenin died, Trotsky was ill, and Stalin, the schemer, got allies around him to basically manoeuvre him into power.

9. Then he got rid of Trotsky, got rid of all the socialists, abandoned any plans for socialism.

10. Later he actively tried to sabotage the chances of socialism in all countries outside the USSR.

 

You can google Cayonu and Catalhoyuk for info on the revolution in the Neolthic against the early class society. Catalhokuk is the world's premier Neolithic site and people live an egalitarian life. Lots of evidence for that.



No idea what you are on about. When was socialism taken over by power hungry opportunists? You mean Stalin?

And why say it was created in a sheltered environment? Trotsky lived in a mud house in a farm and was jailed for revolutionary activity at the age of 18. He was lower middle class. Marx was middle class but he mostly lived in poverty. Lenin was middle class but he also have it all up for revolution.

Lenin had no intention of 'ruling'.




Ok, let me explain the basics:

1. No country has ever been socialist or communist.

2. Socialism was only really attempted in one country, Russia.

3. Basic Marxist ABC - socialism is impossible in one country, and especially a backward one like Russia.

4. The Russian revolution could only succeed if it spread to advanced countries who could then in turn help Russia achieve socialism.

5. The revolution however was let down by other countries, especially Germany, where the revolution was crushed by the troops of the Kaiser and the freicorps. The Hungarian one was also crushed. I think there was one in Finland too. A civil war developed.

6. The revolutions happen in backward countries because of the failure of capitalism to play a progressive role in these places.

feel free to question any of these points.

7. Isolated in a backward country, the revolution in Russia was doomed. Lenin could see it coming, so could Trotsky. They inherited a massive bureaucracy from the Tsar's regime. They also had to have some temporary private enterprise after the civil war. The bureaucracy and the rich and middle class had the specialist knowledge, and so could actually direct the communists rather than vice versa.

8. The bureaucracy consolidated power in Russia and took it off the socialists. Stalin simply went with the flow. It all changed in 1924. Lenin died, Trotsky was ill, and Stalin, the schemer, got allies around him to basically manoeuvre him into power.

9. Then he got rid of Trotsky, got rid of all the socialists, abandoned any plans for socialism.

10. Later he actively tried to sabotage the chances of socialism in all countries outside the USSR.[/QUOTE]

And what went on in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, China, Southeast Asia, North Korea, etc were just failed attempts at something wonderful... real socialism - yeah - RIGHT!!!!! Next revisionist, please step forward. The fact is, even very small scale communal attempts at having all things in common and applying Marxist principles to the division of labor usually ended in the same miserable conditions and eventual failure as their national scaled versions. But keep trying...

 

See point 2. Socialism was only attempted in Russia.

See also point 3. Socialism cant exist in one country. If it cant exist in one country it's not gonna exist in 'small scale attempts'.

You call me a revisionist, yet Marx and Engels said exactly what I have said, so your accusation is groundless.

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. "

Frederick Engels 1847
The Principles of Communism

The plan of the Comintern for Eastern Europe, China etc (except Cuba which was nothing to do with Russia) was to establish CAPITALISM.

Mao:

"Some people fail to understand why, so far from fearing capitalism, Communists should advocate its development in certain given conditions. Our answer is simple. The substitution of a certain degree of capitalist development for the oppression of foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism is not only an advance but an unavoidable process. It benefits the proletariat as well as the bourgeoisie, and the former perhaps more. It is not domestic capitalism but foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism which are superfluous in China today; indeed, we have too little of capitalism."

"Our general programme of New Democracy will remain unchanged throughout the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, that is, for several decades."

It was their plans for capitalism that failed.

 

Not in the sense that a lot of people are, no. I'm a socialist of the non-marxist variety.

Note; growing less quickly does not mean a reduction in the standard of living over time. Socialism probably would lead to less economic growth--not zero or negative growth, just less growth. But actual human beings (as opposed to the theoretical constructs discussed by economists and communists) have needs and priorities that extend beyond simple material output. I think people would be willing to bear the opportunity cost of freedom.

 

"opportunity cost of freedom"? eh?

 

Of course, all crises have their own cause!
Productive forces have grown up from our production relations.
We don't have now the very initial capitalism with it's plenty of free competitors, we have some monopolists now who possess most part of economics power and do use planning economics at great scales.
It's a kind of unfinished socialism, because simple rules of economy say that planning is essential and unity of businesses into big concerns is also essential in order to compete successfully. In other words, socialism moments are essential to compete successfully.

No wonder we have antagonisms here because our political system is eclectic!
We have both elements of old capitalism and new socialism and we are to make choice between them; they could not be alive together.

If we choose capitalism we will have this problem until we reach communistic society, but i think it is not very bad because i expect communism in about twenty-forty years only. May be, it isn't worth to go through different trials during socialism when we have communism so near.