The problem of Capitalism

Yes, our friend conveniently focuses exclusively on capital cities, and then adds a layer of Orwellian "people are forced to live in capital cities". When asked HOW people are forced to live in cities .. the answer from our friend (and others who defend such patent nonsense) is always: because that's where their friends live, or, because they have a well paid job there, or, their kids go to school there, or, because they enjoy the big city lifestyle. The usual array of 100% choice-driven 'reasons'.

 

It's true of my country, also. One hour outside of a capital city can mean no piped water - we have to collect rainwater from our rooftops. Another hour, and electricity becomes difficult (and expensive) to establish on bare blocks. An hour from the city also means no sewerage service either, so we need to deal with our own effluent.

 

Drivel. You didn't have a point. State socialism is rejected through the importance of the entrepreneur. That doesn't hinder market socialism or anarchist approaches.

The trouble with you right wingers is that you haven't bothered to understand left wing economics.

 

Yes, it does. Because 'the importance of the entrepeneur' is precisely what prevents 'market socialism'. That being .. democracy. 50% (at least) will never vote for anything even remotely resembling socialism.

PS: I'm a Leftist and a socialist. Catch up, Bro.

 

Can you refer to an economic analysis that supports that premise?

We still have to play pretend? How dull.

 

1) Elections tell us what people want, and in a democracy that's the final word.

2) Are you still struggling with your painfully limited exposure to socialism, and your almost religiously narrow grasp of Leftism?

 

Here are some simple, everyday examples of the war against human nature.

1 - rape is about male power. Women should be able to dress as they like, consort
with whom they like, go where they like and at any time they like. It's men who have
to change.

2 - greed is "bad" and people need to be more caring and sharing. By abolishing
private property we can make all people equal. And without possessions we can
be one with our fellow man.

3 - hierarchy comes from Capitalism. By abolishing this evil system men and
women can all be equal in the brotherhood of man.

As it was, on your Orwellian Animal Farm of Socialism women could be pulled
off the streets and raped by party members. The ruling Nomenklatura could go
shop in secret centers or in the Forbidden City, out of sight of the common man.
Despite the wearing of Mao suits, everyone knew who was who in Communist
China's ruling class - people who had more than mere Capitalist authority - they
had power over life and death.

 

One good point, but the rest is highly questionable.

Hierarchy has been in place amongst humanity long-before Capitalism. In fact, since the dawn of humankind. It is a very human habit. And necessary to elect political-leadership. The bad-part happens when said political leaders spend far too much time "leading". (Ie. Sitting on their arses in Congress for far too long a time.)

Yes, rape is inadmissible and we must teach children at a very young age about the equality-between-sexes. Which also means that sex-education is also necessary at a much younger age. That is not happening and parents simply suppose somehow the kids will learn through osmosis? So, what happens instead is the Weinstein Effect amongst some males. Especially when loads-of-money make them think they are naturally the superior-half of mankind. (And some women allow them to think that!)

Greed is part of the human nature, and once again education and parentage are the best manner in which to deal with it. Of course, much higher-taxation of the Filthy-Rich would show people how greed is inadmissible in any decently fair economy. This world does not need millionaires or even billionaires, but it does need to reward individual motivation to achieve. That balance is very difficult to obtain in human-nature.

Animal Farm was a book, and it mocked human nature. That was the lesson to be learned from it - but apparently you missed the point ...

 

Russia claimed Animal Farm (AF) was about the corruption of Capitalism.
America said AF was about the corruption of Communism.
Q - Who was right?
A - the nation that allowed the book to be freely available.

Seen Death of Stalin?

Not sure of the mocking of human nature. If you don't recognize it
then you exacerbate it's problems. Thus in fighting human nature
the Bolsheviks and Maoists created a human catastrophe which
consumed over 100,000,000 lives.

 

I note that you dont actually apply the rant to economic analysis. No need to inform me why. As I have already noted, the problem is that free market economics takes a ludicrously simplistic view over human nature. You wont see them integrating behaviorism. And economic psychology is more likely to provoke Keynesian insights.

Nice of you to introduce feminist economics. It's not possible to understand labour market outcomes without reference to power. That isn't anything new mind you. Adam Smith and classical economics understood these issues. Power was merely ignored in neoclassical economics as it entertained fantasy over perfect competition (where consideration of human nature was assumed away by the rational choice model).

Nice of you to introduce evolutionary economics here and the endogeneity of decision making. We see, for example, how the 'greed is good' supply side mantra unleashed greater rent seeking behaviour. And that behaviour led to corruption that repeatedly threatened economic crisis.

Weird comment here mind you. Most alternatives fo capitalism do not abolish private property. Market socialism, for example, uses it to maintain incentives.

