Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

But if the state ran the businesses to the point of dictating incomes, that is not worker control; the proletariat is not in control. It is state capitalism since the workers' relationship to management has not changed. In "Against the Theory of State Capitalism" Ted Grant wrote that Marx had said that no society passes from the scene till all the possibilities in it have been exhausted and that if this is correct, then this would indicate that "a new epoch, the epoch of state capitalism, opens up before us."

So if incomes are dictated by the state, it is not socialism any more than it is when the industry managers are state officials.

Further he writes: "In the transition from one society to another, it is clear that there is not an unbridgeable gulf. It is not a dialectical method to think in finished categories; workers’ state or capitalist state and the devil take any transition or motion between the two. It is clear that when Marx spoke of the smashing of the old state form in relation to the Commune, he took it for granted that the economy would be transformed at a greater or lesser pace and would come into consonance with the political forms."

In class society, the state must be an instrument of a class - which class does it represent? That is the question.

BTW, N.Korea is certainly not a society run by the working class. It is a dictatorship of the elite and powerful over the people who suffer under it.

 

lol, I totally proved this bullshit claim false. Specifically, Jefferson.

 

Well put!

And I wonder if we Yanks would not be susceptible to this notion as a nation, if only it were posited to the public by a politician with the right words. (Right, Middle or Left - I could care less.)

After Trump, there must be a large part of the population asking themselves in the solitude of night, "Just where in hell are we going?"

Money can buy one just about anything except happiness. Because that attribute comes from the heart. So it is merited by all humans, but money cannot buy it ...

 

1) socialist inefficiency slowly starved 120 million
2) socialist inefficiency gives France the per capita income of Arkansas, about out poorest state
3) libsocialist inefficiency creates "wild income discrepancy in USA by impoverishing poor and middle class

 

if so I will pay you $10,000. Bet??

 

Look, when you are writing a post about any subject, remember to quote the subject.

That way, the rest of us 'who are not following "your conversations" specifically) have a small idea of what in hell you are talking about ...

 

I already won. I showed you, specifically, how Jefferson expanded government.

Do you need my paypal information? I don't accept personal checks.

 

./k

Jefferson was not the govt he was merely the president in a govt that was divided with Federalists so it makes no sense to say he did it, especially since election was decided in House after Jefferson made compromise with Federalists. Now do you understand?

Thomas Jefferson:
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

 

good point i hope all remember it and also hope people keep post very short so all can pick up quickly. IN court you only brief questions and answers not long meandering rants

 

how many hundreds of million do you need to kill on the way to socialism before you stop killing?

 

Who gives a damn about whether or not Jefferson expanded government at the beginning of the 19th century!

Have you (plural) gone bonkers .... ?

 

no new contexts at all. Before creating our govt our founders looked back 3000 years before they created our govt and discovered big govt had been the source of evil in human history and that was without being able to look forward and see the great 20th Centruy liberals hitler Stalin and Mao.

Now you can appreciate their genius and understand their genius. THe more things change the more they stay the same

 

he is trying to prove big govt not freedom is basic to America

 

yes, I understand that I correctly showed you that a supposedly "conservative" founder, expanded government. Just like virtually every other republican and democrat has done.

and yet, he expanded government.

 

I am correctly pointing out that conservatives, as well as liberals, expand government. And that your claim that "liberals are opposed to the very idea of America" is laughable bullshit.

 

If you are unsure of the debate between posters, you probably shouldn't inject yourself into it.

 

So? Who cares?

Moving right along ...

 

And so? Just what is your conclusion?

We should expand further or contract government? And why? And how?

 

No I need more and more because the food I eat doesn't last me long.
It runs out. I put it in my mouth and then it's gone.

I put the coal in the fire and then it's gone too.

What I have is not enough to live on. I need more. I need to grow. No shrinkage left in my bank account. Profit or starve.
I need profit. And I need a new bank account with more money in it so things can go wrong and I still don't starve.

And yes, population. I need to breed. Or at least have room in my economy to provide for my mistakes.


I have to grow until I reach sustainable. You may think I don't need to grow, but I do. I don't have enough.
Homeless and hungry in 30 days time isn't enough. I need profit.
Need to be setting myself up. Growing. preparing myself for old age. Preparing for my decline. For the times when I am less able to profit.
Building for the next generations. A home for all alive and to come. Growing.

I've been retired, now I'm back at work. I don't have a house and I don't have a car. I need profits. So I can get them. And more!

 

How many times do you need to deflect and lie before you stop deflecting and lying? Deal with what I posted, -not your imagination about something else.

 

I don't know how to break this to you, but if you run a country, the one thing you most certainly are not, is working class.
There are a great many socialist systems out there. To varying degrees and implementations. Not one true socialism of which you are the messiah. And every thing that you or I thinks upon this subject has all be thought before. And in a good many examples, tried before.

Socialism delivers countries into dictatorships. Every single time. That's why it's got such a bad name.
Too much power in too few peoples hands.

 

Come on. I think we both know we were talking about a large and larger piece of the pie beyond needs for sustaining us.

You need enough to live on in relative comfort. You don't need a net worth of 50 million dollars or pounds. Nobody does.

Of course!

That's what I said. That's what I did. Why are you arguing when you are agreeing?

That's what I said, but you are using the wrong word. It's not "profit" as I/we were referring to it. It's "sustaining benefit".

No, not profits. You need an adequate income to do the reasonable things you listed, like saving for the future. You're muddying the waters by calling it "profit".

 

Senators Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders are working class. I don't think you understand class consciousness.

Nope. Wrong. Things evolve. The ideas of what successful and settled capitalism would be were not known until they were thought of and implemented and proven. It's the same for socialism. Errors have been made as they were in the early days of capitalism. Corrections are being made to socialist theory. This will continue for a long time, even after socialism is established as a sustainable system.

No. Wrong. Socialism has delivered countries into dictatorships. Correcting that is the main challenge being addressed today. But "every single time"? Are Denmark, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Britain, and France dictatorships? Granted, they are not finished, effective, settle socialist economies, but they aren't dictatorships as far as I know.

 

No kobe. I am talking about food to eat.

It is from this basic need that all profit stems. If you are more distant from that need your perception may have changed. We work to sustain ourselves. We may also work to advance ourselves but at the very least we have to be profitable enough to feed ourselves. To support our own lives.

To some this begs the question,
How much is enough?

My answer to this is only ever, "it's not for you to decide".

We must profit or die. Each profit we make is a little bit more life. The more resources we get to play with the more sustainable we become. The more insurance vs disaster or downturn. The more investment into our educations and infrastructure.
All this requires profit.

Anything you want that isn't absolutely nothing at all, requires profit.
It's not enough to just produce. You have to produce more than you consume. Be an asset to society.
Do more than the others, because some of the others can't do as much as you.
Profit.

Save up your profits whenever you can. You will need them later on.
People will try and take them from you. Do not let them.

 

So in your world there is no greed. Raking in $8 million/year and still wanting lower taxes is not greed, eh? Then what do we do about the damage income and wealth disparity is causing for this nation?

I think your personal position in this has affected your thinking on it.