The problem is that you again ignore the complexity of human nature. The right wing assume that interaction, and the act of sharing, is merely part of the utility maximization process. They assume 'warm glow' dominates (and is necessarily encouraged by income growth). There is no understanding of man's tendency to self sacrifice. There is no understanding of pure altruism.

Hierarchy is a natural part of the organisation of the firm. It allows, for example, the use of internal labour markets instead of more costly efficiency wage payments. That outcome is also firmly placed within behavioural analysis. We dont even have to refer to Marxist divide & conquer.

Zero economics in your rant! I found this a tad awkward mind you, given you're referring to literature from a socialist. How thoroughly decent of you!

 

I asked you to justify your remark on socialism and entrepreneurs. I didn't ask for dodge. Try again?

 

The Human Condition (as opposed to human "nature") is explained here:

https://www.humancondition.com/we-c...appShe9j2S6iIGdaXBLer0-G4uYSuX8IaAjgOEALw_wcB

Basically, when apes became progressively more conscious and self-aware (starting c.4.5 million years ago), eventually (through evolution) individual humans had no choice but to be at war with our own instincts, because the human search for understanding and knowledge of the world - which is the magnificent destiny of our species in the universe - is a rejection of blind (unconscious) instinctive behaviour.

Interestingly, the author (Jeremy Griffith) posits an original instinctive state of complete co-operation as seen in Bonobo society (which he calls 'Left Wing') which we had no choice to abandon as individuals, as we commenced the instinct-denying/rejecting search for knowledge. This 'individualisation' of the conscious search for knowledge led to competition between individuals, which Griffith terms 'Right Wing'. [Recall the banishment from the Garden of Eden, following tasting of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge].

So we had no choice but to become 'right wing'!

But this competition has eventually led to an intolerable, planet destroying, quantum of divisiveness, alienation and psychosis in our species ("we must upgrade our nuclear arsenal": Trump), that we now observe in our world, and that now threatens our survival as a species, with no agreement/co-operation on solving problems of poverty, and ecological sustainability, as long as we remain unaware of "the human condition".

Maoism and Stalinism were attempts to end the divisiveness (manifested in extreme poverty), alienation and psychosis of the human condition, but they failed because they attempted to impose co-operation onto economic affairs, without understanding why such co-operation is not forthcoming.​

(btw, democratic neoliberal Chile is now in uproar, three decades after the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende socialist government, so it's no surprise the people once again want to go down the socialist path because of widespread poverty and wealth inequality).

So …...the Left (the co-operative principle) has to triumph eventually - through understanding of the human condition, not by being imposed - or we perish!

I think Mr. Griffith is onto something. ​

 

WW2 military casualties (from here):
*Together, the US and the UK lost 780K in deaths
*Germany lost about 5M
*Russia lost between 8 and 10 million combatants in WW2. . (That is, Russia lost 10 times as much as did the US/UK.)

There is simply no comparison. None.

Germany lost considerably on both fronts. But it was, after all, the Reds who were the first to march into Berlin, which forced that SOB Hitler to shoot himself.

No doubt, there is a lot to mock about human nature. But it was Hitler who first attacked Russia and not the other way around.

Civilian deaths in the Soviet Union were around 18 million. The UK lost around 67K and France around 85K. Whilst Germany lost somewhere between 1.5 and 3 million civilians.

Nobody celebrates victory of WW2 in Russia. For them, it was catastrophic.

 

Introducing children to sex (via far too early 'sex ed') will do the opposite of what you think it will do. It will confirm to young males that sex is very very important, and must therefore be virtually compulsory. This not only sets up the mindset that NOT getting it means something is terribly wrong with all those girls not giving it, but that there is something terribly wrong with oneself if one isn't getting it. A freaking disaster, IOW.

What makes you mention only ONE manifestation of greed? What about the greed of those who expect others (tax payers, govt, etc) to provide for them, without doing anything to provide for themselves? That is a significant form of greed in the First World.

 

It's interesting that in Europe today the thugs are the Russians.
But for two interesting reasons many don't want to acknowledge
this.
1 - the Russians are against Western society, like we are
2 - the Russians suffered in WWII.

As for the latter point - it wasn't Hitler who started WWII but
Hitler and Stalin.
For the first point - this POV says that Britain started WWII
by declaring war on Germany.

As an aside. Hitler was shocked at the causalities of his
para-troopers in Crete. There would be no more paratroops
on such a scale. Later on Germany was suffering the same
number of casualties PER DAY on the Eastern Front.

 

Greed is wanting more for oneself than one needs, especially when it involves taking from others, Gordon Gekko style, who justifies greed in this manner:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind".

...a greed enabled by the financial system, eg the 'accidental' gain of wealth by one John Paulson, who raked in $2 billion during the GFC as a direct consequence of millions being forced out of their homes through no fault of their own. In effect, governments were forced to socialise the losses, to prevent the collapse of the financial system, while the profits were privatised.

......but also the pauperisation of mankind, as in the downtrodden masses of pre-revolutionary (agrarian) France, China and Russia, and the poverty-stricken in the first world today, where there is no resource scarcity.

Whereas you define greed as expecting others to provide for those who - lacking personal responsibility - are 'undeserving'.

I say: show me a Job Guarantee, and then I will agree with you on this last point.

Personal responsibility is only one aspect of avoidance of personal poverty; there is also a systemic macro-economic issue, which you don't wish to face because it forces you to face the limits of personal responsibility, in a complex global economic environment.

 

Hitler first seized Poland and had an agreement with Stalin to not attack Russia. Which he subsequently did do.

Wrong again. The history of WW2, from the beginning (as related here):

From the above it is apparent that Hitler had only two/three primary objectives, all of them with the base-notion that he should "Make Germany Great Again". Russia, by far, was the country that paid the most cost in terms of WW2 lives lost - either directly or indirectly.

But when celebrating this summer the landing of the Allies in southwestern France all the major war participants EXCEPT ONE was invited. That one was Russia*.

Yes, of course, Russia did not "land" in the southwest of France. It need not have done so, because at the time of the landing it was already fighting the Germans who were invading Russia! In fact, aside from Canada only American, British and French forces (and a few other countries with minimal contingents) landed in Normandy. But, by then, HItler had already attacked Russia. The biggest mistake Hitler ever made and came later to regret with his life.

I am no great fan of Russia today, run by a despot**. Seventy-five years later and the Russians still have not got their act together ....

*Further reading from CNN - Russia lost the most lives during WW2. So why wasn't Putin invited to D-Day event? - key comment from Putin in the article:

**But a canny one. His daughter has bought a vineyard in Bordeaux - to which he repairs not often but often enough. He and Macron (France's Prez) have a fine relationship. If push ever comes to shove in Moscow, Putin is off to France!

 

Yeah, I know, Germany "started" the war, but she didn't declare war on England or France.
It's a niggling, not important point.
But certainly, Russia followed up on the Molotov/Ribb' pact by invading the eastern half of
Poland - and then Finland etc.. Some of the bombs which killed people in London were
built in Russia.

 

Had America not reached Berlin I have no doubt that Stalin would have gone all the way to France,
and if he could, he would have taken England too. This way America could never invade the continent
and throw out the Stalinist Communist parties now in control.

And given Stalin's involvement in starting WWII I wouldn't have invited them, either.

 

But that's not the point because AMERICA DID NOT REACH BERLIN FIRST. RUSSIA DID!

He meaning Hitler? If so, he was very keen on invading the UK because with its downfall, the other countries would be "walk-ins" for his dream of a NAZI-Europe.

He never ever should have invaded Russia. Stalin did not want Germany in Russia in any way, but he had no really Army prior to 1939. Moreover, he moved his government to eastern-Russia so as to be able to pursue the war - and also key industries necessary to support the war. As well as the people to run those industries. THEY WORKED LIKE HELL TO DO SO!

Let's give historical credit where credit is due. Take your blinders off!

BlahBlahBlah - you've got this visceral hatred of Communist Russia and it's blinding your regard of historical fact.

Moving-right-along ...

 

Not sure what you mean by this industry moving point.
Yes, I understand Russia got there first to Berlin - my point was that if America wasn't
involved and got into Germany then the whole of Germany would have been Communist.
These are incidental points, but the one serious issue is this ---

RUSSIA AND GERMANY STARTED WWII.

A significant part of Hitler's war machine was developed within Russia itself to hide it
from the Western allies.
Lenin himself aspired to start WWII but he got stopped, and in any case died too early.
I don't have a visceral hate of Communist Russia, I have a visceral hate of Communism.
What Stalin did to his nation is an inevitable outcome of Communist's "dictatorship of the
Proletariat." He was history's greatest monster.

 

Some people MUST HAVE the last word. You've had yours.

Feel better now ... ?

 

Do you not see that attempting to 'impose' cooperation is misunderstanding human nature? Cooperation can ONLY come voluntarily (ie, democratically), and you will never ever get 100% participation, in a democracy.

And FTR, the modern Left is the least cooperative of all possible politics. I guarantee when you drill down, you will find a politic of individualists and isolationists, who insist on exclusive use of personal resources.

 

Exactly. No individual needs exclusive use of his/her property, to the exclusion of 'burdensome' family and/or friends. Yet the world is full of people who insist on nothing less. Some are so greedy, that they insist on that - PLUS a tax payer funded existence.

 

Bingo. Land has no production cost, so its high price simply measures the expected net future subsidy to the landowner: how much more he can expect to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever repay in taxes on it.